US Army Corps
of Engineers
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on the
Special Area Management Plan
for the
Hackensack Meadowlands District, NJ
June 1995
Appendices A -1
In partnership with:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
-------
°\ 1 S ; J • o 4-
£ ^ i • S "t ; "
SEPA
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on the
Special Area Management Plan
for the
Hackensack Meadowlands District, NJ
June 1995
Appendices A -1
In partnership with:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
-------
List of Appendices
Appendices A -1 enclosed in this document.
Appendix A - HMD SAMP Memorandum of Understanding
Appendix B - Regulatory Guidance Letter—Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs)
Appendix C - Hackensack Meadowlands Environmental Improvements Program (EIP)
Appendix D - Need for Growth and Environmental Improvement in the Hackensack
Meadowlands District (HMD)
Appendix E - Species List of Organisms Found in the Hackensack Meadowlands: Vascular
Plants - Mammals
Appendix F - Description and Development of Indicator Value Assessment Method
Appendix G - Endangered Species Consultation and Biological Assessment of Potential
Impacts to Peregrine Falcon Associated with the Special Area Management Plan
for the Hackensack Meadowlands District, New Jersey
Appendix H - Noise Measurements
Appendix I - Cultural Resources Evaluations (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
Appendix J - Evaluation of Out of District Alternatives
Appendix K - Alternatives Screening Analysis
Appendix L - Hybrid Analysis
Appendix M - Indicator Value Assessment Method Field Testing Study Report
Appendix N - Indirect Wetland Impacts and Management Techniques
Appendix O - Wetland Mitigation/Enhancement Methods
Appendix P - Basin-wide Stormwater Pollution Loadings
Appendix Q - Transportation Modeling Results
Appendix R - Air Quality
Appendix S - Section 404(b)(1) Compliance Analysis
Appendix T - Hackensack Meadowlands District SAMP Draft General Permit
Appendix U - Interagency Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Agreement, Hackensack
Meadowlands District
Appendix V - Summary of Coordination and Public Participation
-------
Appendix
A
-------
APPENDIX A
HMD SAMP MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
MARCH 1989
-------
FINAL
August 26, 1988
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into by and
between the undersigned parties.
WHEREAS, the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development
Act, enacted by the New Jersey legislature in 1968, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1
et seq., requires the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Coaxnission
("HMDC") to prepare and adopt a Master Plan ("the Master Plan") for
the physical development of lands lying within thfe Hackensack
Meadowlands District ("the District") and provides for amendment of
the Master Plan from time to time; and
WHEREAS, 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 certain planning objectives
and goals; and
WHEREAS, New Jersey law identifies the District as "a land
resource of incalculable opportunity for new jobs, homes and recrea-
tional sites," N.J.S.A. 13:17-1, and requires the District's consti-
tuent municipalities to provide a realistic opportunity for a fair
si tare of the region's low and moderate income housing needs, N.J.S.A.
52:27D-301 et seq.; and
-------
- 2 -
WHEREAS, HMDC has a statutorily-mandated purpose of providing
for "orderly, comprehensive development" in the District while ensur-
iiTg "special protection from air and water pollution" and recognizirg
"the necessity fro consider the ecological factors constitutir^ the
environment of t! Maadowlands and the need to preserve the delicate
balance of nature"*in the District, see N.J.S.A. 13:17-1; and
WHEREAS, HMDC will adopt zoning amendments at the conclusion of
the Master Plan revision and, in the interim, will consider certain
zoning amendments on a case-by-case basis where such amendments are
deemed desirable and in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, certain portions of the District contain waters of the
United States (including wetlands) subject to federal jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"); and
WHEREAS, the District is a geographic area of special sensitiv-
ity requiring special attention and management as demonstrated by the
State of New Jersey's establishment of HMDC and, more recently, the
joint effort by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Army
("EPA") and the United States /Corps of Engineers ("the Corps") to
implement an advanced identification ("AVUy1) process in the Dis-
trict; and
WHEREAS, the HMDC Master Plan Zoning Rules, N.J. Admin. Code £
19:4-1 et seq., have been adopted as part of New Jersey's Coastal
Management Program and HiDC acts as the lead coastal planning and
management agency within the District; and
-------
- 3 -
WHEREAS, the Division of Coastal Resources within the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP") periodically reviews
IttDC's actions and can incorporate any proposed changes in IMDC plans
or policies in the Coastal Management Prog ran subject to approval of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA"); and
WHEREAS, Section 307 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 6 1451 et seq., requires that federal
activities directly affecting the coastal zone of a state with a
federally approved coastal management program, such as New Jersey, be
conducted consistent with that program; and
WHEREAS, there exists a proposed Memorandum of Agreement be-
tween the Corps and NJDEP providing that jurisdiction under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act will remain with the Corps within Che
District; and
WHEREAS, the parties to this MCU now desire to establish a co-
operative interagency process for addressing applicable requirements
under Section 404 of the CUA and related federal laws and regulations
in the context of lttDC's revision of its Master Plan in order to
wvfn-fnrfga present and future conflicts and facilitate Implementation
of the revised Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
-------
- A -
I. SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN-fftOCESS
The parties agree to engage In the development of a special
area management plan ("SAMP"), consistent with the Corps' Regulatory
Guidance Letter No. 86-10 (October 2, 1986). The SAMP process is a
comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection and
reasonable economic growth containing a comprehensive statement of
policies and criteria to guide uses of lands and water and mechanisms
for inplementation in specific geographic areas. The SAMP will
result in a definitive regulatory product or products.
A. Key Elements of the Process
1. Joint Development of Composite Wetlands Quality Map
a. Building on their cooperative efforts to date, the
parties shall consult on criteria (1) for assessing wetlands func-
tions, (2) for develops probability ratings (i.e., ratios based on
the probability that a given wetland performs a given function) see
Wetlands Evaluation Technique (Corps of Engineers Waterways Experi-
ment Station, October, 1987) for these functions, and (3) based on
the probability ratiiigs, for classifying wetlands in the District as
to quality. These cooperative efforts are described in the AVID MOU
between EPA and the Corps dated November 12, 1987. Usir^j the cri-
teria and functional probability ratings, the parties shall develop a
composite map depicting the quality of wetlands in the District in
consultation with one another. This map, in conjunction with other
relevant data, will be used by EPA and the Corps in makir^ "suitabil-
ity1' determinations (based solely upon ecological assessments for
-------
- 5 -
wetlands In the District pursuant to the AVID process under AO C.F.R.
@ 230.80 (1987)), and by the parties in identifying suitable mitiga-
tion sites in the District. It will also be fully considered by HfflC
in revising the Master Plan.
b. Consistent with 40 C.F.R. % 230.80(b) (1987), the
AVID "suitability" determinations made by EPA and the Corps In the
District shall not be deemed as authorizing or prohibiting the issu-
ance of permits under Section 404 of the CWA to discharge dredged or
fill material in the areas identified in the' determinations. Any
maps issued pursuant to the AVID "suitability" determinations shall
state expressly that: "Because other factors must be considered in
determining whether to issue a Section 404 permit, the 'suitability'
determinations reflected on this map do not constitute permit deci-
sions." The report accompanying the maps shall describe the purpose
of the AVID and the method vised in arriving at the determination.
2. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
a. The parties shall cooperate in the preparation of
an environmental inpact statement ("EIS") on the inplementation of
the SAMP for the District in accordance with the National Environ-
mental Policy Act ("NEPA"), (42 U.S.C. Part 4321 ec seq.). Responsi-
bilities of the rerpective parties will be as follows:
(1) The Corps and EPA will act as co-lead agen-
cies pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 6 1501.5. As such, they will be responsi-
ble for reviewing, approving and issuing all EIS documents. Addi-
tionally, they will be responsible for conducting appropriate public
participation activities required by NEPA.
-------
- 6 -
(2) HMDC will prepare'all preliminary drafts of
EIS documents subject to the review and approval of Corps and EPA.
To the maximum extent possible, the EIS documents will make use of
pre-existing data, such as HMDC planning studies and alternative
plarmirjg scenarios prepared by HMDC and its consultants as well as
the AVID suitability determinations (and supporting data) prepared
pursuant to I.A.I, of this MOU. Additionally, the VHDC will play an
active role in all public participation activities.
(3) All other parties to this MJJ shall partici-
pate as cooperatirg agencies in the EIS process in accordance with 40
C.F.R. Part 1501.6.
b. In general, the EIS will be prepared in accordance
with AO C.F.R. Part 1302. However, the parties to this MOU recognize
the unique circumstances that apply to this SAMP. Accordingly, the
parties agree to the following;
(1) Although the scope of the SAMP will be con-
fined to the District, the parties agree that in accordance with AO
C.F.R. € 230.10(a) and AO C.F.R. 6 1502.1A, the alternatives analysis
presented in the EIS will address appropriate out-of-District alter-
natives, consistent with sound planning principles. For the purpose
of the EIS, the parties further agree that the am lysis of alterna-
tives outside the District will be confined to the northern New
Jersey geographical area as defined '.by Union, Essex, Hudson, Bergen
and Passaic Counties and part of Middlesex County. This region is
coamonly referred to as .the greater New York/New Jersey metropolitan
area.
-------
- 7 -
(2) The ELS documents shall specifically address
the requirements of 40 C.F.R. € 230.10(a) by including a comprehen-
sive analysis of alternatives to dredge or fill discharge activities
in the District. In accordance with NEPA and the Clean Water Act,
the alternatives considered shall be reasonable, available and feasi-
ble. As part of the preparation of the EIS, the parties agree to
develop specific criteria for determining the reasonableness, availa-
bility, and feasibility of alternative sites, including out-of 7
District alternatives for the dredge and fill activities. The iden-
tified alternatives should be considered in the context of alterna-
tive land use configurations for the District's Master Plan. The
parties understand that this land use configuration is coaprised of
synergistic components which stould be subject to the practicable
alternatives analysis both within and out of the District. The
analysis of alternatives shall be sufficiently detailed to support a
findipg that there is no practicable alternative to the land use con-
figuration recoomanded for adoption in the Kaster Plan that vculd
have less adverse Impact on the aquatic ecosystem, thus reflecting
the policy set fort1! in AO C.F.R. € 230.10(a)(4) and (5).
•'3) Although the parties recognize that the
primary focus of the SAMP will be to provide a basis for determining
vfoether individual proposed projects within the District satisfy the
requirements of 40 C.F.R. € 230.10(a), the EIS will address the
spectrum of impacts on all media (air, groundwater, etc.).
-------
- 8 -
(4) With respect to mitigation of unavoidable
adverse impacts identified during the EIS process, the parties agree
to the followirig:
(a) There will be no net loss of wetlands
values in the District. This will not preclude investigation in the
EIS of out-of-District sites for mitigation of potential wetland
losses resultirg from authorized fill activities. In this way, a
minimum of 1:1 value-for-value replacement for wetland losses can be
maintained.
(b) Additionally, the EIS will propose
appropriate mitigation measures for all unavoidable adverse environ-
mental impacts.
(c) To the greatest extent possible, the EIS
shall utilize alternative mitigation policies and plans prepared by
FMDC and its consultants, subject to approval by the Corps and EPA.
3. Preliminary Agreement
a. Based on the Record of Decision for the final EIS
and the AVID suitability determinations, the parties shall agree on
specific areas of the District in which development will be restricted
or prohibited, appropriate land use designations for the remaining
wetland areas of the District, and a District-wide mitigation policy
providing value-for-value mitigation (on not less than a 1:1 ratio)
for any unavoidable wetlands losses ^resulting from implementation of
the revised Master Plan. The mitigation policy shall identify
acceptable mitigation measures and designate specific areas as
appropriate mitigation sites.
-------
- 9 -
b. Agreement: shall also be sought: (a) between HMDC,
the Corps, EPA and NJDEP regarding- -specific activities in the Dis-
trict for which general permits may 1* issued pursuant to Section
404(e) of the CWA, and (b) between HMDC, NJDEP, the Corps, CPA, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") and the National
Marine Fisheries Service ("N"tFS") regarding activities that may be
covered under letters of permission pursuant to 33 C.F.R. €
325.2(e)(1) (1987).
4. Best Management Practices
EPA, together with NJDEP, will examine whether "best
management practices," as authorized under Section 208(b)(4)(B) of
the CWA, can be developed and implemented within the District. In
making this determination, EPA and NJDEP will discuss the issue with
the other parties to this MOU.
B. Regulatory Products
The process described in this MOU shall seek the following
regulatory products:
(1) if appropriate, general penults, as determined to be
authorized under Section 40^(e) of the OlA, Issued with
EPA's concurrence;
(2) a revised Master' Plan for the District that incorpo-
rates a District-wide mitigation plan providing value-
for-value replacement of lost wetlands values (on not
less than a 1:1 ratio), takes into account the AVID
suitability determinations made pursuant to 40 C.F.R. €
-------
- 10 -
230.80 (1987), and uses the EIS, prepared in accordance
with NEPA, to plan -a land use-configuration that, in
addition to meeting H-fDC's planning purposes in the
District, will satisfy the requirements of the
404(b)(1) guidelines and the Corps' public interest
review regulations (see 33 C.F.R. € 320.4 (1987));
(3) restrictions on development in accordance with Federal
or State Law Ln agreed-upon areas of the District
through, among other things, land use designations in
the revised Master Plan and zoning amendments, where
applicable, and/or prospective pro- hibition of
disposal sites by EPA pursuant to Section 404(c) of the
CWA;
(4) if appropriate, a list of activities for which letters
of permission may be issued pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 0
325.2(e)(1) (1987);
(5) if appropriate, best management practices developed by
NJDEP or HMDC, as appropriate, for specified activities,
and approved by EPA pursuant to Section 208(b)(4)(B) of
the CWA; and
(6) a joint application processing agreement between HMDC,
the Corps and EPA that5
(a) Based on a comprehensive finding that the land
use configuration and allowable intensity of use in the
revised Master Plan complies with 40 C.F.R. ? 230.10(a)
(1987) (see I.A.2.b. above), subsequent individual de-
-------
- 11 -
velopment proposals consistent with the revised Master
Plan would not be subjected to additional project-by-
project analyses of alternative sites, and would be
deemed to be consistent with the requirements of 40
C.F.R. 6 230.10(a) (1987), so long as the permit appli-
cant demonstrates that there are no practicable alter-
native site plans or construction plans for developing
the specific site, consistent with the allowed use and
intensity of use, that would have less adverse impact
on the aquatic ecosystem; provided that a supplemental
alternatives analysis may be required in exceptional and
presently unforeseeable circumstances when necessary to
meet the requirements of @ 230.10(a). It is understood
that individual projects would also need to comply with
40 C.F.R. * 230.10(b), (c) and (d). However, in light
of the parties' commitment, through the SAMP process, to
develop and implement a vigorous mitigation policy and
to ensure positive environmental gains for the District,
the parties expect that projects consistent with the
Master Plan would be able to comply with 40 C.F.R. @
230.10(b), (c) and (d). there is no presumption of
compliance with these provisions, however;
-------
- 12 -
(b) Projects inconsistent with the revised Master
Plan would be subject to a full alternatives analysis
under AO C.F.R. $ 230.10(a) (1987), including consider-
ation of out-of-District alternatives, if appropriate;
(c) To the extent that' development activities in
the District require HMDC-issued permits as well as
Section 404 pennits issued by the Corps, joint permit-
ting procedures, consistent with 33 C.F.R. @ 325.2(e)(3)
(1987), wuld be employed with EPA, FUS, hMFS and NJDEP;
and
(d) The agencies would establish cooperative pro-
cedures (and WDC would provide additional resources)
for detecting an^ investigating unauthorized filling of
wetlands in the District.
C. Approval of New Jersey's 404 Program
NJDEP and >MDC agree to work together to facilitate federal
approval of New Jersey's program Co administer Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act within the State.
II. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
A. Agency Representatives
The parties shall each designate a SAMP representative for the
purpose of implementing this KXJ. \ The SAMP representatives shall
have authority to speak definitively on behalf of their agencies.
-------
- 13 -
B. Meetings
The SAMP representatives (or their designees) shall meet regu-
larly at a tiroe and place to be determined, with the £irst such meet-
ing to take place not more than 15 days after the effective date of
this KXJ. On a quarterly basis, the SAMP representatives shall meet
to jointly review the progress of this SAMP process, identify any
problems that have arisen, and discuss means of resolving such prob-
lems.
C. Information and Schedule for Regulatory Decisions
The SAMP representatives shall agree on methods for generating
the necessary information for the regulatory decisions required to
implement this KXJ. The SAMP representatives shall also agree on a
schedule for these regulatory decisions, which schedule may be re-
vised as necessary.
D. Coordinator
HMDC, with the concurrence of the other parties to this KXJ,
shall designate a SAMP coordinator, whose responsibilities shall
include: (1) keeping minutes of meetings and circulating those
minutes to all SAMP representatives for review, with finaliration at
the following meeting, (2) preparing lists of attendees and agendas
for meetings and circulating these to all SAMP representatives at
least one week prior to each meeting* and (3) other responsibilities
that may be jointly agreed upon by the parties. 1WDC shall pay all
costs of the coordinator. The Corps and EPA will be responsible for
organizing and administering the SAMP process.
-------
- 14 -
III. INTERIM APPLICATION PROCESSING PROCEDURES
A. Pending Applications
1. For Section 404 permit applications in the District
that are pending on the effective date of this MCU ("pending applica-
tions"), the Corps shall provide a listing and current status of such
permit applications within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of
this MCU and every three months thereafter until a final decision has
been made on all pending applications.
2. The parties agree that the processirr **
cations shall proceed expeditiously and independently of the process
set forth in Sections I and II of this Agreement.
3. For those pending applications on which the District
Engineer has not reached a final decision within 45 days of the
effective date of this MDU, or, where an EIS is required, within 30
days after notice of the final EIS is published pursuant to 40 C.F.R.
§ 1506.10 (1987), the Executive Director of WDC may request a joint
neeting with, as appropriate, the Chief of the Operations Division in
the Corps' Now York District, the Director of the Water Management
Division in EPA's Region II, the Director of NJDEP's Division of
Coastal Resources, and cocparable officials from FVJS and WES, to
identify the cause(s) of the delay and discuss possible means of
resolving the problem(s). Such a request shall not unreasonably be
denied.
-------
- 15 -
B. New Applications
Within sixty (60) days after the effective date of this
MXJ, the parties 'shall agree upon an Interim joint processing proce-
dure for Section 404 permit applications that are submitted after the
effective date of this MOU, but before the date of publication of the
revised Master Plan ("new applications"). Applicants with pending
applications, as defined in paragraph III.A.l. above, may also elect
to have such applications processed under this interim joint process-
ing procedure.
C. Unauthorized Filling Activities
Within 120 days of the effective date of this MOU, IMDC, the
Corps and EPA shall establish cooperative procedures for detecting
and investigating unauthorized filling activities In the District.
IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. It is specifically understood by the parties that this MOU
is neither a delegation nor a modification of their respective author-
ities and responsibilities under applicable provisions of federal or
state law. Its purpose is to clarify an agreed-upon cooperative ap-
proach. Any party may, upon written notification to the other par-
ties, withdraw from the agreement and proceed independently pursuant
to applicable requirements. In addition, the parties agree to work
together to modify this MOU should such modification become necessary
as a result of changed circumstances.
-------
- 16 -
B. This MOU is effective immediately upon the last signature
date of the first four (4) agencies listed below. H^e other agencies
listed below may become signatories to this MOU at any time. However,
the participation of any parties signing this MOU after the effective
date shall be prospective only; any decisions, agreements or other
actions accomplished prior to the date such parties sign this MDU
shall be deemed final and shall not be reopened. This MOU shall con-
tinue in effect until modified or withdrawn from by all the parties
pursuant^ to par$gr£{^ IV.A. above.
HackSrtsacl
Development Commission
ihlff
Date
pSte
dk-
t ion
National Oc
Administration
National Marine tisneries Service
Date
-------
Appendix
B
-------
APPENDIX B
REGULATORY GUIDANCE LETTER
SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS (SAMPs)
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OCTOBER 1986
REAUTHORIZED OCTOBER 1992
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Office. Chief of Engineers
Regulatory
Guidance Letter
No. R6-10
Dale 2 Oct 86 Expires 31 oec 8g
OAEN-CWO-N
SUBJECT: Special Area Managanent Plans (SAMPs)
1. The 1980 fcwandnents to the Coastal Zone Management Act define the SAMP
process as "a ccmprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection and
reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth containing a detailed and
ccmprehensive statanent of policies, standards and criteria to guide public
art3 private uses of lands and waters; and mechanisms for timely implementation
in specific geographic areas within the coastal zone." This process of
collaborative interagency planning within a geographic area of special
sensitivity is just as applicable in non-coastal areas.
2. A good SAMP reduces the problems associated with the traditional
case-by-case review. Developmental interests can plan with predictability and
environmental interests are assured that individual and cumulative impacts are
analyzed in the context of broad ecosystem needs.
3. Because SAMPs are very labor intensive, the following ingredients should
usually exist before a district engineer bee an 2 s involved in a SAMP:
a. The area should be environmentally sensitive and under strong
developmental pressure.
b. there should be a sponsoring local agency to ensure that the plan
fully reflects local needs and interests.
c. Ideally there should be full public involvement in the planning and
development process.
d. All parties must express a willingness at the outset to conclude the
SAMP process with a definitive regulatory product (see next paragraph).
4. An ideal SAMP would conclude with two products: 1) appropriate
local/state approvals and a Corps general"pecnit 4GP> or abbreviated
processing procedure (APPJ 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. An
individual permit review may be conducted foe activities that do not fall into
either category above. However, it should represent a snail nunber of the
total cases addressed by the SAMP. We recognize that an ideal SAMP is
difficult to achieve, and, therefore, it is intended to represent an upper
1 imit rather than an absolute requirement.
-------
SIDJVCtT*special Area Management Plans (SAMPs)
5. Do not assume that an environmental impact statement is au tana tic ally
required to develop a SAMP.
6 EPA's program for advance identification of disposal areas found at 40 CFR
230.80 can be integrated into a SAMP process.
-7 in accordance with this guidance, district engineers are encouraged to
rvirticioate in development of SAMPs. However, since developnent of a SAMP can
fl^uire a considerable investment of time, resources, and money, the SAMP
dS^ss should be entered only if it is likely to result m a definitive
regulatory product as defined in paragraph 4. above.
8. This guidance expires 31 December 1988 unless sooner revised or rescinded.
for the CHIEF CF ENGINEERS:
2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 1992 / Notices
45773
Regulatory Guidance Letters Issued
by the Corps ol Engineers
AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
DOD.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is
to provide a copy of the latest
Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) to all
known interested parties. RGL's are
used by the Corps of Engineers as a
means to transmit guidance on the
permit program (33 CFR Parts 320-330)
to its division and district engineers. The
Corps of Engineers publishes RGL's In
the Federal Register upon issuance as a
means of informing the public of Corps
guidance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Mr. Sam Collinson. Regulatory Branch.
Office of the Chief of Engineers at [202)
272-1782.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:.
RGL 92-03, Subject: Special Area
Management Plans (SAMPs), issued on
August 19,1992. is hereby published bb
follows:
CECW-OR
Subject: Extension of Regulatory Guidance
Letter (RGL) 86-10, subject: "Special Area
Management Plans (SAiMPs)" is extended
until 31 December 1997 unless sooner
revised or rescinded.
For the Director of Civil Works.
hi
John P. Elmore,
Chief Operations. Construction and
Readiness Division.
Directorate of Civil Works
RGL 06-10
Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs)
Issued 10/2/86. Expired 12/31/88.
1. The 1980 Amendments to the Coastal
Zone Management Act define the SAMP
process 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 users of lands and waters; and
mechanisms for timely implementation in
specific geographic areas within the coastal
zone." This process of collaborative
interagency planning within a geographic
area of special sensitivity is just as
applicable in non-coastal areas.
2. A good SAMP reduces the problems
associated with the traditional case-by-case
review. Developmental interest* can plan
with predictability mid environmental
Interests are assured that individual .'»>
-------
Appendix
C
-------
APPENDIX C
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JUNE 1995
-------
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DRAFT
June 15, 1995
For Interagency Review
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Environmental Improvement Needs in
the Hackensack Meadowlands District i-iii
Administration and Implementation of
the Environmental Improvement Program iv-v
Solid Waste Management
Introduction 1-2
Remediation of Solid Waste Management Impacts 3-6
Reclamation of Landfills for Habitat Values 7-9
Water Resource Protection
Introduction 10
District-Wide Water Quality Monitoring 11-12
Non-Point Pollution Control 13-14
Flood Control and Stormwater Management
Introduction 15
Description 16-18
Cost Chart 19
Contaminated Land Reclamation
Introduction 20-21
Hazardous Sites Initiatives 22-25
Cost Chart 26
Natural Resource Management
Introduction 27-28
Wetland Enhancement and Management 29-33
Remnant Habitat Enhancement and Management 34-36
Cost Chart 37
Parks & Recreation
Introduction 38-39
Conservation Areas 40
Recreation Areas 40-43
Trails 43-47
Environmental Art Park 48-49
Summary 50-51
-------
TABLE OF CONTFNTS
Page 2
Pages
Air Quality Improvements
Introduction 52-54
Gas Recovery from Landfills 55-56
HMDC Transportation Demand Management:
Employee Certification 57-58
Parking Management 59-60
Transit Service improvement 61-62
Ridesharing Services 63-64
Historic and Cultural Resources
Introduction 65
Historic Preservation Regulatory Program 66-67
Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Occurrence
in the Hackensack Meadowlands 68-69
Historic and Cultural Resources Education Program 70-71
Environmental Enforcement
Introduction 72
Description 73-75
Funding Source for the Environmental Improvement Program
Introduction 76
Transfer of Development Rights 77
Environmental Assessment Fee 78
Environmental Linkage Fee 78
Federal and State Grants 78
Appendices
I Funding Source and Use Statement
II Federal and State Potential Funding Sources
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS IN THE
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
INTRODUCTION
There is a need for substantial environmental remediation in the Hackensack Meadowlands
District. The legacy of pollution and environmental destruction from previous decades of solid
waste disposal within or adjacent to these wetlands is apparent. A broad range of environmental
problems that affect air, water, and the land are present throughout the District. These problems
exert important influences on the viability of future development in portions of the District, as
well as on prospects for redevelopment in certain areas. A summary of the problems known to
exist follows, along with strategies for remediation.
Planning for the future of the District must recognize the remediation costs of long-standing,
cumulative, and secondary impacts on wetlands and upland areas. The Environmental
Improvement Program (EIP) is an integral component of the Special Area Management Plan
(SAMP). Under the SAMP, participating agencies can coordinate their resources and activities
toward the long-term environmental improvements implicit in the 1988 Memorandum of
Understanding.
The EIP will constitute a continuation and expansion of prior HMDC environmental initiatives.
Initial priority will be given to the implementation of those projects which are already underway
or for which funding is currently in place. These include closure and post-closure activities at
former dump sites, the development and management of park and open space projects, public
education including environmental quality and instructional activities, laboratory water pollution
monitoring and research, management of the Saw Mill Creek Wildlife Management Area, and
privately-funded wetland improvement enhancement projects.
Short-term priority will also be given to securing funding for Program elements where potential
immediate funding sources have been identified. These include publicly-funded wetland
enhancement, park and open space development, flood control, contaminated land remediation
and reclamation, and the preservation of remnant habitats. (For additional details, refer to
HMDC's Five Year/Transition Plan.)
Priorities will be formally established and revised annually, as tasks are completed, new funding
sources become identified, or additional opportunities for environmental improvements are
identified (see Administration and Implementation section).
The Meadowlands ecosystem has been subjected to substantial adverse impacts from man's
activities over the past two centuries. Most of these impacts preceded HMDC's existence; but
pressures on land, air and water resources continue today. Programs are needed to alleviate this
pressure and to correct previous adverse influences. The utilization of public and private
resources along with the broad legislative authorities of HMDC can provide in important
i.
-------
regional benefits for a unique urban ecosystem. The integration of comprehensive planning and
area-wide environmental planning may, in addition, provide guidance to others elsewhere in the
nation.
The opportunity exists for the HMDC, in concert with the SAMP partners, to make the
Hackensack Meadowlands District a significant national showpiece for planning and management
of an urban estuarine ecosystem.
The goals and objectives outlined in this document are independent of the outcome of the SAMP
process. However, for many of these programs, the level of funding and interagency
cooperation necessary for implementation may be greatly compromised without the successful
completion of a SAMP.
The components of the EIP which are outlined include solid waste management, surface and
groundwater resource protection, environmental enforcement, air and land quality improvements,
natural resource management and development of park, educational and recreational
opportunities. To accomplish the goal of remediating past environmental impact and managing
an urban estuary of national significance, the various elements have to be implemented in
concert. Each piece is integral, and together they provide a dynamic opportunity for the benefit
of man and the environment.
Until recently, urban open space and urban estuaries have been considered wastelands, based in
part on their association with urban blight and when compared with pristine undisturbed sites.
However, research is now documenting the value of urban natural areas and open space.
The Environmental Improvement Program establishes and implements state-of-the-art
management techniques for cleanup and/or prevention of pollution of the air, water and soil.
Vigorous monitoring and enforcement are key to success. An emphasis is on surface and
groundwater improvements and programs which will stabilize and/or enhance overall property
values and environmental values in the District.
Environmental research and monitoring provides for the systematic appraisal of the extent of
contamination and the information and technical basis for environmental management decisions.
Urban natural areas must be actively managed in order to safeguard their intrinsic environmental
value. New sites can be restored and reclaimed from severely degraded lands and added to the
natural areas inventory.
Collaboration in recreational facilities development and programming is the focus of the park
development and access program strategy.' The provision of funding is essential for the ongomg
maintenance of structures, landscapes and programming.
The Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission Environment Center (HMDCEC) is
a force in education and public awareness in New Jersey and the nation. Known for the
ii.
-------
innovative and creative programs for schools and teachers, the Center needs to expand its
programs to embrace greater audiences and provide them with urban environmental education
and recreational opportunities.
The Hackensack Meadowlands Urban Estuary could serve as a laboratory for understanding
urban ecology and urban pollution remediation. With the wealth of colleges and universities in
the region, it could become a center for research on relevant urban environmental topics.
The estuary would be a valuable educational and recreational resource. It would not only serve
the local and regional populace, but also act as a national model for urban environmental
education and recreational programs and opportunities. The Environment Center and the various
park and natural areas are the access for the urban dweller to experience the Hackensack
Meadowlands estuary.
The HMDC has the expertise and facilities and can commit some of the financial and technical
resources required. Governmental cooperation, technical and financial support are required,
from both State and Federal agencies, to implement the SAMP and its companion Environmental
Improvement Program. This will require that future development make substantial private and
public sector contributions to achieve these goals. The HMDC is in a position to carry out
significant portions of the EIP, based on its enabling act. However, additional resources are
necessary to implement the concept in its entirety.
The following sections of this document outline environmental concern, the mission statement,
implementation projects and required resources for each strategy in the EIP.
iii.
-------
ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Under the 1988 Memorandum of Understanding signed by SAMP participants, there was a
commitment by all parties to ensure positive environmental gain in the Hackensack Meadowlands
District (HMD). With that in mind, the HMDC has developed the EIP document 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.
The Commission understands that the success or failure of the EIP and the resulting magnitude
of environmental gain will be predicated on the commitment of all the SAMP partners. The
commitment that is required is in the form of financial resources and technical assistance, both
from State and Federal entities. This will be in addition to the financial and technical resources
which the Commission will commit. (See Appendix I).
The Commission envisions the implementation of the EIP as a continuation of the joint
processing structure already in place, with some modifications. The following is an outline of
how the EIP should be implemented:
1 ) Representatives of HMDC, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection
Agency US Fish and Wildlife Service, NJ Department of Environmental Protection,
National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
2 members of the general public who represent environmental advocacy groups, 2
members of the general public who represent the local development community, and 2
constituent mayors -1 from Bergen County and 1 from Hudson County shall be designated
as the EIP Advisory Committee.
2 ) The HMDC staff on an annual basis, would develop a list of projects from the EIP
document which are deemed to have high priority. Projects may be added to the annual
list outside of the EIP plan contingent upon unforeseen situations which may arise m the
Strict which require immediate environmental remediation. The staff will develop a
description of the projects, cost estimates, identify funding sources and provide an imple-
mentation schedule. Additionally, staff will provide the necessary mechanisms to measure
the improvements to be derived. The «<* will only iiylwte'thott prwtts which hw
specific funding sources.
3 ) The HMDC staff will present the priority list to the EIP Advisory Committee for their
review comment, recommendation and commitment to cooperate m the unplementation
of the projects. The report of the Advisory Committee shall be submitted to the Executive
Director of the Commission.
4.)
The Executive Director of the Commission shall submit the annual EIP Plan to the full
Commission as part of the annual HMDC final budget submission. Upon adoption of the
plan by the Commission, the Executive Director will be empowered to implement the plan.
iv.
-------
5.) One hundred and fifty days after the annual plan has been executed, the Commission shall
perform an audit of the projects undertaken. The Commission will use an outside auditing
firm to prepare the necessary reports indicating how EIP funds were allocated and spent.
6.) The Commission will provide an annual report on its EIP accomplishments and indicate
the benefits that will be and/or are derived.
The HMDC believes that this structure best serves the common goal of the EIP and the SAMP
partners; that being, ensuring the environmental improvement of the Hackensack Meadowlands
District.
v.
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The unregulated use of the Hackensack Meadowlands as a disposal site for solid and industrial
waste for more than 150 years is well documented. The conventional wisdom of the past was
to use wetlands as open dumps for the disposal of the region's waste products. Unfortunately,
this "out of sieht out of mind" mentality continues to have serious impacts on the present and
Lire of the District Pollutants continue to leach from these sites into the region's water and
air.
It was the recognition of the loss of regional opportunities and the impact from the uncontrolled
dumping of the waste in the District that resulted in the creation of the Hackensack Meadow-
lands Development Commission in 1968. Included in its enabling leg.slauon was a mandate for
economic development, solid waste management and environmental protection.
Th. HMnr has been very successful in meeting its goal regarding solid waste management in
to District In 1969 there were 2.500 acres in the District that were either being landfilled or
were slated'to be landfilled. Operations were conducted on this acreage by live privately owned
and operated companies, as well as one site operated by Bergen County,
In the earlv I970's the HMDC placed both physical and operational limits on many of these
iru L™ u^tfill sites were directed to cease operations completely. Other sites were
de^ed an^eTparBior into areas that had not already been landfilled. Undf.ll capacity is,
therefore dicuted by the allowable heigh, of the landfill. As late as 1987, there were still more
ban five hundred acres being actively landfilled. As more and more of these active areas
man iivc were dosed t0 operations. The only remaining active landfill
in^he District fs a M acre area located at the HMDC 1-E Landfill in Kearny and North
Arlington.
The legacy of the uncontrolled dumping in the Dis.ric. brought with it several challenges for
lhe legacy YVL landfill Sites Remediation in the context of District landfills would be
deted ^bringing the old -dumps" as close as possible to the performance standards of present
defined as cringing u control of the leachate (liquid that is created by contact
environmental reguaio . ^ percolates through the waste), surface runoff, and
between solid waste ' ated through the decomposition of solid waste. Leachate adds
Ming of the surrounding wellands, as do the contaminants and silt from surface
to the polIuBM oaamg composed of carbon dioxide and methane. Methane can be
explosive^nder certain conditiom and is considered one of the contributing -greenhouse effect"
, , . „ „^mnii«;hed on more than two hundred acres of inactive landfills
t o, perimeter cutoff Csluny-) walls that
in the District. This existing clay layer beneath the landfills. This effectively
extend from the surface d surrounding wetlands. A leachate collection system
isolates the landfill hydrologica y ^ ^ cutoff wall at an elevation lower than the wetlands,
is then installed on the landtiii sia.
-------
Leachate is then collected and pumped to a regional treatment plant, such as the Passaic Valley
Sewage Commission facility in Newark, for treatment. Hundreds of millions of dollars will
ultimately be expended to insure that these landfills will not pose a threat to the District's
ecosystem.
The remediation of the landfills has the added benefit of reclaiming the sites as self-sustaining
habitats for animals and plants. Through natural plant succession and planting of desirable
native vegetation, seeds are naturally dispersed by wind, animals, and insects to allow for a
productive end use for the District landfills.
2.
-------
SOLID WASTE
Remediation of Solid Waste Management Impacts
1. Description • •
There are hundreds of acres of abandoned landfills which ceased operations in the 1970 s
and that were not under the direct control of the Commission. At the time, there were no
regulations to require the operators to escrow funds to effectuate the proper closure of the
landfills As a result, these abandoned landfills remain environmental threats which must
be addressed if real strides are to be made in environmental quality in the District.
All of the abandoned landfills have a direct hydraulic connection to the wetlands in the
District This coupled with over forty inches of rain per year, exacerbates the leachate
impacts from the abandoned landfills. Currently, tens of millions of gallons of leachate
exit these landfills every year. The remediation of these sites will substantially improve
5? lliti ofZHZL* that surround each landfill site and contribute to the
improvement of the ecosystem of the entire District.
Likewise the control of fugitive air emissions from the landfills is critical to the District.
Currently, six million cubic feet of gas are collected and processed ever? day from only
four hundred acres of landfill. Much more needs to be done, Particularly as it relates to
the abandoned landfills. Given the fact that the District is part of an EPA-designated non-
attainment area, the need to control these emissions is critical to the District s emnronmen-
tal and economic growth.
2' ?bjC
-------
• Creation of hundreds of acres of upland habitat for plantings and resident and
migrating wildlife.
• Creation of unique study environments and park land atop several of these former
landfills.
Implementation
a. Capital Costs
Funds were collected when the sites were operational and deposited in escrow
accounts.
• HMDC 1-A Landfill -Closure $ 11,507,173
• HMDC 1-C Landfill - Closure 45,347,573
• HMDC Balefill -Closure 34,728,649
• Kingsland (BCUA-HMDC Portion) - Closure 715,550
The capital costs for remediation of the Keegan and 1-D landfills is estimated to be $100
million for closure and post-closure, which would be recouped primarily through tipping
fees at the Keegan site.
The remediation costs of the other major abandoned landfills are estimates as follows:
• Malanka/Mall Landfill, Secaucus $50 Million
• Avon Landfill, Lyndhurst $70 Million
• Erie Landfill, North Arlington $30 Million
• Other Orphan Landfills $20 Million
The bulk of the capital costs for closure are related to the perimeter bentonite slurry
wall, perimeter leachate collection system, final cap and methane collection system.
While these sites are not the only abandoned landfills in the District, they represent the
sites that have the largest amount of in-place solid waste and, therefore, pose the greatest
threat to the Meadowlands ecosystem with regards to leachate and methane gas
generation. HMDC believes that remediation of the other smaller landfills would require
capping to contain the pollutants generated by landfills at an estimated cost of $20
million.
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
• HMDC 1-A Landfill - Post-Closure $46,694,828
• HMDC 1-C Landfill - Post-Closure 77,687,361
• HMDC Balefill - Post-Closure 77,687,361
• Kingsland (BCUA-HMDC Portion) - Post-Closure 16,151,158
• Other Orphan Landfills $20 Million
-------
Operational costs for the one remaining active landfill in the District, the HMDC Baler
Facility/HMDC 1-E Landfill, are collected through the tipping fees. Operation and
maintenance costs for the Keegan Site will also be recouped primarily through tipping
fees.
We should emphasize that the relevant statutes require that closure improvements be
maintained for thirty years. In terms of absolute dollars, these post-closure expenses
usually equal or exceed the closure estimates. The primary post-closure expenses are
related to leachate pumping and treatment, gas collection and processing and final cover
maintenance. It should also be noted that there is no guarantee that actual revenues will
be collected through landfill gas recovery.
c. Potential Funding Sources
• The magnitude of the dollars required precludes the sole use of private funds.
• Most money will be derived from governmental sources or tipping fees.
• Certain elements, i.e., leachate pump stations and force mains, may be partially
financed with private funds in the event private developments connect to these force
mains.
• Money may be available in the form of grants for studying landfill vegetation.
d. Schedule
• Protracted due to availability of substantial dollars required.
• Expect remediation of abandoned landfills will not occur until after year 2000.
• Keegan Landfill, Kearny, may be remediated early through reactivation as a regional,
non-processible landfill - possible start 1997.
• 1-D Landfill, Kearny - possible remediation primarily through tipping fees from
Keegan.
4. Research/Monitoring
• To provide information on pollutant impact on a brackish environment and the effects
both during and after construction of the closure improvements at the sites.
• Plant success and viability ina stressed environment.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
• Design/construction/monitoring/management - HMDC staff
• Significant record of implementation of solid waste remediation by HMDC assures
completion.
• Solid Waste Enforcement is handled by personnel within the HMDC Solid Waste
Division and funded through operational monies.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• Cooperation of SAMP partners regarding the disruption of wetlands surrounding the
abandoned sites during the installation of the perimeter improvements may be necessary.
5.
-------
• Close agency coordination of landfill closure and monitoring activities is required by
State regulation.
7. Authority
• Solid Waste Management Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1 et seq.
• 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258, Solid Waste Disposal Facility Design Criteria.
• N.J.A.C. 19:7-1 et seq.
8. Additional Comments
Note that costs developed through project estimates were prepared by the Solid Waste staff
and that monies currently in escrow accounts are allocated by phase for each site.
6.
-------
SOLID WASTE
Reclamation of Landfills for Habitat Values
1. Description
Reclamation of abandoned or closed landfills into self-sustaining habitats for animals and
plants. These projects utilize the ecological process of natural plant succession to produce
sensitive and economic solutions for site recovery. Clusters of desirable native plantings will
be established on select areas on the landfills. These "plantings islands" will function as
seed sources which will be naturally dispersed by wind, animals, insects to allow for the
productive end use for District-wide landfills.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• Primary Goal - to transform abandoned and closed landfills into productive end uses thus
resulting in a reduction of negative environmental impacts to the area.
• Objectives and Benefits include:
• Increase wildlife utilization and increase animal/plant diversity.
• Management of "target" animal/plant species.
• Establishment of different native plant communities - native grasslands, pockets of
woodlands and shrublands, etc., on landfills.
• Conduct landfill reclamation research including monitoring of species utilization of
landfill habitats.
• Enhancement of landfill through the construction of perimeter cutoff walls, controlled
stormwater discharges, access road/paths, and plantings.
• Improvement in the water quality of the Hackensack River and its tributaries through
site remediation and leachate collection.
• Control of air emissions from the landfills.
• Enhanced animal/plant diversity and resultant wildlife utilization of the District.
• Applied research resulting in development of management strategies which can serve
as models for other regions with landfills.
• A strengthening of partnerships among governmental agencies with interests within
the District.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
$2.3 million (costs include soil placement, grading, plantings).
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
• Partial O/M costs covered by the escrowed landfill post closure funds, estimated at
10% of capital costs, and include HMDC staffing requirements.
• Maintenance costs assumed by the landfill post closure funds are for maintenance of
closure improvements only. Potentially, some improvements may be beyond
required closure efforts; and, therefore, additional funds would also be needed for
maintenance.
7.
-------
c. Potential Funding Sources
• Grants available from Federal and State programs, including:
• NJDEP Closure Monies
• Water Resources Development Act, 33 U.S.C.
• Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C.
• Water Resources Research Act, 42 U.S.C.
• Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
• Environmental Aid Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1H-1 et seq.
• NJ Green Acres Land Acquisition and Recreation Opportunities Act, N.J.S.A.
13:8A-35.
• Shore Protection Act, N.J.A.C. 7:7-F et seq.
• Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C.
• Solid Waste Management Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et seq.
• N.J. State Ducks Stamp
• Project specific grants from private foundations; i.e., NJ Audubon, National
Audubon, Sierra Club, NJ Conservation Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, etc.
• Federal Land and Water Conservation Trust Funds.
d. Schedule
• HMDC operated landfills - reclamation projects could begin once closure improve-
ments complete.
• Abandoned landfills - remediation could begin once funding and management
agreements from property owners have been secured.
4. Research/Monitoring
• Baseline monitoring to be performed by HMDC staff for NJPDES compliance, with
technical and financial support from other agencies and organizations.
• Monitoring of reclamation projects by HMDC staff.
• Research by HMDC staff and other Federal and State agencies and educational
institutions, supported by grants from government/academia.
• Coordination of research, maintenance of regional data bank provided by HMDC staff.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
• Design/Construction/Installation/Monitoring/Management - HMDC staff.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• Acceptance by the SAMP partners that this initiative will be utilized by the HMDC as
part of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives of the SAMP and to
ensure positive environmental gains for the District as required by the 1988 Memoran-
dum of Understanding.
• Grants, matching funds, and other monetary awards to support project-specific research,
design, implementation, monitoring, and maintenance.
7. Authority
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
• Solid Waste Management Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et seq.
8.
-------
8. Additional Comments
• New Jersey Advisory Council on Solid Waste Management (SWAC) annual conference
in 1992 focused on this issue, and a report will be forthcoming in 1993.
• The HMDC and Rutgers are conducting research into the reclamation of closed and
abandoned landfills in the District. This has included placement of fill on top of solid
waste exposed for more than ten (10) years and introduction of native plant species to
determine their viability on a harsh landfill environment.
9.
-------
WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION
INTRODUCTION
As the defining element that gives the Hackensack Meadowlands District its name, the
Hackensack River offers the most visible reflection of environmental improvements that will
occur during implementation of the SAMP. Degraded by usage throughout its history, the river
has been impacted by discharges from industry, power generation and municipal sewage
treatment. Uncontrolled, diffuse runoff carries contaminants of the urban landscape, which
includes high density housing, clusters of warehouses, abandoned landfills and other sites bearing
the residue of industrial processes.
The HMDC has documented progress in water quality improvement by regulation of industrial
discharges and upgraded municipal sewage treatment, which reached a steady state during the
1980's. Formulating a policy to regain that early momentum must include planning and
managing water quality issues on a watershed basis.
Presently, the lack of knowledge of the quality of water resources impedes the decision-making
process, allowing policy to be formed without adequate information. The recent adoption of
rules governing the permitting of stormwater discharges (1990 amendments to the Clean Water
Act) addresses one of the sources of non-point pollution. Testing of innovative strategies are
called for, because of the complexity of this mixture which includes not only storm sewer
discharges, but also runoff from hazardous waste sites and impervious surfaces, leachate from
landfills and inadequately designed sewage disposal systems. The HMDC has demonstrated its
expertise through participation in the design and implementation of stormwater management
practices at the Meadowlands Sports Complex.
The EIP will produce a net improvement in the quality of water resources through the following
elements:
• Continuation of a basin-wide monitoring program which has been initiated in cooperation
with the United States Geological Survey to depict the status and trends of water quality.
This will insure the uninterrupted flow of information needed by policy makers to make
accurate decisions.
• The HMDC propose? to act as a proving ground for innovative strategies and best
management practices applied as demonstrations of a holistic approach to water pollution
prevention.
The Environmental Improvement Program will directly impact water resources with new
strategies applied to generators of fugitive discharges, who release non-permitted pollutants, and
to hazardous site cleanups. These are outlined in the Enforcement and Contaminated Land
Reclamation sections. It must be acknowledged that this basin-wide approach to pollution
prevention is part of a wider, concerted effort being developed and coordinated through the New
York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, of which the HMDC and other SAMP partners are
active participants.
10.
-------
WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION
District-Wide Water Quality Monitoring
Spring 1993
Duration of SAMP with Annual Renewal
Annual
Five and Ten year intervals
1. Description
A sampling network and regimen that will provide the framework for recording long term
changes in water quality throughout the District, confronting the challenge posed by the
complexity of water quality problems.
2. Objectives/Benefits .
• Monitor the status and trends of the quality of surface and shallow groundwater District-
wide. The resulting data will note progress and expose areas of concern.
• To measure the impacts from sources of pollution, such as landfills, industrial activity,
hazardous waste sites and municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
• Production of periodic summaries depicting status of water quality as a measure of
success of Environmental Improvement Program.
• Design and implementation of a program for determining the influence of landfills on
background ground and surface water quality, and a mechanism for marking the impact
of closure as it proceeds. ...
• Improvement in the water quality of the Hackensack River and its tributaries.
• Applied research resulting in development of management strategies which can serve as
models for other regions with similar impacts.
• An increase in the quantity and quality of information for informed policy decisions.
• A strengthening of partnerships among governmental agencies with interests within the
District.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
Facilities now exist for program implementation.
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
Staff and expendable equipment: $100,000/year.
c. Potential Funding Source
• HMDC general funds, with matching resources from Cooperating Agency(s).
Presently, HMDC and USGS are in a fund matching agreement, with university
support for research assistance.
• Federal legislation
d. Schedule
• Initial design
• Monitoring
• Reporting Status and Trends
• Long Term Summaries
11.
-------
4. Research/Monitoring
• A comprehensive monitoring program is underway, and should continue throughout the
duration of the SAMP.
• Periodic reporting and modifications will lead to research opportunities as questions arise.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
The HMDC retains leadership of this program with technical assistance contributed by other
interested parties (both academic and regulatory).
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
Acceptance by the SAMP Partners that this initiative will be utilized by the HMDC as part
of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives of the SAMP and to ensure
positive environmental gains for the District as required by the 1988 Memorandum of
Understanding.
7. Authority
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
• Water Quality Management Planning Program, N.J.S.A. 58:11-A-1 et seq.
• Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
8. Additional Comments
Consideration should be made for designation as Natural Resource Trustee, as defined under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act, affording the
HMDC legal stature over all issues related to impaired conditions within the District. In
addition, recovery of financial losses due to impairment and cost of remediation becomes a
liability of responsible parties.
12.
-------
WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION
Non-Point Pollution Control
1. Description
The HMDC, charged with Basin-wide responsibilities, can adapt and apply Best Management
Practices (BMP) advocated by the NJDEP for the control of Non Point discharges. A
strategy of storm sewer surveys, monitoring programs, research and demonstration projects
can be tested on a regional basis by the HMDC.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• An initial survey to locate the inputs from storm sewer outfalls, uncontrolled landfill
leachate, hazardous waste sites, impervious surfaces and fugitive sewage discharges.
• The control of a known, yet unregulated, source of pollution detrimental to the water
quality in the District.
• Develop a demonstration of best management practices in a targeted watershed.
• Monitor the results.
• Repeat process in additional watersheds
• Improvement in the water quality of the Hackensack River and its tributaries, and the
Meadowlands ecosystem in its entirety.
• Demonstration of partnerships with developers and regulatory agencies in successful
applications of innovative strategies.
• Applied research resulting in increased property values.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
Project specific and highly variable. Recommendation is for a single drainage basin to
serve as initial demonstration, with costs restricted by a predetermined ceiling. For
example, design a program costing $100,000 (small), or moderate ($500,000).
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
Staff and expendable equipment for site specific monitoring: $25,000/year
c. Potential Funding Sources
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et
seq.
• Water Quality Management Planning Program, N.J.S.A. 58:11-A-1 et seq.
• Section 304(1) of the Federal Clean Water Act designates the Hackensack River as
an impaired water body considered for the highest priority in NPS management
efforts.
• Section 205b of the Clean Water Act.
• Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (NOAA).
• Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act, N.J.S.A. 58:25-23 et seq. (for combined
sewer outfalls only).
13.
-------
d. Schedule
• Negotiations regarding feasibility
• Project design Implementation
• Survey
• Demonstration
• Monitoring
1993
Second half of 1993
First half 1994
One year from startup
Continuous from project start
Project repetition can occur concurrent with initial demonstration if progress is
demonstrated.
4. Research/Monitoring
This element is designed as a demonstration of applied research. Strong opportunities for
research and innovation.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
• Close cooperation with the NJDEP enforcement, developers, and Academic community
is needed to devise and implement site specific BMP.
• A technical committee would serve as oversight for HMDC projects.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
Acceptance by the SAMP Partners that this initiative will be utilized by the HMDC as part
of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives of the SAMP and to ensure
positive environmental gains for the District as required by the 1988 Memorandum of
Understanding.
7. Authority
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
• Water Quality Management Planning Program, N.J.S.A. 58:11-A-l et seq.
• Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
8. Additional Comments
14.
-------
FLOOD CONTROL AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Goals of the HMDC are to control flooding and to improve drainage and stormwater
management in the Hackensack Meadowlands District (HMD) while providing for continued
ecological balance. Flooding has been a recurring situation since the begmrung of development
in this region Development has taken place prior to the inception of the HMDC without regard
to the preservation of the tidal estuary. Prior to 1972, buildings were constructed with low
finished floor elevations, lower than that recommended by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and the Army Corps Study of 1972. This latter study recommended that all
buildings in the Meadowlands be constructed at a minimum finished floor elevation of +10.00
feet in accordance with the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).
Presentlv the HMDC requires that all structures within the floodplain be constructed at an
elevation of one foot above that required by FEMA ^e one hundred year storm Although
this system works well for buildings constructed under the HMDC audiority, we are still deahng
with constant flooding of those buildings built prior to the HMDC and with transport*,on
corridors in the District.
There are a number of tide gates, other water control structures and artificial features in the
Hackensack Meadowlands District. A total of six tide gates are maintained by the Bergen
Sunty Mosquito Commission, two tide gates are maintained by property owners, one t,de gate
is maintained bv the HMDC. There are two pump stations maintained by the Hudson County
Department of Public Works, one pump station maintained by the Borough of Little Ferry and
one pump station maintained by the Borough of Teterboro.
The implementation of the EIP will improve control of the flooding presently exhibited in the
HMD and will enhance drainage and stormwater management capabilities as a result of the
following items:
• Construction of additional drainage control structures (tide gates, sector gates, pumps,
levees detention/retention facilities, flap gates).
. Central coordination of all improvements, operations and inspection/maintenance of all
existing and proposed,drainage structures.
Bridee and culvert alteration or replacement.
Dredging of existing waterways and wetland restoration to increase flood storage capacity.
Preservation of wetlands for flood storage.
Elimination/creation of ditches, canals, and channelization.
Monitoring of the wetlands and waterways.
Altering the present patterns of flood flow.
Environmentally sensitive land use planning.
Preparation of a Stormwater Management Plan.
Development 5 ™ S property owners and elected officials.
15.
-------
FLOOD CONTROL AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
1. Description
There is a need for additional drainage structures to control flooding and to provide
improved stormwater management in a number of areas not currently protected. A
coordinated effort is needed between the Federal, State, County, and local entities to assess
drainage improvements in the District. In addition to the infrastructure associated with
drainage improvements, need may arise to develop a coordinated maintenance system.
2. Objectives/Benefits
The completion of studies and construction of tide gates are part of a larger strategy of flood
control designed to not only control flooding but to preserve and restore the ecological
balance of the Meadowlands.
• Conduct a regional flood study in conjunction with the U.S.A.C.O.E.
• Delineate areas of contamination in the Berry's Creek drainage basin in coordination with
DEP's off-site contamination study and develop a hydrology model/study. The
delineation and model/study would be used to determine the amount of flood storage
created in this area and to insure that potential impacts to the Berry's Creek area are
minimized.
• Construct a sector gate/tide gate with pumps on Berry's Creek and Route 3 upstream
from the Sports Authority outflow to ameliorate the flooding currently experienced in the
areas of Carlstadt, Moonachie, East Rutherford, Teterboro and municipalities outside of
the HMD which are not currently behind a tide gate.
• Construct a tide gate with pumps on Bellman's Creek and the eastern spur of the New
Jersey Turnpike to ameliorate the flooding in the Fairview Avenue area of North Bergen
and Fairview.
• Construct a tide gate(s) with pumps at the terminus of the drainage pipes accepting the
drainage from the industrial areas of Lyndhurst and Rutherford and the right of ways of
Routes 3 and 17 as it flows into Berry's Creek. This improvement would ameliorate the
flooding in the roadways accessing the Lyndhurst and Rutherford industrial parks and rail
transportation.
• Conduct a study to determine the possible solutions (levees, flood walls, pumps, tide
gates) to the flooding of the Borough of Little Ferry.
• Conduct a study to determine possible solutions to the flooding of Belleville Turnpike
and Harrison Avenue in Kearny.
• Conduct an additional study to determine the effectiveness/feasibility of a sector gate on
the Hackensack River.
• Use of wetlands for flood storage.
• Enhanced flood control and development of a solution to the constant flooding of several
properties and roadways in the HMD.
• Restoration of existing wetlands and creation of additional flood storage.
• Continuation of the ecological restoration of the HMD.
• Cleanup the existing contamination of Berry's Creek and restoration of wetlands.
• Development of a solution to the constant flooding of several properties and roadways
in the HMD.
• Improvement of the ability of the HMDC to meet its mandates for protecting the natural
resources and providing for comprehensive economic growth within the District.
• Improvement of the ability of Federal, State, County, and local agencies to protect and
16.
-------
improve the public health and welfare.
• Provision of a mechanism by which the SAMP partners can monitor long term overall
net environmental benefit as described in the 1988 Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU).
• Increased property values.
• Augmented economic opportunities.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs (items listed in order of importance)
• Regional flood study: $12,972,000 *
• Delineation of contamination in Berry's Creek: $1,000,000
(To be coordinated with the NJDEP's Berry's Creek Off-Site Study)
• Study of flooding in Kearny: $935,000
• Tide gate with pumps in Bellman's Creek: $1,935,000
• Tide gate with pumps in Rutherford: $600,000
• Study of flooding in Little Ferry: $935,000
• Sector gate/tide gate with pumps on Berry's Creek and Route 3: $3,622,000
• Feasibility study of sector gate in the Hackensack River: $4,740,000
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost (over 20 years)
• Maintenance of tide gates with pumps: $2,000,000
• 1993 dollars
c. Potential Funding Sources
• Special Assessment Districts created by HMDC and including all the affected
properties in the District.
• Revolving Loan Fund generated by the HMDC and available to property owners to
conduct drainage improvements.
• Developers Agreements.
Federal Programs
• Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C.
• Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C.
• National Ocean Pollution Planning Act, 33 U.S.C.
• Water Resource Development Act, 33 U.S.C.
• Water Resources Research Act, 42 U.S.C.
• Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
• National Flood Insurance Act
. Flood Control Act of 1958, P.L. 85-500
New Jersey Statutes
• N.J. Spill, Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23 et seq.
• N.J. Flood Hazard Area Control Regulations, N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.1 et seq.
d. Schedule
• Studies conducted - 12 months.
17.
-------
• Feasibility determination/decisions - 3 months.
• Permits for the structures - additional 12 months.
• Construction of drainage structures - begin in 2 years.
• Maintenance - 20 years.
4. Research/Monitoring
• Create committee with the SAMP partners and the academic community to coordinate
activities and monitor overall environmental benefit for this EIP component.
• Contact Cook College Remote Sensing Center for expertise in the utilization of remote
sensing for monitoring the environment of the HMD.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
• A coordinating/managing agency would be required (the HMDC could assume this task).
• Funds for maintenance could be from Special Assessment Districts created by the
HMDC.
• The HMDC could retain the Bergen County Mosquito Commission and the Hudson
County Department of Public Works to conduct all periodic maintenance.
• Where a developer is installing drainage control structures on its property, funds from
the developer could be available to the HMDC to enable the performance of periodic
maintenance.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• Development of interagency agreements, where appropriate, designed to address and
specifically define the above-stated goals and objectives.
• Acceptance by the SAMP partners that this initiative will be utilized by the HMDC as
part of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives of the SAMP and to
ensure positive environmental gains for the District as required by the 1988 Memorandum
of Understanding will be requested.
• Funding for implementation, planning, technical assistance, research, and other applicable
methods for designing flood control structures is to be provided.
• A "Revolving Loan Fund" through which the HMDC would float bonds that would
provide low cost loans to applicants to conduct flood improvements on their properties.
7. Authority
Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
8. Additional Comments
18.
-------
Cost Chart
FLOOD CONTROL,
DRAINAGE &
STORMWATER MGMT
IMPROVEMENTS
Architectural
&
Engineering
Construction
Operations
&
Maintenance
(20 years)
Regional Flood Study
$12,972,000 1
N/A
N/A
Delineation of
Berry's Creek
Contamination
$ 1,000,000 2
N/A
N/A
Tide/Sector Gate
with Pumps
at Berry's Creek
$ 2,622,000 1
$ 1,000,0003
$ 2,000,000 3
Tide Gate with
Pumps in
Rutherford
$ 100,0003
$ 500,0003
$ 2,000,000 3
Tide Gate with Pumps at
Bellman's Creek
$ 935,0001
$ 1,000,000 3
$ 2,000,0003
Flood Study of
Little Ferry
$ 935,0001
N/A
N/A
Flood Study of Kearny
$ 935,0001
N/A
N/A
Feasibility Study of Sector
Gate on the Hackensack
River
$ 4,740,000 1
N/A
N/A
1 Costs obtained from the June 1993 USACOE Flood Control Study Reconnaissance Report
of the Hackensack River Basin.
2 Personnel conversation - HMDC staff Site Action Committee/Technical Advisory Committee
SAC/TAC liaison.
3 Amounts are approximate and obtained from private consultants.
19.
-------
CONTAMINATED LAND RECLAMATION
INTRODUCTION
The historical dumping practices which have degraded the environment of the Hackensack
Meadowlands are readily visible. The occurrence of contamination in this geographic area,
which is specifically recognized by the New Jersey State Legislature as a "... natural resource
to be comprehensively managed ...," has been of such magnitude as to create potential impacts
to public health and welfare as well as impediments to development activities and environmental
improvements.
In the recent past, many Federal and State laws have been enacted to address the environmental
problems associated with contamination. However, the result has been one of increased financial
burdens for both the public and private sectors while at the same time creating economic
inefficiencies due to limited available resources, limited staff among the various agencies, the
lack of coordinated activities, and a lack of a comprehensive management program for the
District. Examples of these burdens can be found in the fact that cleanup of some hazardous
waste sites in the District has been underway for twenty years and will continue for sometime
longer. Also, a recent survey of various agencies shows that more than 200 sites within the
District have been subject to a regulatory action under one or more of these laws.
Although the HMDC has been asked to review documentation, provide comments, and
participate in laboratory research, these activities are more of a cooperative arrangement than
a regulatory requirement. Creating a more efficient program that improves and enhances current
efforts in the District requires the active participation of a regional agency, such as the
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC), to provide the hands-on
knowledge necessary in identifying and addressing the most appropriate course of action applica-
ble to the needs of this special geographic area.
The benefits of active participation in the regulatoiy process are readily apparent inasmuch as
the HMDC is providing valuable staff time and knowledge to both the businesses affected and
the agencies responsible for ensuring compliance with the hazardous waste regulations.
However, the magnitude of the problem requires a much more extensive and proactive program.
In order to achieve its mandates, as they relate to the cleanup of contaminated land, the HMDC
and DEP will seek to develop MOU's which would allow the HMDC to play an important
advisory and supportive role to the DEP in the management of Natural Resources Trustee
activities for the District.
Such agreements, in conjunction with the broad powers available to the Commission, would
allow the HMDC to take immediate steps "when there is injury to, destruction of, loss of, or
threat to natural resources ..." within the District. This type of "frontline" defense will provide
a greater level of efficiency regarding natural resource damage claims.
The Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), through HMDC's Environmental Improvement
Program initiatives and the 1988 Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU), reflects the
recognition and commitment of the SAMP participating agencies to address the issues facing
20.
-------
the District through the creation and implementation of a comprehensive plan that employs best
management practices, innovative techniques and the coordinated efforts of both the public and
private sectors on a continual basis.
21.
-------
CONTAMINATED LAND RECLAMATION
Hazardous Sites Initiatives
1. Description
To improve cleanup procedures and other regulatory efforts regarding hazardous waste
activities within the Hackensack Meadowlands District (HMD) through active HMDC
participation in the regulatory process.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• To develop and implement, through the powers and mandates of the HMDC, a
comprehensive management plan that will address and prioritize the special need relating
to contamination and regulatory actions within the District.
• To identify and delineate contamination within the District either through existing or
proposed sampling strategies and target parameters in a systematic and continuous
fashion.
• To identify and implement a special demonstration project within the District to show
how the various aspects of this initiative can be accomplished and monitor the overall net
environmental benefits derived.
• To identify sites and to target those sites that are not subject to Federal and/or State
cleanup programs for cleanup and restoration activities through the development of a
comprehensive hazardous waste site capital improvement program.
• To determine strategies to address and help coordinate hazardous waste activities within
the District and the surrounding communities by focusing on regional issues such as
pollution prevention, industrial waste minimization, education and remediation activities.
• To develop and maintain a database of known or suspected contaminated sites within the
District which would include, but not be limited to: site locations; site descriptions;
natural resource impacts and/or concerns; contamination type(s); responsible agencies;
regulatory action(s) to be taken; and site monitoring (determined on a case-by-case
basis).
• To coordinate activities with Federal, State, County and Local Agencies for site
identification regarding enforcement actions.
• To seek and and coordinate funding from public and private sources, including HMDC
bonding power for DEP-sanctioned hazardous site cleanups that are not subject to regular
Federal and State cleanup programs.
• To promote greater public understanding and participation,
• Identification of hazardous waste problems within the District and coordinated efforts
between regulatory agencies to determine solutions.
• Improved ability of HMDC to meet its legislative mandates for protecting the natural
resources and providing for comprehensive economic growth within the District.
• Improved ability of Federal, State, County, and Local Agencies to protect public health
and welfare by satisfying all Federal, State, County, and Local laws and regulations that
require the cleanup of our nation's air, land, water, and other natural resources.
• The implementation of a comprehensive plan through which the SAMP partners can
insure positive environmental gains as required by the 1988 MOU.
• Provide property owners with a more responsive and defined regulatory environment to
assist with regulatory requirements in a manner that is less time consuming and more
22.
-------
cost efficient.
• To determine the feasibility of developing all or part of remediated hazardous waste sites
within the District while incorporating natural resource improvements as a condition of
development.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
$20 million to be used to improve contamination cleanup procedures and seed money for
associated activities.
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
$9 million
c. Potential Funding Sources
Federal Programs
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.
• Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C.
• Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C.
• National Ocean Pollution Planning Act, 33 U.S.C.
• Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C.
• Water Resources Development Act, 33 U.S.C.
• Water Resources Research Act, 42 U.S.C.
• Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
New Jersey Statutes
• N.J. Spill, Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23 et seq.
• Environmental Aid Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1H-1 et seq.
• Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act
Other
• Funding secured from in District growth through various fee structures to be
considered but not limited to: impact fees, special assessments, transferrable
development rights, and HMDC bonding authority.
• Potentially responsible parties.
d. Schedule
• 1993 - 2010
4. Research/Monitoring
• Research and report on impacts to natural resources.
• Develop sampling techniques/methodologies designed specifically for the District.
• Utilize HMDC laboratory facilities in connection with various studies that will determine
baseline conditions and monitoring of remediation activities as they relate to overall
environmental improvements.
• HMDC will be notified of all hazardous waste permitting and clean-up activities to
23.
-------
ensure compliance with the SAMP/EIP goals and objectives.
• Locate and identify types and sources of existing or potential contamination.
• Research and identify on an annual basis potential funding sources.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration/Enforcement
• HMDC will manage a District-specific database to function as a source of available
information to coordinate efforts among the partner agencies and monitor results of these
activities. This database will also be utilized to determine overall net environmental
benefits for both this initiative and the inter-relationship of other EIP initiatives.
• Maintaining and updating computer database for the District will be the responsibility of
the HMDC but will require coordination between agencies.
• Activities will be managed and coordinated by an inter-agency committee.
• A subcommittee will be responsible for determining and defining applicable best
management practices for implementation in the District.
• Maintenance is a function of ownership and can only be determined on a case by case
basis, as different types of contamination require different remediation activities. At this
time there are no identified costs to the SAMP partners for any type of physical or
structural maintenance.
• Creation of an inter-agency committee of which HMDC would be the lead agency to
coordinate and monitor activities and overall net environmental benefit for this EIP
initiative. This committee would be comprised of personnel from each partner agency
similar in nature to the current SAMP Full Committee.
• Creation of a sub-committee through which technical interaction at the staff level would
occur. This sub-committee would identify strategies to help fulfill the Goals and
Objectives of the 1988 MOU and would function in a similar manner similar manner to
the current SAMP Joint Processing Committee.
• HMDC may administer a revolving loan fund to provide low cost loans for technical
assistance, site planning, site remediation, and other activities for private parties through
its bonding authority. However, the loans should be intended mainly for those parties
facing severe financial constraints as a result of the regulatory environment.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• The creation of a prioritization and implementation program between the SAMP partners
and/or other interested regulatory agencies designed to address and specifically define
the above-stated Objectives/Benefits.
• To provide due consideration to any permits that may be necessary to implement this
initiative and/or any projects or activities subsequently identified.
• To seek and/or provide funding for implementation, planning, technical assistance,
research and other applicable methods for the monitoring of hazardous waste activities
and the remediation of sites within the District. The funding should be identified on an
annual basis since sources are likely to change during the 20 year planning period.
• Development of a "Remediation Bank" which would float bonds for a revolving loan
fund that would provide low-cost loans to applicants for remediation activities based on
prioritization of District sites developed among SAMP partners.
• Acceptance by the SAMP partners that this initiative will be utilized by the HMDC as
part of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives of the SAMP and to
ensure positive environmental gains for the District as required by the 1988 MOU.
24.
-------
• Development of MOU's which will allow HMDC to play in important advisory and
supporting role to the DEP in the management of Natural Resources Trustee activities
within the District. ,Twtn
• Voluntary agreements, to be approved by DEP, which would allow HMDC to act as the
lead agency in selected cleanup efforts, where appropriate, under the authority of the
State's site remediation oversight rules, to ensure statewide consistency.
• Development of Memoranda of Agreement with DEP to allow the HMDC to undertake
site investigations and remediation activities.
• Efforts to seek special legislation and/or amendments or attachments to existing laws may
be necessary if the participating agencies determine that an inter-agency MOU or an
MOA cannot meet the goals and objectives of this initiative.
Authority
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
• Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. through its consistency requirements and the
SAMP guidelines.
Additional Comments
• It should be noted that the list of funding sources is a "potential" list and is not intended
to be all inclusive. An overall EIP objective is to identify on a continual basis any
available funding.
• In the following cost summary it should be noted that the largest costs will probably be
incurred in the early stages of implementation (start up costs) and will decrease as initial
studies for baseline data are completed. A more accurate cost chart will be detailed upon
acceptance and implementation of the SAMP and the EIP.
• At this time, no determinations have been made with regard to assuming the responsibili-
ties of any other agency. However, we would suggest that consideration be given to
designating the HMDC as the Natural Resource Trustee or co-Trustee specifically for the
District.
25.
-------
Cost Chart
Capital Costs $ 20,000,000
Operations and Maintenance Costs
Staff @ $ 75,000/yr for 20 yrs. 1,500,000
Demonstration Project to establish
baseline conditions through a
District-wide sampling program 5,000,000
Creation of a revolving loan fund 2.000.000
$ 29,000,000
26.
-------
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Twenty-four years ago, the local environment we call the Hackensack Meadowlands stood poised
at the brink of destruction. This rare urban estuary is important not only on the local level, but
also from a regional, national and global perspective. It contains vital breeding and migration
habitat for hundreds of species of birds, fish, and other forms of wildlife. The health of this
environment depends upon the countless numbers of plants, invertebrates, and micro-organisms
which form the foundation of the ecosystem.
Despite the importance of the estuary to the quality of life and to the economy of the region, this
living natural resource had for years been the victim of assault by toxic chemicals, tidal barriers,
and an insatiable need for landfill space. The HMDC was created in 1969 to put a stop to this
onslaught and to foster planned, environmentally-sensitive growth for the region.
Throughout its history, the Commission has taken major steps to identify and protect the most
ecologically important wetland and non-wetland portions of the District and to promote an
awareness in the public of the benefits of open space and the preservation of environmentally-
sensitive areas.
Among the HMDC's first actions was halting the spread of landfills into wetlands. Since then,
the Commission has created Losen Slote Creek Park and Richard W. DeKorte Park, which
includes an eighty-acre managed wetlands impoundment, as well as tidal flats, upland habitat
restorations, and an environmental education center. The Commission also cooperates with DEP
in the management of the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area.
The Commission has taken the lead in initiating research and monitoring of the local ecosystem
and has produced numerous studies and inventories of local wildlife, plants, and ecological
interactions. It has published a comprehensive study of fishes of the lower Hackensack River,
conducted several plant and wildlife inventories, maintains a data bank of bird sightings in the
District, and continues to study techniques to manage abandoned landfills for increased wildlife
habitat values. The Commission also cooperates with a variety of government and educational
institutions on research and monitoring projects which affect not only the Meadowlands but also
the health of the entire trl-State area urban estuary.
However, no single, overriding Federal act exists to protect against habitat loss. A wide variety
of regulations exist at the Federal and State level which are aimed at habitat protection, and
several private organizations also have active land acquisition programs. This diversity of
approaches makes identification of clear goals and implementation of comprehensive
management plans nearly impossible unless a single, lead agency is designated to spearhead the
program. Since any land management initiative requires frequent site visits, a detailed
knowledge of local field conditions, and the participation and cooperation of residents and local
businesses, this responsibility can best be met at the regional planning level.
27.
-------
Major strides have been taken in recent years to broaden and improve coordination between the
HMDC and other government agencies charged with the responsibility of preserving natural
resources. This increased cooperation between many agencies, particularly the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), US Fish & Wildlife Service, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service, has resulted in improved protection for the ecosystem. It
has also paved the way for the establishment and implementation of a coordinated, comprehen-
sive, and effective management plan for our local environment during the tenure of our
stewardship.
The National Resource Management Program proposed in the following pages is intended to
improve the conservation, management, and regulation of the region's ecosystem, including
wetlands. This will be accomplished by more effectively integrating the activities of State and
Federal agencies with those of the Commission and by filling gaps in existing wetland and open
space conservation and management programs.
Short-term goals include the preservation of additional acreage of wetlands and important upland
habitats; the coordination of regulatory and enforcement mechanisms into one lead, local agency;
and establishment of a comprehensive development and management plan for the ecosystem.
This plan will be based upon sound principles of landscape ecology and habitat management,
while attempting to address current socioeconomic needs.
The HMDC is also in the process of attempting to establish and operate a wetlands mitigation
bank. This approach will enable the wetlands development and management plan to achieve the
White House Office of Environmental Policy goal "to assure replacement of unavoidable wetland
losses in advance of development actions, when compensatory mitigation is not appropriate,
practicable, or as environmentally beneficial at the development site."
Long-term goals include the enhancement, restoration, and management of the living natural
resources of the Meadowlands ecosystem, increasing its biological diversity, health, functioning,
and chances for survival for the benefit and appreciation of future generations.
28.
-------
natural resource management
Wetland Enhancement and Management
1. Description
HMDC will work with land owners and cooperating Federal and State agencies toward
securing the necessary funding, cooperation, and legislative changes necessary to effect
improved preservation, control, enhancement, management, and maintenance of wetlands
The EPA's Advanced Identification of Wetlands (AVID) identified approximately 8450 acres
of wetlands in the District. Of these, about 3400 (40%) acres are publicly-owned- while
5050 (60%) are in private or quasi-public ownership. While all wetlands and open waters
are currently regulated under State and Federal laws, this program will strengthen the
protection of approximately 4,183 acres of wetlands by bringing them under HMDC control.
Functions and values of degraded wetlands will be enhanced.
A regional development and wetlands management plan will be implemented to maximize
the diversity, functions, and habitat values of all protected wetlands and other aquatic
resources within the District. The EIP does not include wetlands enhancement/creation
required under Federal law to mitigate for impacts to wetlands (see Section 5.1.5 and
Appendix O of the EIS). However, the plan will seek to improve the effectiveness of this
mitigation through comprehensive watershed planning; mitigation banking; interagency
coordination; and improved monitoring, maintenance, and enforcement activities.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• Coordination and consolidation of control over the District's wetlands under the auspices
of a single, responsible, locally-based regulatory authority.
• Design and implementation of a unified, comprehensive development and management
plan for the wetland resources of the District which will result in greater habitat
diversity, water quality improvements, and net overall gains in wetland functions and
values.
• Management of the economic growth of the Hackensack Meadowlands in accordance
with the goal of protecting and restoring the living resources of the estuary.
• Establishment and operation of wetlands mitigation bank(s) to assure compensation for
losses of wetland values resulting from activities permitted by Federal and State
regulatory programs.
• Direction of development pressure away from wetlands through implementation of
Transferable Development Rights (TDR) programs, etc.
• Promotion of a better understanding of the ecosystems which comprise the Meadowlands
and a greater appreciation of their important links to human activities and welfare.
• Preservation of at least 1,150 acres of wetlands to be protected by Marshland
Preservation zoning.
• Preservation of at least 770 acres to be protected through open space requirements per
Zoning Regulation.
• Preservation of at least 1,500 acres to be protected through lot coverage/FAR restrictions
per Zoning Regulation.
29.
-------
• Preservation of 500 acres of privately-owned wetlands while compensating owners for
loss of development rights, (see Additional Comments section).
• Public acquisition and/or control over 250 acres of privately-owned wetlands.
• Utilization of funds available through Federal and State programs to establish wetland
mitigation banks and to perform other wetland enhancement projects.
• Management of wetland and open water impoundments for wildlife and aquatic resource
values.
• Establishment of ongoing research and monitoring plans to evaluate both the baseline
status and ongoing success of wetland enhancement and management plans; including
monitoring of the success of wetland mitigation sites mandated by Federal and/or State
permits by a single, local entity.
• Monitoring the baseline status and future trends of species using wetland habitats.
• Initiation of research on functions and values of wetlands in existing and enhanced states
and on wetland restoration techniques and management practices.
• Coordination of local ecosystem research activities and maintenance of a regional
environmental data bank.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
$141,050,000 to be used to obtain control of wetlands, acquisition of development rights
within wetlands, enhancement and monitoring of wetland values and functions.
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
$12,240,000, which includes research and monitoring of wetlands values and functions.
c. Potential Funding Sources
Compensatory mitigation will also be required for transportation or development projects
which impact wetlands (see Section 5.1.5 and Appendix O of the EIS). The costs and
funding associated with these wetland enhancement/creation efforts are not included in
this document.
Private:
• Environmental Linkage Fees and Assessment Fees on Development.
• Monetary contributions collected through Federal and State agencies for wetlands
mitigation projects associated with approved projects, in lieu of on-site mitigation
activities for out-of-District development.
• Private funding generated through the purchase of development rights of wetland
property owners and/or special assessment fees.
Public:
• Grants available from Federal and State programs, including:
• Water Resources Development Act, 33 U.S.C.
• Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C., Section 309
• Water Resources Research Act, 42 U.S.C.
30.
-------
• Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
• Environmental Aid Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1H-1 et seq.
• N.J, Green Acres Land Acquisition and Recreation Opportunities Act, N.J.S.A.
13:8A-35.
d. Schedule
• Wetlands Preservation and Control - 20 years
• Comprehensive Management Plan
• Design - 1993-1994
• Implementation - 1994-2013
• Mitigation Bank
• Site control 1994
• Implementation Plan 1994
~ Implementation - beginning 1995; additional phases as needed
• Available for contribution for a period of 20 years, or until the credits are
exhausted.
• On-Site Mitigation Activities
• Initiated upon granting of individual Federal and State approvals. Estimated start-
up 1993.
• Estimated completion 2003.
• Impoundment Management
» Limited Plans already in progress. Expansion and continuance of plans for a
period of at least 20 years.
• Wetland Research
• Limited Plans already in progress. See above.
• Monitoring of Species
• Limited Plans already in progress. See above.
• Monitoring/Maintenance/Research/Administration of wetland enhancement activities
• Limited Plans already in progress. See above.
4. Research/Monitoring
• Baseline and ongoing monitoring to be performed by HMDC staff, with technical and
financial support from other agencies and organizations.
• Monitoring of wetland enhancement areas by HMDC staff.
• Research by HMDC staff, in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies and
educational institutions.
• Coordination of research, maintenance of regional environmental data bank provided by
HMDC staff.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
• Design and Construction Documents: HMDC staff with technical assistance from other
government agencies and universities and private consultants
• Construction Installation: Public contracts awarded to lowest qualified bidder(s)
• Maintenance: HMDC staff; property owners.
31.
-------
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• Establishment of requirements for implementation and monitoring of mitigation activities
as a condition of compliance with individual permits and water quality certifications
issued for projects which are consistent with the SAMP and/or which satisfy alternatives
analyses required under Section 404 guidelines of the Clean Water Act.
• Memorandum of Understanding between the HMDC and State/Federal partners
authorizing HMDC to assume control over the establishment of mitigation bank(s) within
the District to satisfy the mitigation requirements imposed by Federal and State regulatory
authorities for approved, unavoidable impacts to wetlands located within the District.
• Approval of HMDC wetland mitigation bank site(s) and implementation plan(s).
• Issuance of monetary grants from various programs for site control, wetland enhance-
ment, research, monitoring and maintenance activities.
• Development of Memoranda of Understanding, or use of an Environmental Subcode, to
establish the HMDC as the lead agency in the review and issuance of Waterfront
Development and Stream Encroachment Permits, Water Quality Certificates, and Coastal
Zone Management Consistency Determinations.
• DEP's Bureau of Forest Management has offered to become involved in the following
areas and activities:
• HMDC education programs.
• Research projects involving Atlantic White Cedar swamps.
7. Authority
• N.J.S. A. 13:17-1 et seq. authorizes the HMDC to preserve an ecological balance between
natural and open areas and development and to provide for a comprehensive treatment
of the ecological factors constituting the delicate environmental balance of the
Meadow lands.
• The New Jersey Coastal Zone Management Rules authorizes the HMDC to act as the lead
Coastal Zone Management Authority of the Meadowlands District.
• HMDC Zoning Regulations N.J.A.C. 19:4 defines the open space requirements for
various District zones.
• HMDC Zoning Regulations (19:4 Subchapters 5-7) establishes guidelines for wetland
preservation areas within specially planned areas.
• HMDC may need to acquire new legislation to enable the transfer of development rights
program to occur and new regulations to administer the program.
• HMDC Bonding Powers.
• HMDC and/or NJ .State Power of Eminent Domain.
• The Water Resources Development Act, 33 U.S.C. § 2212, 2213
• The Clean Water Act, specifically Section 404, requires replacement of wetland values
impacted as the result of development activities, 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
• The White House Office on Environmental Policy, in its position paper issued 24 Auigust
1993, advocates partnerships between Federal, State, and local governments to establish
regulatory programs which are efficient, fair, flexible, and predictable, and which provide
effective protection for wetlands while avoiding unnecessary impacts upon private
property
• USEPA and Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letter 93-2 concludes that
wetland mitigation banks hav* several advantages over individual mitigation projects and
references their use as pan of a Special Area Management Plan.
32.
-------
• Section 13(a-c) of New Jersey's Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1
et seq.) requires NJDEP to ensure the replacement of wetland values lost to development
outside the District and authorizes off-site wetland mitigation activities and contributions
to a Wetlands Mitigation Bank. While the Meadowlands District is exempt from the Act,
nothing in the Act prevents mitigation required by the Act from being implemented within
the Meadowlands District.
• HMDC Regulations will need review to determine if an amendment is needed to the open
space requirements in cases where wetlands are to be protected on parcels which are
partially developed.
• HMDC does not presently have regulations to directly require wetlands enhancement and
mitigation. A revision of Subchapter 7 of the HMDC District Zoning Regulations and/or
legislative changes may be necessary.
8. Additional Comments
Through implementation of the EIP and the SAMP, HMDC will be able to plan, implement
and enforce a comprehensive wetland enhancement and management program funded by a
variety of private and public sources. This will fill gaps in the piecemeal approach to
wetland enhancement and management currently applied by Federal and State agencies.
Total Transfer of Development Rights acreage may range between 500 and 775 acres, based
on the TDR analysis as presented in Appendix III.
33.
-------
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Remnant Habitat Enhancement and Management
1. Description
To preserve, enhance and manage "remnant" plant and animal habitats within the District
which are threatened. These habitats require immediate environmental management and
long-term monitoring. The "remnant" habitats consist of large, as well as "pockets" tracts
of land, which include many upland tracts not protected under the Clean Water Act or other
Federal/State regulations. These would include but not be limited to: Laurel Hill, Secaucus
(20 acres); Teterboro Woodlands, Teterboro (60 acres); Losen Slote Creek Park - Phase III,
Little Ferry (60 acres). Typical habitats found within these areas include: coastal-plain
forests, native grasslands meadows, and fresh water ponds. The current "non-management
mode" particularly over shadowed by the threat of growing vandalism, could potentially
threaten these limited habitats that function as precious havens for an abundance of wildlife,
both birds and small mammals. Typical enhancement efforts could 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 within the designated project site. HMDC has expertise with past
habitat enhancement, including the design, the management and the monitoring responsibili-
ties associated with this effort.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• Preservation, enhancement and management over 225 acres of "remnant" habitats,
which, if left in their current status, could become degraded, impacting wildlife
utilization and diversity of the entire District.
• Design and implementation of comprehensive enhancement and management plans for
the remnant resources of the District, which will result in greater habitat (plant and
animal) diversity and net overall wildlife utilization of the District.
• Delineation of "target" lands within the District in need of enhancement and restoration,
particularly, those areas serving endangered/threatened plant and animal species.
• Development of state-of-the-art environmental educational opportunities within these
lands for District and State residents.
• Coordination of enhancement recommendations/activities with State, County, and Local
agencies; i.e.: (1) NJ Audubon Society; (2) NJDEP; (3) Bureau of Forestry and U.S.
Soil Conservation. Service; (4) State Extension Services, etc.; (5) Bergen County
Audubon Society, and (6) Not-For-Profit Foundations (i.e., Nature Conservancy, NJ
Conservation Foundation, etc.).
• Enlistment of support both from the public and private interests for financial/profes-
sional/volunteer participation for habitat enhancement projects.
• Enhanced animal/plant diversity and resultant wildlife utilization of the District.
• Long-term security of these unique regional site features/habitats; short-term benefit of
halting the senseless vandalism.
• Coordination of research activities and maintenance of a regional environmental data
bank on a GIS-based system.
• Monitoring the status and frx.'.s of wildlife species utilizing these habitats.
• Conduct research on functions of lands in existing and "enhanced" states, and on
34.
-------
restoration techniques and management practices.
• Improved ability of HMDC to meet its legislative mandates for protecting the natural
resources, and improvement of the environmental health of the District.
• Development of a pro-active public/private relationship within the District and
coordinated efforts to create solutions.
• Provide site specific general public/school education opportunities.
• Provide public access to the Hackensack River shoreline and river (Laurel Hill Enhance-
ment Project).
Implementation
a. Capital Costs
$55,000
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
• Operations costs to cover HMDC staffing requirements: $1,200,000 (permanent and
summer interns).
• Maintenance costs shared by County and Private Interests (dependent upon specific
project location). No direct HMDC maintenance costs anticipated.
c. Potential Funding Sources
• HMDC Environmental Initiative Bond
• Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
• NJ Dept. of Transportation - Transportation Enhancement Program (ISTEA)
• N.J. Green Acres Land Acquisition and Recreation Opportunities Act, N.J.S.A.
13:8A-35.
• Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C.
• Aid for Urban Environmental Concerns Act, N.J.S.A. 13:lH-8 et seq.
• US Dept. of Interior - Urban Park & Recreation Recovery Program
• NJ Duck Stamp
• Ducks Unlimited
• Investigate and pursue funds listed in the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
• Identify and pursue appropriate private funding
• Labor contributions by civic organizations
d. Schedule
• Design and Implementation: 1993 - 1996 (pending funding)
• Research: limited plans in progress
• Monitoring/Maintenance: limited plans in progress
Research/Monitoring
• Baseline monitoring to be performed by HMDC staff, with technical and financial
support from other agencies and organizations
• Monitoring of habitat enhancement projects by HMDC staff.
• Coordination of research and maintenance of environmental data bank provided by
HMDC staff, to supplement DEP's Natural Heritage Data Bank.
35.
-------
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
• Once enhancement goals and objectives are collectively defined (with input from various
public and private organizations) for individual projects, HM-DC wiJJ assume leadership
for ail design and management decisions, with DEP oversight.
• Maintenance is a function of project ownership and can only be determined on a case by
case basis. The intent is for the individual property owner to assume all maintenance
responsibilities.
• Administration: HMDC staff
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• Acceptance by SAMP partners that this Initiative will be utilized by HMDC as part of
a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives of SAMP and to ensure
positive environmental gains for the District as required by the 1988 Memorandum of
Understanding.
• Development of MOA's between the HMDC and DEP to provide for the joint
management of threatened and endangered species, other species of concern, and their
habitats.
• DEP's Bureau of Forest Management has offered to become involved in the following
areas and activities:
• HMDC education programs.
• Urban forestry programs in the District.
• Inclusion of trees in habitat development activities.
• Beneficial impacts to air quality from trees.
7. Authority
Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A, 13:17-1 et seq.
8. Additional Comments
36.
-------
COST CHART
Operations &
Capital Costs* Maintenance
Protection & Enhancement $141,050,000 $12,240,000
of Wetlands
Protection of Remnant 55,000 1,200,000
Habitats
TOTALS $141,105,000 $13,440,000
* May include site acquisition, conservation easements, deed restrictions, and/or transfer of
development rights.
37.
-------
PARKS & RECREATION
INTRODUCTION
Prior to Commission involvement, only seven public parks existed within District boundaries,
representing just 24 acres of small neighborhood parks and school recreation areas in Little
Ferry, Moonachie, Ridgefield, and Secaucus. Since its inception, the HMDC has directed
substantial resources and planning in a program to expand public park and recreation
opportunities and preserve open space in the Meadowlands District. In the mid-1980's, the
Commission intensified its efforts with the help of a grant from the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Green Acres Program.
The Green Acres Grant provided the initial funding for the acquisition and improvements of
approximately 110 acres of property to create the nucleus of Richard W. DeKorte Park in
Lyndhurst. DeKorte Park is the focal point of the District park planning program and home of
the Commission offices. At the center of the park and on the shoreline of the Kingsland Tidal
Impoundment is the HMDC Environment Center, serving thousands of children in guided school
programs and casual visitors annually. 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 into 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.
More recently, the Commission augmented the Green Acres funding with the establishment of
the Environmental Initiatives Bond Fund Program. With project elements completed between
1991 and 1994, the Environmental Initiatives Bond Fund has provided the Commission with the
vehicle to broaden its regional park and recreation development program. Environmental
Initiatives funding has supplemented the Green Acres Program improvements at DeKorte Park
and funded, in their entirety, the Phase I and Phase II improvements at Losen Slote Creek Park
in Little Ferry. Phase I transformed deteriorated parking, basketball, and tennis court areas into
an official-sized roller blade/hockey rink, tot lot, and parking area. Phase II included the
preservation of remnant woodlands, additional plantings, and the construction of a nature trail
system and seating areas. HMDC bond funding will also be extended to municipal and county-
owned sites in Secaucus and Lyndhurst to complete projects that will be discussed in this
proposal. Thus, with project sites in Lyndhurst, Secaucus, and Little Ferry, the Commission
has expanded its park prdgram District-wide into both Hudson and Bergen Counties.
In the early 1980's, Snipes Park, a waterfront promenade and passive park in Secaucus, was also
developed as a collaborative effort. With land and original furnishings donated by a local
developer, the HMDC constructed other improvements with the help of a Federal grant from the
US Department of Interior Land and Water Conservation Fund. Snipes was also the first
District park area to be maintained with assistance from the local municipality, in this case, the
Town of Secaucus. Similarly, the Losen Slote Creek Park Phase I and II improvements are
maintained by the Town of Little Ferry. The HMDC is dedicated to expanding its capability
to maintain parks on Commission-owned properties and continuing negotiations with District
municipalities and counties for joiiu ventures in the area of park development, operation, and
38.
-------
maintenance.
The HMDC is now focusing its regional park planning efforts on a multi-level program to create
an urban oasis of wetlands, parks, and reclaimed/restored open space in the District. The
preservation of unique and remnant habitats is also a priority. The program will incorporate
innovative facility design with current State and Federal park and open space planning policies
and trends. For example, consideration has been given to open space preservation, water access,
the use of "greenways", adequate operation/maintenance funding, accessible facilities and
programs (to inner city, aging, and disabled populations), and the establishment of a public
conservation ethic through increased public/school programs and public relation campaigns.
The Hackensack River, its tributaries, estuaries, and associated wetlands constitute a unique and
complex ecosystem and the historic basis for the establishment of the Meadowlands District and
the HMDC as a regional planning agency. It is only fitting, therefore, that the river and its
related natural systems serve as the centerpiece of the District and the unifying theme in park
development. Projects described in this section intertwine with our centerpiece, providing river
viewsheds, boating opportunities, and trail access to areas of natural and historic significance.
The transformation of District landfills and degraded wetlands into park land has become a
priority issue for the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission - an issue that can
best be addressed by a regional planning agency. With the agency taking the lead role in the
implementation of the District-wide SAMP process, HMDC regional park planning efforts will
continue into the 21st Century. The coming years will see District communities, local
environmental commissions, volunteer organizations, corporations, concerned citizens, and State
agencies united in public/private partnerships that will serve to improve the environment for
people and wildlife expand regional recreation facilities and program opportunities, and (after
generations of abuse and neglect) revitalize the entire Hackensack River Basin.
In this proposal, current and future projects will be presented in four parts:
Conservation Areas - projects that essentially dedicate District open space for conservation and
recreation purposes. They are best described as "passive" as opposed to "active" recreation
areas but components that are traditionally considered to be active elements may be located
either within or adjacent to these sites if appropriate to the public need and conducive to the
overall park plan.
Conservation Areas- Laurel Hill Park in Secaucus, Teterboro Woodland Preserve in Moonachie,
BCUA Landfill End Use in Lyndhurst, and Losen Slote Creek Park Phase III in Little Ferry are
described in the Natural'Resource Management/Preservation and Restoration of "Remnant"
UDland Habitats Section of this document; Saw Mill Creek Wildlife Management Area in Kearny
is described in the Natural Resource Management/Wetland Enhancement and Management
Section.
Recreation Areas - an area dedicated entirely to sports activities - Lyndhurst Ballfields.
Trails - an urban trails system proposal spanning all major District land areas.
Environmental Art Park - non-traditional in both form and function, this park represents an
innovative end use in a landfill reclamation project.
39.
-------
PARKS & RECREATION
I. CONSERVATION AREAS
Projects that are dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of the District's "remnant"
plant and animal habitats. These habitats require immediate environmental management and
long-term monitoring. Typical habitats found within these areas include: coastal-plain
forests, native grasslands or meadows and fresh water ponds. Once stabilized, these habitats
will be maintained as permanent open spaces for conservation and recreation. These areas
will provide opportunities for "passive" recreation but components that are traditionally
considered to be "active" elements may be located within or adjacent to these sites. HMDC
reserves include: Losen Slote Creek Park, Little Feriy; Teterboro Woodland Reserve,
Teterboro/Moonachie; and Laurel Hill, Secaucus. Full descriptions of these projects can be
found in the Natural Resource Management section of this document, pages 31-33.
II. RECREATION AREAS
A. Laurel Hill Park - Secaucus, NJ
1. Description
This project involves the reclamation of a previously developed and quarried site.
The active recreational component of this "preservation" project entails the
development of a riverfront park, hiking trail, public boat launch and ballfields on
a geologically unique parcel of land owned by Hudson County. These facilities will
occupy 44 of the site's total 104.5 acres. Interagency collaboration and commitment
from HMDC, the County of Hudson and the NJDEP Green Acres Program was
required for the successful planning and design of this project. Preservation aspects
of this project are described in the Natural Resource Management section of this
document.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• Development of a shoreline park along the Hackensack River.
• Development of active recreational facilities.
• Development of a public boat launch on the Hackensack River
• Preservation of a unique geological feature and on-site wetlands.
• Helps county and municipality achieve open space goals.
• Provides public access to the Hackensack River per established State-wide goals.
• Provides much-needed opportunity for active recreation for Hudson County
residents (most urbanized county in New Jersey).
• Provide public access by boat to Saw MUl Creek Wildlife Management Area and
the Hackensack River.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Cost
$ 580,000 total (committed):
Boat Launch $250,000
130.000
Shoreline Park
Green Acres)
HMDC ) $ 380,000
HMDC 150,000
40.
-------
Laurel Hill Trails
HMDC
50,000
Ballfields (pending) Green Acres 1,000,000
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
All operations and maintenance costs to be absorbed by the Hudson Countv
Department of Parks & Recreation.
c. Potential Funding Sources
• HMDC Environmental Initiative Bond
• N.J. Green Acres Land Acquisition and Recreation Opportunities Act
N.J.S.A. 13:8A-35.
• Coastal Zone Management Act
• Aid For Urban Environmental Concerns Act, N.J.S.A. 13:lH-8 et seq
• US Department of Interior-Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
• Hackensack Meadowlands Conservancy
• Investigate and pursue funds listed in the Catalogue of Federal Domestic
Assistance
• Identify and pursue appropriate private foundations
• Labor contributions by civic organizations
d. Schedule (Riverside Park, Trails)
Design: Summer 1993
Construction Documents: Winter 1994
Construction: Fall 1994
Schedule (Ballfields)
Design: Summer 1993
Construction Documents: Winter 1994
Construction: Spring 1995
4. Research/Monitoring
Determine base-line data for flora and fauna. Periodic updates of data will be
incorporated into District-wide survey.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
Design and Construction Documents: HMDC staff
Construction/Installation: Contract awarded to lowest qualified bidder
Maintenance: County of Hudson
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• Joint processing of required State or Federal permits
• Acceptance by the SAMP partners that this initiative will be utilized by the
HMDC as part of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives
of the SAMP and to ensure positive environmental gains for the District as
required by the 1988 Memorandum of Understanding.
41.
-------
7. Authority
Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et
seq.
8. Additional comments
B. Lyndhurst Ballfields - Lyndhurst, NJ
1. Description
This project entails the creation of multi-use active recreational facility which
includes softball and soccer fields, a jogging trail and tennis courts on the site of a
former landfill. A management agreement with the Town of Lyndhurst allows
HMDC to preserve 440 acres of municipally-owned tidal mudflats in exchange for
capital improvements to this site.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• Design and build soccer fields, softball fields, tennis courts and a jogging trail.
• Preservation of 440 acres of tidal wetlands.
• Provides much needed field sport opportunities.
• Reclaims former landfill.
• Acts as an activity node and access point along Meadows Path.
• Maintains wildlife habitats and species diversity.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Cost
$360,000
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
Estimated $20,000 annually
c. Potential Funding Sources
• HMDC Environmental Initiative Bond and Town of Lyndhurst
• Aid For Urban Environmental Concerns Act, N.J.S.A. 13;lH-8 et seq.
• Investigate and pursue funds listed in the Catalogue of Federal Domestic
Assistance
• Identify,and pursue appropriate private foundations
• Labor contributions by civic organizations
d. Schedule
Preliminary Design: 1992-
Construction: Fall 1993
4. Research/Monitoring
Determine base-line data for flora and fauna. Periodic updates of data will be
incorporated into District-wide survey.
42.
-------
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
• Design and Contract Documents: Town of Lyndhurst
• Construction/Installation: Public Contract (Town of Lyndhurst)
• Maintenance: Town of Lyndhurst
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
Acceptance by the SAMP partners that this initiative will be utilized by the HMDC
as part of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives of the SAMP
and to ensure positive environmental gains for the District as required by the 1988
Memorandum of Understanding.
7. Authority
Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et
seq.
8. Additional comments
TRAILS
Meadows Path - Little Ferry, Carlstadt, East Rutherford, Lyndhurst, North
Arlington & Kearny, NJ
1. Description
An 11-mile pedestrian/bicycle urban trail on the western side of the Hackensack
River spanning the District north to south and connecting existing and proposed
wildlife and recreation areas. The creation of the Meadows Path will rely on the
merging of public and private interests. The trail's alignment is based on existing
dikes, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) service roads and
abandoned railroad corridors. Once complete, the Path will serve both public and
private interests by creating managed access to thousands of acres of parks and
wetlands in the Hackensack Meadowlands. The HMDC will coordinate the
development of the northern terminus of Meadows Path with the County of Bergen
and the Sierra Club, North Jersey Group, so as to provide a connecting link with the
County's Hackensack River Parkway trail project. As a result, Meadows Path will
become a part of a continuous pedestrian pathway stretching from the Oradell
Reservoir in Bergen County to the Kearny Marsh in Hudson County.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• Develop a pedestrian/bicycle trail along the western bank of the Hackensack
River.
• Provide connection between significant wildlife and recreation areas.
• Provides public access to the Hackensack River.
• Linkage of significant wildlife and recreation areas.
• Reclamation of derelict and abandoned railroad corridors.
• Creation of a project for public/private collaboration.
43.
-------
3. Implementation
a. Capital Cost
$500,000
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
Estimated $20,000 annually
Investigate option of Transco assuming responsibility.
c. Potential Funding Sources
• NJ Dept. of Transportation - Transportation Enhancement Program (ISTEA)
• American Hiking Association
• Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
• Bergen County Utilities Authority
• NJ Turnpike Authority
• N.J. Green Acres Land Acquisition and Recreation Opportunities Act,
N.J.S.A. 13:8A-35.
• Aid For Urban Environmental Concerns Act, N.J.S.A. 13:lH-8 et seq.
• Investigate and pursue funds listed in the Catalogue of Federal Domestic
Assistance
• Identify and pursue appropriate private foundations
• Labor contributions by civic organizations
d. Schedule
Preliminary Design: 1992
Construction: Spring 1994 (target trail links)
4. Research/Monitoring
Determine base-line data for flora and fauna. Periodic updates of data will be
incorporated into district-wide survey.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
Design and Contract Documents: HMDC Staff
Construction/Installation: Public contract (HMDC); Private
Maintenance: Public contract (HMDC); Private
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• Joint processing of necessary permits
• Acceptance by the SAMP partners that this initiative will be utilized by the
HMDC as part of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives
of the SAMP and to ensure positive environmental gains for the District as
required by the 1988 Memorandum of Understanding.
7. Authority
Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et
seq.
44.
-------
8. Additional comments
Trail requires cooperation of private property owners as well as local municipalities,
the NJ Turnpike Authority, and NJ Transit.
B. Hackensack River Urban Promenade - Secaucus, NJ
1. Description
A five mile urban pedestrian/bicycle promenade along the eastern bank of the
Hackensack River terminating at the proposed Hudson County Park at Laurel Hill.
The project would serve as a collaborative venture involving private property owners,
public transportation authorities, the County of Hudson, Town of Secaucus and
HMDC.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• Develop a continuous pedestrian trail linking Secaucus' retail, office, commercial
and residential districts with open space/recreational areas.
• Provides public access to the Hackensack River.
• Provides passive recreational opportunities for neighboring resident and office
populations.
• Provides a vehicle for public/private collaboration.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Cost
$500,000
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
All operations and maintenance costs absorbed by individual private property
owners.
c. Potential Funding Sources
• NJ Dept. of Transportation - Transportation Enhancement Program (ISTEA)
• American Hiking Association
• N.J. Green Acres Land Acquisition and Recreation Opportunities Act,
N.J.S.A. 13:8A-35.
• Aid For Urban Environmental Concerns Act, N.J.S.A. 13:lH-8 et seq.
• Investigate and pursue funds listed in the Catalogue of Federal Domestic
Assistance
• Identify and pursue appropriate private foundations
• Labor contributions by civic organizations
d. Schedule
Preliminary Design: 1993
Construction: Summer 1994 (target trail sections)
4. Research/Monitoring
Determine base-line data for flora and fauna. Periodic updates of data will be
incorporated into District-wide survey.
45.
-------
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
Design and Contract Documents: HMDC staff
Construction/Installation: Public Contract (HMDC)
Maintenance: Private Property Owners/Town of Secaucus
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• Acceptance by the SAMP partners that this initiative will be utilized by the
HMDC as part of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives
of the SAMP and to ensure positive environmental gains for the District as
required by the 1988 Memorandum of Understanding.
• Joint processing of necessary permits.
7. Authority
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1
et seq.
8. Additional comments
Greenway requires use access agreement with thirteen (13) different property owners.
Conceptual project approved by majority of property owners.
C. North Bergen Trail and Recreation Area - North Bergen, NJ
1. Description
Utilizing a PSE&G right-of-way, the proposed project creates a two-mile pedestrian
trail, with intermittent seating areas, through a heavily industrialized zone. A small
municipally-owned park (proposed) would be the northern terminus for the pedestrian
trail, which would then traverse private property and end at the Harmon Meadows
Plaza Complex, the trail's southern anchor.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• Develop a pedestrian trail with intermittent seating areas, through a heavily
industrialized zone of North Bergen.
• Provides lunch-time recreational opportunities (picnicking, strolling, pick-up ball)
for area workers.
• Provides a walking connection from work areas to a park space.
• Provides a.much-needed trail serving the highly industrialized northeast quadrant
of the District.
• Provides a vehicle for public/private collaboration.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
$300,000
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
All operations and maintenance costs absorbed by the Town of North Bergen
46.
-------
c. Potential Funding Sources
• NJ Dept. of Transportation - Transportation Enhancement Program (ISTEA)
• American Hiking Association
• US Department of Interior-Urban Park Recreation and Recovery Program
• Aid For Urban Environmental Concerns Act, N.J.S.A. 13:lH-8 et seq.
• Investigate and pursue funds listed in the Catalogue of Federal Domestic
Assistance
• Identify and pursue appropriate private foundations
• Labor contributions by civic organizations
d. Schedule
Preliminary Design: 1993
Construction: 1994
4. Research/Monitoring
Determine base-line data for flora and fauna. Periodic updates of data will be
incorporated into district-wide survey.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
Design and Contract Documents: HMDC staff
Construction/Installation: Public contract (HMDC)
Maintenance: Town of North Bergen and Private Property Owners
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
Acceptance by the SAMP partners that this initiative will be utilized by the HMDC
as part of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives of the SAMP
and to ensure positive environmental gains for the District as required by the 1988
Memorandum of Understanding.
7. Authority
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1
et seq.
8. Additional comments
Use access agreements need to be negotiated prior to project execution.
47.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ART PARK
Sky Mound - Landfill to Art Work Park - Kearny, NJ
1. Description
Sky Mound is a 57-acre landfill project which will transform the functional aspects
of landfill closure; i.e., methane recovery wells, and a water drainage system into
a sky observatory and walk-through work of art.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• Install state-of-the-art landfill closure improvements.
• Establish collaboration between environmental artists and HMDC.
• Provide compatible grassland/meadow habitat with freshwater manmade pond.
• Provides public access to contemporary art in a public setting.
• Provides environmental education opportunities.
• Enhances the image of the Meadowlands District.
• Provides wildlife habitat through compatible landfill reclamation.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
$500,000
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
All operations and maintenance costs absorbed by HMDC and State post-closure
monies.
c. Potential Funding Sources
• National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
• NJ State Council on the Arts
• N.J. Green Acres Land Acquisition and Recreation Opportunities Act,
N.J.S.A. 13:8A-35.
• Future HMDC Bond Programs and Private Donations
• Aid For Urban Environmental Concerns Act, N.J.S.A. 13:lH-8 et seq.
• Investigate and pursue funds listed in the Catalogue of Federal Domestic
Assistance
• Identify and pursue appropriate private foundations
• Labor contributions by civic organizations
d. Schedule
Preliminary Design: 1985
Initial Construction: 1989
Resume Construction: 1997 (depends on landfill settlement)
4. Research/Monitoring
Determine base-line data for flora and fauna. Periodic updates of data will be
incorporated into district-wide survey.
48.
-------
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
Conceptual Design: Nancy Holt, Artist
Contract Documents: HMDC staff
Construction/Installation: Public contract (HMDC)
Maintenance: HMDC staff
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
Acceptance by the SAMP partners that this initiative will be utilized by the HMDC
as part of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives of the SAMP
and to ensure positive environmental gains for the District as required by the 1988
Memorandum of Understanding.
7. Authority
Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et
seq.
8. Additional comments
49.
-------
PARKS & RECREATION
SUMMARY
I. CONSERVATION AREAS
Conservation Areas: Laurel Hill Park in Secaucus, Teterboro Woodland Preserve in Moonachie,
and Losen Slote Creek Park Phase III in Little Ferry are described in the Natural Resource
Management/ Preservation and Restoration of "Remnant" Habitats Section of this document.
Project and budget details are outlined in those document sections.
Funding Source Estimated Cost Year
II. RECREATION AREAS
A. Lyndhurst Ballfields
Lyndhurst, NJ HMDC $ 360.000 1993
TOTAL - "RECREATION AREAS" PROJECTS $ 360.000
III. TRAILS
A. Meadows Path - Little Ferry,
South Hackensack, Carlstadt,
East Rutherford, Lyndhurst,
North Arlington & Kearny, NJ
B. Hackensack River Urban
Promenade, Secaucus, NJ
NJDOT/ISTEA;
Amer. Hiking Assoc.;
Transco; BCUA; NJ
Turnpike Auth.;
NJDEP; Private
Property Owners
NJDOT/ISTEA;
Amer. Hiking Assoc.;
NJDEP
$ 500,000
1994 +
500,000
1994+
C. North Bergen Trail &
Recreation Area
North Bergen, NJ
NJDOT/ISTEA;
Amer. Hiking Assoc.;
NJDEP; UPARR-USDOI
300.000
1994+
TOTAL - "TRAILS" PROJECTS
$ 1,300,000
50.
-------
Funding Source
Estimated Tncf Year
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ART PARK
A. Sky Mound, Kearny, NJ Nat. End. for the $ 500.000 1994 +
Arts; NJ State
Council on the Arts;
HMDC; NJDEP;
Private Donations
TOTAL - "ENVIRONMENTAL ART
PARK" PROJECT $ 500.000
GRAND TOTAL - PROPOSED HMDC PARKS
& RECREATION PROJECTS $ 2.160.000
NOTE: An additional $2,247,000 was spent on HMDC Parks & Recreation Projects completed between
1983 and 1992 (see Introduction for project descriptions); brings the combined total of completed and
proposed HMDC Parks & Recreation Projects to $4,407,000.
51.
-------
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
With the advent of the recently enacted Clean Air Act Amendments and the designation of the
region as a non-attainment area for ozone, HMDC has taken some initial steps to allow for the
implementation of specific measures designed to reduce air pollution through congestion
management.
Mobile source pollutants are the cause of approximately half of the ozone found in the region.
Much of the remainder is the result of activities taking place outside the region. Consequently,
mobile source pollutants have significant impacts in the region and include carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide (C02) and hydrocarbons (HC, an ozone
precursor).
Transportation improvements and transportation-related measures will constitute a major source
of mitigation for mobile sources of pollutants. These measures are extensive and are to be
implemented by both governmental agencies as well as private sector industries.
HMDC, over the past two decades, has taken the lead in the implementation of localized
highway and transit improvements as part of its mandate of managing growth. These
improvements totalled over $60 million and have greatly benefitted local traffic. The past and
present record is an indicator of HMDC's ability to implement many transportation measures
now required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 and which are listed in section 108 of
this Act.
With regard to larger and costlier projects, HMDC has always pursued a role of catalyst in the
region, that of an agency which spearheads debates and actions on a variety of projects (i.e.:
Route 120 relocation, Route 3 improvements, Secaucus Transfer improvements, Route 17
extension, Route 1&9 overpasses, Sports Complex/Bergen line rail station, Light Rail Transit
through North Bergen...), and whose recommendations become an integral part of projects
development in the District and region.
To maintain this position as a leader in the region, HMDC has updated its transportation plan
which includes all necessary improvements for the region to maintain a responsive infrastructure.
The Plan was prepared in 1990 using a 1988 extensive employer/employee survey and is based
on the analysis of two scenarios: a full buildout and a growth center scenario based on the land
use assumptions made in the proposed Master Plan growth centers alternatives. It is the second
scenario which is the basis for the plan recommendations as outlined for the most part in the EIS
MODEL. This model refers to the transportation model used by CDM during the preparation
of the EIS for the Master Plan/SAMP. These plans include both short- and long-range
improvements designed in a cooperative forum between State agencies, necessary to fulfill
today's needs and tomorrow's demand for infrastructure in the District.
To this end and using newly established funding from the Intermodal Surface Transportation
and Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), much of the transit and highway needs will be met while
52.
-------
helping the District comply with the standards for improved air quality in the District.
Commitments thus far indicate that approximately $700 million have already been earmarked
for projects in the District including the Secaucus Transfer project, Route 3, Route 1&9 bridges,
Newark/Jersey City Turnpike, while another $400 million worth of projects are in various
planning stages.
Most improvements proposed in the transportation plan are projects falling under the jurisdiction
of NJDOT, NJ Turnpike Authority, NJ Transit, and Bergen and Hudson Counties. These
agencies' Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP's) include many of the projects listed in
the HMDC plan. SIP/TIP requirements are mandated as part of an annual conformity
commitment supervised by the NJTPA, the northern New Jersey Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO). All agencies submitting a TIP to the MPO must ensure conformity
between TIP and SIP as part of the annual process of preparing the TIP. Other HMDC projects
have been included in HMDC's submittals to the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
(NJTPA), as part of the air quality planning process overseen by the Regional Transportation
Air Quality Planning Organization (RTAQPO). HMDC's inclusion in the RTAQPO process
commits it to preparing a listing of projects designed to help improve air quality on an annual
basis.
HMDC's goal is also to continue to pursue the funding and implementation of major projects
in the District in order to improve the levels of service on all major highways, to pursue
improved transit services in areas with high concentrations of employees, and to provide the
mechanisms necessary to foster the measures required to achieve the Clean Air mandates by
providing improvements and assistance "at the source." Most of the benefits to be derived from
measures other than the highly capital intensive projects will be achieved through Transportation
Demand Management measures implemented at the employer/commuter level.
Transportation Demand Management activities involve a wide spectrum of measures designed
to either reduce congestion levels, increase levels of occupancy in passenger vehicles, improve
the utilization of transit services, spread out the peak travelling period to lessen travel during
a concentrated window in the morning and evening hours, and improve travel time. Such
measures range from traffic signal optimization and synchronization to telecommuting policies
and include such activities as guaranteed ride home programs, van pools, car pools, subscription
and charter bus services, parking pricing and management, compressed work week, flexible
work hours, toll pricing, and a number of variations on the above. One of the mechanisms that
is recommended and employed in the Clean Air Act is the requirement that employers of 100
or more employees be required to implement those measures suitable to their particular situations
and adequate enough to reach prescribed targets in vehicle occupancy.
In 1983, HMDC, along with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Meadowlands
Chamber of Commerce, the NJ Turnpike Authority, and the NJ Sports and Exposition Authority,
created Meadowlink as a private, non-profit transportation brokerage. HMDC has since
provided financial and technical support to Meadowlink. At this juncture, HMDC's role can
increase greatly in terms of participation in the activities that have characterized Meadowlink in
recent years. Priority should be given to continued support of the agency and pursuit of funding
for activities to be undertaken by both agencies in the area of TDM.
53.
-------
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 established a series of deadlines from 1994 to 1996.
By 1994, employers of 100 or more employees will be required to submit a Transportation
Demand Management Plan (Compliance Plan) indicating how employers intend to increase
Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) by 25%. In 1996, monitoring of these plans will begin and
penalties imposed on those not in compliance.
Additionally, methane gases are emitted by the numerous abandoned landfills in the District.
Solid waste has been dumped within the Meadowlands for over 150 years. Begun as open
dumps, operations were conducted without environmental controls as an inexpensive means to
fill wetlands, which were thought to be unproductive or useless land. Only since the 1960's has
the way that landfills are constructed and operated dramatically changed. Sanitary landfills are
now engineered to reduce the nuisance and environmental problems that plagued the open dumps
of years ago, including landfill gas controls. The HMDC inherited a large number of these
former open dumps and has taken steps to remediate these sites and maintain them for a
minimum 30 year post-closure period.
There are approximately 1000 acres of landfills within the District that have a substantial volume
of solid waste. Of that acreage, 400 acres have landfill gas recovery operations. Another 400
acres are scheduled for gas recovery within the next 18-24 months.
The sites with the largest volume of solid waste would generate the most landfill gas. These
would be the HMDC 1-C and Balefill sites, followed by the Bergen County/ Kingsland landfill,
the MSLA 1-D landfill, HMDC 1-A landfill, Malanka landfills, and the Avon/Viola and Erie
landfill sites.
Landfill gas recovery operations began in the District in 1989 at the HMDC 1-C, HMDC 1-A,
and MSLA 1-D (owned by the Town of Kearny) landfills. This combined operation blends low-
BTU landfill gas with a high-BTU gas from a major energy producer, which is then piped
directly into the PSE&G network. Estimates are that these gas recovery operations provide the
gas needs for over 10,000 households.
Operations are anticipated to begin in 1994 on the HMDC Balefill and Bergen County/
Kingsland landfill sites. It is expected that these two sites will produce at least the same amount
of methane when compared to the sites already in operation.
The Malanka, Erie and Avon/Viola landfills are abandoned landfill sites. This means that the
sites currently have no closure improvements, and no money has been allocated for closure
improvements, which would include landfill gas recovery. The Malanka Landfill and Erie
Landfills are privately owned, as is a portion of the Avon/Viola site. (The remainder of the
Avon/Viola landfill is owned by the State of New Jersey DEP.) Since these sites present a long-
term threat from landfill gas emissions, they would have the greatest need for involvement from
non-traditional funding sources for gas control/utilization.
54.
-------
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
Gas Recovery from Landfills
1. Description
Landfill gas recovery is considered an integral part of landfill design, operation, closure and
remediation from both the Federal and State perspective. Landfill gas, which is an
approximately 50/50 mix of carbon dioxide and methane, can be explosive under certain
conditions, contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer, and causes "root kill" of
vegetation'on landfills and in their vicinity. The District is within a non-attainment area for
ozone requiring that landfill gas emissions be controlled. This by-product of decomposition
is also the major component of natural gas and can be collected and piped to utility
customers or used to generate electricity.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• To control and utilize the gas byproducts of solid waste decomposition at landfills within
the District.
• The control of gases, coupled with capping the landfill, will also reduce the odors
emanating from the landfills.
• Reduce the effects of methane that contribute to "root kill" of plants on and in the
vicinity of the landfill.
• Reduce pollutant loading from landfill runoff through increased plant coverage.
• Potentially provide a source of revenue to the owner through sale of the energy generated
through landfill gas recovery.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
The capital and operating cost for landfill gas recovery operations will depend on the
exhaust well configuration, type of processing plant, type of processing, etc. The
operators' technology could include sale of high, medium, or low-BTU gas, or
conversion to electricity. Costs to date noted in the Appendix have been borne by the
developer, with royalties paid to the property owner.
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
The operations and maintenance costs are also borne by the gas recovery contractor.
The existing contracts that the HMDC has with the operator for the 1-A, 1-C, Baler and
Bergen County landfills specifies that the operator dismantle all wells and piping and
restore the landfill cap pursuant to the approved site plans. Contract terms vary, but
operations will continue to recover landfill gas until it is no longer commercially viable
and when gas emissions are below acceptable regulatory levels.
c.
Potential Funding Sources
Only the abandoned landfills that do not have closure or post-closure money allocated
could require some form of funding. That funding could come from a variety of
sources. However, the allocation of funds, such as the Spill Fund or Landfill Closure
Taxes Fund administered by the DEP, is questionable since these sites are most likely
55.
-------
not as severe a pollution problem as other landfills in the State,
d. Schedule
• Gas recovery at the HMDC Balefill and Bergen County/Kingsland site could
commence as early as 1994 (Balefill) and 1996 (Bergen County/Kingsland).
• As noted, since the abandoned landfills have no means of financial support for gas
recovery operations, no schedule is available.
4. Research/Monitoring
The HMDC, in conjunction with Princeton University, conducted a detailed study of the air
quality on our landfill sites. This study revealed that the air quality was essentially the same
as that in the residential areas one-half mile from the landfill boundary.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
See solid waste section
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
A commitment would be required to evaluate the abondoned landfills for closure improve-
ments that would include landfill gas recovery.
7. Authority
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
• Solid Waste Management Act, N.J.S.A. 13:E-1 et.seq.
• Federal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria, 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258.
• Amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 (not yet finalized).
• N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.2al6 (emissions from solid waste facilities).
• N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.6 (organic compound emissions)
8. Additional comments
56.
-------
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
HMDC Transportation Demand Management: Employee Certification
1. Description
This project will allow HMDC to carry out one of the mechanisms necessary to
implement the employer requirements of the New Jersey Transportation Congestion and
Air Pollution Control Act of 1992 and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 (CAAA
of 1991) requiring employers of 100 employees or more to prepare Transportation
Demand Management plans and recommend Transportation Control Measures (TCM's).
HMDC will provide technical assistance and monitor the implementation of Employee
Commute Option plans for affected area employers and their progress toward reaching
the goals and targets of the CAAA.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• To reduce the Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT's) in the region thereby lessening
congestion and reducing CO & HC emissions from mobile sources.
• To increase Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) by at least 25% in order to reduce
the number of vehicles travelling during peak travel hours.
• To ensure employer participation in meeting Clean Air mandates
• To ensure HMDC's involvement in the identification and selection of appropriate
measures to be implemented by the public and private sector in the District.
• To ensure improvement to the quality of the air in and around the District.
• To ensure, through proper control measures, a progressive reduction in the congestion
index and improve the travel time for the travelling public.
• To help reduce energy consumption.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
None anticipated.
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
• Initial setup and management - $500,000 based on number of employers in the
District and time per review
c. Potential Funding Sources
• Funding from NJDOT under the ISTEA Congestion Management funding program.
d. Schedule
• Program anticipated to begin - July of 1993 when the regulations for the Congestion
and Air Pollution Control Act are issued by NJDOT.
• Each employer transportation program - updated biannually.
57.
-------
4. Research/Monitoring
• Section 108 of the Clean Air Act Amendments indicates that there must be convincing
evidence that the proposed control measures associated with employer program will yield
the desired effect and meet the requirements. HMDC's research activities, in
cooperation with NJIT, have resulted in the development of new surveying and
monitoring techniques. These techniques are continuously being tested in and around the
District to analyze behavioral choices in the field of transportation.
• Monitoring activities will verify the accuracy of the plans' assumptions and whether the
employer has reached the prescribed targets.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
• A combination of existing and new staff at HMDC will carry out this task.
• Funding secured through the congestion management program and/or filing fees will be
used for this purpose.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
Acceptance by the SAMP partners that this initiative will be utilized by the HMDC as part
of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives of the SAMP and to ensure
positive environmental gains for the District as required by the 1988 Memorandum of
Understanding.
7. Authority
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
• New Jersey Congestion and Air Pollution Control Act.
8. Additional Comments
58.
-------
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
HMDC Transportation Demand Management: Parking Management
1. Description .
The influx of vehicles into and through the District has put a burden on District roads and
parking facilities. This project will add to the stock of park and ride facilities in the District,
which are presently inadequate, and will provide for a program of intercept park and rides
at oreselected sites in the District. First, HMDC will evaluate sites, then will proceed with
the implementation of the program with appropriate State agencies.
Additionally, proposed development in the District will be evaluated for its potential for park
and ride facility sites and, under its regulatory powers, HMDC can, if necessary, require
that such an improvement be made a part of the development plan.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• To intercept traffic going through the District, thereby reducing vehicular travel on the
District main arteries.
• To facilitate and encourage the mode of travel change by allowing auto users to switch
to public transit service available at certain park and ride sites.
• Improvement to the quality of the air in and around the District.
• To reduce VMT's in the District and region, thereby lessening congestion and reducing
CO and HC emissions from mobile sources.
• To help reduce vehicle miles travelled and the number of vehicles travelling in the
District and the region.
• To represent a transportation control measure which will be added to the credited
strategies of NJDOT, NJ Transit and HMDC's air quality programs in the State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs .
• It is estimated that another 1000 parking spaces strategically located around the
District will fulfill a significant portion of the District needs.
• The HMDC Transportation Plan update of 1990 compiled the necessary data on park
and ride needs'in the District.
• The cost for proposed park and ride facilities, including Teterboro airport, is
estimated at $5,000,000.
b' ^HMDC^m^wTpTrld^'fee in order to offset the cost of maintenance and
administration of the park and ride program.
• These costs are anticipated to range from $300,000 to $600,000 annually.
• HMDC will be responsible for the acquisition of the site(s) and the construction of
the facility(ies).
59.
-------
c. Potential Funding Sources
• Intermodal Surface Transportation & Efficiency Act of 1991
• Congestion Management Funding FTA Section 3 & 9
d. Schedule
• Annual inclusion of this project in the regional Transportation Improvement Program.
• Submittal to Federal government each year is required.
• Schedule should coincide with that of the Federal Act (ISTEA), which will run out
in 1997,
4. Research/Monitoring
• Annual evaluation of Parking Management program as part of the overall Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program.
• Parking facilities not managed by HMDC will also be monitored in terms of effective-
ness and number of vehicles and passenger utilization.
• HMDC staff will be responsible for the monitoring activities of the Park and Ride sites.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
Sites will be maintained and managed by HMDC.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
Acceptance by the SAMP partners that this initiative will be utilized by the HMDC as part
of a comprehensive plan to implement the goals and objectives of the SAMP and to ensure
positive environmental gains for the District as required by the 1988 Memorandum of
Understanding.
7. Authority
Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
8. Additional Comments
60.
-------
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
HMDC Transportation Demand Management: Transit Service Improvement
1. Description
HMDC, in cooperation with NJ Transit and Meadowlink, will continue to survey and study
the needs of the travelling public in the District and recommend new transit service,
modifications to existing service, and restructuring of schedules and routes as the need
arises. This cooperative effort has been successful in the past (i.e., Bellemead, West Side
Avenue, Harmon Cove area) and will continue based on the Transportation Study update
recently completed.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• To divert an increasing number of single auto occupants to public transportation.
• To increase occupancy ratios in the region and, therefore, help achieve compliance with
CAAA mandates.
• To lessen congestion by reducing the number of vehicles on the road.
• Reduction in the amount of carbon monoxide released by motor vehicles in the District.
• Reduction in the amount of hydrocarbons and other particulate matter emitted by mobile
sources in the District.
• To ensure improvement to the quality of the air in and around the District.
• To ensure, through proper control measures, a progressive reduction in the congestion
index and improve the travel time for the travelling public.
• To help reduce energy consumption.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
None anticipated.
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
• Operators will include NJ Transit and private carriers, as well as Meadowlink as a
broker of services.
• HMDC's involvement will be in the area of service planning resulting from
development reviews as part of its mandate.
c. Potential Funding Sources
• NJ Transit and private contributions as required by HMDC under its review powers.
• Congestion management funding is also available for pilot projects designed to
provide specific transit service. These funds are available through ISTEA.
d. Schedule
This will be part of an ongoing program, in cooperation with NJ Transit and
Meadowlink.
61.
-------
4. Research/Monitoring
• Part of the periodic update of the transportation study.
• Results from monitoring activities regarding the employer certification process, the
parking management program, and Meadowlink will be used to identify transit needs in
the District.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
Existing staff resources will be utilized for this effort. Approximately one-third of a year
is required at a cost of $25,000 per year.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
Assistance from SAMP partners can be useful when transit agencies are soliciting permits
for projects in the District. As part of a mitigation process resulting from the review by
Federal agencies (USDOT, USEPA) of transit projects with environmental impacts, it is
suggested that proposed transit services in the HMDC transportation study be included with
the transit agencies' package of mitigation measures. This can take the form of requirements
and conditions of approval.
7. Authority
Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
8. Additional Comments
62.
-------
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
HMDC Transportation Demand Management: Ridesharing Services
1. Description
This program is designed to develop, promote, and encourage as well as assist government
and private sector with greater utilization of public transit, van pooling and car pooling.
Additionally, other strategies would be employed to aid employers in meeting requirements
of the Federal Clean Air Act. This program has already been in existence under the
auspices of Meadowlink and should be strengthened as the mandates of the Clean Air Act
take hold.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• To establish and administer a number of programs such as computer ridematching for
transit, cars and vanpools.
• To formulate transit services.
• To develop TDM strategies.
• To implement a Guaranteed Ride Home Program.
• To encourage telecommuting, compressed work week and flexible hours strategies.
• To provide ridesharing service assistance to employers and employees.
• To develop park and ride needs assessment in cooperation with HMDC.
• To promote transit subsidies such as the $60 TransitChek.
• To establish program for training of employee transportation coordinators.
• To assist with local traffic mitigation through outreach programs.
• To reduce the amount of carbon monoxide released by motor vehicles in the District.
• To reduce the amount of hydrocarbons and other particulate matter emitted by mobile
sources in the District.
• To improve to the quality of the air in and around the District.
• To progressively reduce the congestion index and improve the travel time for the
travelling public through proper control measures.
• To reduce energy consumption.
• To maintain a conducive and productive work climate in the District.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
None anticipated.
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
The cost of operating Meadowlink, including the cost of support from HMDC, is
estimated to be $400,000 per year.
c. Potential Funding Sources
• Membership fees, administrative fees, fees received for the preparation of compliance
plans for employers.
• Congestion Management Program under ISTEA - expected to go on until 1997 when
a new Act will be due.
63.
-------
• Section 8 funds of the Federal Transit Administration through HMDC cooperative
agreement.
d. Schedule
• Ongoing program which needs to be strengthened to meet the demands imposed by
a rigorous Clean Air Act.
• Funds are available now, and the program should continue to receive HMDC's
support on both short- and long-term basis.
4. Research/Monitoring
• The same research applied to the other components of the Air Quality program are
applicable to this subsection.
• Cooperative efforts with NJIT are ongoing, and much of the result has benefitted the
TDM efforts that Meadowlink and HMDC engage in.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
• The HMDC component is managed by the Division of Planning and Development.
• The Division will continue to develop programs which foster ridesharing programs
support the activities of Meadowlink.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
Assistance from the SAMP partners can be useful when applicants are seeking approvals and
permits from federal agencies. This can take the form of requirements and conditions for
approvals.
7. Authority
• NJ Congestion and Air Pollution Control Act of 1992.
• US Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991.
• Meadowlink Charter.
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
8. Additional Comments
64.
-------
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
The geologic and historic evolution of the area known as the Meadowlands is a varied and
complex history. Its recent history began with the onset of the Wisconsin Glacial period when
the Lake Hackensack was created. As the series of glaciers melted and formed again, the earth
and sediments were changed and essentially buried beneath the present land surface in the
bedrock valley.
Following the drainage of Glacial Lake Hackensack after the glacial retreat, the lake bottom
went through a complex succession of hydrologic and vegetational regimes before achieving its
modern condition. It is likely that before sea level reached approximately its present elevation,
significantly different land forms existed in the Meadowlands at significantly lower elevations.
Numerous fossils indicate that the area was well populated with a variety of animal species after
the exposure of the lake bottom. With the post-Pleistocene sea level rise, the initial freshwater
marsh was gradually invaded by increasing amounts of sea water and consequent tidal influence
burying the former land surfaces. There is, however, scant evidence that there was significant
human prehistoric activity in the Meadowlands.
The Historic period, which began with the European settlement of the area, offers a far clearer
image of the historic and cultural resources of the Meadows. The early attempts to farm and
harvest the Meadows, the subsequent development of roadway systems and then railroads, and
a few sparse settlements were evolved through the 19th century. Industrial growth did not begin
in earnest until the early 20th century. This period has left examples of the past activities and
man-made environment which include, for example, the early buildings, the rail bridges,
cemeteries, and ferry slips.
Until recently, the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission had a paucity of
information concerning historic resources. The completion of a Cultural Resource Reconnais-
sance in 1989 gave the Commission its first inventory of historic and cultural areas in the
District. Although the existence of a prehistoric resource base cannot be verified, additional
study was recommended. Concerning historic resources, the study recommends a program to
acknowledge and document the significant attributes of these resources and to protect the most
important of them. In conjunction with the Special Area Management Plan, Environmental
Impact Statement, a Stage 1A Archaeological and Historical Sensitivity Evaluation has also been
completed. This study outlines locations and the distribution of previously identified cultural
resources and potential zones of archaeological and historical significance within the Hackensack
Meadowlands.
In this regard, the following program is designed to identify historic preservation issues and to
implement methods to recognize the importance of the Meadowlands' resources to its future.
65.
-------
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic Preservation Regulatory Program
1. Description
There are currently no specific HMDC regulations which require the identification of historic
buildings or areas in conjunction with development applications. The absence of any
required identification could have resulted in the inadvertent destruction of potentially
valuable resources. This program is designed to adopt regulations which would require the
identification of these potential resources and recommendations for preservation or
documentation of such resources. The program also recommends the establishment of an
Historic Affairs Committee which will monitor and review identified historic areas in
connection with development applications. The Committee may be comprised of HMDC
Commissioners and/or a local citizens' advisory group of residents knowledgeable in historic
affairs. The program would be administered under the advisement and guidance of the State
Historic Preservation Office, modelled after the existing agreements between that Office and
the Pinelands Commission.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• To develop a comprehensive historic resource management process which identifies,
organizes and integrates information about the Hackensack Meadowlands District into the
HMDC planning process.
• To allow preservation decision-making as part of the land use review process.
• To permit greater sensitivity in preserving and documenting historic resources.
• To provide a focus for public participation in preservation decision-making.
• To preserve early HMD heritage.
• To document the history of the region to the benefit of future generations.
• Adoption of an historic preservation ordinance similar to the Municipal Land Use Law
guidelines 4O.55D-107 et seq.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
• No capital costs are anticipated.
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
• Approximately $50,000 per year for administration and study purposes, or $1 million
over the 20 year period.
• Approximately $20,000 per year for monitoring, or $400,000 over the 20 year period.
c. Potential Funding Sources
• Private sources in conjunction with development proposals
• State cultural resource protection funding.
d. Schedule
• Establish institutional mechanism, draft guidelines, public comment, adoption - 12
months
• Implement subsequent to SAMP Record of Decision.
66.
-------
4. Research/Monitoring
• Monitoring - provided by in-house staffing. No outside assistance is anticipated.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
See research and monitoring above.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• The Federal agencies (USACOE and USEPA) should commit their resources of
knowledge consisting of previous studies, procedural guidelines, etc. EPA would develop
a programmatic agreement for conducting these activities.
• The NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) should commit its staff
resources for guidance to the Committee and HMDC staff.
• The HMDC will commit its management and administration of the regulatory program
and the coordination of the program with Federal and State agencies.
• A programmatic agreement among the agencies needs to be established in order to
administer the program and cooperate in historic preservation issues in the Meadowlands.
7. Authority
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
• NJ Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq., as amended authorizing
formation of local Historic Preservation Commissions.
• Historic Register Law, N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.128 et seq.
• National Historic Preservation Act
8. Additional Comments
67.
-------
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
A Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Occurrence in the Hackensack Meadowlands.
1. Description
Recent studies of cultural and historic resources have indicated a lack of information
concerning the presence of prehistoric evidence in the Meadowlands District (prehistoric
refers to the period prior to European settlement). Yet, there has been considerable
discussion of the possible use and habitation of the Meadowlands during this earlier time.
This study would be subdivided into two phases. The first phase would be a peer review of
the available literature to determine the possible extent of settlement in the District. The
second phase would be the sampling Of the soils, sediment and rock to determine the
presence of early prehistoric man in the area. These studies will be patterned after the
Pinelands Commission predictive model.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• To resolve underlying questions concerning the presence of prehistoric history in the
District.
• To locate, if possible, where areas of prehistoric history may be located.
• To resolve where such area may need further investigation in conjunction with State or
Federally-funded permitted or construction projects which require cultural and historic
resource analyses.
• To acquire additional information concerning the historical patterns of development and
settlement.
• To assist in the EIS process of Federally-funded projects.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
• Phase I - $50,000
• Phase II - $150,000
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
Approximately $20,000 per year over the 20 year period.
c. Potential Funding Sources
• NJ Historic Preservation Office, NJDEP
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
d. Schedule
• Phase I of the program - initiation within one (1) year of the EIP adoption.
• Phase II - anticipated within 2 to 3 years of the completion of Phase I, depending on
the availability of funding.
4. Research/Monitoring
• Monitoring - provided by in-house staffing.
• No outside assistance is anticipated.
68.
-------
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
See research and monitoring above.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• The Federal agencies (USACOE and USEPA) should commit their resources of
knowledge consisting of previous studies, procedural guideline knowledge concerning
these types of studies, and knowledge of the level of cultural and historic analysis in the
EIS review process.
• NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) should commit its staff resources
for guidance concerning this study and funding of the Phase II of this project.
• HMDC will commit its undertaking of the study and implementation of the findings into
its Master Planning effort and additional funding.
• A programmatic agreement among the agencies needs to be established in order to
administer the program and cooperate in historic preservation issues in the Meadowlands.
7. Authority
• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
• Historic Register Law, N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.128 et seq.
8. Additional Comments
69.
-------
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic and Cultural Resources Education Program
1. Description
Establish an education program in the HMDC Environment Center which would promote the
cultural and historic resources and educate the public concerning the available resources in
the District and perhaps the surrounding communities. Programs could be developed on the
formation of the Hackensack Meadowlands geology and geography as it relates to the
possible habitation of the Meadows in both the prehistoric and historic periods. The affect
of human influences on the Meadowlands and the remnants of early endeavors could be the
focus of the educational program. The study of human influences on the Meadows would
offer insight into how the future of the Meadowlands should be planned. This may include
an historic library, resource center, and potential museum to augment the education aspects
of the program.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• To create increased awareness of the Meadowlands past and how it relates to the
surrounding communities.
• To distribute information concerning historic sites.
• HMDC Environment Center to act as a clearinghouse for historic and cultural data to
public groups and industry.
• The HMDC and HMDC Environment Center become the "caretakers" of District's
history and its artifacts.
3. Implementation
a. Capital Costs
• No definable capital costs are anticipated at this time.
• If a library, museum or similar facility is planned at some future date, capital cost
would be developed at that time.
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
Education Program Development/Administration - $50,000 annually for a 20-year period
c. Potential Funding Sources
• National Historic Preservation Act funding for public awareness and education is an
essential funding source.
• Non-profit public interest organizations.
• The Meadowlands development community.
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N. J.S. A. 13:17-1 et seq.
d. Schedule
It is anticipated that the program can begin within one (1) year of EIP adoption.
70.
-------
4. Research/Monitoring
Research for this project will be conducted in conjunction with the previous Cultural
Resource Reconnaissance conducted by Research and Archaeological Management, Inc., and
the Stage IA, Archaeological and Historical Sensitivity Evaluation of the Hackensack
Meadowlands, New Jersey, conducted by Dr. J. Grossman for the Special Area Management
Plan, Environmental Impact Statement project. Further research will be a product of the
proposed Predictive Model of Prehistoric Site Occurrence in the Hackensack Meadowlands.
5. M anagement/Maintenance/Administration
HMDC and HMDC Environment Center staff.
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• The Federal agencies (USACOE and USEPA) should commit their resources of
knowledge and public involvement programs to the development of this program.
• The NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) should commit its staff
resources for guidance public awareness and community education programs and provide
funding for this project.
• The HMDC will be responsible for the implementation and development of the program
itself.
7. Authority
• Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation & Development Act, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.
• NJ Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq., authorizing the formation of
local Historic Preservation Commissions
• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
• Historic Register Law, N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.128 et seq.
8. Additional Comments
71.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT
INTRODUCTION
A proposal is made to establish a permanent substation at the HMDC office for an NJDEP
Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife conservation officer to enforce a broad spectrum of
environmental laws, both Federal and State.
Historical: Since European settlement in the 1600's, the Hackensack Meadowlands has been
hunted, trapped, and fished. In the early part of this century, laws were promulgated to give
protection to non-game species and seasonal protection to game species. Although most sport
people obey the laws, some do not. The problem is that the Meadows does not have a constant
and regular patrol by State conservation officers due to a shortage in personnel at the Division
of Fish, Game and Wildlife. Besides game law violations, there is a history of illegal dumping
along right-of-ways and accessible fill areas in the District. Random dumping during the night
and weekends continues to occur even in areas that have recently been cleaned at either private
or public expense.
The operation of recreational vehicles, such as dirt bikes and all terrain vehicles (ATV), is also
a problem, with damage being done to private as well as public property. Injuries to the
operators of these vehicles has also led to expensive lawsuits.
Recent: Illegal hunting has been reported in the Saw Mill Creek Wildlife Management Area,
but the Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife is so short on personnel that they cannot provide
law enforcement. Federal wardens are too far away to respond. Illegal dumping continues, and
cleanup is often at the taxpayers' expense. Dirt bikes continue to destroy habitat.
Local police patrol does not venture into the undeveloped areas of the Meadows except for
Lyndhurst. Even then, the degree of enforcement is dependent on the personnel on duty.
The nature and scope of present and future development interests and the sensitivities of the
HMD's natural resources require an aggressive plan to augment present enforcement policies.
Such a plan must be in place prior to the implementation of any additional development
proposals or the creation of additional park lands.
72.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT
1. Description
The HMDC would oversee the creation of a team of three (3) DEP conservation officers to
work with existing Federal and State regulatory agencies which have the responsibility for
environmental enforcement within the Hackensack Meadowlands District (HMD). This team
would consist of DEP employees, who would report to the Director of DEP's Division of
Fish, Game, and Wildlife, and would be stationed within Richard W. DeKorte Park. HMDC
would provide office space, vehicles, and other support for these Conservation Officers.
Working in cooperation with both the HMDC and State and Federal agencies, they would
be better able to address a wide range of potential and active environmental violations at the
earliest date.
2. Objectives/Benefits
• Enhance the existing participating regulatory agencies' effectiveness with regard to
environmental regulation inspections within the HMD.
• Substantially decrease response time to potential environmental violations.
• Cooperate with county and local police with the Governor's New Police Program, which
will train new police officers in the procedure for enforcing environmental laws.
• Improve monitoring and maintenance of HMD parks and wildlife areas.
• Increase cooperation between local police and the State or Federal agencies with regard
to illegal wetland fills, dumping and motor biking.
• Reduce staff and resources of SAMP partners currently deployed within the District for
enforcement activities.
• Greater economic and fiscal efficiency in enforcement of environmental regulations and
processing of violations.
3. Implementation
• Conservation Officers would be DEP Fish, Game & Wildlife employees and would be
assigned to the District.
• The HMDC would seek to coordinate enforcement activities with local health agencies
which have overlapping or concurrent jurisdiction and will also investigate other means
of participating in enforcement activities; i.e., under the County Environmental Health
Act or by creating a Regional Health Commission.
• Provide required training necessary to carry out enforcement of violations, management
of environmental facilities, and other assigned duties specific to the District.
• Request HMD municipalities to adopt HMDC ordinance package to standardize District
rules with regard to park maintenance.
• Conservation Officers can also be assigned to patrol the HMD after dark, when police
presence is needed most.
• Conservation Officers will be able to assist in the management of other environmental
facilities, such as tide gates, which will free up existing personnel.
a. Capital Costs
• $25,000 for a fully-equipped security vehicle (4WD). An additional vehicle would
be required with a foil team of three Conservation Officers.
• $6,000 for office equipment such as desks, chairs, computers, phones and uniforms.
73.
-------
• No capital cost for shelter would be incurred if they are located within the existing
HMDC Environment Center located at DeKorte Park.
b. Operation and Maintenance Cost
• Salary - Officers (2) $25,000 - $35,000 (range)
Supervisor $30,000 - $40,000 (range)
• Benefits - add approximately 35 percent additional cost to each employee salary.
• Vehicle Maintenance and Insurance - $4,500/yr/vehicle
• Total Cost - $144,000/yr.
c. Potential Funding Sources
• NJ Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife.
• US Army Corps of Engineers.
• US Environmental Protection Agency
• NJ Department of Environmental Protection
• HMDC (Solid Waste Division)
• New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority
• Grants available from Federal and State programs, including:
• Water Resources Development Act, 33 U.S.C.
• Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C.
• Water Resources Research Act, 42 U.S.C.
• Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
d. Schedule
Commencement should coincide with implementation of the SAMP agreement and the
execution of the necessary joint interagency funding agreement. Consideration should
encompass the 20 year scope of the SAMP agreement.
4. Research/Monitoring
• Monitoring of wildlife occurrence as part of routine patrol.
• Monitoring of environmental facilities as part of routine patrol.
5. Management/Maintenance/Administration
6. Commitment of SAMP Partners
• The HMDC will he able to plan, implement, enforce and manage a program funded by
a variety of public sources.
• This will represent a significant improvement over the languid approach to enforcement,
inspection and management currently applied by Federal and State agencies.
• This program will ensure that the monies spent on the EIP will be protected from adverse
environmental effects.
• Will require close communication between all of the partners.
• Will be the well-trained Conservation Officers who will rely on the participating partners
for technical guidance and support.
• SAMP partner agencies will need to delegate the necessary authority to the Officers to
enforce the current regulations.
• All SAMP partners will execute an MOU for the enforcement operation.
74.
-------
Authority
The Conservation Officers will, by the very nature of their training and licensing, have the
authority to enforce all environmental regulations under their control.
Additional Comments
75.
-------
FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Improvement Program, as detailed in the previous sections, is an ambitious
twenty-year program that calls for the expenditure of almost one billion dollars. The magnitude
of this program is based on the commitment of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission to address the environmental problems that had come about as a result of land use
practices prior to 1969 and the lack of public policy dealing with environmental degradation
prior to this period and into the early 1970's. The Commission has taken it upon itself over the
last ten years to find the financial resources needed to address some of the problems described
in previous chapters. Out of the one billion dollars, the HMDC has already secured funds which
will account for 45% to 50% of the EIP, specifically regarding environmental remediation and
improvement to areas of the District impacted by solid waste dumping and landfilling.
The answer to the question of how the balance of funds will be generated to achieve the stated
goals and objectives of the EIP will be predicated on several factors: (1) the spirit of
cooperation and the full participation and support of the SAMP partners; (2) the understanding
that many elements of the SAMP and, ultimately, the new Master Plan will fuel the success rate
and speed in which the Environmental Improvement Program can proceed over the next twenty
years; and (3) the ability of the HMDC to devise financial mechanisms that are diverse and
stable over a twenty-year period.
The Memorandum of Understanding signed by the SAMP partners called for all parties to ensure
positive environmental gain in the Hackensack Meadowlands District. The call for such
improvements is the cornerstone on which this entire document has been developed.
Additionally, on page iv of this Plan, each and every participant in this process has been assured
his place in providing direction and priority to projects described herein. The one element that
still needs to be further clarified is the formal commitment of all SAMP participants that they
will cooperate and assist the Commission in its effort to seek State and Federal funding for some
of the elements in this Program. It is believed that the acceptance and approval of the SAMP
will constitute a formal affirmation of the needed assistance.
As is apparent by the following description of the financial mechanisms, the financial framework
of revenue generation will be the ability to assess certain surcharges and fees on development
in the District that is bothxurrent and prospective. To that end, the need to raise the necessary
revenue in the magnitude outlined herein will depend on the fact that the goals of the revised
HMDC Master Plan be realized within the context of its other mandate of protecting the
environment. The HMDC believes that these methods of revenue generation are the only
realistic methods to provide stable funding over a long period of time. It also provides for a
unique partnership between government and the private sector to address a severe problem which
government cannot handle because of the size of the financial resources required.
The focus of the financial plan for the Environmental Improvement Program centers around the
following elements: (1) System of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's); (2) Environmental
Assessment Fee; (3) Environmental Linkage Fee; and (4) State and Federal Grants. The
following is a general description of each element.
76.
-------
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
TDR is proposed by HMDC to preserve between 500 and 775 acres of wetland through the
issuance of development credits to private property owners in the District. The owners of
designated TDR preserved wetlands will be assigned development credits to sell on the open
market to land owners whose properties have been designated for development on fill areas
consistent with the SAMP and Master Plan. (Draft TDR analysis is presented in Appendix III).
The TDR program will require the development parcel owners (receivers of development credits)
to purchase the development credits from owners of parcels to be preserved (senders of
development credits). Purchasers of development credits will still be required to fulfill wetland
mitigation requirements. Typically, the value of development rights is the open market value.
The value of the TDR credits is determined be negotiation between the seller and the purchaser.
The owner of a parcel designated for preservation is compensated by selling development credits
to an interested buyer, who may use the development credits to build in approved locations.
The HMDC will establish a TDR bank that will provide a minimum price for the value of the
development right credits. This will allow private holders of TDR credits to sell them directly
to the bank and for the bank to support the market for TDRs by selling them to receivers
desiring to purchase credits. The bank will also provide brokerage services by bringing together
development credit buyers and sellers if the real estate community is not able to achieve this in
the marketplace, and will establish a floor price for TDR credits in order to support minimum
values for sending property owners. The TDR bank will not be designed to take the place of
the market system, but instead to encourage and stimulate market behavior and to support the
system.
Once the development rights are transferred from the preserved property, the property becomes
protected from farther development. The TDR certificates/credits will be recorder instruments
at the County Registrar's Office. A deed restriction is required that will specify that the
development rights have been transferred and any subsequent owner of the property has no
ability to further develop at this site. Owners of transferred property rights will retain
ownership of the preserved parcel, and may secure additional compensation by making that
property available for wetland mitigation (through enhancement) for other development projects
in the District.
Subsequent to TDR transfer and mitigation, HMDC will encourage owners to dedicate wetlands
to public entity or land trust for conservation management. HMDC will support and facilitate
public management by (1) encouraging land trust organizations to accept dedications, and (2) by
accepting donations of land to HMDC for preservation.
77.
-------
Environmental Assessment Fee
The Environmental Assessment Fee is structured to generate funds from existing development.
The parameters of this program are based on the following: (1) the surcharge will be placed on
all the commercial, industrial, and office space which is occupied; (2) residential properties
would be exempt; (3) municipalities would administer the program through their tax billings,
thus eliminating a collection structure at the Commission; (4) in the calculation of the projected
revenue, there is a presumption of a 15% to 20% vacancy rate in the District at any given time;
and (5) this program will be used to compensate, on a short-term basis, any municipality in the
District that would lose tax revenue as a result of the TDR system described above.
Based on the amount of square feet presently in the District and the proposed amount of
development described in the Needs Statement, assessment at $0.25 per square foot per year,
capitalized at 5%, is anticipated to generate $300 million over the twenty-year life of the EIP.
Environmental Linkage Fee
The focus on this exaction is to assess a one-time levy against new development to pay its share
of the cost of preserving one or more environmental resources. The assessment will be based
on a square foot basis, and the amount will be calculated based upon the environmental impact
that development will have in that specific area of the District. This is a critical element of the
Program considering that a nexus must exist between the development and the anticipated
environmental loss. The cost of mitigating the impact must be determined, and the cost must
be reasonably apportioned to the development.
The benefit of such a program is that it allows the application of funds from all development
within the range of a specific area which needs to be mitigated and/or remediated. This program
will also allow a developer to pay his share over a prescribed time frame and allow for credits
in the event the developer wishes to implement environmental improvement(s) himself.
It is anticipated that this program will generate approximately $100 million based on the average
$1.00 to $4.00 per square foot of new development in the District.
Federal and State Grants
The last component of the funding mechanisms to be used for the purpose of funding the EIP
is Federal and State funding. The Commission has previously stated that its SAMP partners will
be a conduit for this type of funding in the future. To offset the difference between what has
been projected in the other funding programs, the Commission will be asking for approximately
$83 million over the next twenty years. Considering that the HMDC has been successful in
attaining funding authorization from the Water Resources Act in the amount of $18.75 million
for five years, the agency believes that the amount previously mentioned is quite attainable.
Appendix II lists several Federal and State potential funding sources and briefly describes each
program.
78.
-------
HACKENSACK MEAOOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SOURCE AND USE STATEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CAPITAL COSTS
SOLID WASTE
HMDC1-A LANDFILL CLOSURE ft POST CLOSURE
$11,507,173
HMDC 1-C LANDFILL CLOSURE ft POST CLOSURE
$45,347,573
HMDC BALEFILL CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE
$34,728,649
KINGSLAND LANDFILL (HMDC PORTION) CLOSURE
AND POST CLOSURE
$715,550
MALANKA/M ALL LANDFILL
$50,000,000
AVON LANDFILL
$70,000,000
ERIE LANDFILL
$30,000,000
RECLAMATION OF LANDFILLS FOR HABITAT VALUE
$2,300,000
KEEGAN LANDFILL AND 1-D CLOSURE
$100,000,000
OTHER ORPHAN LANDFILLS
$20,000,000
TOTAL
tWllMMB
WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION
DISTRICT WIDE WATER QUALITY MONITORING
NON POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE
TOTAL
FLOOD CONTROL MANAGEMENT
REGIONAL FLOOD STUDY
DELINEATION OF CONTAMINATION IN BERRY'S
CREEK
TIDE GATES, PUMPS ON BERRY'S CREEK A RTE 3
TIDE GATES WITH PUMPS IN RUTHERFORD
TIDE GATE WITH PUMPS IN BELLMAN'S CREEK
AND TURNPIKE
STUDY OF FLOODING IN LITTLE FERRY
STUDY OF FLOODING IN KEARNY
FEASIBILITY STUDY ft CONSTRUCTION OF SECTOR
GATE IN THE HACKENSACK RIVER
TOTAL
$0
$500,000
$12,972,000
$1,000,000
$3,622,000
$600,000
$1,935,000
$935,000
$935,000
$4,740,000
$26,739,000
~ Inductee potential of hinds apptod as appropriate from Environment Assessments/ Linkage Fees
24-May-05
APPENDIX I
OPERATIONS
ft MAINTENANCE SOURCE OF REVENUE
$46,694,828 A
$77,687,361 A
$77,687,361 A
A
$16,151,158 A
B.C.E
B.C.E
B.C.E
$230,000 B.C.E
B,C,E
$20,000,000 E
$238,450,708
$2,000,000 B.C.O.E
$500,000 B,C,D,E
$2,500,000
E
E.O
$2,000,000 E
$2,000,000 E
$2,000,000 E
E
E
E
$6,000,000
-------
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SOURCE AND USE STATEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CAPITAL COSTS
CONTAMINATED UND RECLAMATION
HAZARDOUS SITES RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION $20,000,000
INITIATIVES
total mm
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
PRESERVATION OF 7,000 ACRES INCLUDING WETLAND
ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS, ESTABUSHMENT
OF WETLANDS MITIGATION BANK AND MANAGEMENT
OF WETLAND AND OPEN WATER IMPOUNDMENTS
UPLAND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND MANAGEMENT
TOTAL
$141,050,000
$55,000
$141,108^00
LAUREL HILL PARK
LYNDHURST BALLF1ELDS
MEADOWS PATH
HACKENSACK RIVER URBAN PROMENADE
NORTH BERGEN TRAIL AND RECREATION AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL ART PARK:
SKY MOUND-LANDFILL TO ART WORK PARK
TOTAL
$1,580,000
$980,000
$500,000
$500,000
$300,000
$500,000
$3,740,1*9
GAS RECOVERY FROM LANDFILLS
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT:
EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATION
PARKING MANAGEMENT
$13,000,000
$5,000,000
** Indudee potential of funds appied w appropriate from Environment Assessments/ Linkage Fees
24-May-OS
APPENDIX I
OPERATIONS
& MAINTENANCE SOURCE OF REVENUE
$9,000,000 B.C.D.E
$9,000,000
$12,240,000 C.O.E
$1,200,000 C.D.E
$13^440,000
B C F
$400,000 B.C.F
$400,000 B.C.F.G
B.C.G
B.C
B.C
$800,000
$2,000,000 G
$500,000 C.0
$12,000,000 O.G
-------
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SOURCE AND USE STATEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CAPITAL COSTS
TRANSIT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS
RIDESHARING SERVICES
TOTAL $19,000,000
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATORY PROGRAM
PREDICTIVE MODEL OF PREHISTORIC SITE
OCCURRENCES IN THE MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES EDUCATION
PROGRAM
TOTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORpEMENT
HMDC ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM $31,000
TOTAL $31,000
$200,000
$200,000
SUMMARY OF COSTS
CAPITAL COSTS $574,913,045
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE $298,870,708
GRAND TOTAL $873.7t4.#83
~ Indudea potential of fundi appied aa appropriate from Environment Asaeaamenta/Linkage Feea
24-M«y-»5
APPENDIX I
OPERATIONS
ft MAINTENANCE SOURCE OF REVENUE
$500,000 B
$8,000,000 C,D
$23,000,000
$1,400,000 C,G
$400,000 B,C,E
$1,000,000 C,0
$2^00,000
$2,880,000 C,D
$2,880,000
KEY
A HMDC Cloaura Fund*
• HMDC
C Stlto
0 Ndm
E Envtranmanlaf Unkmg* £ AiMMmnl Fm—
f Locai (MunJdpd and County)
O Wrtwt* or Dmlipw^ Agra—mrf
-------
APPENDIX II
FEDERAL AND STATE POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Federal Programs
Coastal Zone Management Act. 16U.S.C. sections 1454. 1455. 1455a - Grants are available
to coastal states for the development of a management program for land and water resources
of the State's coastal zone. Grants are also available for implementation and administration
of a local management program for land and water resources of the State's coastal zone.
Grants are also available for implementation and administration of a local management
program and for assistance in the preservation or restoration of specific areas designated
under the management program. These grants are available only to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection.
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act. 16 U.S.C. section 2005 - Technical assistance
is available from the Department of Agriculture to property owners, agencies of State and
local governments and interstate river basin commissions to protect the quality and quantity
of subsurface water and to reduce the vulnerability of certain property from floods that also
may affect water resources. Technical assistance to individuals rather than actual funds
normally is provided.
National Ocean Pollution Planning Act. 33 U.S.C. section 1701-09 - Financial assistance in
the forms of grants or contracts is available for research and development and monitoring
projects or activities which relate to marine pollution research, with particular attention to
"inputs fates and effects" of pollutants in the marine environment. "Marine environment"
is defined in the statute as "the coastal zone..., the seabed, subsoil, and waters of the
territorial sea..."
Solid Waste Disposal Act. 42 U.S.C. section 6948 - Financial assistance is available to
states, counties, municipalities, and intermunicipal agencies and local public solid waste
management authorities for implementation of programs to provide solid waste management,
resource recovery, and resource conservation services and hazardous waste management.
Funds are available for activities such as facility planning and feasibility studies, but may
not include any actuar construction costs or acquisition of land. All programs or projects
undertaken with this financial assistance must comply with all applicable provisions of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act relating to the upgrading of open dumping of solid waste or
hazardous waste. Technical assistance from EPA is also available for the purpose of
developing and implementing such programs.
42 U.S.C. section 9607fa> (4) (O - CERCLA provides for recovery from potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) for damages for, injury to, destruction of, or loss resulting from
such a release. Natural resources are defined as "land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water,
groundwater, drinking water supplies, and other resources belonging to, managed by, held
in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by...any state or local government..."
HMDC could be designated as a trustee of the public resources in the District in order to
-------
take advantage of this provision. HMDC as trustee would then proceed against the PRp'S;
if unsuccessful against the PRP's, a claim against the Superfund may be possible although
authorization does not currently exist to use the Superfund for natural resource damages.
If the natural resource damages assessment is conducted pursuant to the relevant regulations,
HMDC as trustee would have a rebuttable presumption in any administration or judicial
proceeding as to the validity of the assessment.
Water Resources Development Act. 33 U.S.C. sections 2212. 2213 - Federal funds are
available for a number of water resource-related purposes should the Corps of Engineers be
directed to undertake a water resources development project. Such direction must follow a
feasibility study initiated by the Secretary of the Army; 50 percent of the costs of which
must be provided by non-federal interests. A non-federal interest is a legally-constituted
public body with full authority and capability to perform the terms of its agreement. HMDC
would likely qualify. Once the Corps undertakes a water resources project, the federal
government will pay 50 percent of the construction costs of inland waterway transportation
projects and 100 percent of the operation and maintenance costs, 65 percent of costs for
agricultural water supply projects, at least 50 percent of the costs of a flood control project,
50 percent of the costs of recreation projects, including recreations navigation, and 50
percent of the control operation costs for aquatic plant control projects.
33 U.S.C. section 2317 - Under the 1990 Water Resources Development Act, the Secretary
of the Army is authorized to establish and implement a demonstration program for the
purpose of determining the feasibility of wetlands restoration, enhancement, and creation as
a means of contributing to the Corps' goal of no overall net loss of the nation's remaining
wetlands base. HMDC is a strong candidate for the citing of such a project in the HMD
given its goal of wetlands restoration. The Secretary of the Army must transmit a list to
Congress by January 20, 1992, which specifically identifies opportunities of enhancing
wetlands in connection with construction and operation of water resources projects.
33 U.S.C. section 1252 - Under a note of this section, the WRDA provides that the
Secretary of the Army may remove contaminated sediments from the navigable waters of the
United States for the purpose of environmental enhancement and water quality improvement
if the removal is requested by a non-federal sponsor and the sponsor agrees to pay 50
percent of the removal costs. The removal must be pursuant to a joint plan developed by
the Secretary and interested federal, state, and local government officials. Disposal costs
must be borne by the non-federal sponsor.
Water Resources Research &SLA1 U.S.C. sections 10301 -lO^nQ - Grants are available from
the Department of the Interior, generally on a dollar-for-dollar basis, to agencies of local or
state governments for research and technological development concerning any aspects of a
water resource related problem, including improvement of waters of impaired quality, which
the Secretary of the Interior deems to be in the national interest. Examples of the types of
research and development to which this program is intended to apply include aspects of the
hydrologic cycle; supply and demand for water; conservation of water supplies; water reuse;
depletion and degradation of groundwater supplies; and the economic, legal and engineering,
social, recreational, biological' and ecological aspects of water problems.
-------
Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. section 1255 - Grants are available to intermunicipal agencies
under this statute for the development of projects which will: (1) demonstrate a new or
improved method of preventing, reducing and eliminating discharges into any waters of
pollutants from sewers which carry storm water or both storm waters and pollutants, (2)
demonstrate advanced water treatment and water purification methods or waste treatment,
and (3) be demonstration projects for the prevention of pollution of any waters by industry.
All projects must be approved by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and EPA. Grants may cover up to 75 percent of the actual costs of any projects.
33 U.S.C. section 1321 - The Clean Water Act contains a provision similar to CERCLA's
natural resource damages section which allows the President, or "the authorized representa-
tive of any State," to act as the trustee of natural resources on behalf of the public to recover
the costs of replacing or restoring such resources when they have been damaged or destroyed
as a result of an illegal discharge of oil or hazardous substances into the navigable waters
of the United States or adjoining shorelines. It is possible that this provision could be a
useful one, and it is worth exploring with EPA as to its applicability in the HMD.
33 U.S.C. section 1330 - Under this new section of the Clean Water Act, grants are
available to state coastal zone management agencies or other public agencies to assist in
research, surveys, studies, modeling and other technical work necessary for the development
of a comprehensive conservation and management plan for an estuary determined by the
EPA to be of national significance. Priority consideration is to be given to the New York-
New Jersey Harbor, among other areas. Grants may cover up to 75 percent of the actual
costs of any such studies, and the remainder of the funds must come from non-federal
sources.
33 U.S.C. section 1288 - Section 208 of the Clean Water Act provides for the establishment
of area-wide waste treatment management areas and organizations responsible for the
development of management plans for those areas. The plans are to address necessary waste
treatment facilities, alternative waste treatment facilities, alternative waste treatment systems,
wastewater collection and storm water runoff systems, open space and recreation
opportunities as a result of improved water quality, and control of the disposition of all
residual waste generated in the area which could affect water quality. There may already
exist a section 208 organization that is responsible for an area-wide plan; it may be an
appropriate vehicle for the HMDC to carry out some of its environmental improvement
goals.
Safe Drinking Water Act. 42 U.S.C. sections 300i-3(a').-3(b) - Under this provision, grants
are available to public sector agencies assisting in the development and demonstration of
projects relating to new or improved technology for dependable safe drinking water supplies
to the public, or for investigation and demonstration of the health implications of the
reclamation, recycling, and rescue of wastewaters for drinking. Grants may cover up to 55
and 2/3 percent of actual construction costs and up to 75 percent of all other costs.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Infrastructure Act - Considerable funds will be available
for mass transit construction and expansion. Those funds would be administered with a good
deal of discretion by state and local authorities. The Act also provides significant funds for
highway construction and repairs and demonstration projects.
-------
New Jersey Statutes:
N.J. Spill. Compensation and Control Act. N.J. Stat, section 58:10-23,11 - The Spill Act
prohibits the discharge of hazardous substances and provides remedies for the state against
those responsible. The Spill Act provides that any governing body of a municipality that
cleans up a site on the State's master list of hazardous discharge sites shall be reimbursed
for cleanup costs. The municipality's cleanup plan must first be approved by the State.
Under this program, the HMDC could undertake the cleanup of some sites within its
jurisdiction and be able to be reimbursed for all expenses.
Environmental Aid Act. N.J. Stat, section 13:1H-1 - Grants up to $2500 per year are
available to a "local environmental agency" for the preparation of an "environmental index."
A "local environmental agency" includes a municipal or county environmental commission
or a soil conservation district. An "environmental index" is a report on the environmental
conditions within a locality and the community objectives concerning open area, parks, water
supply, solid waste, wildlife protection, soil resources, air pollution, water pollution, and
other similar subjects. Although the HMDC may not fit squarely within the definition of the
eligible recipients under this statute, it may be worthwhile considering the source of funding
for some smaller projects.
Aid for Urban Environmental Concerns Act. N.J. Stat, section 13:lH-8 - Grants of up to
$10,000 are available to an environmental agency "for projects addressing urban environ-
mental concerns, including flowering gardens and trees, neighborhood sitting places, and
recreation areas. An "environmental agency" includes a municipal planning department,
municipal environmental commission or city Parks Department. The grant may cover up
to 80 percent of actual project costs. The area where the project will take place must be an
"eligible municipality" under N.J. Stat, section 52:27D-178, which includes one with a
population over 10,000 per square mile and certain minimum numbers of children receiving
Public assistance. Because some of the areas within the HMDC may be qualified under this
section, the HMDC may consider pursuing this source of funding for some smaller projects.
N.J. Green Acres Land Acquisition and Recreation Opportunities Act. N.J. Stat, section
13:8A-35 - The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is authorized to make
grants to municipalities, counties or other political subdivisions of a state to acquire and
develop lands for recreation and conservation purposes. Grants may cover up to 50 percent
of the actual costs of any such project. The funds are derived from municipal bonds issued
under the Green Acres Bond Act, N.J. Stat, section 7:36-1.1-7.1. The Bond Act also
provides for loans for .up to 100 percent of the cost of acquisition and development of lands
for recreation and conservation purposes. Loans are given based on criteria such as whether
the projects will serve multi-recreational and conservation purposes, whether they will serve
a wide variety of citizens, and whether they will provide for special needs of groups such
as the handicapped and elderly. There are certain design criteria that must be met for any
project.
Shore Protection Program. N J. Admi. C"de tit. 7 Chap. 7-F - Under this program, grants
or loans are valuable for certain proposed shore protection programs if the area is considered
a priority by the State. The grant may cover up to 75 percent of the actual costs of the
program. Eligible costs include research and development, design acquisition of easements,
monitoring of the project including consulting engineers' fees, and construction. Any
-------
program must be in compliance with the State's Rules on the Coastal Resource and
Development Policies, and the local government receiving the grant also must have
irrevocably committed funds for the project. Because of the coastal nature of some areas
within the HMDC jurisdiction, this program may be worth pursuing as a source of funding.
Solid Waste Management Act. N.J. Stat, section 13:1E-1. section 13:1E-3Q - Under this
provision, State aid is available to any person engaged in solid waste collection, disposal or
utilization, as long as the project is approved by the State or the HMDC and is within
experimental projects with long-term beneficial effects. Arguably, this program was not
intended to allow the HMDC to receive grant funding, although a creative argument might
be made that the HMDC could formulate its own projects to further its solid waste
management program and thus receive funding from this source.
-------
APPENDIX III
3rd Draft
6/12/95
A REPORT TO
THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
ON A TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
PREPARED BY
JAMES C. NICHOLAS
JUNE 1995
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A system of transferable development rights (TDR) is being
proposed as a means to reallocate development within the Hackensack
Meadowlands. Certain areas are unsuitable for development while
others are more suitable. TDRs reallocate development from those
areas unsuitable for development and directs that development to
more suitable areas. The unsuitable areas are designated as
sending areas, meaning that development is sent from those areas.
The areas that development is directed to are receiving areas.
The sending areas are allocated developments rights based on
the estimated value of wetland and upland acreages within the
sending area. These TDRs may then be sold to developments in the
receiving areas, which may increase the development on the
receiving area parcels through the acquisition of TDRs.
The Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC) has
developed a regional plan for the area. The total area comprises
both the sending and receiving areas. Owners of receiving area
properties may develop on uplands within the receiving area without
the necessity of acquiring TDRs. In order to develop on parcels
with wetlands, developers must acquire TDRs. A TDR may be used to
increase the magnitude of residential, commercial, offices or
warehouses, depending on the zoning of the property. One TDR could
be used to develop:
2 residential dwelling units
1,3 00 square feet of warehouse gross floor area
1,3 00 square feet of office leasable floor area
1,3 00 square feet of commercial/retail gross floor area.
These ratios were derived from the estimated value of receiving
area parcels divided by the permitted development on that parcel to
arrive at estimated value per unit of development. Estimated value
per unit is then divided by the value of dwelling unit, $5,987, to
get the different types of development that a TDR would allow.
An example would be a receiving area parcel of 10 acres, 5 of
which are wetlands. If this parcel was zoned for residential at 40
units to the acre, the owner could develop 200 residential units
without acquiring any TDRs. But the owner could develop up to 400
dwelling units by acquiring 200 TDRs. The same approach would
apply to warehouse, office or commercial/retail development.
The sending area properties are allocated TDRs on the basis of
the number or upland and wetland acres within a parcel. Sending
area properties are allocated TDRs at a ratio of 43.8 TDRs per acre
of upland and 5.3 TDRs per acre of wetland. A 10 acre parcel of
sending area land with 9 acres of wetlands and 1 of upland would
receive a total of 91.5 TDRs. These TDRs could then be sold to
receiving area developers so that they may increase the intensity
of development.
-------
The system of TDR allocation and use is based on the estimated
value of the various parcels. The estimated value in turn is based
upon the assessed value of each parcel as established by the
municipal property appraiser. The tax assessment of all 324
parcels were analyzed to establish a value of $264,427 per acre of
upland and $62,773 per acre of wetland. In the sending area the
acreage values are $262,081 per acre of upland and $31,693 per acre
of wetlands. The base value of a TDR is estimated to be $5,987.
Sending area parcels were then allocated TDRs on the basis of the
upland value per acre divided by $5,987 and the wetland value
divided by $5,987:
UPLAND VALUE PER ACRE $262,081 DIVIDED BY $5,987 ® 43.8
WETLAND VALUE PER ACRE $ 31,693 DIVIDED BY $5,987 a 5.3.
Based on an estimated value of $5,987 per TDR, the cost on
developing wetlands in the receiving area is:
$2,994 per residential dwelling unit
$4.61 per square foot of warehouse
$4.61 per square foot of office
$4.61 per square foot of commercial/retail.
Acquiring TDRs will allow for increased development in the
receiving area and, at the same time, provide for payment to
sending area property owners.
-------
I. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Transferable Development Rights (TDR) have the objective of
moving or transferring the development from one parcel of land to
another. Typically the property from which development is being
transferred has some limitation on development potential, such as
being wetlands, while the property receiving the transferred
development does not have such limitations. The transfer of
development is an alternative to public acquisition.
The concept of the TDR grew out of clustered development and
Planned Unit Developments (PUD). In both of these approaches to
designing a development the location of the actual development
would be directed toward areas that had higher developmental
potential and away from those areas with developmental constraints.
The TDR applies this same approach to properties that are not under
single ownership or common control.
The formation of a TDR program begins with the designation of
sending and receiving areas. Sending areas are those parcels that
have developmental constraints and thus are not to be developed.
Receiving area are those parcels that are to be developed.
Sending and receiving areas have been tentatively designated.
The sending area contains a total of 826 acres, 772 of which are
wetlands. The receiving areas contain 2,140 acres, 1,301 of which
are wetlands. The objective of this TDR program is to transfer the
development that would have occurred in the sending areas to the
receiving areas.
The second step is to design a system that will transfer the
development potential. This system should be structured in such a
manner that there is a clear value to the sending area property and
that this value be proportional to the values that have been
observed as tax assessments.
The third step is the development of an implementation
program.
1
-------
II. THE AREA
A. DESCRIPTION
The region contains both sending and receiving areas. Sending
areas are those that are designated for limited or no development
due to the character of the land — primarily the existence of
wetlands on site. The development assignable to thee properties is
to be severed and transferred to receiving areas. Likewise,
receiving area are those properties capable of being developed and
thus will receive the development from the sending areas.
The total area analyzed incorporates 2,965 acres. This total
contains 892 acres of uplands and 2,073 acres of wetlands. The
statistics on the area are:
TABLE II-l
SUMMARY STATISTICS
TOTAL AREAS
TOTAL AREA
WETLAND AREA
UPLAND AREA
AVERAGE SIZE OF PARCEL
STANDARD DEVIATION
AVERAGE NUMBER OF UPLAND ACRES
STANDARD DFVIATION
AVERAGE NUMBER OF WETLAND ACRES
STANDARD DEVIATION
AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE
NUMBER OF PARCELS
2,965 ACRES
2,073 ACRES
892 ACRES
9.12 ACRES
21.79 ACRES
3.04 ACRES
7.92 ACRES
6.08 ACRES
19.73 ACRES
$123,8921
324
Land value is estimated by using the assessed value of the land and
then adjusting that value by the state provided Equalization
Ratio.2 The use of actual property sales or appraisals would be
preferred to the use of tax assessments. However, due to the
uncertainty surrounding the properties under the jurisdiction of
1 The figure of S 123,892 is the average value per acre of the entire area and is
calculated by dividing the total estimated value of all parcels by the total acres.
2 The Equalization Ratio is prepared by the Division of Taxation, New Jersey
Department of the Treasury, pursuant to Section 1, Chapter 86, Laws of 1954 (NJ.S.A.
54:1-35.1). These equalization ratios are the average ratio of assessed value to true
value within each taxing jurisdiction. The so called true value is determined by
property sales and similar objective indicators of value. The average ratio of true to
assessed value becomes the Equalization Ratio. This ratio is used in order to obtain a
higher degree of commonality among the taxable assessments across jurisdictions.
2
-------
the HMDC, there have been few sales. Thus the only available data
that provides sufficient coverage of the areas are tax assess-
ments.3 Additionally, there are a total of 324 parcels within the
area and the cost as well as the time required for this magnitude
of appraisals would be prohibitive. Figure II-l plots the
frequency of land parcels by the size of the parcel. Clearly the
area is dominated by small parcels. Figure II-2 shows the area, in
acres, by parcel size. Figure II-3 shows value per acre by size of
parcel. The generally accepted notion is that value per acre will
decline with parcel size. While this general tendency can be seen,
is it not a consistent trend throughout the data spectrum.
The total area contains the sending and receiving areas. As
such, it is an aggregation. It would follow, then, that any trend
or pattern unique to either of these sub-areas would be hidden in
these aggregate data. Therefore, the sending and receiving areas
are separately analyzed in the following sections.
On the following three pages the summary statistics for the
region are summarized in graphic form. These graphs clearly show
that there are many small and relatively valuable parcels within
the HMDC TDR area.
* A number of tax appeals have been taken on the assessed value of properties. Many
of the resulting adjustments have been by 90% or more. This is a clear indicator of a
volatile land market. The data used in analyzing both the receiving and sending areas
are pre-appeal assessed values, as adjusted by the equalization ratio. This would
result in some degree of overstatement of estimated value. Given the nature of this
inquiry, it is felt that it would be better to err on the high side, if there is to be an
error.
3
-------
FIGURE IM
NUMBER OF PARCELS BY SIZE OF PARCEL
TOTAL AREA
13 23 33
Acres per Parcel
50 +
4
-------
FIGURE II-2
TOTAL ACRES BY SIZE OF PARCEL
TOTAL AREA
1200
1000
800
&
E 600
~
13 23 33 43
Acres per Parcel
50 +
7
5
-------
FIGURE II-3
VALUE PER ACRE BY SIZE OF PARCEL
TOTAL AREA
250-
200-
150-
100-
50-
|l
I
i
\\n; I>.\\
13 28
Acres per Parcel
38 48 50 +
6
-------
B. ANALYSIS
The statistical technique known as regression analysis is
employed to assess the economics of the proposed TDR areas.4 The
dependent variable is the estimated value of the parcel. The
independent variables are: the size of the parcel in acres; the
number of acres of wetlands within the parcel; and the number of
acres of upland within the parcel.
4 The method employed in this statistical analysis is multiple regression. This
is a statistical technique that correlates one set of data, known as the dependent
variable, with one or more independent variables. The objective is to test whether
there is a significant correlation between the dependent variable and the independent
variables. The reliability of the model is measured by a statistic known as the
Correlation Coefficient (or Coefficient of Multiple Determination) -- RJ. This is a
percentage measure, although statistical convention does not convert it to an actual
percentage but leaves it in decimal form. The Correlation Coefficient is calculated by
contrasting the predicted (or estimated) value of dependent variables against the
actual. The extent to which the predicted values are consistent with the actual values,
measured as a percent, is the R2. For this reason, this statistic is commonly known as
"goodness of fit," meaning the extent to which the statistical explanation offered
"fits" with the actual values observed. The higher the value of R2, the better the fit.
The value of R2 is then adjusted in accordance with the size of the sample and the number
of variables included in the equation. The resulting datum, R2Adj. represents the
amount of total variation explained by the equation.
Two other statistical measures are employed herein. The first is the T-Ratio or
T-Stat (for T-Statistic). The T-Ratio is to be found above the coefficient of the
dependent variables. This ratio measures whether the coefficient of an individual
independent variable is significantly different from zero. If the coefficient is
significantly different from zero, then it is accepted that the independent variable
affects the dependent variable in proportion to the magnitude of the coefficient. The
correlation coefficient, R2, assesses the explanatory power of all independent
variables collectively while the T-Ratio is relevant to each individual variable. For
samples of the type analyzed T-Ratios between 2.000 and 2.390 are generally required to
conclude that there is statistical significance. The lower T-Ratio is associated with
the 95% level of significance and the higher is 99%. Another measure is the F Statistic.
The F Statistic assesses the degree of co-variation between the dependent and
independent variables. For the type of data analyzed, F Statistics of 4.44 at 95% and
9.24 at 99% are required. The F-Statistic is an overall test of the multiple regression
model.
A total of three statistics are used: (1) R2Adj. which measures the percent of
variation in the dependent variable explained by the variation in the independent
variable(s); (2) T Ratio which measures whether an individual independent variable
contributes to the explanation of the variation in the dependent variable; and (3) F
Statistic that measures the degree of co-variation.
7
-------
The hypothesis to be tested is that the value of a parcel is
dependent upon the number of acres of land. The presumption within
this hypothesis is that land, regardless of type, constitutes the
basis for value. A total of three regression equations were
estimated. The results follow.
The first matter of concern is the attainment of expected
results. The estimated value of a parcel of land should be a
function of the number of acres in the parcel. This result is
attained. The estimated value of a parcel of land is a function of
the number of acres in the parcel.
4.4 23.6
PARCEL VALUE - 364,618.6 + 83,911.5 * TOTAL ACRES
RJ Adj = .6428 F ¦ 527.6.
As the percentage of explained variation, R* Adjusted, is 64%.
This means that 64% of the variation in estimated parcel value is
explained by the number of acres within that parcels.
An alternative way of analyzing these data is in their
logarithmic form. The value and acreage data were converted to
natural logs (Ln) and yields the following:
187.9 26.4
Log(PARCEL VALUE) = 11.9285 + .843287 * Log(TOTAL ACRES)
R1 Adj - .6826 F - 695.8
These results are somewhat better than those of the linear equation
(68% verses 64%). The linear form, when contrasted with the log
form, results in higher projected values for small parcels and
lower values for larger parcels.
Land value goes up with parcel size, but at a diminishing
rate, i.e., each additional acre of land adds less to value that
the previous acre. The log equation indicates that a 10% increase
in the size of a parcel will tend to add an 8.4% increase in the
value of the parcel.9 This is consistent with the general notion
that value per acre declines with the number of acres.
The next issue is the role of upland and wetland acres in
explaining parcel value. It is to be expected that upland acres
would significantly add to land value while wetland acres would
not. This hypothesis is only, partially confirmed.
5 The coefficient of .843287 for the Log of parcel size may be interpreted as showing
that parcel value will change at a ratio of .843287 (8.4%) of the change in parcel size.
8
-------
4.0 9.6
PARCEL VALUE - 344,913 + (92,211.5 * UPACRES) +
20.9
(82,008.8 * WETACRES)
R1 Adj - .6331 F - 279.7.
194.4 21.4
Log(PARCEL VALUE) « 12.427746 + [.788420 * Log(UPACRES)] +
10.1
[.434811 * Log(WETACRES)]
R' Adj - .6534 F = 305.5.
Both equations support the proposition that both uplands and
wetlands add to parcel value, but at a diminishing rate. (Again, as
parcel value increases, value per acre tends to decline.)
Of particular interest is whether there are any observable
differences between the sending and receiving areas when looked at
in aggregate. This proposition may be tested through the use of a
classification "dummy" variable. The receiving area parcels are
given a dummy value of l to test for significance of classifica-
tion.
2.7 25.0 5.6
PARCEL VALUE = -446,636 + (85,144.4 * ACRES) + (1,016,484 * AREA)
R' Adj - .6331 F - 279.7
96.5 30.7 9.2
Log(PARCEL VALUE) - 11.012381 + [.882176 * Log(ACRES)] + (1.114811
* AREA)
R1 Adj - .7485 F - 481.6.
These equations strongly indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference between the sending and receiving areas.
The average receiving area parcel is valued at $1,016,484 above
sending area parcels without regard to the number of acres in the
parcel. Therefore the sending and receiving areas will have to be
analyzed and considered individually.
Now, what does the above actually mean. First, acreage of any
type adds to parcel value and the addition to value is at a
9
-------
mK . adding additional acres to a parcel of
diminishing rat®* ^ valu'e, but each additional ®ar9inal ?cre
land increases P^^JJ^vious additions. second, there is a
adds less to value than pr ^ receiving area and the sending
significant di"eren^® ,b*^ue Thus, the two areas appear to be
area in terms otf^rcel valu«- ^ addltion to uplands add to
statistically Irience suggests that wetlands add less
parcel value. General ^ ian(jg This is the result of the log
11 parcel value than do ^^rs that^ the market as defined
form of the analysis. It PP uplands within the study
a^i v'i&n brfSX sendln, and re'ceivin* areas.
,,l l t for total acres with respect t° value (in log
The coefficient for to ts that vaiue will change at
form) is equal to .843287. in ^ g) value equation
84.3% of changes in PaJ«l ha™ coefficients of .78842 and
alThto that™for^otal area, Resting that wetlands add
relatively less to value.
Using the log form results in the following value equation for
parcels:'
VALUE - A ~ UPACRES™" * WETACRES'
relative roles of uplands and
solving this equation for the within the receiving area
wetlands in establishing parcel
yields:
RELATIVE VALUE OF UPLAND ACRE - .63418
RELATIVE VALUE OF A WETLAND ACRE - .3658
63#4% of land value can be attributed
These results indicate tha attributed to wetlands,
to uplands and 36.5% can be attri
4 See the appendix for a discussion of the mathematics employed in this section.
10
-------
III. THE RECEIVING AREAS
A. DESCRIPTION
The receiving area contains 2,140 acres, 838 of which are
wetlands and 1,301 acres of uplands. These properties have an
average estimated value of $153,058.90 per acre. The average value
of an acre in the receiving area is 24% higher that the all area
average of $123,892.7 Figure III-l shows the number of receiving
area parcels by size of parcel. Figure III-2 shows the total
acreage by size of parcel and III-3 shows value per acre by size of
parcel. Table III-l summarizes the statistics for the 255 parcels
of land within the receiving areas sample.
TABLE III-l
SUMMARY STATISTICS
RECEIVING AREAS
TOTAL AREA
UPLAND AREA
WETLAND AREA
AVERAGE SIZE OF PARCEL
STANDARD DEVIATION
AVERAGE NUMBER OF UPLAND ACRES
STANDARD DEVIATION
AVERAGE NUMBER OF WETLAND ACRES
STANDARD DEVIATION
AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE
NUMBER OF PARCELS
2,139.62 ACRES
838.39 ACRES
1,301.23 ACRES
8.39 ACRES
21.40 ACRES
3.65 ACRES
8.81 ACRES
4.74 ACRES
18.70 ACRES
$153,058.90
255
The summary data for the receiving area are shown on the
following three graphics.
7 The receiving area average is also 123% higher than the sending area per acre
average of $47,340.76.
11
-------
FIGURE III-l
NUMBER OF PARCELS BY SIZE OF PARCEL
RECEIVING AREA
13 23 33
Acres per Parcel
50 +
12
-------
FIGURE III-2
TOTAL ACRES BY SIZE OF PARCEL
RECEIVING AREA
900
13 23 33
Acres per Parcel
13
-------
FIGURE III-3
VALUE PER ACRE BY SIZE OF PARCEL
RECEIVING AREA
13 28 38 48 50 +
Acres per Parcel
14
-------
B. ANALYSIS
As with the total area, regression analysis is used to assess
the nature of parcel value in the receiving area. The basic
hypothesis is that parcel value is a function of total acreage and
also a function of the acres of uplands and wetlands.
5.1 28.7
PARCEL VALUE - 419,303.0 + 103,086.4 * TOTAL ACRES
R1 Adj. - .7645 F - 825.4
5.6 9.6
PARCEL VALUE - 468,888.3 + 82,744.9 * UPACRES
26.5
+ 108,272.5 * WETACRES
R1 Adj. = .7696 F - 425.
203.4 29.9
Log(PARCEL VALUE) - 12.109474 + .902659 * Log(TOTAL ACRES)
R1 Adi. - .7788 F - 895.
183.9 21.5
Log(PARCEL VALUE) = 12.433779 + [.852525 * Log(UPACRES)] +
9.4
(.484273 * Log(WETACRES)
R* Adj. - .7018 F - 300.
In the receiving area all increases in acreage add to value.
A simple increase of 10% of area increases value by 9%.* A 10%
increase in uplands adds 8.5% to value while a similar increase of
wetlands adds 4.8% to value.9 Therefore, in the log form, uplands
add much more to value that do wetlands. Given the greater
developmental value of uplands> this would be expected. The oddity
(The value of the coefficient being .902659 or 90.3%.
9 All of these "elasticities" are derived from the coefficients of the k>g regression
equations.
15
-------
is that the linear form suggests that wetlands add more to value
than do uplands. This is counter intuitive. However, there are
more wetlands than uplands within the area and it appears that the
linear form is simply weighting magnitude and thus assigning more
value to wetlands.
In the receiving area, the linear form tends to assign higher
value to small parcels and lower value to larger parcels. The log
form would appear to be a better basis upon which to structure an
analysis of the receiving area.
The coefficient for total acres with respect to value (in log
form) is equal to .902659. This suggests that value will change at
90.3% of changes in parcel size. However, the (log) value equation
with both uplands and wetlands have coefficients of .852525 and
.484273, respectively. The total of these two coefficients equals
1.336523. This form suggests that wetlands have relatively less to
do with value, at least in the receiving area.
Using the log form results in the following value equation for
receiving area parcels:10
VALUE - A * UPACRES"852525 * WET ACRES"484273
Solving this equation for the relative roles of uplands and
wetlands in establishing parcel value within the receiving area
yields:
RELATIVE VALUE CF UPLAND ACRE - .637868
RELATIVE VALUE OF A WETLAND ACRE ¦ .3 62338.
10 See the appendix for a discussion of the mathematics employed in this section.
16
-------
IV. SENDING AREAS
A. DESCRIPTION
There are 826 acres within the sending area. These properties
have an average estimated value of $47,340.76 per acre. As with
the receiving areas, this value is estimated by using the assessed
value of the land and then adjusting that value by the state
provided Equalization Ratio. The use of actual property sales or
appraisals would be preferred to the use of tax assessments.
However, due to the uncertainty surrounding the properties under
the jurisdiction of the HMDC, there have been few sales. Thus the
only available data that provides sufficient coverage of the areas
are tax assessments. Table IV-2 shows the parcels within the
receiving areas.
Table IV-1 summarizes the statistics for the 69 parcels of
land within the sending areas sample. In the main the parcels are
in small ownerships. The 826 acres are in 69 parcels with an
average size of 11.81 acres. The standard deviations shown
indicate that there is a high degree of variation in parcel size.
The summary data for the sending area are shown in the
following three figures. Following these graphics are a set of
three that directly contrast the sending and receiving areas. This
latter set of graphics shown that the two areas are rather similar.
TABLE IV-1
SUMMARY STATISTICS
SENDING AREAS
AVERAGE SIZE OF PARCEL
STANDARD DEVIATION
AVERAGE NUMBER OF UPLAND ACRES
STANDARD DEVIATION
AVERAGE NUMBER OF WETLAND ACRES
STANDARD DEVIATION
AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE
TOTAL AREA
UPLAND AREA
WETLAND AREA
826.67 ACRES
53.93 ACRES
771.74 ACRES
11.81 ACRES
23.11 ACRES
0.78 ACRES
I.45 ACRES
II.03 ACRES
22.64 ACRES
$47,340.76
17
-------
FIGURE IV-1
NUMBER OF PARCELS BY SIZE OF PARCEL
SENDING AREA
a
E
D
25
20
15
10
3
13 23 33
Acres per Parcel
43 50 +
18
-------
FIGURE IV-2
TOTAL ACRES BY SIZE OF PARCEL
SENDING AREA
600-
500-
400-
300-
200-
13 23 33
Acres per Parcel
7
50 +
19
-------
FIGURE IV-3
VALUE PER ACRE BY SIZE OF PARCEL
SENDING AREA
13 28 38 48 50 +
Acres per Parcel
20
-------
FIGURE IV-4
NUMBER OF PARCELS BY SIZE OF PARCEL
13 23 33
Acres per Parcel
43 50 +
Sending
Receiving
21
-------
FIGURE IV-5
TOTAL ACRES BY SIZE OF PARCEL
23 33
Acres per Parcel
Sending
Receiving
22
-------
FIGURE IV-6
VALUE PER ACRE BY SIZE OF PARCEL
38 48 50 +
Acres per Parcel
Sending
Receiving
23
-------
B. ANALYSIS
in the regression analysis for the sending area the dependent
variable is the estimated value of the parcel. The independent
variables are: the size of the parcel in acres; the number of
acres of wetlands within the parcel,* and the number of acres of
upland within the parcel.
The hypothesis to be tested is that the value of a parcel is
dependent upon the number of acres of upland. The presumption
within this hypothesis is that uplands, and not ^2??
tute the basis for value, A total of three regression equations
were estimated. The results follow.
2.6 7.7
PARCEL VALUE « 232,781.5 + 27,638.0 * TOTAL ACRES
R1 Adj. - .4645 F - 60.0
1 • 711 2.7
PARCEL VALUE = 164,856.4 + 154,790.4 * UPACRES
6.7
+ 24,786.8 * WETACRES
R' Adj. = .4936 F « 34.1
66.5 9.1
Log(PARCEL VALUE) - 11.19546 + .758376 * Log(TOTAL ACRES)
R« Adj. - .5478 F - 83.4
66.8 3.1
Log(PARCEL VALUE) - 11.856306 + .298979 * Log(UPACRES) +
6.5
+ .517378 * Log(WETACRES)
R» Adj. - .5304 F - 39.4.
11 This T-Ratio does not attain 95% level of confidence. It does attain 91% and thus
some significance can be attributed to sending area wetlands. However, the relation-
ship is not strong and some doubt could be cast upon a proposition that sending area
wetlands contribute to parcel value. Nevertheless, the hypothesis that sending area
wetlands significantly contribute to value will be accepted.
24
-------
These results are generally consistent with those of the receiving
area, although the numbers are significant lower. It is comforting
that the two log equations are consistent. The coefficient for the
total area equation is .758376 while the coefficients for uplands
and wetlands are .298978 and .517378. These results indicate a
strong tendency for parcel value to diminish with size, especially
when contrasted with the aggregate area. Likewise, the sending
area upland and wetland coefficient of .298979 and .517378 show
significantly lower value and contribution of uplands to parcel
value.
In the sending area all increases in acreage add to value. A
simple increase of 10% of area increases value by 7.5%. A 10%
increase in uplands adds 3% to value while a similar increase of
wetlands adds 5.2% to value. Therefore, in the log form, wetlands
add much more to value that do uplands. Given the dominance of
wetlands within the sending area, this is not surprising. As would
be expected, the magnitude of the coefficients in the sending area
are significantly lower than those of the receiving area. This
follows from the finding that there are significant differences
between the sending and receiving areas.
Using the log form results in the following value equation for
sending area parcels:
VALUE = A * UPACRES 298979 * WETACRES"517378
Solving this equation for the relative roles of uplands and
wetlands in establishing parcel value within the receiving area
yields:
RELATIVE VALUE OF UPLAND ACRE ¦ .3662356
RELATIVE VALUE OF A WETLAND ACRE - .6337644.
25
-------
V. A TDR PROGRAM
A. THE OBJECTIVE
The task is to assign development rights to the sending area
properties in such a manner that the ratios of value are main-
tained. The relevant ratios are wetlands verses uplands within the
combined area, simply referred to as the region.
A development master plan has been prepared that projects
total development within the region. The total planned development
within the region is:
PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT: ACRES FAR
WAREHOUSE 14,240,340 FT' of Floor Area 720.6 45.37%
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL 2,541,576 FT1 of Floor Area 164.1 35.56%
OFFICE 17,048,513 FT1 of Floor Area 529.9 73.86%
HOUSING 13,669 Dwelling Units 725.0
NOTE: FAR is the Floor Area Ratio, it is the ratio, expressed as
a percentage, of the total floor area to be constructed to the
total area of the site.
The role of the TDR program is to direct this planned development
toward the receiving area and, thus, away from the sending area.
This transfer is accomplished by allocating development rights to
sending area parcels. These right may be used to increase the
development on receiving area properties where wetlands are
present.
There are four types of development planned for the receiving
area: Warehouse, Commercial/Retail, Office, and Housing. Each of
these different types of development have different economic
values. Therefore it is necessary to assess the relative value of
each type in order to equitably allocate TDRs. In the receiving
area the magnitude of development planned was set out above. The
estimated land values by type of development and the values per
foot of floor area, or per dwelling unit, are:
LAND VALUE PER UNIT
LAND VALUE UNITS
WAREHOUSE $141,080,377 14,240,340 $9.91
COMM/RETAIL $29,673,929 2,541,576 $11.68
OFFICE $74,903,643 17,048,513 $5.17
ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL $245,657,949 33,830,430 $7.65
HOUSING $81,829,941 13,669 $5,987
TOTAL-RECEIVING AREA $327,487,890
$327,487,890
TOTAL-SENDING AREA $38,592,665
GRAND TOTAL $366,080,555
26
-------
NOTE: The calculation for office is on the basis of Gross Leasable
Area. Gross floor area is reduced by 15% to calculate leasable
area.
The relative value ratio between residential and non-residential
development is:
PER SQUARE FOOT PER 1,000 FT1
ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL 1.28 1,300
HOUSING 1:1 1:1
This ratio is used to establishing the quantity of development that
may be transferred by a TDR.
Because there are four different types of development to be
transferred, it is necessary to express development and development
rights in a unit that transcends all the types of development to
occur. The most readily available unit is monetary value. The
total projected development value within the region is $366,080,-
555. While all the actual development is to occur within the
receiving area, the total development value may be allocated
between both the receiving and the sending area. The allocation
among the areas is:
ALLOCATION: PERCENT VALUE PER ACRE
TOTAL AREA
UPLANDS 64.45% $235,953,169 $264,427
WETLANDS 35.55% $130,127,386 $62,773
SUB-TOTAL $366,080,555
TO RECEIVING AREa;
UPLANDS 63.77% $208,851,010 $249,110
WETLANDS 36.23% $118,636,879 $91,173
SUB-TOTAL $327,487,890
TO SENDING AREA;
UPLANDS 36.62% $14,134,008 $262,081
WETLANDS 63.38% $24,458,657 $31,693
SUB-TOTAL $38,592,665
TOTAL $366,08Q,555
$366,080,555
A total of $38,592-,665 is allocated to the sending area. This is
the value to be transferred to the receiving area by means of the
TDRs. This magnitude is the sum of the estimated value of all
parcels within the sending area. It is allocated between wetlands
and uplands by the ratios discussed Section IV B.
For sake of convenience, the TDR is expressed in terms of a
specified quantity of types of development programmed to occur.
The development value of a residential unit, $5,987, is employed as
the base unit. The value to be transferred, $38,592,665, is
divided by the base unit to arrive at the number of TDRs:
27
-------
VALUE TO BE TRANSFERRED $38,592,665
BASE UNIT $5,987
TDRs 6,446
HELD IN RESERVE (15%) 967
TOTAL TDRs 7,413
Because a monetary value is divided by a monetary value, the
resulting number of TDRs is not denominated as currency.
Experience elsewhere has shown that it is advisable to have
TDRs held in reserve to allocate. TDRs are allocated on the basis
of land area and type of land and it is entirely possible that
there may be some errors in property measurement or classification.
Holding a quantity of TDRs in reserve provides the ability to
equitably deal with such situations.
B. ALLOCATION OF TDRs TO SENDING AREA
The objective of the TDR program is to relocate development
from the sending area to the receiving area. At the same time, the
TDR is to provide use.value to sending area property owners. The
values to be transferred from sending area are:
UPLANDS $14,134,008 $262,081 PER ACRE
WETLANDS $24,458,657 $31,693 PER ACRE
TOTAL $38,592,665 $46,722 PER ACRE
TDR ALLOCATIONS TO SENDING AREA:
PER UPLAND ACRE 43.8 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
PER WETLAND ACRE 5.3 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.
The above allocation ratios are established by dividing the per
acre value for uplands and wetlands by the base units value,
$5,987:
$262,081 Divided by $5,987 equals 43.8
$31,693 Divided by $5,987 equals 5.3
In recognition of the wide variation in estimated value, an
additional provision is added to the allocation of TDRs to sending
area properties. This provision is that sending area properties
will receive, at a minimum, a TDR allocation that has an estimated
value of no less that 50% of the estimated value of the property.
An example may help. A sending area parcel with 5 upland and
5 wetland acres would be allocated:
5 * 43.8 - 219.0
28
-------
5 * 5.3 - 26.5
245.5 TDRs.
The estimated value of these TDRs is $1,469,809 (245.5 tines
$5,987). If the estimated value of this parcel exceeded $2,895,-
427, the parcel could be allocated TDRs are a ratio of 0.5 times
the estimated value divided by $5,987. If this parcel has an
estimated value of $4,000,000, the number of TDRs allocated would
be 334.0 — $4,000,000 divided by 2 then divided by $5,987.
The direct allocation plus the 15% reserve yields 7,413 TDRs.
The minimum allocation provision adds 106 TDRs 466 to this total
for a grand total of 7,890 rights.
C. USE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE RECEIVING AREA
Using the relative values set out above, a TDR has the
following development use:
1,300 FT* OF WAREHOUSE
1,300 FT' OF COMMERCIAL/RETAIL
1,300 FT1 OF OFFICE
2 DWELLING UNIT
NOTE: The office ratio is expressed in terms of gross leasable
area.
This ratio is derived from the relative values of the types of
development shown above. The weighted average of the per 1,000
square foot land value was divided by the housing value to
determine the conversion ratio, one change was introduced after
calculating this ratio. A TDR may be used for 2 residential
dwelling units rather than one. This is a policy decision that was
made to provide economic incentive for residential development.
An example of use of TDRs may be helpful. A receiving area
parcel of 5 acres of uplands and 5 acres of wetlands would have to
acquire TDRs to attain maximum development. Assuming that this 10
acre parcel was allocated 400,000 FT' of development, 50% of this
development potential would be allocated to the on-site uplands and
50% allocated to the wetlands. Thus, any development beyond
200,000 FT1 on this hypothetical site would require TDRs. If
maximum development is sought, 153.8 TDRs would be required —
200,000 FT2 divided by 1,300 square feet of floor area per TDR.12
12 If this hypothetical property was an office development the above figures at for gross leasable area.
Gross Leasable Area (GLA) typically averages 83% of gross floor area. If 200,000 FF of office gross floor
area was to be transferred, 130.8 TDRs would be needed - 153.8 times 8$%.
29
-------
The development of this ratio was discussed above. If this 10 acre
parcel contained all uplands, no TDRs would be required in order to
achieve maximum development.
The total number of development rights needed by type of
development, are:
WAREHOUSE
COMM/RETAIL
OFFICE
HOUSING
TOTAL
TDRs CREATED
RATIO
3,
413
1,
082
8,
969
3,
554
17,
019
7,
979
216
. 02%
This total is over twice the number of TDRs to be created. Since
not all developments in the receiving area will elect to use TDRs,
this degree of coverage is desirable. It should assure that there
will be an adequate demand for TDRs.
D. TOTAL COST TO RECEIVING AREA
The cost of TDRs in the receiving area, assuming that all TDRs
were used, would be:
TDRS COST OF TDRs UNITS COST PER UNIT
WAREHOUSE 3,413 $20,436,067 fj'it
COMM/RETAIL 1,082 $6'478'®?J i?'o4a'll3 tl'lt
OFFICE 8,969 $53,700,143 17,048,513 $3.15
HOUSING 3,554 $21,279,402 13,669 $1,557
TOTAL 17,019
These averages may be somewhat misleading. The number of TDRs
reouired on a parcel will depend upon the wetlands within that
parcel Parcels with no wetlands will not have to acquire any
mnPe T i Vavise receiving area parcels that do not have any uplands
will "have to a'cquire TDRs for all of the development that is to
take place. The above averages are for the entire receiving area
and individual parcels will experience different costs than those
shown.
The estimated values within the receiving area are:
VALUE PER ACRE
UPLAND $249,110
WETLAND $91,173
DIFFERENCE $157,937
30
-------
Thus, the ability to convert wetlands into development is worth an
estimated $157,937 per acre. The worth of conversion by land use
type is:
FAR/DENSITY
DIFFERENCE VALUE PER UNIT
WAREHOUSE
COM/RETAIL
OFFICE
HOUSING
45.37%
35.56%
73.86%
18.85
$157,937 $7.99
$157,937 $10.20
$157,937 $5.78
$157,937 $8,377.43
NOTE: Office is expressed in gross leasable area.
On average, converting wetlands into warehouse use brings a value
increment of $7.99 per square foot of floor area. For commercial/
retail the value per foot of floor area is $10.20. Office use of
wetlands results in an increment of $5.78. Lastly, conversion to
housing yields an increment of $8,377 per dwelling unit. The cost
per square foot of floor area or residential unit to transfer by
TDRs is:
NOTE: The use of TDRs for office would allow 1,200 FT1 of gross
leasable area. This would mean that a TDR for office use would
allow 1,400 FT' of floor area.
In all circumstances there is a net value increment for transfer-
ring development, or more accurately increasing development by
TDRs. Thus, even for receiving area parcels that are totally
wetlands, there is a positive economic inducement to acquire TDRs.
E. A TDR BANK
The transferable development rights program of the New Jersey
Pinelands Commission is considered to be one of the more successful
programs is existence. This success was aided by the existence of
a TDR bank.13 This- bank stood ready to purchase the TDRs. In so
doing the bank, in effect, guaranteed a minimum value for the
rights. The offer price was set below what was thought to be the
economic value of the rights. This was done to avoid displacing
the free market valuation of rights. Thus any rights owner could
attain a minimum price for their rights if they wished. Alterna-
" The TDRs for the Pinelands Commission are known as Pinelands Development Credits (PDQ and thus
the bank was known as the PDC Bank.
UNITS / TDR TDR COST
COST PER UNIT VALUE PER UNIT
WAREHOUSE
COM/RETAIL
OFFICE
HOUSING
1,300 $5,987
1,300 $5,987
1,300 $5,987
2 $5,987
$4.61 $7.99
$4.61 $10.20
$4.61 $5.78
$2,994 $8,377
31
-------
tively, owners could retain their rights for private sale or other
use.
A TDR bank would be a desirable means of supporting an JMDC
TDR program. As with the Pinelands, the objective of this bank
should be to offer minimum support. It is recommended that the
rule should be to offer 50% to 60% of estimated value —
$3 000 t(T$3,600 per right. Such an offer would provide meaningful
value while not disrupting the free market.
Pvnerience with the Pinelands bank suggests certain other
oolicies First, immediately after the introduction of TDRs, and
before a' private market has the opportunity to develop, it is
™«U^
-------
bank's offer would be $158,656. Assuming that the estimated value
of this parcel was $400,000, the bank would be able to raise the
percentage to 100% and offer the full $317,311. Alternatively, if
the estimated value of the parcel was $300,000, the bank's offer
would be limited to $300,000.
These latter recommendations are offered in order to address
legitimate concerns of property owners while confining windfalls to
the private marketplace. The allocation of TDRs are based upon
estimated parcel values that, in turn, were based upon the tax
assessment of the properties. The values employed are those that
were in place as on January 1, 1995. In is anticipated that future
tax assessment values would not be substituted for those in place
as of January, 1995.
Eventually TDRs acquired by a bank will be sold. Sufficient
time should be allowed to pass so that the bank does not displace
or otherwise hinder the free market. The Pinelands PDCs are
offered for sale at sealed competitive bid. This procedure has
proved to be successful and should be considered.
A New Jersey state bank presently exists. It has been very
important to the success of the PDC program. This agency has the
experience of the PDC program and should be considered as an
available entity to fill the need for an HMDC TDR program.
33
-------
APPENDIX
MATHEMATICS OF THE VALUE OF WETLANDS AND UPLANDS
The land value function has the form:
V =* A UaWfl
Where:
V «¦ Parcel value
A » Constant
U - Number of Upland Acres
W - Number of Wetland Acres
a - Elasticity of Value with respect to Uplands
fl - Elasticity of Value with respect to Wetlands.
From the regression of parcel value in the entire area we learn
that a — .788420 and fl = .434816. Because both a and A are greater
than zero and less than 1:
0
SV/SW > 0
and
SV*/6UJ < 0
6W/6W < 0.
In simple terms, the first derivatives are greater than zero and
the second derivatives are less than 0. The first derivatives
being greater than zero means that additional acres, of either
type, add to parcel value. The second derivatives being less than
zero means that the value added diminish as the number of acres
added increases.
It can be accepted as a given that:
PARCEL VALUE - (P„ * U) + (Pw * W)
Where:
Pu - Price (or value) of an acre of Upland
Pw - Price (or value) of an acre of wetland.
34
-------
Then
V - MUV - PUU + PwW
and
V « MUV - P„U - P„W » 0.
Taking the first derivative of the above with respect to both U and
W allows for the solution of the equation.1
U - a/ (a+B) 1/PU
W » 6/(a+B) 1/PW.
The regression equation2 provided values for:
a - .788420
B - .434816.
' For a discussion of th« form of this aquation and tha solution ••• Hans Br«ia, Ouantltatlva Econoalc
Thaorv: A avnthatlc Approach. Ha* York; Wilty, 1966, Chaptar 2.
1 Tha aquation waa:
Log(PARCEL VALUE) - 12.427746 ~ {.786420 * Log(UPACRES)J
+ [(.434811 * Log(WETACflES)J.
Convarting fora tha logarlthaie to tha linaarfora y la Ida:
VALUE ¦ 12.427746 • UPACBE87MO° * WETACRES^-11.
Thia eonvaraion follow* two rulaa of logarithaa:
1. Tha logaritha of r product of two nuabara istha tua of tha sparata logarithaa, and;
2. Tha logaritha of a powar latha lndax tiaaa tha logaritha of tha baaa of tha powar.
Bacauaa tha aquation was in logarithaa, itlinacaaaary to ravaraa tha abova rulaa to gat to tha linaarfora:
3. Tha antl-logarltha of • sua of two logarithaa laths product of tha two nuabara, and;
2. Tha antl-logarltha of aultlpllsd logarlthas laths tnti logralsad to tha powsr of ths lndax.
So Log(V) ¦ Log(A) ~ [• • Log(U)] ~ (C * Log(W)) is tha saas as V - A • U* •
35
-------
These values can be inserted into the above:
U - [.788420/(.788420 + .434816)] 1/P0
W - [ .434816/( .788420 + .434816)] 1/Pf.
Doing the arithmetic yields:
U - [.644536] 1/Pu
W « [.355464] 1/PW.
Let both U and W - l, then
1 - .644536 * (1/PU)
1 - .355464 * (1/P„)
and
P0 - .644536
Pw ¦ .355464.
Given that
PARCEL VAU.'E «¦ (P0 * U) + (Pw * W)
then
PARCEL VALUE - (.644536 * U) + (.355464 * W)
The value of uplands and wetlands would then be:9
V° - .644536 * PARCEL VALUE
V* - .355464 * PARCEL VALUE.
The above are relevant to the total acres, i.e., the aggrega-
tion of the sending and receiving areas. Because it was determined
that there are significant differences between these two areas, it
is necessary to repeat the above for each area.
s Meall that tha quantity of upland and watland acraaga waa aat at 1, a* tha aagnltuda of U and « ara
alaply 1.
36
-------
This calculation is based upon the assumption of a 2 acre
parcel with 1 acre of wetland and 1 acre of upland. The result is
relative value. If some other sized parcel was assumed, the
quantities of acreages would have to be included at the resulting
relative values multiplied by the intercept (constant) to estimate
parcel value. For the purposes of this inquiry relative value is
all that is needed.
RECEIVING AREA.
The regression equation for the receiving area yielded:
at - .947867
6 - .457237.
These values can be inserted into the above:
UR « [ .852525/(.852525 + .484273)] 1/PU>R
W" - [ .484273/(.852525 + .484273)] 1/PW>R.
Doing the arithmetic yields:
u" - [.637737] 1/PU(R
w" - [.362263] 1/PW>R.
pu,R * • 637737
Pw„ - .362263.
The value of uplands and wetlands in the receiving area would then
be:
V0'" - .637737 * PARCEL VALUE
V"'* - .362263 * PARCEL VALUE.
SENDING AREA.
The regression equation for the receiving area yielded:
a - .481221
B - .126031.
These values can be inserted into the above:
37
-------
u$ - [.298979/(.298979 + .517378)] 1/PU(»
W* - [.517378/(.298979 + .517378)] 1/Pw,8'
Doing the arithmetic yields:
U4 - [.3662356] 1/Pu>s
W* - [.633764] 1/P*,s-
pu # - .3662356
pw 8 - .633764.
The value of uplands and wetlands in the sending area would then
be:
V°I$ - .3662356 * PARCEL VALUE
V*'1 - .633764 * PARCEL VALUE.
tern" SeUr«lativahvalues^"ofuplanda"'and wetland* are employed
».AVtvaTu. to in/iviaujl of wetland3 and
uplands within both the receiving and the sending areas.
38
-------
Appendix
D
-------
APPENDIX D
NEED FOR GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT IN
THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT (HMD)
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
DECEMBER 1993
Note: The information presented in this Appendix was used in the development of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, after work on the Appendix was
completed, modifications and improvements in the discussion of this subject were applied
during the preparation of the EIS. As a result, the presentation of policy, planning, and
regulatory Issues contained herein may not be as current as the information in the EIS.
Please note, however, that the presentation of quantitative information regarding
environmental impacts (e.g., wetlands, water quality, air quality, transportation) contained
within the Appendix is current. If any differences exist between this Appendix and the
EIS, the discussion in the EIS supersedes the discussion in the Appendix.
-------
NEED FOR GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT
IN THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT (HMD)
1.0 HMDC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Growth and environmental improvement are critical elements of
long-term management of the Hackensack Meadowlands District.
As expressed in State Plan documents, there is a critical link
between economic and social well-being. Economic development
is a key to improving qualities of life, qualities that
include social and environmental objectives. The objectives
of this needs analysis are reviewed below, followed by a
recapitulation of HMDC's Goals for the Meadowlands District.
1.1 Objectives of Needs Analysis
The objectives of the needs analysis include:
• Review HMDC's legislative mandates and goals in the
context of the demand and need for growth in the
HMD.
• Identify the economic, social, and environmental
needs that form the basis of the SAMP and HMDC's
Master Planning in the District.
• Summarize the critical elements of growth, as
supported by HMDC Master Plan technical studies and
analyses.
• Describe levels of development needed to achieve
HMDC goals.
1.2 Goals of HMDC
Legislated Goals
The legislated goals of HMDC are outlined from.the purposes of
Chapter 404, Laws of 1968, N.J.S.A. 13:17-1 et seq.:
• promote orderly, comprehensive economic development for
an area in the "heart of a vast metropolitan area with
urgent needs for more space for industrial, commercial
residential and public recreation"...
' provision of facilities for the disposal of solid waste
1-1
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
"the need to consider the ecological factors
constituting the environment of the meadowlands and the
need to preserve the delicate balance of nature"...
• provide for a commission to "reclaim, plan, develop and
redevelop the Hackensack Meadowlands"...
The specific powers granted to the Commission that are
relevant to the SAMP include:
to acquire any land or interest therein ...
• to receive and accept grants or loans in aid of the
planning or construction of any project
• to prepare, adopt and implement a master plan for the
physical development of all lands... lying within the
district. . .
• to recover by special assessments the cost of
improvements
• to review and regulate plans for any subdivision or
development within the district.
Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan
Environmental Goals
• to protect to the maximum extent practicable, the
existing environmental resources within the District and
to prevent extensive degradation to the natural
resources and improve the environment where such
degradation has taken place,
• provide a balance between social needs and economic
growth as it relates to wetlands and to achieve no net
loss of the wetland environment,
• fulfill planning objectives determined through the
Master Plan/SAMP process by application of federal and
state environmental regulations, including planning
criteria that relate to costs, logistics, and
technology,
• provide a continuing mechanism for improvement of the
District's air, water, and land quality through the
implementation of an Environmental Improvement Program
1-2
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
(EIP), including mitigation and remediation of impacted
environmental media.
Development Goals
• provide for the creation of regional employment through
properly planned growth in office, commercial and
warehouse uses in the HMD,
• foster economic development in order to sustain a
multi-jurisdictional tax sharing system and maintain
comprehensive land use planning at a regional level,
• encourage more efficient utilization of developed
upland, and redevelopment areas in the district, and to
maximize the development potential of such areas.
Social and Planning Goals
• creation of major multi-use planned activity centers
within the Meadowlands District at locations where
highway and mass transit systems will support such
development1,
• provide market rate housing to satisfy that demand
sector and use market rate housing as leverage to
satisfy low and moderate income housing goals, in
accordance with the N.J. Council on Affordable Housing
(COAH) guidelines,
fulfill development needs using planning criteria and
urban design forms for growth consistent with the N.J.
State Development and Redevelopment Plan as adopted by
the N.J. State Planning Commission.
1 The "multi-use center" form of growth proposed by
HMDC is more efficient, on an environmental basis, than the
sprawl single-use development patterns existing (and permitted
under zoning) in the surrounding suburbanized region. A study
by Middlesex-Somerset-Mercer Regional Council finds that
individual mixed-use developments in concert with
transportation demand management, generate upwards of 20
percent fewer trips on public roadways than traditional
single-purpose developments (the usual development allowed
under suburban zoning.
1-3
HMDC PINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
2.0 NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH IN THE MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
Sustainable growth is being planned in the Meadowlands
District to achieve basic social needs for housing and
employment opportunity. Planning for the District (that is
also part of the SAMP) also seeks to attain social goals such
as environmental protection and recreational opportunity.
The objective of regional growth serves to promote the
principles of individual welfare, opportunity, and equity.
While HMDC's motivation in planning for residential growth in
the District may seem obvious, such principles guide the
process of preparing comprehensive land use planning for the
District.
Increases in households and increases in employment projected
for the region and the District create a need for housing. As
projected additional households are formed and as projected
additional employment is created in northeastern NJ during the
planning period for the SAMP (the planning horizon is year
2010) the existing housing stock becomes increasingly
insufficient. Hence, the formation of new households and the
creation of new jobs requires that opportunities be made
available to add to the housing stock.
Demand for housing is a function of need, but adds an economic
factor: the ability to pay. A stated goal of HMDC is to
provide for a mix of housing opportunity in the District.
However, it is not useful in this analysis to review price
elasticity of housing in the region. Rather, it is sufficient
to state that economic and population growth require additions
to the housing stock, and to quantify such additions.
The following analysis reviews the need for housing from a
social perspective—proceeding toward a goal of providing
housing for all income groups, and that future provision of
housing will meet at least part of the need expressed by all
income groups.
2.1 APPROACH TO IDENTIFYING NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
The need for growth in a specific geographic subregion
(Hackensack Meadowlands District) is determined by evaluating
social, economic, real estate, demographic, and land use
information, information on past demographic and employment
trends and current conditions at the local, state, and
national level is used to project demographic and economic
changes in the future.
2-1
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
Projected growth and the need to provide for new housing has
been evaluated using published projections of employment and
household growth.1* There are several state-level sources of
information containing future projections of population,
employment, and household growth. The NJ Dept. of Labor
(NJDOL) and the Office of State Planning both projected
continuing employment growth in northeastern NJ, clearly
indicating a need for construction of additional housing in
which new workers and their families can live.
Because alternative data sources and indices are available,
this needs analysis looks for convergence among different sets
of future projections in determining future need.
Need for residential growth is a function of household
formation, replacement of obsolescent housing, and the need to
maintain appropriate vacancy rates.2 (Center for Urban
Policy Research, 1992, pg. 347) Need for residential growth
is also a function of employment growth, whereby new workers
require a place of residence.
A six-county region has been identified that generally
represents a commuting range between the Meadowlands District
and out-of-District jobs and housing, and includes Bergen,
Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Passaic, and Union Counties. This
is an area from which new population residing in the
Meadowlands can travel to jobs in the six-county region. In
addition, new jobs that might be created in the Meadowlands
can typically be reached from homes within the six-county
region. (This six-county region is also the study area for
out-of-District alternatives in the SAMP/EIS.)
A review of land use patterns in the six-county region
indicates that most of the existing land has been developed,
except in the periphery of the region, where a major effort
has been underway by local government and the Office of State
Planning to maintain the less developed character of such
locations, and to discourage extension of infrastructure to
exurban areas.
Analysis of property tax information prepared by the Center
for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) as part of their Impact
Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and
Redevelopment Plan (of the Office of State Planning) shows
limited vacant land acreage in the six county area, as
Superscripted numbers refer to endnotes located at
the close of the section.
2-2
HMDC PINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
follows: Bergen County - 12,001 acres; Essex County - 10,187
acres; Hudson County - 1,266 acres; northern Middlesex County
- 5,645 acres3; Passaic County - 42,051 acres; and Union
County - 1,744 acres.
The vacant land information for Bergen, Essex, Hudson, and
Union Counties indicates that the acreage of vacant land is
quite limited.4 These counties are mostly developed, and the
remaining vacant land typically consists of smaller parcels
that are likely to be difficult to develop given site
conditions and/or location. The vacant acreage in Passaic
County is targeted for growth management control programs
under County and State Planning efforts (principally as a
result of its water supply functions), and the majority of the
vacant acreage is without infrastructure systems.
While HMDC is considered a unique planning region, and is not
included in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan
process, HMDC does recognize and support the goals and
objectives of the State Plan guidance. Because the State Plan
adopts by reference HMDC's Master Plan shared goals and
objectives promote consistency between the two plans. For
example, the State Plan discuss infrastructure needs in the
District in the context of directing capital improvement
financing.
The six-county area contains only 10 percent of the vacant
land estimated to be present in New Jersey (CUPR 1992), but
hosts 49 percent of NJ's population and 53 percent of NJ's
employment. The sum of vacant land in the six-county region
not targeted for growth management and having infrastructure
systems in place totals 47,693 acres.5
The portions of the 14 Meadowlands District municipalities
located within the District boundary contain about 7,500 acres
of vacant land, or about 16 percent of the vacant land
inventory of the six-county region6. The vacant land in the
District is either presently served or immediately adjacent to
existing infrastructure and utilities. Given the existing
distribution of vacant land in the six-county region, the
District hosts a disproportionately large share of the vacant
land inventory.
Most of the vacant land present in NJ is outside the six-
county region. However, a substantial percentage of the
limited vacant land in the six-county region is located in the
Meadowlands District. These vacant land statistics,
considered together with the locational real estate advantages
2-3
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
of District properties, helps explain why the Meadowlands
District has been under substantial development pressure.
Because the Meadowlands District contains a major percentage
of the undeveloped land in the surrounding region, reasoned
planning analysis indicates that substantial need for regional
residential growth will be expressed in the District during
the planning period. The goal of HMDC is to provide for a
fair share of the regional housing need in the District, a
share approximately equal to its substantial percentage of the
region's vacant land.
The following sections review the regional need for housing,
and then identify the need to provide opportunities for
housing growth in the District.
2.2 NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH IN THE MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
The need for residential growth in the Hackensack Meadowlands
District is a function of anticipated employment and household
growth in the NJ/NY metropolitan region, and is composed of a
need for low and moderate income housing and a need for market
rate housing. Based on the NJ Council on Affordable Housing
calculations, there is a deficiency in available low and
moderate income housing in the Meadowlands District
municipalities.
The need for market rate housing is a function of the
projected increases in households and the need to provide
housing for projected increases in employment in the region,
as well as the need for market rate units to subsidize the
construction of low/moderate income housing units.
Projections based on employment increases and household
formation should be considered long-term estimates of need,
and transcend economic and real estate market fluctuations.
2.2.1 Need for Low/Moderate Income Housing in the District
The Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) has identified a need
for additional low and moderate income housing in the 14
municipalities that are included in the Meadowlands District.
The Meadowlands District includes portions of the 14
municipalities; however, the COAH allocations are available
only for entire municipalities. Because of the saturated
development patterns in the parts of the 14 Meadowlands
District municipalities outside the District boundary, the new
housing component of low/moderate income housing need and the
market rate construction that would be used to finance
2-4
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
rehabilitation and construction of low/moderate income housing
can only be achieved (built) within the District.
The allocations of low and moderate income housing determined
by COAH include several components of housing need, assigned
at the municipal level. These components are:
Indigenous need: the current need for
rehabilitation of existing units.
Reallocated present need: excess of existing
substandard units in municipalities redistributed
to other towns in the region.
Prospective need: the need based on future growth
in the municipality and region.
COAH prepared housing allocations for each municipality for
the period from 1993-1999. The housing allocations
incorporate several modifications in method over previous COAH
allocations, largely as a result of changes in data available
from the Census, as well as new data identifying existing land
uses. The 1993-1999 allocations are reviewed below, and the
method is compared to the previous allocations.
Need For Rehabilitation Of Existing Units. Using the 1993-
1999 allocations for indigenous need (adjusting for
demolitions, filtering, conversions and spontaneous
rehabilitation) the total need for rehabilitated units in the
14 Meadowlands municipalities is 989 units.7 (The 1987-1993
indigenous need identified by COAH was for rehabilitation of
4,146 housing units.)
Need For Construction Of New Low/Moderate Income Units. To
identify the need for new construction of low and moderate
income housing units the following data has been used; the
1993-1999 COAH allocations for reallocated present need and
prospective need, plus the prior cycle (1987-1993) prospective
need not satisfied during that cycle, and revisions to
undeveloped land data. The unsatisfied prior cycle need and
revisions to undeveloped land data are adjustments to the COAH
method performed by HMDC. These adjustments are incorporated
to compensate for COAH's focus on providing appropriate zoning
that allows such housing; instead, the SAMP needs to consider
the construction of low and moderate income units.
Adjustments related to unsatisfied prior cycle need are
incorporated because the 1993-1999 COAH allocations exclude
housing elements certified with COAH, and court-ordered
2-5
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
housing obligations. (A housing element indicates that
specific lands have been zoned to accommodate low/moderate
income housing, but do not assure construction of such
housing.) For example, the 1993-1999 COAH allocation for
Secaucus is zero, because the filed housing element provided
land zoned for construction of 634 low/moderate income units.
However, this housing has not been built, and both COAH and
HMDC consider this to be an unsatisfied need in the District.
For this reason the present analysis retains Secaucus' need.
Jersey City also has a housing plan filed with COAH but has
not petitioned for substantive certification.
The new COAH allocation method, includes adjustments that
reduce the allocation where the inventory of undeveloped land
in a municipality is limited. The new COAH analysis of
undeveloped land was prepared from satellite photography,
interpreted at a statewide scale that lacks sufficient
accuracy where land cover interpretations are complex. HMDC
has identified significant discrepancies between the COAH
analysis and the more detailed analyses performed as part of
HMDC's Master Planning efforts. Specifically, Carlstadt,
Little Ferry, Lyndhurst, Moonachie, Ridgefield, Rutherford,
South Hackensack and Teterboro all exhibit reduced allocations
using COAH's analytical methods to identify developable land.
Recognizing the problems with COAH's developable land
analysis, HMDC has instead used more detailed undeveloped land
data to improve the analysis of prospective need.
Applying the above noted improvements to the COAH analysis,
the 14 Meadowlands municipalities exhibit a prospective need
for construction of 2,393 new low/moderate income housing
units. (The reallocated and prospective need identified by
COAH for the 1987-1993 period called for new construction of
2,099 housing units.)
The above discussion of the new COAH low and moderate housing
obligations addresses only need for the period of 1993-1999.
At the end of the 1993-1999 cycle, COAH will reassess the low
and moderate income housing need, and new obligations will be
assigned to municipalities.
As non-residential development in the Meadowlands and in the
region intensifies in the future, the prospective need may
increase substantially. Given the current pattern of cycles,
there are two additional housing cycles subsequent to 1999
that should be considered to reach the HMDC and SAMP planning
horizon of 2010. However, the present analysis considers only
the 1993-1999 period; it is not possible to reliably
anticipate future low and moderate housing housing needs, nor
2-6
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
is it possible to reliably estimate the degree to which
municipalities will satisfy COAH housing allocations. These
future components of need will be considered as part of the
future SAMP review and monitoring mechanisms.
The most likely source of funding for housing rehabilitation
of the existing housing stock in the 14 Meadowlands District
municipalities is subsidies from construction of new market
rate housing in the District (discussed in the following
section).
2.2.2 Need for Market Rate Housing in the District
The need for market rate housing is derived directly from the
need to provide housing for the new households that will be
formed, and the need to provide housing for the increased
number of employees that will be working in the NJ/NY
metropolitan region.
Providing housing for the population is a universal social
goal. Providing for housing need allows the population to
live in affordable housing, to select from a range of housing
costs and types (for both renters and owners), to live in safe
and vibrant communities, and to select from a variety of
housing and neighborhood densities.8
The need for housing in the region serves as an indicator of
the need for housing in the District. In the following
sections estimates of regional growth and associated housing
need are reviewed. Then the level of analysis shifts to the
associated need to provide for housing in the District.
Need for Residential Growth in the District based on Need to
Provide Subsidy for Low/Moderate Income Housing Needs
Because of the extreme limitations on funding of subsidized
housing, new residential construction in the District is the
only major source of potential funding to provide for the low
and moderate income new construction and rehabilitation needs.
COAH has indicated that 4 market rate housing units are needed
to support the construction of one new low/moderate income
housing unit. In a similar manner, 2 market rate units are
estimated to be needed to support the rehabilitation of a
housing unit.9
Using a subsidy ratio of 2:1 to provide funding for housing
rehabilitation indicates a need for 1,978 new market rate
housing units in the District to finance COAH-identified
housing rehabilitation. (COAH rehabilitation need equals 989
2-7
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
units.) Construction of market rate housing in the District
is necessary to support the need to rehabilitate deteriorating
units that exist in the out-of-District portions of the 14
Meadowlands municipalities.
Using a subsidy ratio of 4:1 to facilitate construction of new
affordable housing, there is an in-District need for 9,572
market rate units. (The adjusted COAH allocation for new
construction of low/moderate income housing equals 2,393
units).
Therefore, the total housing need for the District, based on
provision and subsidization of low and moderate income
housing, equals 11,550 market rate units. The 11,550 market
rate units needed to support low and moderate income housing,
added to the 2,393 low and moderate income housing units that
would be built in the District, indicates a need for total
housing construction in the District of 13,943 units (rounded
herein to 14,000 units).
Need for Residential Growth Based on Employment Growth
Employment is one of the major factors that stimulates growth
in population and households in an area. The creation of new
jobs not only expands employment opportunity for the existing
labor force, but also motivates workers to relocate to areas
exhibiting job growth. While employment drives growth in
northeastern New Jersey, the associated residential component
is also assessed below.
Two alternative sets of employment projections are evaluated
below. Using NJDOL data, the regional need for housing is
projected, then the in-District need is assessed. Following
this, CUPR data is used to project regional need, then in-
District need is assessed.
Regional Need for Housing - Based on 1989 NJDOL Data. Using
1989 NJDOL projections, employment for the six-county region
is projected to increase by year 2010 by 375,200 employees,
adding to the 1,950,300 employees working in the six-county
region in 1988. (See Appendix A for county employment
projections.)
Employment projections for New Jersey are developed by NJDOL
based on application of shift-share and regression models to
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics moderate growth scenario
projections, modified by NJDOL to account for specific job
growth characteristics identified for NJ. The projected
employment and population growth are based on long-term
2-8
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
trends, and include peak and trough cycling within the real
estate industry.
For the six county study region, the population-to-employment
ratio10 was 1.94 in 1990; that is, there were 1.94 residents
for each employee in the region.11 (See Endnotes 10 and 11
for a discussion of the use of a population-to-employment
ratio.) Based on available information regarding the
stabilization of labor force participation rates, the 1990 P:E
ratio has been held constant for this analysis.
The addition of 375,200 jobs (NJDOL 1989) in the region
creates the potential for a correspondent population increase
of about 728,000 persons in the region by 2010. Using the
average 1990 household size for the six-county region of 2.7
persons per household, a potential population increase of
728,000 persons translates into a need for 269,600 housing
units in the six-county region.
Need for Housing in the District - Based on 1989 NJDOL Data
and Limited Vacant Land in the Region. As noted earlier,
NJDOL (1989) projects employment in the six-county region to
increase by 375,200 workers from 1990 to 2010. Because of the
extreme limitation on vacant land in the region, and local and
state planning policies discouraging growth in the less
densely developed and more natural environments of the region,
it is projected that the District will provide a residential
location for 16 percent (60,000 workers) of the total areawide
employment growth.12
For each resident in the labor force in the six-county region
there are 0.91 persons present that are not in the labor
force.13 (See Endnote 13 for a discussion of the use of the
population-to-labor force ratio.) Using this relationship,
the 60,000 workers that will reside in the District (i.e., new
working District residents) will be associated with a non-
labor force in-District population of 54,600 persons. Thus,
based on NJDOL regional employment projections, a total of
114,600 persons are expected to reside in the District and
will require housing. Given a projected future in-District
household size of 2.414, the housing need in the District
associated with CUPR-projected regional employment growth is
47,750 housing units.
Comment. This statistically-based calculation of housing need
appears to overestimate need, because it does not reflect the
shift in employment trends observed for the region in the late
1980's and early 1990's.
2-9
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
Regional Need for Housing - Based on 1992 CUPR Employment
Projections. Employment for the six-county region is
projected to increase in year 2010 by 139,500 employees using
1992 CUPR projections (from 1,950,300 employees in 1988 to
2,089,823 employees in 2010; difference rounded to nearest
hundred). As noted above, the P:E ratio in the six-county
region was 1.94 in 1990. Thus, the addition of 139,500 jobs
in the region creates the potential for a correspondent
population increase of about 271,000 persons in the region by
2010. Using the average 1990 household size for the six-
county region of 2.7 persons per household, a potential
population increase in the six-county region of 271,000
persons thereby creates a need for 100,400 housing units in
the six-county region.
Need for Housing in the District - Based on 1992 CUPR
Employment Projections and Limited Vacant Land in the Region.
CUPR (1992) projects employment in the six-county region to
increase by about 139,500 workers from 1990 to 2010. Because
of the extreme limitation on vacant land in the region (as
previously discussed), about 16 percent of this total, or
22,000 workers are predicted to reside within the District.
In the six-county region there are 0.91 persons present that
are not in the labor force for each resident in the labor
force. Using this relationship, the 22,000 workers that will
reside in the District (i.e., new working in-District
population) will be associated with a non-labor force in-
District population of 20,020 persons. Thus, a total of
42,020 persons are expected to reside in the District and will
require housing. Given a projected future in-District
household size of 2.4, the housing need in the District
associated with CUPR-projected regional employment growth is
17,500 housing units.
Comment. The CUPR data appears to underestimate the
employment growth potential of the New Jersey/New York region.
There are significant opportunities for the New Jersey/New
York Metropolitan area to take advantage of the
infrastructure, port, telecommunications, and high technology
facilities of the region, thus inducing robust employment
growth. However, for purposes of this analysis, the CUPR
employment data indicates a reasonable mid-point projection of
the regions growth potential.
2-10
HMDC PINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
Need for Residential Growth based on Growth in Households
(1992 CUPR) and Limited Vacant Land in Region
Regional Need for Housing - Based on 1992 CUPR Household
Projections. CUPR (1992) has projected the number of new
households that will be formed in each of New Jersey's
counties by year 2010. Each household will require some form
of housing. In the six-county region, CUPR projects that
77,275 households will be created. (See Appendix A for county
household projections.)
Weed for Housing in the District - Based on 1992 CUPR
Household Projections and Limited Vacant Land in the Region.
Because of the limited vacant land in the region (as
previously discussed), about 16 percent of the 77,275
households that are projected by CUPR to be formed in the six-
county region are predicted to be needed in the Meadowlands
District (12,200 households)
Comments. Employment increases, as projected by CUPR, are
substantially greater than the projected increase in
households in the six-county area, suggesting an inadequate
labor force might constrain job growth. For this reason, HMDC
believes that this method significantly underestimates the
need for housing in the region, and in the District. In
addition, current economic and social conditions suggest that
the relatively low 1990 household formation rates (headship
rates) may not continue to decrease (as is assumed by CUPR).
The rates of household formation are projected (by CUPR) to
continue to decrease; however, HMDC believes that rates of
household formation are more likely to stabilize (or increase)
as the economy improves, as a result of in-migration to the
region, and as a result of pent-up demand for moderate cost
housing.
2.3 CONCLUSION - NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
The need for residential growth in the Meadowlands District is
derived from the need to support low/moderate income housing
goals for the District, and from the need to host a percentage
of the residential growth in the six county region, as driven
by projected employment increase and projected formation of
additional households.
The relative unavailability of land in northeastern NJ
increases the need for growth in locations such as the
Meadowlands District, especially in light of its significant
transportation advantages associated with the highway and rail
system in the region.
2-11
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
Provision of housing for projected employment growth is
essential to allow employment growth to occur. If housing
cannot be made available within commutation distance of the
jobs projected in the region, then the work force will be
insufficient to support the economic growth needed and
projected for the region.15
Based on the analyses conducted above, HMDC calculates housing
need in the Meadowlands District to be at least 14,000
residential housing units (given the fact that the COAH
housing needs include only the 1993-1999 cycle). This
forecast is based on the need to support low/moderate income
housing goals for the area and the need to host at least the
amount of regional population increase proportional to the
District's vacant land inventory.16
PROJECTIONS OF NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
IN THE MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
Residential Need Assessment
Approach
Projected
Residential
Need
Provide Housing for NJDOL
Employment Growth Projections
47,750 units
Provide Housing for CUPR
Employment Growth Projections
17,500 units
Provide Subsidy for Low/Moderate
Income Housing Needs
14,000 units
Provide Housing for CUPR
Household Growth Projections
12,200 units
This analysis has shown that during the planning period there
is a need to provide for additional housing in the District,
attributable primarily to projected increases in employment
for the region, and the need to provide subsidization for low
and moderate income housing needs.
2-12
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
Endnotes for Section 2
1. Projections of future growth in households and employment
were obtained from three sources: the NJ Dept. of Labor -
Division of Labor Market and Demographic Research, the New
Jersey Office of State Planning and their consultants (the
Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research).
2. Existing housing vacancies in the region are low compared
to the state average of 9.1 percent in 1990, and indicate a
high demand for housing in the region. The 1990 vacancy rates
in the region were as follows: Bergen Co. - 4.9 percent; Essex
Co. - 6.7 percent; Hudson Co. - 9.1 percent; Middlesex Co. -
4.5 percent; Passaic Co. - 4.5 percent; Union Co. - 3.7
percent.
3. The 1991 vacant land inventory for Middlesex County, as
calculated by CUPR, is 35,216 acres. A Growth Management
Study prepared by the Middlesex County Planning Board provided
information on the distribution of vacant acreage between
northern and southern Middlesex County. (MCPB, 1991)
4. The vacant land inventory by CUPR includes land that is
environmentally sensitive.
5. A table presenting the vacant land inventory in each
county, as derived from the 1992 CUPR report is presented in
Appendix A. The vacant land acreage that is supported by
infrastructure in Passaic County, and that is not within areas
targeted for strong growth management controls under the
Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan is estimated
to be 40 percent of the total inventory of vacant land for
Passaic County (total vacant land in county - 42,051 acres),
based on interpretation of high-altitude photography and
Office of State Planning information.
6. Using the Passaic County vacant land inventory, revised to
reflect unavailability of infrastructure and presence of
growth management objectives.
7. Appendix B presents a table listing the indigenous need
and prospective need for each of the 14 municipalities that
are included in the Meadowlands District.
6. The demand for residential growth in the District is
highlighted by the fact that a number of developers currently
propose to invest their resources in major residential
construction projects in the District. Examples include the
2-13
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
Meadowlands Town Center proposal and the Hartz Mountain
proposal.
9. Sources: Center for Urban Policy Research; NJ Council on
Affordable Housing.
10. A statistical relationship exists between the number of
residents in an area (population) and the workers employed in
that area (employment). This statistic is known as the
population-to-employment (P:E) ratio. The P;E ratio is a tool
used by planners and demographers to project growth trends.
In its most fundamental sense, the P:E ratio simply reflects
the reality that jobs are filled by residents, and that there
is a definable relationship between jobs and communities
housing the workers that fill those jobs. The P:E ratio can
be used to estimate, for communities and regions, the amount
of housing needed to support a specific level of employment.
The P:E ratio is primarily applicable over broad geographic
areas, because it should include (to the maximum degree
possible) commutation distances. It is useful for predictive
analysis, where detailed projection are available for either
population or employment, from which the companion statistic
can be calculated.
In Methods of Regional Analysis (1960), Walter Isard
classifies the population-to-employment ratio as a "ratio and
correlation method". He states "population growth in the
study area is associated statistically with such factors as
employment, investment, income, exports, ...". He indicates
that in such statistical analysis "population growth in the
study area is usually designated in a noncausal sense as the
dependent variable, and the other factors as the independent
variable." In Local Population and Employment Projection
Techniques (1978), Michael Greenberg (et al) describes
population-to^employment ratio as a noncomponent ratio
correlation method. He states that "population is treated as
a function of some other variable—jobs, housing units, or
other symptomatic data." He indicates that multiple
regression may be used to determine the populations's
relationship to the independent variable.
In 1990 the P:E ratio for NJ counties ranged from 1.65 (Mercer
County, the seat of state government) to 4.13 (Sussex County),
with a statewide median P:E value of 2.12. The P:E ratio has
decreased slowly over past decades, specifically as labor
force participation by women has increased. Current analysis
indicates that the labor force participation rate by men and
2-14
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
women has stabilized, thereby stabilizing the PsE ratio. A
theoretical minimum exists for the P:E ratio (above a minimum
of 1.0, whereby all population would be employed) because this
population statistic includes: (1) persons under 16 and over
65 (together constituting about 32 percent of the population),
who are much less likely to be part of the labor force; (2)
homemakers in some percentage of households; as well as (3)
unemployed persons. Hence it is unlikely that the P:E ratio
would fall below a value of about 1.6.
it should be noted that the P:E ratio within the Meadowlands
District boundary indicates a significant deficiency of
housing, a circumstance inconsistent with HMDC planning goals.
The 1990 in-District employment of 72,162 would typically be
associated with the presence of a nearby population about
twice that amount (serving as the labor force). If the 1990
in-District population (10,431 persons) is compared to the in-
District employment (72,162 employees), the P:E ratio is an
extremely low value of 0.145. While the in-District land area
does not encompass an sufficiently large commutation region
for effective P:E analysis, simple comparison of the
population and employment levels in the District indicates
disequilibrium.
HMDC staff attribute this imbalance to the past focus by
developers on non-residential construction in the District; as
demand for housing opportunity was exerted the cost of
development in the District (especially as related to
regulatory approvals) became a disincentive to such growth.
The higher costs of development in the District motivated
developers to seek the most profitable projects, which are
business-related. The P:E imbalance in the District is not in
accord with the goals of HMDC regarding provision of housing
in proximity to employment (thereby reducing commutation).
HMDC seeks, through their Master Plan process to achieve
better balance between housing and employment in the District.
11. Data regarding the population-to-employment ratios for NJ
counties for the years 1970, 1980, and 1990 are presented in
Appendix C. A linear regression analysis of the 1990 county
population-to-employment levels indicates employment
(independent variable) to be a good predictor of population
(dependent variable). The coefficient of determination (r2)
is 0.92, which indicates the degree of the relationship
between employment and population. The closer the r2 value is
to 1.0, the stronger the relationship. The 1990 county
population and employment data is also graphed in Appendix C,
including the calculated regression line.
2-15
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
12. As discussed in the previous section, about 16 percent of
the vacant land in the six-county region is located in the
Meadowlands District; hence, 16 percent of the regional need
for housing (that stems from new households and employment)
should be met in the District.
13. The labor force statistic is a count of workers at their
place of residence, while covered employment is a count of
workers at their place of employment. In 1990, for each
person in the labor force in Bergen County there were 1.88
residents not in the labor force; in Essex County there were
2.03 residents; in Hudson County there were 1.98 residents; in
Middlesex County there were 1.74 residents; in Passaic County
there were 1.98 residents; and in Union County there were 1.92
residents.
The difference in the definition and use of the population-to-
employment (P:E) ratio and the population-to-labor force
(P:LF) ratio is discussed below. The population-to-employment
ratio (P:E) measures the ratio between the number of people
living in an area and the number of people that work in
businesses located in that area. The population-to-labor
force ratio (P:LF) measures the number of employed people who
live in an area (employed residents). One difference between
the two ratios is in the actual place of employment and
residence. The P:E ratio describes how many people work in an
area compared to how many live there. The employment
component of the P:E ratio is not concerned with where the
workers live. The P:LF ratio describes how many people that
live in an area have jobs, and is not concerned with where the
residents work.
Assume for example that Smalltown has a population of 100, and
that businesses in Smalltown employ 50 people, but 30 of these
employees come from neighboring towns. Thus, 20 people who
live in Smalltown also work in Smalltown. However, 50
additional residents of Smalltown have jobs, but they work in
Metropolis. For this example, the P:E ratio for Smalltown
would be 100:50, or 2.0, while the P:LF ratio would be 100:70,
or 1.4. This means that for every job located in Smalltown,
there are two people living in Smalltown. But for every
employed resident of Smalltown, there are approximately 1.4
people living in Smalltown.
Another difference between the two ratios lies in their use.
When predicting population growth from an estimated increase
in jobs, the P:E ratio is most appropriately used at a
regional level, whereas the P:LF ratio is most applicable at
2-16
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
the local level. A reason for this difference lies in the
fact that the people counted in the numerator and denominator
of the P:E ratio are not necessarily the same people—the
people that work in a particular region are not necessarily
the same people that live in that region. On the other hand,
the people counted in the denominator of the P:LF ratio are a
subset of the group counted in the numerator. For this
reason, when predicting population growth from employment
projections at the local level, the P:LF ratio is more
applicable.
To continue the hypothetical example above, assume a P:E ratio
of 2.0 has been established for Metropolis, and it is
predicted that new businesses Will locate in Metropolis and
employ 500 more people. According to the P:E ratio, this
would mean that Metropolis should expect a population increase
of 1,000 new people. However, the P:E ratio doesn't imply
that all (or even any) of the 1,000 new people are directly
associated with the 500 new jobs.
Continuing the assumption that businesses moving to Metropolis
will employ 500 new people, and based on demographic and land
use trends, 25 of those new workers are expected to live in
Smalltown. Because we are now concerned with employed
residents of Smalltown, the P:LF ratio applies, and an
increase of 25 employed residents of Smalltown means that the
population of Smalltown should grow by 35. And furthermore,
these 35 new people are directly associated with the 25 new
employed residents (indeed, 25 of the 35 new people are the
new employed residents).
14. The household size for a representative new residential
project in the District (i.e., Harmon Cove high rise and
condominium units) was 2.1 persons per household, as
enumerated for the 1990 Census. The 1990 household size in
the six-county region is 2.7 persons per household. A future
household size of 2.4 is projected for the District, which is
the average of the six-county region and the Harmon Cove
project household sizes.
15. The Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research
notes that "Land use regulations that slow down growth in the
State's population may result in proportional decreases in
output demand for all industries. The output reductions can,
in turn, cause employment and income decreases. Finally, the
drop in the State's per capita income level can also cause
another round of decreases in output demand, employment,
income, and so on." (CUPR 1992)
2-17
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
16. It should be noted that the need for housing in the
District, based on demographic projections, does not include
that component of housing need that will be expressed by some
percentage of new NYC workers that are expected to reside in
NJ. Specific information is not available to estimate the
out-of-state component of in-District demand. However,
existing statistics from transportation agencies indicate that
commutation from NJ residences to NY jobs is substantial.
Thus, job growth in New York City is likely to be staffed from
a population that includes NJ residents.
2-18
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 12/21/93
-------
SECTION 2.0
APPENDIX A
-------
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
FOR THE SIX-COUNTY REGION
County
1988
NJDOL
2010
NJDOL
2010
CUPR (Plan)
Bergen
464,600
591,900
522,606
Essex
403,600
451,000
363,091
Hudson
245,600
289,000
318,559
Middlesex
357,700
432,700
474,886
Passaic
209,000
245,400
167,333
Union
269,800
315,500
243,348
Total 6-
County
1,950,300
2,325,500
2,089,823
New Jersey
3,647,600
4,497,000
4,319,005
Source: NJ state Planning Commission. Communities of Place:
The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan. Pre-
publication copy. June 12, 1992.
-------
HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS
FOR THE SIX-COUNTY REGION
County
1990
Census
2010
CUPR
Bergen
308,880
324,420
Essex
278,752
249,917
Hudson
208,739
232,678
Middlesex
238,833
295,600
Passaic
155,269
169,138
Union
180,076
176,071
Total 6-
County
1,370,549
1,447,824
New Jersey
2,794,711
3,202,469
Source: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research
(CUPR). Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State
Development and Redevelopment Plan—Report I: Research
Strategy. February 15, 1992.
-------
133.
EXHIBIT 7
TOTAL VACANT LAND-
AGRICULTURAL ASSESSED AND
VACANT LAND BY COUNTY
COUNTY TOTAL VACANT AGRICULTURAL
VACANT LAND LAND ASSESSED
(ACRES) VACANT LAND
Atlantic County
173,623
133,666
39,957
Bergen County
15,152
12,001
3,151
Burlington County
238,026
87,306
150,720
Camden County
45,705
32,535
13,170
Cape May County
58,202
43,102
15,100
Cumberland County
158,812
74,815
78,220
Essex County
10,529
10,187
536
Gloucester County
119,823
38,967
88,168
Hudson County
1,266
1,266
0
Hunterdon County
174,435
24,402
150,312
Mercer County
69,373
18,991
58,694
Middlesex County
73,117
35,286
45,212
Monmouth County
111,427
36,543
92,691
Morris County
112,727
79,301
36,947
Ocean County
160,498
146,979
12,494
Passaic County
50,643
42,051
5,981
Salem County
147,102
25,364
121,974
Somerset County
85,805
24,330
70,625
Sussex County
175,736
59,028
112,811
Union County
2,064
1,774
454
Warren County
147,435
36,317
111,118
Total
2,131,499
964,211
1,167,288
Souret: New Jersey, Department of Treasury, 1990, 1991.
fnd1ReLvelo^e;rru»A!SR:p:"ti°fR«he "'r i""y I""rl- s"" ""•lop-"
Rutgers Unlvl.rai.-v p4- ReP°rt I- Research Strategy; February 15, 1992;
State Planning. Urb8n P°llcy Research fo* the NJ Office of
-------
SECTION 2.0
APPENDIX B
-------
HI-DC HOUSING NEED 12/3/93
TCUNS
INDICEN (])
CREDITS (2) BALANCE
PROSPECT (3)
CARLSTADT
E. DUTHEKrORP
LITTLE FALLS
LYWDHUKBT
HOJNACHIfc
N. ARLINGTON
XI SCiEKOOn
KViTHBRrORD
6. HACKEN&aCK
TJirEKnono
SUBTOTAL
JERSEY CITY
KEARNY (4)
N. BKRCRN
St'AUCUS
SU (TOTAL
TOTAL
iZ
42
35
)0J
5
63
2!>
127
8
0
3,87ft
305
669
GO
26
46
SI
82
5
66
41
7G
6
3
SUBTOTAL
1,446
177
302
63
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
16
0
0
10
0
0
0
Si
0
u
86
80 <7 )
2GC
567
0
903
BSD
2SS
134
ce
1G9
SB
56
76
148
54
107
1,14?
4 SO
30
0
768 (G)
1,246
2,393
MAUKET UNITS
(«)
889 2
2,393 4
TOTAL MAKK1M UNITS NEEDBP
LOU AND MODEKATK UNITS BUILT IN DISTRICT
CHAUD TOTAL UNITS NKKItEP
1,978
9,572
U ,550
'1,393
13 ,84 3
(1) Indigenous naad connintti of axiating fttibbtnitdard unitr. And demolition!
(2) Crodils consist. of filtering, spent *n*(.>Ufc rehabilitation unci convsrKlOM,
C3) Proiptctive iiood conaiats of rohlluuuVod priunt mud, proapactlv* nottt
arid prior c.yclo prospective imutU
(4) Ksarny'o used is the result of a July, 1991 court ordor.
(5) Sucaucus hP6i r;ul>iit*ntive cnrtifloution and housing plan for a total of 766
unit*. Tliu currant cycle obligate* the municipality for 6'AG unite-,
(6) Butio of 211 market unite to 1 lahabJ1jtntod unit and 4:1 aarkat unit
to ) nov low and modtratw unit.
(7) Jovooy city indlgonouu and pronpectivw nead banod on in-dicitric;! nvvd only.
-------
POPULATION TO EMPLOYMENT RATIOS
NEW JERSEY COUNTIES (1970,1980,1990)
County
1970
1980
1990
Population
Employment
P:E
Population
Employment
P:E
Population
Employment
(1988)
P:E
Atlantic
175,043
51,581
3.39
194,119
76,928
2.52
224,327
133,800
1.68
Bergen
897,148
267,628
3.35
845,385
340,296
2.48
825,380
464,600
1.78
Buffington
323,132
53,643
6.02
362,542
79,892
4.54
395,066
152,300
2.59
Camden
456,291
115,256
3.96
471,650
139,365
3.38
502,824
212,600
2.37
Cape May
59,554
16,223
3.67
B2.266
25,968
3.17
95,089
35,400
2.69
Cumberland
121,374
39,484
3.07
132,866
45,087
2.95
138,053
57,800
2.39
Essex
932,526
326,151
2.86
851,304
308,195
2.76
778,206
403,600
1.93
Gloucester
172,681
28,206
6.12
199,917
45,983
4.35
230.082
68,800
3.34
Hudson
607,839
213,169
2.85
556,972
180,369
3.09
553,099
245,600
2.25
Hunterdon
69,718
12,991
5.37
87,361
18,845
4.64
107.776
37,900
2.84
Mercer
304,116
86,851
3.50
307,863
110,606
2.78
325,824
197,000
1.65
Middlesex
583,813
171,337
3.41
595,893
236,560
2.52
671,780
357,700
1.88
Monmouth
461,849
84,313
5.48
503,173
126,165
3.99
553,124
217,400
2.54
Morris
383,454
86,378
4.44
407,630
149,902
2.72
421,353
250,000
1.69
Ocean
208,470
31,792
6.56
346,038
59,564
5.81
433,203
111,200
3.90
Passaic
460,782
155,021
2.97
447,585
157,976
2.83
453,060
209,000
2.17
Salem
60,346
18,531
3.26
64,676
17,418
3.71
65,294
23,900
2.73
Somerset
198,372
46,498
4.27
203,129
79,324
2.56
240,279
133,200
1.80
Sussex
77,528
11,184
6.93
116,119
17,448
6.66
130,943
31,700
4.13
Union
543,116
217,425
2.50
504,094
229,614
2.20
493,819
269,800
1.83
Warren
73,960
20,404
3.62
84,429
24,932
3.39
91,607
34,300
2.67
• « - — - — ¦»—i
uncxsinDuiM
41,732
60.119
State Total 7,171,112 2,095,798 3.42 7,365,011 2,530,556 2.91 7,730,188 3,647,600 2.12
Source: U.S. Census and the New Jersey Department of Labor.
-------
POPULATION TO EMPLOYMENT RATIOS
SIX COUNTY REGION (1970,1980,1990)
1970
1980
1990
Population
Employment
P:E
Population
Employment
P:E
Population
Employment
P:E
County
(1988)
Bergen
897,148
267,628
3.35
845,385
340,296
2.48
825,380
464,600
1.78
Essex
932,526
326,151
2.86
851,304
308,195
2.76
778,206
403,600
1.93
Hudson
607,839
213,169
2.85
556,972
180,369
3.09
553,099
245,600
2.25
Middlesex
583,813
171,337
3.41
595,893
236,560
2.52
671,780
357,700
1.88
Passaic
460,782
155,021
2.97
447,585
157,976
2.83
453,060
209,000
2.17
Union
543,116
217,425
2.50
504,094
229,614
2.20
493,819
269,800
1.83
Total
4,025,224
1,350,731
2.98
3,801,233
1,453,010
2.62
3,775,344
1,950,300
1.94
Source: U.S. Census and the New Jersey Department of Labor.
-------
POPULATION VS. EMPLOYMENT
New Jersey Counties in 1990
500
450-
!i
UJ
a.
2
UJ
400500
POPULATION
(Thousand*)
1990 Pop/Emp Data Regression Una
POPULATION VS. EMPLOYMENT
Six County Region in 1990
UJ
0.
s
Ui
500
450
400
350-
300-
250'
200
650
POPULATION
(Thousands)
B50
¦ 1990 Pop/Emp Oala
— Regression Una
-------
3.0 NEED FOR OFFICE GROWTH IN THE MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT
3.1 Demand for Office Growth
Demand for Primary Office Space. Demand for development of
primary office space in the District is a function of the
probable future market share of the District, and the low
availability of undeveloped land to accommodate primary office
growth in the six county region.
Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC) analysis indicates a
demand for primary office space development in the Meadowlands
District that is 15 percent1 of.the office space demand to be
exerted by northern New Jersey, which HMDC determines would
result in a demand for approximately 18 million square feet of
primary office space during the planning period.
In addition, public policy articulated in the State
Development and Redevelopment Plan directs growth to areas of
the state with existing infrastructure, and recommends growth
occur in mixed use growth "centers". Center-based
development, which is the form of growth found to be most
efficient by HMDC in recent planning studies for the District,
reduces auto dependence and related air emissions and
maximizes use of existing infrastructure capacity in built
areas.
Demand for Secondary Office Space. In addition to the demand
for primary office space, there is a demand for growth in
secondary office, warehousing, and light industry. This
demand is based on the need to provide support for primary
office activity currently existing and projected for the
region, and is also a function of the significant locational
advantages of the Meadowlands District for distribution of
goods and materials.
The secondary office/warehouse market in the Hackensack
Meadowlands is historically comprised of storage and
distribution facilities of moderate size. The primary
activity at such facilities is storage and delivery of market
goods. The land use market for storage and distribution
facilities has evolved to include such activities as product
finishing, repackaging and value added functions, as well as
the typical distribution tasks.
Warehouses have historically provided employment opportunity,
generated tax revenues, and have stimulated secondary service
companies as well as white collar job opportunities in support
services (Portfolio, The Changing Face of Regional
3-1
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
Warehousing, 1989). The strength of the distribution industry
lies in the size of the consumer market in the NJ/NY
metropolitan area and in the regional demand for consumer
products.
A recent Port Authority study indicates that 33% of the firms
relocating warehousing to the northeastern New Jersey area
originate from New York City. Less than 4% of the firms have
been from outside the bordering counties (Port Authority, N.J.
Growth Corridors, 1989). The most significant advantages of
the northeast region, according to the Port Authority study,
include the lower cost of space, highway proximity, customer
proximity, and short distance to New York City. The trend has
manifested itself through the relocation of a significant
portion of the fashion industry secondary office/warehouse
space from Manhattan to the Meadowlands (The Record, Dec. 6,
1992) and through the continuing negotiation of NJ
jurisdictions with the financial industry for the relocation
of back office facilities.
Demand for secondary office and warehouse space in the
Meadowlands results from (1) New York City firms that continue
to expand and take advantage of the desirable location in the
Meadowlands, and (2) the growth of existing businesses in
northern New Jersey.
In order to project the demand for secondary office/warehouse
space within the District, a multiplier is used. The
multiplier represents the amount of secondary (indirect)
growth within the District that would be stimulated by new
primary office employment. New primary office employment
requires services and thus creates indirect employment,
measured in terras of the currency that flows to support and
indirect services. A multiplier* describes this indirect
relationship, and has been shown to range from 0.5 to 3.5
secondary jobs for each primary job (Arthur Anderson, 1992).
The 18 million square feet of primary office space that is
needed in the District is associated with a total of 72,000
employees (see employee space factors, discussed below). The
lowest multiplier (0.5) from the range presented above is used
in order to conservatively estimate secondary employment.
This multiplier results in an estimated total of 36,000
additional indirect (support) employees.
It is anticipated that 50 percent of this indirect employment
would be in secondary office operations and that 50 percent
would occur in warehousing and light industry operations.3
Employee space of 350 square feet per office employee is
3-2
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
required for 18,000 office employees (50 percent of 36,000),
and 500 square feet per warehouse/light industry employee is
required for warehousing/light industry employees. This
results in a demand for 6.3 million square feet of secondary
office space and 9 million square feet of warehousing/light
industry space, totalling 15.3 million square feet of building
space for this land use category.
3.2 Need for Office Growth
The need for office growth (primary and secondary) in the
District is a function of the need to provide space to
accommodate anticipated employment growth.'4 Another
significant need for office growth in the District is the need
to provide a funding source and system for environmental
remediation and natural resource preservation programs in the
District, not otherwise fundable under current government
programs. (Such need for environmental improvement
specifically excludes any wetland mitigation projects required
as part of projected growth.)
Social Need. If the projected need for primary and secondary
office, and warehouse space in the District were met, a total
of about 100,000 jobs would be created in the District over
the planning period, meeting an important social need for
employment opportunity.5
Need for Environmental Improvement in the District. A long
history of industrial and waste disposal (dumping) activities
in the District have caused significant soil and water
contamination in the lower Hackensack River Basin. HMDC
inventories indicate over 200 waste disposal sites in need of
investigation and/or remediation. This pollution and
environmental degradation, together with hydrologic
alterations have also compromised the quality of the extensive
wetland environments present in the District. Environmental
losses in the District were, for the most part, brought under
control with the creation of the Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission in 1969.
However, the substantial cost of environmental remediation has
not been, and is not projected to be within the resources of
HMDC. Planning for the future of the District must provide
for the creation of funding mechanisms to remediate the long
standing and cumulative environmental degradation of the
District. The office growth projected in the District has
been identified as one of the major sources of funding for
environmental improvement.
3-3
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
HMDC has developed a draft Environmental Improvement Program
(eip), and has estimated the costs and potential funding
sources for the many environmental programs needed in the
District. The total cost of the EIP, implemented over the
planning period, has been estimated to be about $937 million
dollars. The proposed EIP activities are described in the
HMDC Environmental Improvement Program summary (Jan. 1993).
The costs of the EIP projects and programs are outlined in the
attached table. Please note that the specifics of a number of
EIP programs (for example, remediation of hazardous wastes)
are contingent upon the results of detailed future studies
(such as remedial investigations). For purposes of this
analysis, representative costs have been used based on
existing experience.
The development of an Environmental Improvement Program will
provide a centrally-managed approach to environmental
remediation and natural resource protection projects
throughout the District. Implementation of the EIP is based
on organization of an environmental management staff
responsible for:
• coordinating and centrally implementing the numerous
proposed environmental improvement projects, thereby
maximizing environmental benefit,
• collecting and targeting funding to supply the local
share of major environmental improvement and to fund
District-sponsored environmental improvements,
• developing monitoring programs to measure attainment of
SAMP environmental goals,
• inspecting critical environmental resources in the
District, prevent degradation, and to identify parties
responsible for impacts, and,
• applying and coordinating existing regulations and laws
relating to environmental protection innovatively to
reduce delay and overlap for environmental projects.
Thus, the EIP funding collected and managed locally provides a
mechanism for addressing a wide variety of EIP projects and
objectives. The objective is to use funding secured from
growth to propel the various environmental initiatives that
have been stalled in the District awaiting additional funding,
prioritization, administrative attention. The approach is to
identify a staff to actively coordinate and support
environmental management actions in the District, and to
3-4
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
provide mechanisms for coordinating the public, local, county,
District, state, and federal participants in environmental
regulation.
As noted earlier, analysis of the EIP costs indicate total
program costs of about $937 million. Based on probable
financing sources, it is anticipated that about $82 million is
potentially available from government sources for selected EIP
activities. It is projected that about $490 million is
required from private sources (such as improvement provided
directly by developers, and including landfill tipping fees
that support landfill closure and post-closure monitoring).
It is also anticipated that about $77 million will be
available through HMDC-sponsored funding sources (specifically
for remediation of orphan landfills). However, there is a
shortfall of about $288 million, which is only fundable via
exactions and related assessments on new office growth.
Acknowledging that privately funded improvements and HMDC/EIP
agency exactions are basically from private sources, then the
distribution of EIP costs is approximately 50% government
sources and 50% private sources. If no funding source can be
identified within the District, this distribution of costs
will shift substantially to government sources, or the program
components will need to be abandoned.
HMDC analyses6 have concluded that the maximum exaction
and/or assessment that can feasibly be imposed on new growth
is $4 per square foot for primary office space, and lesser
amounts for secondary office ($2/sq. ft.) and warehousing
($l/sq. ft.). Thus, if the EIP shortfall were to be funded
from primary and secondary office/warehouse exactions, there
would be a need to allow about 66 million square feet of
growth. HMDC is assessing additional revenue sources that may
be available for EIP implementation, in order to attempt to
achieve as many of the EIP goals as practicable.
Based on the likely growth that is achievable in the District
(in the context of a viable Master Plan), 18 million square
feet of primary office space7, 6.3 million square feet of
secondary office space, and 9 million square feet of
warehousing space is likely to yield about $96 million to fund
EIP projects.
3-5
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
Endnotes for Section 3
1. Real Estate Research Corp., "Overview and Projections of
the Northern New Jersey Office and Residential Markets for the
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission Master Plan",
1991.
2. The multiplier represents the number of times income
imported into an economy would be recirculated within that
local economy, providing financial resources for support
employment.
3. Source: Covered Employment by Standard Industrial
Classification, from N.J. Dept. of Labor Inventory, 1990.
4. It is postulated that growth for which there is a
projected need in the District, but that cannot be
accommodated in the District, would be lost to the region.
5. Based on space requirements of 250 square feet per worker
in primary office space divided into 18 million square feet,
350 square feet per worker is secondary office space divided
into 6.3 million square feet, and 500 square feet per worker
in warehouse space divided into 9 million square feet. Non-
residential space factors are averaged from Center for urban
Policy Research, Feb. 1992, and Urban Land Institute.
6. See endnote 1.
7. Although EIP funding requirements suggest a need for more
than 18 million square feet of primary office space, analysis
of the transportation system in and surrounding the District
indicates that more than 18 million square feet of office
space will result in significant traffic congestion in the
region (with attendant air pollution impacts). The HMDC
transportation modeling analysis assumes several
transportation improvement projects will be implemented during
the planning period to improve the efficiency of the existing
road network.
3-6
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
4.0 DEMAND & NEED FOR COMMERCIAL SECTOR GROWTH
Demand for commercial sector growth is created by existing
and projected residential and business activity, both within
the District and in surrounding areas. Commercial sector
growth comprises regional, community and neighborhood retail
business activity. As increases in population, households,
and employment occur in the region, and as the needs of area
businesses expand, demand is exerted for goods and services
to support household, recreational, and economic activities.
The ability to supply space for commercial sector growth in
the region is generally constrained by the lack of vacant
land.
4.1 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL CENTER
Regional Demand
Regional commercial sector facilities require relatively
large development parcels as well as proximity to
transportation systems that provide efficient access. These
locational criteria are best met where there are appropriate
highway system elements that can provide access to retail
locations (e.g., Route 3, N.J. Tpke).
Planning guidelines (e.g., ICMA 1988) suggest that a
regional commercial center (between 0.5 and 2 million square
feet) be provided in support of populations of 150,000 or
more. The six-county out-of-District planning region
contains over 3.7 million residents. The projected demand
for commercial development based on these guidelines would
require from 12.4 to 49.4 million sq. ft. of regional
commercial space in the six county area. Reduction of this
demand through existing regional commercial centers, which
total 10.9 million sq. ft., indicates unfulfilled regional
demand of 1.5 to 38.5 million square feet of regional
commercial space.
The total demand for commercial space in the District is
based on the following components: (1) the unfulfilled
commercial needs of the existing regional population,
(2) the needs of the existing (1990) in-District employment
base of 72,000, (3) the needs of the projected primary and
secondary employment increase of 100,000 workers, and (4)
the needs of a projected increase of 40,000 new residents in
the District.
Advantages for the location of a regional commercial center
in the District are evident from the following factors:
4-1
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
1. large vacant land areas are present in the District
which are required for regional commercial centers
(generally a minimum of 30 acres).
2. a strong regional competitive market is present, as is
suggested from previous discussion of office need and
economic development planning.
3. opportunities for access to regional transportation
systems through mass transit and the regional highway
system.
4. strong retail market demand resulting from high
relative disposable income for area households.
The land use and transportation efficiency of regional
commercial centers in comparison to strip commercial or
multiple centers has been well established by land use and
transportation studies. Regional centers make available a
multitude of goods and services in one location, by offering
major retailing facilities in concert with ancillary
services such as restaurants, theaters, and other cultural
amenities. Smaller centers or strip commercial development
cannot provide this level of commercial opportunity.
Thus, regional commercial centers that provide a range of
activities and a variety of goods in a single location
reduce the number of automobile trips and the associated
generation of vehicular air pollution. Regional centers
also provide opportunities for mass transit service because
there is a sufficient concentration of retail activity.
This is particularly important in the Meadowlands District
which has an extraordinary mass transit network.
Retail Trade Area
The six county region is utilized for the determination of
residential and office need. However, the commercial need
for a regional center is determined through identification
of a market or attraction area. The retail trade area
consists of a radius or distance from the anticipated
location of the regional centers that describes the
attraction of that center in terms of convenience of access
and probability of obtaining desired goods. This distance
is computed by travel time to the District and by the
relative proximity (attraction) of competing regional
centers. The distance is expressed as either primary trade
area or shared (or secondary) trade area.
4-2
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
The primary retail trade area consists of an area in which a
high percentage of disposable income for goods and services
provided by a typical regional center can be captured. The
shared retail trade area is an area in which a smaller
percentage of disposable income can be captured due to the
presence of one or several competing regional centers. For
example, primary trade areas for a regional center at Route
3 at the Hackensack River would be approximately a 5 mile
radius; the shared market would be approximately a 10 mile
radius.
Within the Meadowlands retail trade area there are
approximately 445,000 households with an average household
income of $58,900 (1991 data).1 Total household income is
$26.2 billion. According to disposable income expenditure
studies conducted by GA/Partners Inc. (1991) to determine
the feasibility of a regional center, approximately 14.0% of
this income will be apportioned to the purchase of goods at
regional centers; 3.5% at department stores and 10.5% at
smaller shops in the center. This percentage indicates a
total of $3.6 billion is available to be expended at
regional centers. After taking into consideration the
potential ability of existing regional centers to capture
their share of this income stream, approximately 11.9%, or
$438 million could be captured at a new regional commercial
center in the Hackensack Meadowlands. This level of capture
serves as an indicator of need for a regional commercial
center.
The demand for the amount of regional commercial center is
determined by the ability of commercial space to support
acceptable levels of spending per square foot of gross
leasable space. It is widely accepted that $200 to $300 of
retail revenue per square foot of commercial space indicates
the economic viability of additional commercial space. When
the total income which is available to be expended described
above is divided by the average income needed per square
foot, a total regional commercial center need of 1.5 million
square feet is indicated.
This total does not take into consideration the effect of an
^ e®Ploy»«nt base in the Meadowlands of approximately
/^,000 employees or the anticipated increase of 100,000 new
employees and an additional 17,200 new households in the
* ku jj" can k® anticipated that a much higher portion
or the disposable income from these households and a certain
degree of the employment base income could be expended at a
new regional center in the Meadowlands.
4-3
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
The GA/Partners study observed that 5% to 10% of the sales
at existing regional centers is derived from the New York
market. it is apparent that the existing centers attract a
certain volume from the "close in" New York counties. This
factor is not included in the computations here, but is
noted. There is likely to be a similar occurrence at a
regional center in the Meadowlands.
Regional Commercial Center Need
The regional commercial need manifests itself from the
following components:
the statutory planning objectives of the Hackensack
Meadowlands Development Commission,
a principal component of establishing a comprehensive
master plan,
the implementation of a viable community which
encourages an integration of land uses, and
decreased vehicle miles travelled in the region.
The original Master Plan for the Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission, prepared in 1972, outlined an
ambitious program of economic growth and environmental
protection. One of the keystones of the Master Plan was a
mixed use center, commonly referred to as Berry's Creek
Center. This center was to incorporate regional commercial
facilities and, in fact, become the new regional "downtown".
The Center was to incorporate major office, residential, and
open space facilities as well as the commercial center.
The Meadowlands Commission has consistently affirmed that
the concept of a regional commercial facility is essential
to its vision of the Meadowlands development in the future.
It continues to be a policy of the Commission to support the
development of a major regional center within the
Meadowlands District. This objective is also one of the
essential components of the Master Plan revision process.
It is also the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission's policy to integrate major primary uses in the
Master Plan through the use of mixed use development
centers. The benefits of planning for office-commercial-
residential uses in a unified and concentrated location,
specifically as individual components of development area,
would achieve desired efficiencies of scale. A regional
commercial component within a development area facilitates
4-4
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
interdependency among the residential and non—residential
uses. Mixed use centers have the benefits of shared land
utilization, built-in markets, reduced environmental
impacts, and enhanced mass transportation opportunities.
Regional Commercial Center/Environmental Improvement Plan
The regional commercial center need can also contribute to
the overall environmental improvements proposed to be
implemented in the District. The HMDC has anticipated that
the regional center can contribute approximately $2 per sq.
ft. towards the EIP discussed in the office need section of
this document. This payment would be made over a time
schedule to be determined such that it does not
significantly affect the overall financial feasibility of
the regional center. The total anticipated revenue that
would be allocated to the EIP based on a center size of 1.5
million sq. ft. would be approximately $3 million.
4.2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CENTERS
Community Center Commercial Demand
Community commercial centers are also essential components
of economic and population growth within a comprehensively
developed community. According to Urban Land Institute,
community centers are built around a junior department store
or variety store as a major tenant in addition to a
supermarket. Community commercial centers can range from
100,000 sq. ft. to 300,000 sq. ft.2 The existing community
commercial center in the District, Mill Creek Mall has
approximately 300,000 sq. ft. of space. Current experience
in development of new community centers within this region,
indicates that a minimum of 200,000 sq. ft. is needed to
provide a feasible community center.
According to the Urban Land Institute, the typical
population support for a community center ranges from 40,000
to 150,000. This support emanates from the community in
which the facility is located and from the surrounding
municipalities in the region. A typical community center in
Secaucus, for instance, would draw its base volume from
Secaucus, North Bergen, Jersey City and other Hudson County
municipalities as well as several Bergen County
municipalities, to some degree. Similarly, a community
shopping center in Rutherford, would derive much of its
customer base from the towns in southwest Bergen County. The
total population base of the Meadowlands communities is
414,000 people which can be used to determine the extent of
need for community commercial centers.
4-5
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
The Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
regulations require community shopping centers in the
various special planned area zones throughout the District
which are designed to serve the frequent needs of the
residents and the communities in which they reside.
Providing community commercial centers in accordance with
the existing zoning plan would have resulted in three
additional community centers. The policy of the Commission
is to incorporate community commercial centers within the
Specially Planned Areas in the District.
Community Center Commercial Need
Community commercial centers would also be needed in the
District to support the residential and non-residential
populations. The extent of non-residential populations that
will frequent the community centers is difficult to
precisely measure. It is anticipated that there is some
degree of need from this group since junior department store
and supermarket shopping are conducted during employee off-
hours or at the end of the work day.
The addition of 40,000 residents in the District and the
existence of the 414,000 population base in the surrounding
communities establish the need for community commercial
space within the District. In addition, the upland portions
of a majority of the Meadowlands communities are without
significant community commercial centers. Only Lyndhurst
and Secaucus have sizable community commercial centers (the
Secaucus center is in the District). It is anticipated that
two to three additional community commercial centers will be
needed, which would result in approximately 400,000 to
900,000 sq. ft. of additional commercial space.
4.3 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTERS
Neighborhood Center Commercial Demand
The neighborhood center provides convenience goods and
personal services for day-to-day living needs of the
immediate neighborhood. They are normally built around a
smaller supermarket or grocery store and may range from
30,000 sq. ft. to 100,000 sq. ft.
The Urban Land institute indicates a range of population
support of 3,000 to 40,000 for neighborhood commercial
facilities.
The Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission requires
neighborhood commercial facilities in its residential and
special use zones. The zoning regulations of the Commission
4-6
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
state that, "neighborhood shopping facilities shall be
developed for the convenience of the residential and
employment population of the" zone. "A neighborhood
shopping facility shall consist of a group of commercial
establishments planned, developed, and managed as a unit
for, primarily, the sale of convenience goods and personal
services ..."Each such facility shall contain between 30,000
and 60,000 square feet of retail space. The primary uses,
consisting of a supermarket or food store and a drug store,
shall be vital components of the neighborhood center...".
It is the policy of the Commission to require these
facilities in conjunction with development in the Special
Use Zones.
Neighborhood Commercial Need
The primary need for neighborhood commercial centers in the
District is a function of the level of both non-residential
and residential development in the future. Neighborhood
centers are needed within the new communities where no
neighborhood commercial space exists. It is estimated that
approximately 16,300 new households will be created.
Community planning standards require that 18 to 20 square
feet of neighborhood commercial space be provided per
household. This would, therefore, require that 309,600 to
344,000 sq. feet of new neighborhood commercial space is
needed.3
4.4 CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis of demand for commercial sector
growth, there will exist during the planning period a demand
for 2.2 to 2.7 million square feet of commercial space in
the District. It is anticipated that this demand will be
distributed among three different scales of commercial
business activity: regional, community, and local. The
need for commercial facilities is a result of the demand
j1"5' P°Pu^ation and employment projections in the
Meadowlands area, HMDC policy and Master Plan objectives set
by the Commission and need to integrate commercial growth in
the Commission's growth management policy of mixed use
development centers.
Because the need for community and neighborhood commercial
sector growth is primarily a function of residential and
primary/secondary office growth in the District, the actual
determination of need for this commercial activity will be
conducted during the hybridization procedure. During
hybridization, the locations of future growth areas (to be
subject to environmental analysis in the EIS) will be
4-7
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
identified, based on the established hybrid planning
criteria. The need for commercial activity in the District
can be better gauged once the approximate level and location
of growth has been preliminary identified during
hybridization.
Endnotes for Section 4
1. Retail Demand Analysis, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
National Planning Data Corp., Arthur Anderson & Co., October
1991.
2. The Community Builders Handbook, Urban Land Institute,
1968.
3. Koppelman & DeChaira, Urban Planning Standards, 1982.
4-8
HMDC FINAL DRAFT - 4/21/93
-------
Appendix
E
-------
APPENDIX E
SPECIES LIST OF ORGANISMS FOUND IN
THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS:
VASCULAR PLANTS - MAMMALS
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MAY 1987
-------
Species Lists of Organisms Found
in the Hackensack Meadowlands:
Vascular Plants - Mammals
The Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
One DeKorte Park Plaza
Lyndhurst, NJ 07071
(201) 460-1700
May 1987
-------
(The Hackensack Meadowlands are) a breeding place for mosquitoes and other
insects. Owing to its trifling value this marshy area is gradually becoming
and is likely to, in the future, become more and more a site for offensive
manufacturing industries, manure piles, and other nuisances . these
marshes have consequently had a retarding influence upon its (the State of New
Jersey) progress, and their improvement . . . could not fail to have a decided
beneficial effect upon . . . this whole district . . . Aside from the direct
benefit resulting from a removal of a blot upon an otherwise fair landscape
it is a well-known fact that the nuisances attributable to these marshes are
experienced by all . . . and the application of this waste marsh land to such
purposes (draining) will add very largely to the wealth of the state.
New Jersey State Geologist Annual Report - 1897
The Hackensack Meadows are not at the present time of significance to fish or
wildlife. Although waterfowl and rails do use certain localized areas,
productivity of the meadows has all but been destroyed. Pollution of the
waters has eliminated fish life. Encroachment by highways, and Industrial
residential, and recreational developments has destroyed large areas, and
mosquito control activities have been, instrumental in changing the plant
composition to species of little value to wildlife. . . . There are no
possibilities for extensive fish and wildlife developments . . .
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - 1962
-------
INTRODUCTION
The species lists contained in this document are a compilation of data
collected from 33 references on the Hackensack Meadovlands. These references
come from a variety of sources including the scientific literature,
consultants' reports, and Hackensack Meadovlands Development Commission (HMDC)
documents. These lists should not be considered complete. Many areas within
the Hackensack Meadovlands have not been studied, and many of the areas which
have been studied vere not systematically surveyed.
Scientific nomenclature vas standardized using the folloving references:
Vegetation -
Fernald, M.L., ed. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. New York:
American Book Company.
Invertebrates - Gosner, K.L. 1979. A field Guide to the Atlantic Seashore.
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
McCafferty, W.P. 1981. Aquatic Entomology - The Fishermen's
and Ecologista' Illustrated Guide to Insects and their
Relatives. Jones and Bartlett Publ. Co., Boston.
Pennak, R.W. 1978. Freshvater Invertebrates of the United
States. Wiley, Hev York.
Fish -
Reptiles and
Amphibians
Robins, C.R., Ray, C.G., and Douglas, J. 1986. A Field Guide
to Atlantic Coast Fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin
Co., Boston.
Connant, R. 1975. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of
Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston.
-------
Birds - Robbins, C.S., Bruun, B., and Zim, H.S. 1966. Birds of North
America, Golden Press, NY.
Birds of the Hackensack Meadowlands New Jersey. a list
prepared by the Hackensack Meadowlands Environment Center.
Mammals - Burt, W.H., and Grossenheider, R.P. 1976-. A Field Guide to the
Mammals. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
The bird list included in this document does not identify regions of the
District where the birds were found. A variety of reasons necessitated this.
Most of the references copied existing lists. Those reports which actually
did bird studies, did not perform comprehensive surveys. Therefore actual
site by site lists are either lacking or incomplete.
References used to prepare this document are numbered 1-33, and are
numbered according to their geographic location in the Hackensack Meadowlands
District. Those documents which reference .sites in the Northern portion of
the District will have the lowest numbers. The document numbers rise as the
referenced sites are found further south in the district. A site map (Figure
1) is provided to help you quickly visualize where the data was collected.
This map is keyed to the references as well.
The lists are organized in the following manner:
Species Name Common Name Document Number
(Scientific) (if applicable) in ascending order
Most of the references used in the compilation of the species lists are
single copy only documents. Therefore they cannot be borrowed. In addition,
we do not have the capability of photocopying and mailing to you large
documents.
If you wish to review the documents, you may come into our offices and use
them here. Please make an appointment before coming in so that a staff member
will be available to help you.
-------
3
- COMPILED BY -
Mark L. Kraus, Ph.D.
Wetlands Management Specialist
Audrey Benda
Wetlands Intern
Paul Lupini
Laboratory Technician
Allison Smith
Secretary
May 1987
-------
KEY TO LOCATIONS rw ]
1. *Wetland Biozone Report (HMDC)
2. Bergen County Resource Recovery
3. Bergen Generating Station
4. Office/Industrial Park
5. Clause/Oakpoint Tract
6. River Mile 10.5 in Office/Industrial
7. Giants Stadium/Sports Complex
8. Meadoviands Arena
9. Brackish Wetland Mitigation
10. Villages at Mill Creek (IR-2)
11. Multipurpose Development/Harmon Meadow
12. Tidelands Application - Hartz/Mori
13. Berry's Creek Center
14. Island Residential (IR-1)
15. Anderson Marsh
16. Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management
17. Sawmill Creek (Dentzau)
18. Sawmill Creek Sewage and Leachate
19. Sawmill Creek Water Quality Management
20. Sawmill Creek (Kraus & Kraus)
21. LRFC (Hansen)
22. Kearny Meadows: Land Use Study
23. Kearny Meadows (SU-3)
24. Hudson County Resource Recovery
25. Hudson Generating Station
26.*Hackensack River Studies for FSE&G
27. Power Plant Studies for PSE&G
28.*N.J. Marine Sciences Consortium
29.*Present Study for NJ Turnpike Widening
30. Kearny Generating Station
31.*Collection of Aquatic Organisms(WAPORA)
32.*Striped Bass Recruitment
33.*Trawl Sampling
District
Ridgefield
Ridgefield
Ridgefield
Carlstadt
Ridgefield
East Rutherford
East Rutherford
Secaucus
Secaucus
Secaucus
Secaucus
Rutherford
Secaucus
Rutherford,
Lyndhurst, Secaucus
Lyndhurst, Kearny
Lyndhurst, Kearny
Lyndhurst, Kearny
Lyndhurst, Kearny
Lyndhurst, Kearny
Lyndhurst, Kearny
Kearny
Kearny
Kearny
Jersey City
District
District
District
District
Kearny
District
District
District
1984
1986
1974
1981
1986
1981
1972
1972
1985
1985
1978
1978
1986
1974
1985
1976
1981
1982
1983
1986
1986
1976
1982
1985
1978
1972-
74
1974-
79
1976-
80
1985
1974
1977
1983
1986
* Reference does not appear in figyre one because data is not limited to
section of the District.
-------
-------
VEGETATION
Eouisetaceae - Horsetail
Equisetum arvense
Equisetum sp.
Osimmdaceae - Royal Fern
Osmunda cinnaaomea
0. Claytoniana
Polvnodiacaae - Fern
Dryopteris Thelypteris
Onoclea sensibilis
Dennstaedtia punctiloba
Pteridium aquilinum
Ptnaeeae - Pine
Juniperus virgin!ana
Pinus sp.
P. aylvestris
Tvohaceae - Cattail
Typha sp.
1. angustifolia
T. latifolla
Zoseeraceac - Pondweed
Zannichellia palustris
Allsmataceae - Water Plantain
Alisma sp.
gramineae - Grass
Andropogon scoparius
A. virginicus
Oigiearia sanguinale
D. filiforme
Echinochloa Crus-galli
Panicum virgatum
P. dichotomiflorum
Horsetail, common
Horsetail
Cinnamon Fern
Interrupted Fern
Marsh. Fern
Sensitive Fern
Hayscented Fern
Bracken Fern
Red Cedar
Spruce
Scotch. Pine
Cattail
Harrow-leaved Cattail
Broad-leaved Cattail
Horned Pondweed
Water Plantain
Bluestem
Broomsedge
Crabgrass
Crabgrass
Barnyard Grass
Svitchgrass
Spreading Witchgrass
-------
Gramineae - Grass (cont'd)
P. capillare
Setaria verticillata
S. viridis
Aristida purpurascens
Agrostis alba
A. hyemails
Nochoholcus lanatus
Spartina cynosuroldes
S. patens
S. alterniflora
Eleuslne indica
Phragmites communis
Eragrostls pectlnaceae
E. poaeoldes
Distichlis splcata
Dactylls glomerata
Poa annua
Festuca sp.
F. rubra
F. elatlor
Bromus sp.
Lollum multiflorum
Agropyron sp.
A. repens
Hordeum jubatum
Anth.oxanth.um odoratum
Arrhenatherum elatius
Cynodon dactylon
Gramineae
Cvperaceae - Sedge
Eleocharis sp.
E. olivaceae
E. tenuis
E. parvula
Carex sp.
Scirpus sp.
S. americanus
S. Olneyi
S. valldus
Cyperus sp.
C. strigosus
Witch-grass
Foxtail Grass
Green Foxtail Grass
Broom Sedge
Red-top
Silk Grass
Velvet-grass
Salt Reed-grass
Salt-meadow Grass
Salt Harsh-grass
Goosegrass
Common Reed-grass
Purple Lovegrass
Low Lovegrass
Marsh Spike-grass
Orchard Grass
Annual Meadowgrass
Fescue Grass
Red Fescue
Tall Fescue
Broms-grasa
Rye-grass
Wheat-grass
Quick-grass
Squirrel-tail Grass
Sweet Vernal-grass
Oatgrass
Bermuda-grass
Grasses
Spikerush
Bright green Spikerush
Spikerush
Dwarf Club-rush
Sedge
Sedge
Common Threesquare
Olney's Bulrush
American Great Bulrush
Sedge
Straw-colored Cyperus
-------
Araceae - Arum
Peltandra virginica
Arrow Arum
T.gmwaceae - Duckweed
Lemna sp.
L. gibba
L. minor
Wolffia columbiana
Commelina communis
¦^pcaceae - Rush
Juncus sp.
J. effusus
J. tenuis
J. Gerardi
T.1,1 iaceae - Lily
Maianthemua canadense
Tf^daceae - Iris
Iris sp.
s*i icaceae - Willow
populus deltoides
P. alba
P. tremuloides
Salix sp.
S. babylonica
S. discolor
Efyricaccae - Bayberry
Myrica pennsylvanica
rnrvlaceae - Hazel
Becula populifolia
Duckweed
Duckweed
Duckweed
Watermeal
Asiatic Dayflower
Rushes
Soft-seem Bulrush
Slender Rush
Black-grass
False Lily-of-the-valley
Blueflag
Cottonwood
White Poplar
American Aspen
Willow
Weeping Willow
Pussywillow
Bayberry
American White Birch
F^yaeeae - Beech
Quercus prinus
Q. alba
Q. rubra
Q. palustris
Q. bicolor
Chestnut Oak
White Oak
Red Oak
Pin Oak
Swamp White Oak
-------
Ulmaccae - Elm
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Moraccae - Mulberry
Morus sp.
Morus alba
Cannablnaeeae - Heap
Humulus Lupulus
H. japonicus
Arlstolochlaceae - Birthwort
Aristolochia aerpentaria
P?lYg?nacCflC - Buckwheat
Rumex sp.
R. Acetosella
R. criapua
Polygonum ap.
Persicaria persiearia
P. orientals
P. cuspidatun
P. pensylvanicum
P. punctatum
Chenopodlacaae - Goosafoot
Chenopodium ap.
C. ambroaoidea
C. album
Atriplex ap.
A. hastata
Kochia acoparia
Basaia hirauta
Salsola Kali
Anrnranthaeeaa - Amaranth
Acnida cannabina
Amaranthua graacizana
Mulberry
White Mulberry
Hopa
Japaneae Hopa
Virginia anakeroot
Dock
Rad Sorral
Curled Dock
Knotvaad
Lady'a Thumb
Prince'a Feather
Japanaaa Knotweed
Pennsylvania Smartweed
Watar Smartweed
Gooaafoot
Mexican Taa
Lamb'a Quarters
Orache
Halberd-leaved Orache
Kochia
Baaaia
Russian Thiatle
Waterhemp
Tumble-waed
Phvcolacaceae - Pokeveed
Phytolacca americana
Pokaveed
-------
Carvophvllaceae - Pink
Saponaria officinalis
Lychnis alba
Silene cucubolus
Alsinaceae sp.
Ceratophvllaceae - Hornwort
Ceratophyllum demersum
Lauraceae - Laurel
Sassafras albidum
Cruclferae - Mustard
Barbarea vulgaris
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Lepidium sp.
L. campestra
L. virginicum
Platanaceae - Plane-tree
Platanus occidentalis
Rosaceae - Rose
Rubus sp.
Potentilla norvegica
Rosa multiflora
Spiraea tamentosa
Rubus hispidus
Potentilla canadensis
Duchesnea indica
Prunus serotina
P. cerasus
Leauminosae - Pulse
Albizzia julibrissin
Gledetsia triacanthos
Medicago lupullna
Melilotua ap.
M. alba
M. officinalis
Robinia pseudoacacia
Trifolium repens
T. pratense
Bouncing Bet
White Campion
Bladder Campion
Chickveed
Hornwort
Sassafras
Winter Cress
Shepherd's purse
Pepper grass
Cow Cress
Peppergrasa
Sycamore
Blackberry
Barren Strawberry
Multiflora Roae
Steeplebush
Swamp Blackberry
Five-finger Clnquefoil
Indian Strawberry
Black Cherry
Sour Cherry
Mimosa
Honey Locust
Hop Clover
Clover
White Sweet Clover
Yellow Sweet Clover
Locuat Tree
White Clover
Red Clover
-------
Leguminoaae - Pulse (cont'd)
Coronilla varia
Lotus corniculatus
Lespedeza sp.
L. capitata
Wisteria sp.
Oxalidaceae - Wood Sorrel
Oxalis stricta
Simaroubaceae - Ailanthus
Allanthus altissima
Polvealaeeae - Milkwort
Polygala sp.
Euphorbiaceae - Spurge
Euphorbia maculata
E. marginata
Anacardiaeeae - Sumac
Rhus sp.
R. glabra
R. radicans
R. copallma
R. typhina
Celastraceae - Staff-Tree
Celastrus sp.
Aceracgac - Maple
Acex rubrum
A. saccharinum
Balsaminaceae - Jewel-weed
Impatiens sp.
Rhamnaceae - Buckthorn
Rhamnus frangula
Crown Vetch
Birds' Foot Trefoil
Bush Clover
Roundheaded Bushclover
Wisteria
Yellow Wood Sorrel
Tree-of-Heaven
Milkwort
Spotted Spurge
White Margined Spurge
Sumac
Smooth Sumac
Poison Ivy
Winged Sumac
Staghorn Sumac
Bittersweet
Red Maple
Silver Maple
Jewelweed
European Buckthorn
Vltaceae - .Grape
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper
Vitis sp. Grape
-------
Malvaceae - Mallow
Hibiscus palustris
Kosteletzkya sp.
Swamp Rose Mallow
Mallow
Guttlferae - St. John'5-wort
Hypericum sp.
H. boreale
Lvthraceae - Loosescrife
Lythrum Salicaria
Onograceae - Evening Primrose
Oenothera biennis
Epilobium hlrsutum
Vmbcllifcrae - Parsley
Pastinaca sativa
Aechusa cynapium
Caucus caroca
Cornaceae - Dogwood
Cornus sp.
C. racemosa
Clethraceae - White Alder
Clethra alnifolia
Ericaceae - Heath
Lyonia ligustrina
Vaccinium corymbosum
Lysimachia sp.
L. quadrifolia
St. John's wort
St. John's wort
Purple Loosestrife
Evening Primrose
Willow Herb
Wild Parsnip
Fool's Parsley
Wild Carrot
Dogwood
Grey Dogwood
Sweet pepperbush
Maleberry
Highbush blueberry
Loosestrife
Whorled Loosestrife
Qleaceae - Olive
Fraxinus sp.
F. nigra
F. pennsylvanica
- Dogbane
Apocynum sp.
A. cannabinum
Ash
Black Ash
Green Ash
Dogbane
Dogbane
-------
Ascleoladaceae - Milkweed
Asclepias sp.
A. purpurascens
A. incarnata
A. syriaca
Convolvulaceae - Morning Glory
Convolvulus sp.
C. sepium
C. arvensis
Ipomoea purpurea
Cuscuta sp.
C. Gronovii
Boraglnaceae - Borage
Echium vulgare
Verbenaceae - Vervain
Verbena hascata
V. urcicifolia
Labiatae - Mint
Nepeta cataria
Lycopus americanus
L. virginicus
?oUnacgftC - Potato
Solanum sp.
S. dulcamara
S. carolinense
S. nigrum
Datura Stramonium
Physalis heterophylla
Scrophulariaceae - Figwort
Verbascum thapsus
Paulovnia tomentosa
Veronica sp.
Mimulus ringens
Linaria vulgaris
Milkweed
Purple Milkweed
Swamp Milkweed
Common Milkweed
Bindweed
Great Bindweed
Small Bindweed
Morning-glory
Dodder
Love-vine
Viper's Bugloss
Blue Vervain
White Vervain
Catmint
Cut-leaved Hoarhound
Bugleveed
Nightshade
Bittersweet Nightshade
Horse Nettle
Black Nightshade
J imson-weed
Ground Cherry
Great Mullein
Princess Tree
Speedwell
Monkey Flower
Butter & Eggs
-------
Plantrsinaceae - Plantain
Plantago sp.
P. lanceolata
P. major
P. Sugelii
Caortfollaeeae - Honeysuckle
Sambucus canadensis
Viburnum dentatum
Lonicera japonica
CQtnPPSitac - Composite
Sonchus asper
S. arvensis
Hieracium ap.
Cichorium sp.
C. intybus
Laccuca canadensis
L. scariola
Lapsana communis
Taraxacum sp.
Xanthium pensylvanicum
Iva frucescens
Ambrosia trifida
A. arcemisifolia
Composicae
Eupatorium sp.
E. urticaefolium
E. maculatum
E. capillifolium
Solidago sp.
S. juncea
S. sempervirens
S. canadensis
S. rugosa
S. altissima
S. graminifolia
Aster sp.
Erigeron sp.
E. 'strigosus
E. canadensis
Baccharis halimifolia
Pluchea camphorata
Plantain
English Plantain
Common Plantain
Pale Plantain
Elderberry
Northern Arrowwood
Japanese Honeysuckle
Spiny Snow-thistle
Sow-thistle
Havkveed
Chicory
Chicory
Wild Lettuce
Prickly Lettuce
Nipplewort
Dandelion
Common cockleburr
Marsh Elder
Great Ragweed
Ragweed
Composites
Snakeroot
White Snakeroot
Spotted Joe-Pye Weed
Dog-fennel
Goldenrod
Early Goldenrod
Sea-side Gdldenrod
Canada Goldenrod
Pyramid Goldenrod
Tall Goldenrod
Flat-topped Goldenrod
Aster
Fleabane
Daisy Fleabane
Horseweed
Groundsel Bush
Salt Marsh Fleabane
-------
Composltae - Composite (cont'd)
Gnaphalium sp.
G. obtusifolium
Rudbeckia sp.
R. hirta
Helianthus annuus
Bidens sp.
Achillea millefolium
Anthemis Cotula
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Tanacetum vulgare
Artemisia sp.
A. vulgaris
A. annua
Tuasilago farfara
Arctium minus
Cirsium sp.
C. arvensa
Carduus nutans
Centaurea sp.
C. cyanus
C. americana
C. maculosa
Everlasting
Sweet Everlasting
Cone Flower
Black-eyed Susan
Sunflower
Sticktights
Yarrow
Dogfennel
Ox-eye Daisy
Tansy
Mugvort
Common Mugvort
Annual Wormwood
Coltsfoot
Common Burdock
Thistle
Canada Thistla
Husk Thistla
Bachelor Button
Bachelor Button
American Star Thistle
Spotted Knapweed
-------
Hvdrozoa
Gonionemus marbachi
Hydromedusa
Tentaculata
Beroe cucumins Comb jellies
Rotatoria - Rotifers
Chromogaster
Trichocerca
Keratella
Brach.rin.ua pollus
Nematode - Aquatic Nematodes
Lymnaea columella
Lynmaea sp.
Melampus bidentatus
Physa sp.
Ilyanasaa obsoleta
Hydrobia minuta
Kydrobia sp.
Crepidula fornicata
Crepidula plana
Crepidula convexa
Eupleura candata
Salt marsh snail
Swamp hydrobia
Common slipper shell
Flat slipper shell
Bivalvla - Bivalves
Congeria leucopheata
Congeria sp.
Congeria conradi
Macoma balthica
Mulinia lateralis
Mya arenaria
Mytilus edulis
Geukensia demissa
Thracia conradi
Platform mussel
Soft-shelled clam
Blue mussel
Ribbed mussel
Conrad's mussel
-------
Bivalvla - Bivalves (cont'd)
Donsinea discus
Corbicula flumiaea
Gyraulus sp.
Armiger sp.
Mytilopsis leucophaeata
Ollgochaeta - Aquatic worms
Lumbriceulus variegatus
Limnodrilus sp.
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Limnodrilus udekemienus
Limnodrilus cenrix
Limnodrilus nauoeensis
Aulodrilus smericanus
Tubifex sp.
Polvchaeta - Bristle worms
Hyp&niola grayi
Hypaniola sp.
Nereis arenaceodonta
Streblospio benedicti
Polydors ligni
Polydora sp.
Pectinsris gouldii
Travisia carnea
Sabellanaria vulgaris
Sandy-mud worms
Mud-clay worms
Hud voras
Trumpet worn
Sand-builder worm
Hlrundlnea - Leeches
Helobdella stagnalis
Meroatomata - Horseshoe crabs
Limulus polyphemus
Arachnids - Arachnids
Hydracarins
Acari
Water mites
Mites
Insects - Insects
Chironomidae
Tendipedidse
Chironomus riparius
Glyptotendipes sp.
Pentaneura sp.
Midges
Midge
Midges
Midges
-------
Insecta - Insects (cont'd)
Chaoborus sp.
Procladius culiciformis
Culex pipiens
Tipulidae
Psychodidae
Mymaridae
Collembola sp.
Ephydra subop&ca
Libellula sp.
Coleoptera
Dytlscidae
Hemiptera
Carabidae
Staphylinidae
Pselaphidae
Stratiorayidae
Psephenidae
Muscidae
Mesoveliidae
Annura maritime
Crustacea - Crustaceans
Balanus amphitrite
Balanus balanoides
Balanus improvisus
Balanus sp.
Cyathura polita
Crangon septemspinosa
Rhithropanopeus harrisii
Panopeus herbsteil
Paleomonetes sp.
Paleomonetes pugio
Palaemonetes vulgaris
Callinectes sapldus
Chirodotea almyra
Neopanopeus texana
Uca sp.
Uca rainax
Uca pugnax
Gammarus sp.
Gammarus tigrlnus
Midges
Midge
Mosquito
Crane flies
Moth flies
Fairy flies
Springtails
Shore fly
Dragonflies
Water beetles
Diving beetles
Water bugs
Ground beetles
Rove beetles
Water pennies
Aquatic soldier flies
Riffle beetles
Muscid flies
Water treaders
Striped barnacle
Northern rock barnacle
Bay barnacle
Barnacle
Slender isopod
Sand shrimp
White-fingered mud crab
Black-fingered mud crab
Shore shrimp
Blue crab
Fiddler crabs
Brackish-water fiddler
Mud fiddler
Scuds
-------
Crustacea - Crustaceans (cont'd)
Gammarus mucronatus
Gammarus annulatus
Corophium sp. Slender tube makers
Tozeuma carolinense Arrow shrimp
Chiridotae arenicola
Neomysis americana
Lironeca ovalis
Eurtamara hirundoides
Cyclops sp.
Harpatlcoide
Unciola irrorata
Cantho camtos
Sesarma reticulatum
Ostracod
dxthamalus fragilis
Hexapanopeus angustifrons
Arcarla tonsa
Xanthidae
Crab zoea
Tunicata - Tunicates
-------
EI2H
Anguillldae - Freshwater Eels
Anguilla rostrata
American eel
Clupeldai* - Herrings
Alosa aestivalis
A. pseudoharengus
A. sapidissima
Brevortia tyrannus
Clupea harengus-
Dorosoma cepedianium
SnarauH - Anchovies
Anchoa mitchilli
Osmerid^e - Smelts
Osmerus mordax
Cvorinidae - Minnows
Cyprinus carpio
Carassius auratus
Notemigonua crysoleucas
Notropis analostanus
Ipulmridafl - Catfish
Ictalurus cactus
I. aatalis
I. nebulosus
Blueback herring
Alevife
American shad
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic herring
Gizzard shad
Bay anchovy
Rainbow smelt
Carp
Goldfish
Golden Shiner
Satinfin Shiner
White catfish
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
-------
Gadidae - Cods
Microgadus tomcod
Merluccius bilinearis
Urophyeis ehuss
Gyprinodonc1 dae - Killifishes
Fundulus sp.
F. heteroclitis
7. di&phanus
F. majalia
AnthgritUfog - Silversides
Menidia beryllica
M. menidia
Atlantic tomcod
Silver hake
Red Hake
Killifish
Mutaaichog
Banded killifish.
Striped killifish
Inland. ailverside
Atlantic aiiveraide
Gaaterosteidae - Sticklebacks
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Threespine stickle back
?YTimatht
-------
Pomatomidae - Bluefishes
Pomacomus saltatrix
Caranaidae - Jacks
Caranx hippos
Soarldae - Porgies
Stenotomus chrysops
Selaenidae - Drums
Leiostomus xanthurus
Cynoscion regalis
Labridae - Wrasses
Taueoga onitis
Tautogolabrus adspersus
Muallldae - Mullets
Mugil cephalus
Ammodvtldae - Sand Lance
Ammodytes hexapterus
Scombrldae - Mackerels
Scomber scombrus
Stromateidae - Butterfishes
Peprilus criacanthus
Triglidae - Searobins
Prionotus carolinus
P. evolans
Cottldae - Sculpins
Myoxocephalus aenaeus
M. occodecimspinosus
Bothidae - Lefteye Flounders
Paralichthys dentacus
Etropus mlcrostomus
Bluefish
Crevalle jack
Scup
Spot
Weakfish
Xautog
Cunner
Striped mullet
American sand lance
Atlantic mackerel
Butterfish
Northern searobin
Striped searobin
Grubby
Longhorn sculpin
Summer flounder
Smallmouth flounder
-------
Pleuronectldae - Righteye Flounders
Pseudopleuronectes
americanus Winter flounder
Soleidae - Soles
Trlnecces raaculatus Hogchoker
TctWtantldM - Puffers
Sphaeroides maculatus Northern puffer
-------
REPTILES
rhi«ivdrldae - Snapping Turtles
Chelydra serpentina
Snapping Turtle
- Musk and Mud Turtles
Sternotherus odoratus Stinkpot
Kinosternon s. subrubrum
Emvdldae - Box and Water Turtles
Clenmys guttata
Malaclemys t. terrapin
Chrysemys p. picta
SHncidae - Skinks
Eumeces fasciatus
Colubridae - Colubrids
Hatrix s. sipedon
Storeria d. dekayi
Thanmophis s. sirtalis
T. s. sauritus
Heterodon platyrhinos
Coluber c. constrictor
Opheodrys vernalis
Lampropeltis t. triangulum
Mud Turtle
Spotted Turtle
Ho. Dlaaondback Terrapin
E. Painted Turtle
Five-lined skink
Northern Water Snake
N. Brown Snake
E. Garter Snake
E. Ribbon Snake
Eastern Hognosa Snake
K. Black Racer
Smooth Green Snake
E. Milk Snake
-------
AMPHIBIANS
gqfPTliflaC - Toads
Bufo americanus
B. voodhouaei fovleri
Hvlldae - Treefrogs
Acris c. crepitans
Hyla c. cnicifer
H. chrysoscelis/versicolor
Pseudacris triseriata kalai
Ranidae - True Frogs
Rana catesbeiana
R. clamitans melenota
R. utricularia
R. paluseris
E. American Toad
Fowler's Toad
K. Cricket Frog
Northern Spring Peeper
Gray Treefrog
NJ Chorus Frog
Bull Frog
Green Frog
S. Leopard Frog
Pickerel Frog
-------
SM
foViitiac - Loons
Gavia inaner Common Loon
G. atellata Red-throated Loon
Podtcipedldae - Grebes
Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe
Podilymbus podiceps*b Pied-billed Grebe
Phalacrocoracidae - Cormorants
Phalacrocorax auritus Double-cresced Cormorant
Anatldae - Waterfowl
Cygnus olor*
Olor columbianus
Branta canadensis*
B. bernicla
Chen hyperborea
Dendrocygna bicolor
Anas platyrynchos*
A. rubripes*
A. strepera*
A. ascuta
A. carolinensis*
A. discors*
Mareea americana
Spatula clypeata
Aix sponsa*
Aythya americana
A. collaris
A. valisineria
A. marila
A. affinis
Bucephala clangula
B. albeola
Clangula hyemalis
Melanitta deglandi
M. perspicillata
Mute Svan
Whistling Svan
Canada Goose
Branc
Snov Goose
Fulvous Tree Duck
Mallard
American Blade Duck
Gadvall
northern Pintail
Green-vinged Teal
Blue-winged Teal
American Wigeon
Northern Shoveler
Wood Duck
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Canvaaback
Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup
Common Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Oldsquav
White-winged Scoter
Surf Scoter
-------
Anatldae - Wat e.. if owl (cont'd)
Oxyura jamaicensis*
Lophodytes cucullatus
Mergus merganser
M. serrator
Cathartldae - Vultures
Cathartes aura
Ruddy Duck
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
Turkey Vulture
Accipitrldae - Kites, Hawks,
Accipiter gentilis
A. striatus
A. cooperiie
Buteo jamaicensis
B. lineatU3c
B. platypterus
B. lagopus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Circus cyaneus*b
- ospreys
Fandion haliaetusc
ralggnidae - Falcons
Falco peregrinus"®
F. columbariust
F. sparverius*
Phasianidae - Pheasants
Phasianus colchicus*
Ardeidae - Herons, Bitterns
Ardea herodiasc
Butorides virescens*
Florida caerulea
Bubulcos iris
Casmerodius albua
Leucophoyx thula
Hydranassa tricolor
Ryeticorax nycticorax*
N. violacea*c
Ixobrychus exilis*
Botaurus lentiginosus*
Northern Goshawk
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
Bald Eagle
Northern Harrier
Osprey
Peregrine Falcon
Merlin
American Kestrel
Sing-necked Pheasant
Graat Blue Heron
Green-backed Heron
Little Blue Heron
Cattle Egret
Great Egret
Snowy Egret
Louisiana Heron
Black-crowned Night-Heron
Yellow-crowned Right-Heron
Least Bittern
American Bittern
-------
Thresklornithidae - Ib.'ies
Plegadis falcinellus
Glossy Ibis
Rallidae - Rails, Coots
Rallus Elegans
R. longirostris*
R. limicola
Porzana Carolina
Coturnicops noveboracensis
Gallinula chloropus*
Fulica americana*
King Rail
Clapper Rail
Virginia Rail
Sora
Yellow Rail
Common Moorhen
American Coot
- Plovers, Surfbirds
Charadrius semipalmatus
C. vociferus*
Pluvius dominica
Squatarola squatarola
Semipalmated Plover
Killdeer
Lesser Golden-Plover
Black-bellied Plover
firalonacldae - Sandpipers
Arenaria interpres
Philohela minor*
Capella gallinago
Numenius phaeopus
Bartramia longicaudae
Actitus macularia*
Tringa solitaria
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Totanus melanoleucus
T. flavipes
Calidris canutus
Erolia melanotos
E. fuscicollis
E. bairdii
E. minutilla
E. ferruginea
E. alpina
Limnodromus griseus
L. scolopaceus
Micropalama himantopus
Ereunetes pusillus
E. mauri
Iryngites subruficollis
Limosa fedoa
Ruddy Turnstone
American Woodcock
Common snipe
Whimbrel
Upland Sandpiper
Spotted Sandpiper
Solitary Sandpiper
Willet
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellovlegs
Red Knot
Pectoral Sandpiper
White-rumped Sandpiper
Baird'a Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Curlew Sandpiper
Dunlin
Short-billed Dowitcher
Long-billed Dowitcher
Stilt Sandpiper
Semipalmated Sandpiper
Western Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Marbled Godwit
-------
Scolopacldae - Sandpipers (cont'd)
L. haemastica
Philomachus pugnax
Crocethia alba
Recurvirostra americana
Himantopus mexicanus
Hudsonian Godwit
Ruff
Sanderling
American Avocet
Black-necked Scilc
Phalaropus fulicarius
Steganopus tricolor
Lobipes lobatus
Larldae - Gulls, Terns
Larus hyperboreus
L. glaucoides
L. marines
L. fuscus
L. argentatus
L. delavarensis
L. ridibundus
L. atricilla
L. Philadelphia
Gelochelidon nilotiea
Sterna forsteri
S. hirundo
S. dougallii®
S. albifrons8
Thalasseus maximus
Hydroprogne caspia
Chlidonias niger
Rynchops nigra6
Columbldae - Pigeons, Doves
Columba livia*
Zenaidura macroura*
Cuciilidaa - Cuckoos
Coccyzus americanus
C. erythropthalmus
Red Phalarope
Wilson's Phalarope
Northern Phalarope
Glaucous Gull
Iceland Gull
Great Black-backed Gull
Lesser Black-backed Gull
Herring Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Common Black-headed Gull
Laughing Gull
Bonaparte's Gull
Gull-billed Tern
Forster's Tern
Common Tern
Roseate Tern
Least Tern
Royal Tern
Caspian Tern
Black Tern
Black Skimmer
Rock Dove
Mourning Dove
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Black-billed Cuckoo
Tvtonidae - Bam Owls
Tyto alba*
Barn Ovl
-------
Strleidae - Owls
Otus asid*
Bubo virginianus
Nyctea acandiaca
Asio olus
A. flammeus^
Caprlmulpldae - Goatsuckers
Chordeiles minor*
Apoaidae - Swifts
Chaetura pelagica
Trochllldae - Humming Birds
Archilochus colubris
Alcedinidae - Kingfishers
Megaceryle alcyon*
Plcidae - Woodpeckers
Colaptea cafer*
Melanerpes erythrocephalus*
Sphyrapicus varius
Dendrocopos villosus*
D. pubescens*
Tyrannidae - Flycatchers
Tyrannus tyrannus
T. verticalis
Myiarchus crinitus
Sayornis phoebe*
Empidonax flaviventris
E. traillii*
E. minimus
Contopus virens
Alaudidae - Larks
Eremophila alpestris*
Hirundinidae - Swallows
Iridoprocne bicolor
Riparia riparia
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis*
Hirundo rustica*
Petrochelidon pyrrhonotab
Progne subis
Eastern Screech-Owl
Great Horned Owl
Snowy Owl
Long-eared Owl
Short-eared Owl
Common Nighthawk
Chimney Swift
Ruby-throated Humsaingbird
Belted Kingfisher
Northern. Flicker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Yellov>bellied Sapsucker
Hairy Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Kingbird
Western Kingbird
Greeted Created Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Traill's Flycatcher
Least Flycatcher
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Horned Lark
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Northern Bough-winged Swallow
Barn Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Purple Martin
-------
C
-------
Bombvcillldae - Waxvings
Bombycilla cedrodum
Cedar Waxwing
Lantldae - Shrikes
Lanius ludovicianus
StmnUdlg - Starlings
Sturnus vulgaris*
Vlreonidae - Vireos
Vireo griseus
V. flavifrons
V. solitarius*
V. olivtceus*
V. gilvus
Parulldae - Wood Warblers
Mniotilta varia
Vermivora pinus
V. peregrins
V. celaca
V. ruficapilla
Parula americana
Dendroica petechia*
0. magnolia
D. cigrina
D. caerulescens
D. coronata
D. virens
D. fusca
D. pensylvanica
0. castanea
D. striata
D. discolor
D. palmarum
Seiurus aurocapillus
S. noveboracenaia
S. motacilla
Oporornis agilis
Geothlypis trichas*
Wilsonia pusilla
W. canadensis
Setophaga ruticilla
Loggerhead Shrike
Starling
White-eyed Vireo
Tellov-throated Vireo
Solitary Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Black-and-White Warbler
Blue-winged Warbler
Tennessee Warbler
Orange-crowned Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Northern Parula
Tellov Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Cape Hay Warbler
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Myrtle Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blackburaian Warbler
Chesnut-sided Warbler
Bay-breasted Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Pririe Warbler
Palo Warbler
Ovenbird
Northern Waterthrush
Louisiana Waterthruah
Connecticut Warbler
Common 7ellovthroat
Wilson's Warbler
Canada Warbler
American Redstart
-------
Ploceidae - Weaver Finches
Passer domesticus*
House Sparrow
Icteridae - Blackbirds, Orioles
Dolichonyx oryzivorus6
Sturnella magna
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
Agelaius phoeniceus*
Icterus galbula*
Euphagus carolinua
Quiscalus quiscalus*
Molothrus ater
Bobolink
Eastern Meadowlark
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Red-winged Blackbird
Baltimore Oriole
Rusty Blackbird
Common Grackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
- Tanagers
Piranga olivacea
Frlneillidae - Grosbeaks, Finches
Richmondena cardinalis*
Pheucticus ludovicianua
Guiraca caerulea*
Passerina cyanea*
Spiza americana
Carpodacua purpureus
C. mexicanus*
Acanthis flammea
Spinus pinus
S. tristis
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Passerculus sandwichensis*c
Ammospiza caudacuta*
A. maritlma*
Podecetes gramineus*5
Junco hyemalis
Spizella arborea
S. passerina
S. pusilla
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Z. albicollis
Passerella iliaca
Meiospiza lincolnii
M. georgiana*
M. melodia*
Calcarius lapponicus
Plectrophenax nivalis
Scarlet Tanager
, Sparrows, Buntings
Northern Cardinal
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Blue Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting
Olckcissel
Purple Finch
House Finch
Common Redpoll
Pine Siskin
American Goldfinch
Rufous-sided Towhee
Savannah Sparrow
Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Seaside Sparrow
Vesper Sparrow
Slate-colored Junco
American Tree Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
Field Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Lincoln's Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Lapland Longspur
Snow Bunting
-------
K£Y: * = Nests in Meadovlands
e = Endangered status NJ
t » Threatened status NJ
// a Federal endangered status
b » Breeding population endangered
From Endangered and Threatened Wildlife In New Jersey. List revised
May 6, 1985. NJDEP - Div. of Fish, Game and Wildlife.
-------
BAMEIALS
Didelchlidae - Opossums
Didelphia marsupialis Opposum
Sgrlcldag - Shrews
Sorex cinereus
Blarina brevicauda
Taloidae - Moles
Sealopus aquaeicus
V?gPCrtUlonifl*C - Plainnose Bats
Myotis lucifugus
M. keeni
M. subulatus
Eptesicus fuscus
Proevonidae - Raccoons
Procyon lotor
Masked Shrew
Short-tail Shrew
Eastern Hole
Little Brown Bat
Keen's Myotis
Small-footed Myotis
Big Brovn Bat
Raccoon
Mustelldae - Weasels, Skunks, Etc.
Mustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel
Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk
Canidae - Dogs, Wolves, Foxes
Vulpes fulva Red Fox
Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray Fox
Canis familiaris Dog
Felidae - Cats
Felis domestics Cat
Sciuridae - Squirrels
Tamias striatus E. Chipmunk
Sciurus carolinensis E. Gray Squirrel
-------
Crlcetldae - Mice, Rata, Voles
Peromyscus leucopus
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Ondatra zibethica
Muridae - Old World Rat3 & Mice
Rattus norvegicus
Mus muscuius
Zaoodidae - Jumping Mice
Zapus hudsonius
White-footed Mouse
Meadow Vole
Muskrat
Norway Rat
House Mouse
Meadow Jumping Mouse
Leporidae - Hares, Rabbits
Sylvilagus floridanus
Eastern Cottontail
-------
Appendix
F
-------
APPENDIX F
DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF INDICATOR VALUE ASSESSMENT METHOD
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
1. "Estimating Relative Wetland Values for Regional Planning." Thomas Hruby,
William E. Cesanek, and Keith E. Miller. Reprinted with permission from
Wetlands. Vol. 15, No. 2, June 1995.
2. "Development of Wetland Assessment Method." Camp Dresser & McKee.
May 1992.
Nots: The information presented in this Appendix was used in the development of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, after work on the Appendix was
completed, modifications and improvements in the discussion of this subject were applied
during the preparation of the EIS. As a result, the presentation of policy, planning, and
regulatory issues contained herein may not be as current as the information in the EIS.
Please note, however, that the presentation of quantitative information regarding
environmental impacts (e.g., wetlands, water quality, air quality, transportation) contained
within the Appendix is current. If any differences exist between this Appendix and the
EIS, the discussion in the EIS supersedes the discussion in the Appendix.
-------
Reprinted with permission
of the editor.
WETL4NDS. Vol. 15, No. 2, June 1995. pp. 000-000
<3 1995, The Society of Wetland Scientists
B - WETL - 15(2) ... 5040010 ... Gal. 1
Return Pror-f;
to Editor within
48 Hourt.
ESTIMATING RELATIVE WETLAND VALUES FOR
APR 2 1 1995
REGIONAL PLANNING
Thomas Hruby
Washington State Department of Ecology
§ ftevi efiecReB ttiU prod po. box h6qo
) have marked all changes of Olympia, WA 98504
corrections I wish to he made
v/iiliam E. Cesanek and Keith E. Miller
Signed ____________ Camp Dresser <5 McKee, Inc.
Jaleohone Raritan Plaza 1, Raritan Center
Edison, NJ 08818
Return photoprints to editor.
DO NOT return original artwork
unless alterations are needed.
Abstract: A numeric method is described for establishing the relative values of wetlands in regional planning.
The method combines qualitative understanding of how local wetlands function with assessments of their
regional values. The method, called the IVA (Indicator Value Assessment), is a rapid assessment method
based on the assumption that wetlands having specific environmental indicators perform a wetland function
better than those that do not. The importance of an indicator in the performance of a function is represented
numerically. First, a performance score for a wetland is calculated by developing a numeric model for each
function based on the importance scores assigned to the indicators. Performance scores are normalized on
a scale of 0-100, relative to the wetland having the highest performance score in the planning region. Values
for wetlands are then quantified by multiplying the area of the wetland by its performance score and by a
rank score representing the relative social importance of that function. The performance and value scores
can then be used to assess possible impacts from different development scenarios, identify compensation
needs within a planning region, and assess the potential of different wetlands for enhancement. The IVA
method is being tested and used in three wetland management plans in small watersheds: the Hackensack
Meadowlands (New Jersey) Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), the Mill Creek (Washington State)
SAMP, and the Snohomish Estuary Plan (Washington State).
Key Words: wetlands, wetland functions, wetland values, impact assessment method, regional planning,
watershed planning
Sf NO PKOOf S AND MANUSCRIPT TO EDtTOR.
REPtINT ORDER TO ALLEN PRESS.
INTRODUCTION
Wetlands have become recognized as uniquely im-
portant components of the landscape (Mitch and Gos-
selink 1993). This recognition has been formalized in
the United States with the acceptance of a goal at both
federal and state levels to "achieve no overall net loss
of the nation's remaining wetland base, as defined by
acreage and function" (Conservation Foundation 1988,
National Governors Association 1992). Although the
goal of "no-net-loss" is easy to grasp at a conceptual
level, it has proved to be very difficult to implement
and achieve. Area is measured easily, but wetland func-
tions are not
Assessing wetland functions is not a new endeavor.
The assessments, however, have usually been species-
specific, short-term, and narrow in their scope (Kusler
1986). The current need is for rapid, comprehensive
approaches that evaluate a range of wetland functions
(Kusler 1986). This need has become more critical as
resource agencies begin managing the environment at
a watershed or basin scale. In such cases, several hun-
dred wetlands may need to be assessed in a short time.
Furthermore, the preparation of regional wetland man-
agement plans requires a range of information often
not provided in many assessment methods. In the pro-
cess of developing the three regional management plans
described below, we found these needs to include
• assessments of how well wetlands within a planning
area perform functions,
• assessments of the relative social value of a wetland
with respect to specific functions,
• assessments of potential impacts to wetland values
by development or other activities,
• numeric assessments of value that can be used to
establish some requirements for compensation of un-
avoidable impacts, and
• assessments of the potential for restoration or en-
hancement of wetland functions in the planning area.
-------
Planning decisions that affect wetlands are made daily,
with and without such information. Tools that pro-
vides us with timely information to estimate values
and identify trade-offs will make our decisions more
efficient (Hausman 1986).
At present, a variety of rapid, comprehensive meth-
ods are available for rating or assessing wetland func-
tions. Commonly used methods include the Wetland
Evaluation Technique (WET) (Adamus et al. 1987),
the "New Hampshire" method (Amman and Stone
1991), the "Oregon" method (Roth et al. 1993), the
"Reppert" method (Reppert etal. 1979), and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedures
(HEPs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980). Methods
currently available, however, do not meet many of the
information needs for regional, watershed-based plan-
ning. Problems we have faced in trying to use existing
methods in developing three regional plans are sum-
marized below.
1. As described further below, some users misinterpret
the type of analysis based on the title of the method.
Misinterpretation of the results, or at least confu-
sion among participants in a planning effort may
follow, especially when the public becomes in-
volved in establishing regional values of functions.
2. Models that are broad in scope, such as WET, the
Oregon Method, or the New Hampshire Method
often do not provide the level of detail necessary
for regional management plans. Methods designed
for use at a national or statewide scale are often
insensitive to local variations in the performance
of functions. As a result, most of the wetlands with-
in the planning region have the same rating.
For example, a WET rating of 147 wetlands in
the Hackensack Meadowlands of New Jersey re-
sulted in a "High" rating, for nutrient removal op-
portunity in 141 of the wetlands (US Environmen-
tal Protection Agency 1989). In another case, 125
of 128 wetlands in a small sub-watershed of the
Green River in Washington (Mill Creek Basin) were
rated High for "opportunity," and 76 were High
for "effectiveness" in the function of floodflow al-
teration and desynchronization. Only 37 of the wet-
lands, however, are within the 100-year floodplain
of the creek and can be expected to provide the ,
highest levels of effectiveness and opportunity. The
remainder of the wetlands are behind dikes or on
surrounding hillsides (US Army Corps of Engineers
1991). While these ratings may be accurate for state-
wide comparisons, their lack of variation makes
them frustrating to use in the context of basin plan- '
ning.
The lack of sensitivity is complicated by the fact
that indicators of performance may differ within a |
state or ecoregion. In practice, general methods usu-
ally need to be modified to address local wetland
conditions (Polling and McColligan, Jr. 1986, Reed
1986, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1989).
In addition, most general methods do not differ-
entiate adequately between habitat functions to meet
local planning needs. For example, the Oregon and
New Hampshire methods include only two habitat
functions, "fish" and "wildlife" (Ammann and Stone
1991, Roth et al. 1993). Local regulators and the
public tend to view habitat functions with a more
narrow focus, such as habitat for anadromous fish,
habitat for overwintering waterfowl, or habitat for
raptors.
3. Most existing methods do not provide a clear and
comprehensive separation between the level at
which a wetland performs a function and the per-
ceived benefits, or values, of that function. Fur-
thermore, methods that may be clear but that only
provide a simple determination of performance may
not be enough for planning or regulatory purposes
(Kusler 1986).
Meeting the need for a comprehensive approach has
been complicated by the confusion that exists between
the concepts of wetland functions and wetland values.
Functions have been defined as the physical, chemical,
and biological processes or attributes that contribute
to the self-maintenance of wetland ecosystems (Brin-
son 1993a, Walbridge 1993). The values of wetlands,
on the other hand, are estimates, usually subjective, of
the worth, merit, quality, or importance of these func-
tions to humans (Richardson 1994). The word "val-
ues" imposes an anthropocentric focus by suggesting
that a wetland process provides a benefit to humans.
Although functions are defined as wetland processes,
they are usually chosen in terms of the value they pro-
vide to society. For example, the "life-support" func-
tions of wetlands are described in terms of fish habitat,
waterfowl habitat, etc. These are all functions impor-
tant to society. Rarely do we see the life-support func-
tions described in terms of habitat for detritivores,
insects, or annelids. We are, de facto, making a value
judgment just by choosing which functions to assess.
The value judgments made in choosing functions
are often inherent, since the intermediate step of ex- ,
plicitly identifying which benefits to society are to be
assessed is omitted. Because this step is often omitted,
users of assessment methods often equate the value of
a wetland with the level at which a wetland performs
a specific function. The term "functional value" has
been coined to represent wetland values in terms of
performance, but this seems to confuse the issue fur-
ther, rather than clarifying it
The confusion between function and value also has
-------
B — WETL — 15(2) ... 5040010 ... Gal. 2
been compounded by the word choices used in wetland
analyses. Methods for organizing our knowledge about
wetlands have been called classifications, categoriza-
tions, characterizations, ratings, rankings, assessments,
and evaluations. Unfortunately, authors of wetland
"assessment" methods have often been sloppy in the
use of these terms. As a result, regional watershed plan-
ning teams are often baffled as to the methods that may
be appropriate for meeting their planning needs. For
example, the "Wetland Evaluation Technique" by
Adamus et al. (1987) suggests that the method will
establish values for wetlands. The method, however,
only provides a rating—a classification based on a po-
sition of High, Medium, or Low on three scales (social
significance, effectiveness, and opportunity).
In this paper, we describe the conceptual framework
for a wetland assessment method that attempts to ad-
dress some of the information needs of regional wet-
land management plans. Our focus is to describe a
standard process by which regional models of perfor-
mance and value can be developed, rather than the
actual numbers. The process described could also be
used to modify existing methods to meet local planning
needs.
The method, called the Indicator Value Assessment
(TVA), provides a separate estimate of the performance
of a socially important function within a wetland as
well as an estimate of the relative value of that wetland
within the planning region. The method, however, does
not provide a measure of absolute level of performance
or value. Establishing such numbers requires a quan-
titative understanding of direct cause and effect rela-
tionships between environmental variables and func-
tions, an understanding that is not currently available
for most wetland processes. The IVA method is pre-
sented with the understanding and expectation that it
will be supplanted by more quantitative methods as
they are developed.
The IVA was first developed to assess performance
and estimate values of wetlands for the Hackensack
Meadowlands Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
in New Jersey. Since then, the method has been used
in the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan and
the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Management Plan,
both in Washington State. One hundred thirty-nine
separate wetlands were assessed for the Meadowlands
SAMP, 128 for the Mill Creek SAMP, and 362 for the
Lower Snohomish River plan. These three planning
efforts are ongoing projects, and the results reported
here represent the work completed to date. Estimates
of how well wetlands perform functions and the rela-
tive values of these functions have been completed for
all three projects. In addition, the impacts to wetland
values of different regional "development" alterna-
tives have been assessed for the SAMPs. Similar as-
sessments are yet to be completed for the Snohomish
Estuary Plan. Assessments of compensation needs and
the enhancement potential of existing wetlands also
remain to be completed for all three projects.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
IVA METHOD
Estimating Performance of Wetland Functions
The estimate of how well a wetland performs a func-
tion is based on the assumption that wetlands having
specific environmental variables are better at perform-
ing a function than those that do not. These variables,
known as indicators, are those that have a documented
or hypothesized association with particular wetland
functions. The association between an indicator and a
function is strong enough that the presence of the in-
dicator in a wetland is an indication that the function
is also being performed to some degree (Kentula et al.
1992). Indicators are used in one form or another in
most current rating and assessment methods (e.g., Rep-
pert 1979, Adamus et al. 1987, Amman and Stone
1991, Roth et al. 1993).
In the IVA method, the relationships between in-
dicators and the performance of functions are estab-
lished for each planning region or watershed and con-
verted to a numeric model. Three types of numeric
representations are developed for indicators.
1) Indicators that are associated with an incremental
increase in performance are scored as positive in-
tegers (i.e., 1,3,9) and summed (additive indica-
tors).
2) Indicators that are associated with significant in-
creases in performance are scored as numbers great-
er than "1" and used to multiply the sum in #1
above (multiplicative indicators).
3) Indicators that are associated with decreases in per-
formance are scored as numbers less than "1" and
also used to multiply the stun in #1 above (frac-
tional indicators).
The three types of indicators are described in more
detail in the following section.
The general form of the model for estimating per-
formance is:
level of performance - (sum of scores for additive
indicators)*(product of multiplicative and fractional
indicators)
SCORE - (S (PJfluYn oytM,))
-------
Table I. Functions assessed in the three wetland management plans and the number ofindicators used for each function.
Meadowlands
Number
of Indi-
cators
Mill Creek
Number
of Indi-
cators
Lower Snohomish
Number
of Indi-
cators
Nutrient uptake
69
Nutrient uptake
37
Nutrient uptake
14
Retention of toxics
61
Retention of toxics
44
Retention of toxics
33
Export of production
62
Export of production
28
Export of production
41
Floodflow alteration
3
Floodflow alteration
44
Sediment stabilization
26
Recreation
8
Sediment stabilization
47
Recreation
35
Conservation potential
78
Groundwater discharge
6
Channel stabilization
6
Access to deep water for
12
transportation
Habitat Functions
Aquatic species
88
Aquatic species
69
Anadromous fish
46
General fish
72
Anadromous fish
69
Resident fish
46
General waterfowl
85
Resident fish
74
Migratory bird
72
General wildlife
100,
Migratory bird
92
Overwintering bird
73
Resident bird
96
Breeding bird
79
All other species
98
Invertebrate
86
Reptile and amphibian
84
Mammal
80
Where:
» indicator presence (0 or 1)
R, - indicator score (additive, #1 above)
Nfo- indicator score (multiplicative and/or
fractional, #2, #3 above)
Estimating Values of Wetlands
The value of a wetland in terms of a specific function
is calculated by multiplying the performance score for
a function by the area of the wetland and by a number
representing the relative social importance assigned
that function. The mathematical expression of the val-
ue of a wetland relative to a specific function is:
value - performance score-area
•social importance of function
Note that we use the term "importance" of a func-
tion in lieu of "value" of a function to avoid confusion
with the concept of "value" of a wetland. The valuation
process in the IVA involves two steps: the first assigns
relative importance to functions and the second cal-
culates the value of specific wetlands relative to the
functions they perform. To keep the two steps separate,
we will use the term "importance" for functions and .
•'values" for wetlands. !
The following sections describe the procedure for
estimating wetland performance and values using this
approach. The four steps for estimating performance
of functions and two steps for estimating wetland val-
ues are illustrated with examples from the three plan-
ning efforts underway.
SPECIFIC STEPS FOR USING THE
IVA METHOD
Step 1: Identifying Wetland Functions
The first step in using the IVA method is to identify
wetland functions that are present and socially relevant
within the planning region or watershed. The choice
of functions must be a result of consensus among local
groups and agencies with permit or other legal au-
thority over local wetlands. Implementing wetland
management plans at the regional or watershed scale
requires the cooperation of all interested parties
(Broadhurst and Tanner 1994).
The value judgments inherent in choosing which
functions to assess are thus made explicitly and do not
depend on the list of functions developed for some
other purpose. The choice of functions will depend on
the goals of a project and the specific wetland processes
valued in the planning region. Ten functions were iden-
tified and evaluated for the Meadowlands SAMP, 12
were chosen for the Mill Creek SAMP, and 15 for the
Snohomish estuary study (Table I). Only three of these
functions were the same in all three planning efforts.
Step 2: Identifying Indicators For Each Function
Once functions are chosen, the next step in the pro-
cess is to identify the indicators of functions that are
important within the planning region. An initial list of
indicators can be compiled from existing methods. The
list, however, often needs to be modified with indi-
cators that represent local conditions. In all three plan-
-------
B — WETL 15(2) ...5040010...Gal. 3
ning efforts that used the IVA, the initial list was de-
rived from the "predictors" used in the WET. Addi-
tions and deletions to the list were made by a com-
mittee of local wetland experts. For example, many
wetlands in the Snohomish estuary have had some of
their functions impaired by the presence of wood waste
from local pulp and lumber mills. As a result, "pres-
ence of wood waste on the substrate" was added as an
indicator to address this local condition.
In developing the initial list of indicators, we found
that approximately 200 WET predictors could be used
to assess functions. Of these 200, 133 were used in the
Mill Creek SAMP, and 56 were used in the Snohomish
estuary plan. For the Mill Creek SAMP, the WET list
was supplemented with 22 indicators used in the
Washington State Wetland Rating System (Washing-
ton State Department of Ecology 1993) and two were
added to reflect special local conditions. In the Sno-
homish estuary plan, the list from WET was supple-
mented with 17 indicators used in the Washington
State Rating System, and 61 other indicators that re-
flect special local conditions. In the Meadowlands
SAMP, 196 indicators were used from a WET model
that had already been modified to reflect local condi-
tions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1989).
As indicators are identified, they are assigned to a
function or functions. One indicator may be associated
with more than one function, and individual functions
may have different numbers of indicators associated
with them. Table 1 summarizes the number of indi-
cators that were identified for each function in the three
planning studies.
It may prove useful in larger watersheds to first clas-
sify wetlands by their hydrogeomorphic characteristics
(Brinson 1993b) and develop lists of indicators appro-
priate for each class. This approach has not been tested
but is mentioned here because some planning efforts
may encompass larger areas.
Assembling a knowledgeable scientific committee is
critical for developing scientifically reasonable IVA
models. Knowledge of the quantitative relationships
between specific wetland indicators and the perfor-
mance of functions is limits. Most of our knowledge
is qualitative and correlative. In the absence of quan-
titative data, many judgments of performance ne«l to
be based on the "best professional judgment" of ex-
peits who have knowledge of the wetlands in the plan-
ning region or watershed. To eliminate as much sub-
jectivity as possible, the judgment of a group of experts,
rather than an individual, is used.
Step 3: Assigning Scores To Indicators
Once identified, each indicator of function is as-
signed an additive, multiplicative, or fractional score
based on the known or inferred relationship between
the indicator and the performance of a wetland func-
tion.
Additive Indicators. Most indicators used are linked
with incremental increase in performance and are
scored as "additive" indicators. These are ranked based
on three levels of importance related to the perfor-
mance of a function: 1) secondary indicators are vari-
ables that have a weak link with the level at which a
function is performed by a wetland; 2) good indicators
are variables with a stronger, or better documented,
link with performance; and 3) very good indicators
have the strongest, or best documented, link. Indica-
tors may be linked with more than one function, and
one that is a "secondary" indicator of one function,
may be ranked a "very good" indicator of another.
For example, in the Mill Creek basin, areas of per-
manent flooding were considered a "very good" in-
dicator of a wetland that performs effectively as a hab-
itat for aquatic organisms because many species need
to be submerged for their entire life cycle. A dense
understory edge at the wetland/upland boundary, on
the other hand, was considered only a "secondary"
indicator of performance for this function. Such an
edge does provide some shade and protection for
aquatic species (Adamus et al. 1991), but it was not
considered a very important habitat element in this
basin. Many of the ponds in the floodplains of the creek
are in grazed or abandoned pastures without a dense
understory edge. Local knowledge suggests that these
ponds, however, do provide good habitat for some
aquatic species in the absence of an understory edge
(e.g., observations of feeding by Great Blue Herons
(Ardea herodias, L) and other predators of aquatic
species).
The rankings are quantified by assigning a rank score
to each level of importance. Rank scores can be based
on arithmetic or geometric progressions. A geometric
progression was chosen for all three plans. A secondary
indicator was scored a [1], a good indicator was scored
a [3], and a very good indicator was scored a [9]. This
progression was chosen after testing several different
options (1,2,3; 1,3,5; and 1,3,9). The 1,3,9 scoring pro-
duced relative scores for performance that best matched
the overall qualitative assessment of performance made
by the members of the three scientific committees dur-
ing their field visits.
Examples of rank scores assigned to indicators for
different functions are given in Table 2. The table lists
14 indicators that were common to the two SAMPs.
The difference in scoring is an example of how the
assessment of performance can be tailored to reflect
local conditions. For example, the dominance of emer-
gent vegetation in a wetland (indicator #7 in Table 2)
-------
Table 2. Examples of scores for 14 indicators used in the Mill Creek and Meadowlands SAMPs. Scores are left blank when
indicator was not considered to be associated with a fucntion. Indicators are abbreviated and do not reflect the full description
used to collect data.
Function
Mill Creek Samp
Habitat Anadro- Migra-
for mo us lory Toxicant
Aquatic Fish Bird Sediment Reten-
Species Habitat Habitat Stabilization tion
K-
1 Downslope drop > upslope rise
2 Surface flow through permanent inlet
3 Surface flow through intermittent inlet
4 Outlet < one third average width
5 Dominant vey forested and needle-leaved evergreen
6 Dominant veg: forested and'BgaQl-leaved deciduous
" Dominant veg: emergent and persistent
Dominant veg: emergent and non-persistent
Vegetation-water interspersion: intermediate
Vegetation-water interspersion: mosaic
Channel flow spreading
12 Upland-Wetland edge irregular
13 Balance of sun and shade
14 Wetland contains a channel
7
8
9
10
11
9
3
1
9
9
9
3
9
3
1
1
3
1
I
1
0.8
0.9
0.9
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
Function
Meadowlands Samp
Habitat General
for General Water- General Toxicant
Aquatic Fish fowl Wildlife Reten-
Species Habitat Habitat Habitat tion
1 Downslopc drop > upslope rise
2 Surface flow through permanent inlet
3 Surface flow through intermittent inlet
4 Outlet < one third average width
5 Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
6 Dominant veg: forested and Hg^d-leaved deciduous
7 Dominant veg: emergent and persistent
8 Dominant veg: emergent and non-persistent
9 Vegetation-water interspenion: intermediate
10 Vegetation-water interspersion: mosaic
11 Channel flow spreading
12 Upland-wetland edge irregular
13 Balance of sun and shade
14 Wetland contains a channel
Not a relevant indicator in the Meadowlands region
was considered to be a very good indicator of perfor-
mance for the function "habitat for aquatic species"
in the Mill Creek basin but only a secondary indicator
in the Meadowlands. Most of the wetlands in the Mill
Creek basin are seasonally flooded and poorly drained.
The scientific committee concluded that areas domi-
nated by the emergent species in these wetlands are
the ones that are flooded and provide the local habitat
for aquatic species. In the Meadowlands, on the other
hand, the local scientific committee concluded that
most of the habitat for aquatic species is provided in
the ditches, channels, and open pools of a wetland. The
presence of a dominant cover of emergent species was
considered only a secondary indicator of performance
in that the plants provide detritus to the aquatic food '
web.
Multiplicative Indicators. In some cases, an indicator
may be considered so important in the performance
of a function that an "additive" rank score does not
reflect its importance. In such cases, the indicator is
assigned a "multiplicative** score that is greater than
one. In the absence of quantitative experimental re-
sults, the value of the multiplicative score is again
-------
B — WETL - 15(2) ... 5040010 ... Gal. 4
assigned by group consensus based on a qualitative
assessment of importance. The range of "multiplica-
tive" scores assigned to an indicator was between x 1.2-
x 10 in the three wetland management plans under
development.
For example, the presence of dendritic channels in
the wetlands of the Snohomish estuary were considered
to be an extremely important indicator that a wetland
is performing as habitat for anadromous fish, non-
anadromous fish, and invertebrates. As a result, this
indicator was assigned a "multiplier" score of two.
Wetlands having a dendritic channel system were con-
sidered to perform these functions twice as well as
wetlands without a dendritic system and had their sum
of "additive" indicators multiplied by "2." Since there
is no experimental evidence from the estuary that can
be used to establish the actual numeric value of the
multiplicative factor, the choice was based on the best
professional judgment of the scientific committee.
Fractional Indicators. Some environmental vari-
ables are associated with the impairment or decrease
in performance of wetland functions. These are as-
signed a "fractional" score based on an assessment of
how much they decrease performance. The range of
values used in the three planning efforts was x 0.001
to xO.95. The value of 0.001 is used in place of "0"
for indicators that are linked to the absence of a func-
tion (zeros confuse most computerized spreadsheets
on which the scores are calculated). Negative scores
were not used because heavily imparted wetlands with
few positive indicators might end up with a negative
performance score. A negative performance score does
not make conceptual sense since the absence of a func-
tion should be mathematically represented as a zero.
For example, the function of sediment stabilization
in wetlands of Mill Creek basin was considered to be
impaired if the downslope rise was greater than the
upslope rise (indicator #1 in Table 2). This indicator
was local evidence of a relatively shorter residence time
for water. Such wetlands were considered to be less
effective in trapping sediment than those on flat terrain
or those in which the slopes were equal.
Step 4: Estimating A Performance Score
An overall performance score for a function is cal-
culated by summing the rank scores of the "additive"
indicators and multiplying that number by the product
of the "multiplicative" and "fractional** indicators. This
produces a numeric model of performance for each
function. In practice, these models are not written down
but appear as commands in a computer spreadsheet
Performance scores for each function are normalized
relative to the highest score achieved in the planning
region. Thus, the wetland with the highest performance
score is assigned a score of 100, and all others are
calculated relative to this. Normalizing the score sim-
plifies the visual presentation of the data and reduces
the tendency for using the scores as measures of "ab-
solute" performance.
Step 5: Establishing The Relative Social Importance
of Functions
Most wetland management plans that include res-
toration, creation, or enhancement on a regional scale
will involve discussions of possible trade-offs between
functions (for a documented case, see City of Eugene
1992). Such discussions are facilitated when the wet-
land assessment method used provides some way to
establish the relative social value of wetlands as well
as their performance of functions. Since importance
represents an anthropocentric assessment of functions,
this determination is best made by a group that in-
cludes all parties interested in the wetland resources
of the planning area. Assigning importance to functions
should be done independently of the estimates of actual
performance and by a group that includes more than
just the scientists.
One way to establish the relative importance of func-
tions is to rank them and assign a numeric score to
that rank. For example, the function of anadromous
fish habitat might be ranked twice as important as
habitat for non-anadromous fish in a watershed where
salmon are considered to be a critical resource. Habitat
for migratory birds and resident birds may be consid-
ered to be of equal importance, but both less important
thqp habitat for resident fish. In this case, the impor-
tance scores for the four functions might be: anadro-
mous fish habitat - 4; resident fish habitat - 2; mi-
gratory bird habitat - 1; resident bird habitat - 1.
Another option in ranking functions is to combine
several functions into function groups. This second
option was chosen in the three planning efforts de-
scribed here (Table 3). Combining functions into func-
tion groups simplifies the valuation process by break-
ing it up into two steps. The first establishes the relative
importance of each function within a Auction group,
and the second establishes the relative importance be-
tween function groups.
Either way, the locally most important functions can
be highlighted. In the Mill Creek basin, the four groups
of functions (fish habitat, habitat for all other non-fish
species, floodflow alteration, and water quality im-
provement) were ranked equally. This meant that the
four functions grouped under Fish Habitat were con-
sidered to be as important as the six functions repre-
senting the habitat for all other wildlife (Habitat for
-------
Tabic 3. Wetland function groups assigned equal importance in the two special area management plans and their associated
functions.
Function
Group
Hackensack Meadowlands
Function
Function
Group
Mill Creek
Function
Social significance
Wildlife habitat
Water quality im-
provement
Recreation
Floodflow alteration
Conservation potential
Aquatic diversity and abundance
General fish habitat
General waterfowl habitat
General wildlife habitat
Export of primary production
Nutrient retention/Transformation
Sediment toxicant retention
Floodflow alteration
Fish habitat
Habitat for non-fish
species
Water quality improve-
ment
Floodflow alteration
Anadromous fish habitat
Resident fish habitat
Export of primary production
Groundwater discharge
Groundwater discharge
Export of primary production
Migratory bird habitat
Resident bird habitat
Aquatic species habitat
Other species habitat
Sediment stabilization
Sediment toxicant retention
Nutrient retention/
transformation
Non-Fish Species, see Table 3). Floodflow alteration,
a function group with only one function, was of the
same importance as the four fish habitat functions and
the six other wildlife habitat functions. In Hackensack
Meadowlands, on the other hand, fish habitat was not
singled out. It was considered only one of the five
functions in the wildlife habitat group. Membership of
a function in a group need not be unique. In the Mill
Creek SAMP, two functions (export of primary pro-
duction and ground-water discharge) were each as-
signed to two groups because they were considered
important functions in both.
The valuation process just completed for the Sno-
homish River estuary (October, 1994) provides an ex-
cellent example of how complex and serious the val-
uation issue can be in the context of regional planning.
The valuation committee, with members from the dif-
ferent "users" of the estuarine wetlands, is assigning
functions to function groups and importance to func-
tions and groups based on the location of a wetland in
the urban and agricultural landscape. For example,
shoreline sediment stabilization was included in the
group of socially significant wetland functions in an
urban/industrial and in an agricultural landscape but
not in relatively undisturbed, "pristine" areas. In ad-
dition, the group of five wildlife functions is being rated
as three times more important than the group of so-
cially significant functions in such "pristine" areas. In
urban/industrial areas, however, the converse is true—
socially significant functions are being rated at three
times the habitat functions.
Step 6: Estimating Value of Wetlands
The value score of a wetland with respect to a func-
tion is calculated by multiplying the performance score
for the function by the area of the wetland and by the
relative importance assigned that function. Since per-
formance scores and importance ranks are non-di-
mensional numbers, value is reported as "acre-points"
or "hectare-points." Examples from the planning stud-
ies (e.g., Table 4) are reported in "hectare-points", but
in practice all three planning documents being drafted
use "acre-points." Some of the planning agencies in-
volved in the regional plans as well as the general public
have not yet adopted the metric system.
In the case where functions are grouped, value is
calculated using a two-step process. First, a "group"
score is calculated by summing the normalized per-
formance scores of the relevant functions. This sum is
again normalized to the highest scoring wetland within
each group. I/the functions in a group are not consid-
ered to be of equal importance, the performance scores
are first multiplied by the appropriate rank score for
the function. For example, in the lower Snohomish
estuary, the retention of toxics by wetlands is an urban
setting was considered to be twice as important as ei-
ther nutrient retention or sediment trapping. Thus, the
performance score for the retention of toxics was dou-
bled in calculating the group score for the water quality
improvement functions.
This two-step valuing process may seem cumber-
some at first, but we found that it simplifies the val-
-------
B — WETL — 15(2) ... 5040010... GaJ. 5
uation effort. Both the scientists' and citizens' groups
wanted to develop performance models for specific
functions rather than for general groups such as wildlife
habitat, water quality improvement, or social signifi-
cance. Establishing a consensus on the relative impor-
tance for 10 to 15 separate functions, however, was an
extremely difficult task. It was easier to first establish
the relative importance of the major function groups
and then establish the relative importance of functions
within a group.
DISCUSSION
Basic Approach to Numeric Modeling
The validity of scoring performance based on the
number and kind of indicators present may be ques-
tioned given the current lack of quantitative infor-
mation. The modeling approach used in the IVA, how-
ever, is the same as that found in many current wetland
assessment methods and their adaptations (e.g., see
Reppert 1979, Hollands and McGee 1986, Aramann
and Stone 1991). The structure of these models follows
the "mechanistic" approach to model development
described for HEPs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1981). First, indicators are chosen that represent key
features known to affect wetland functions. Second, the
relationship between an indicator and a function is
quantified. Third, the indicators are aggregated through
a mathematical operation to yield a single numeric
description of performance or "functional value." In
these types of models, "Assumptions about how model
variables (i.e., indicators) cumulatively affect habitat
suitability (i.e., performance of functions) must be made
and converted into mathematical language" (Terrell et
al. 1982).
As with other methods, the scores or weighting fac-.
tors used in the IVA usually reflect perceived impor-
tance and the best professional judgment of the au-
thors) rather than the results of rigorous experiments.
This approach is necessitated by the lack of quantified
relationships between environmental variables and
functions that can be used at the scale of most wetland
planning efforts. Unfortunately, conversion to numeric
scores does not decrease the subjectivity of the original
assumptions, but it does allow different users to arrive
at the same scores. Current understanding of wetland
processes does not lets us to go much beyond quan-
tifying our subjectivity. The IVA method tries to min-
imize the potential problems with this subjectivity by
using the best local information available in addition
to published information.
Mechanistic models have several attributes that make
them useful tools for environmental planning. Para-
phrasing Terrell et al. (1982), these attributes are as -
follows: 1) the basic model structure can be used to
integrate a wide variety of existing knowledge and hy-
potheses concerning relationships between indicators
and performance of functions; 2) the model structure
enables planners to easily track changes that have the
most effect on performance; and 3) the models can
readily be modified to incorporate new information on
the relationships between indicators and functions.
The major limitation of mechanistic models is that
the accuracy of their output cannot be directly verified
because real values for levels of performance do not
exist. This justifiable criticism does not, however, take
into account the difference in requirements between
science and planning (Romesburg 1981). The time
frames of planning often require the use of information
that may not be experimentally validated. Mechanistic
models, however, provide a means to display and in-
tegrate logical, but scientifically untested, cause and
effect relationships. Such models cannot be "proven"
right or wrong, but the reliability of the output can be
tested by reformulating the assumptions and exam-
ining the new model behavior relative to how well it
meets the goals of the planning effort (Terrell et al.
1982).
The output of the IVA model is similar to that in
the New Hampshire method (Amman and Stone 1991).
Our scoring of indicators is analogous to the "Func-
tional Value Index"; the performance score is analo-
gous to the "Average Functional Value Index"; and
our value score in "hectare-points" is analogous to the
"Wetland Value Units." The difference between the
two is in the algorithms used. In the IVA, indicators
are additive or multiplicative, whereas in the New
Hampshire method, indicators are all assigned values
between zero and one, and the performance is mea-
sured as an average of these values.
The first reason for a different mathematical ap-
proach is that assessments of enhancement potential
are simplified by having the indicators of degradation
be fractional multipliers. The performance of functions
in many wetlands could be improved if disturbances
are removed, and it is important to represent this nu-
merically for planning purposes. Neither the HEP nor
the New Hampshire method provide an easy way to
quantify changes in performance that result from re-
moving disturbances.
The second reason for using an additive and mul-
tiplicative approach in calculating scores is more philo-
sophical. Constraining the performance scores between
0 and 1, as is done in the HEPs and the New Hampshire
method, assumes that we are able to specify in advance
the highest level of performance within a region. Fur-
thermore, the highest level of performance is achieved
by only one unique set of indicators. In practice, how-
ever, we feel that wetlands can achieve high levels of
-------
Table 4. Assessment of impacts of different planning alternatives in the Mill Creek SAMP. Numbers shown are "hectare-
points."
Impacts
Total Alternative Alternative Alternative
Resource 3^5
Hectares
416
Impact as % of total
Function group
Floodflow alteration
16,709
Impact as % of total
Fish habitat
12,002
Impact as % of total
Habitat for non-fish species
27,275
Impact as % of total
Water quality improvement
29,544
Impact as % of total
performance through different combinations of indi-
cators, some that may be mutually exclusive and some
that are not.
Scoring different combinations of indicators equally
highly is especially important in larger watersheds.
Wetlands in different geomorphic settings may per-
form the same function well but for different reasons.
Methods that rely on a scoring system constrained be-
tween 0 and 1 would have to incorporate a number of
"and/or" logic statements in their numeric model to
accommodate this. We found it simpler to expand the
list of indicators that might be present in all geomor-
phic settings. Wetlands in the Snohomish estuary were
identified as being either "mudflats" or "vegetated."
The "mudflat" wetlands were assessed for some of the
same functions as the "vegetated" ones but using a list
of indicators modified to reflect the differences in per-
formance between the two categories of wetlands.
Using the IVA to Meet Regional Planning Needs
A wide range of information about wetlands and
their functions is needed to develop regional wetland
management plans. Information is needed on how well
wetlands perform important functions, their relative
values, the potential impacts of development alter*
natives, how unavoidable impacts should be compen-
sated, and the potential for some wetlands to be re*
stored or enhanced. The detailed description of the
method above presents how the TV A method is used
to estimate the performance of wetland functions and j
their relative values. The following section describes
how we are using the TV A to meet some of the other
information needs for regional planning.
The need for assessing the potential impacts to wet-
lands under different development alternatives is met
129
210
388
31%
50%
93%
738
9681
15,424
4%
58%
92%
1053
7404
10,808
9%
62%
90%
7633
14,419
25,349
28%
53%
93%
8498
14,822
27,541
29%
50%
93%
by incorporating the performance and value scores in
a geographic information system (GIS). Wetlands are
mapped and different values such as wildlife habitat
can be highlighted (Figure 1). The impact of "remov-
ing" individual wetlands or parts of wetlands on the
total resource in the watershed can be estimated for
each function or group of functions. The "hectare-
points" lost in a wetland can be compared to the total
"hectare-points" in the watershed or planning region.
Furthermore, the IVA assessments can be used to iden-
tify the high value wetlands that should be protected
regardless of local development needs. Unavoidable
impacts can then be re-directed to lower value wet-
lands.
In the Mill Creek SAMP, for example, one planning
alternative (Alternative 4) is based on selecting all wet-
land areas within 91 meters (300 feet) of existing roads
as potential development sites. Another one (Alter-
native S) assumes that all wetlands outside a 61 meter
(200 foot) corridor along the main streams will be de-
veloped. In a third alternative (Alternative 3), wetlands
are considered suitable for development if they are
outside the 100-year floodplain and have performance
scores for the Fish Habitat, Other Species Habitat, and
Water Quality Improvement Junction groups that rank
in the bottom 2/3 of the relative scores for the region.
The impacts of each of these alternatives were calcu-
lated in terms of the hectare-points lost, and the per-
centage of the total resource this represents (Table 4).
The goal of this process is to synthesize this infor-
mation and identify a preferred development plan that
minimi?** unavoidable impacts to wetland values and
meets regional development needs.
The issue of compensation for unavoidable wetland
impacts is more controversial but needs to be ad-
dressed if regional wetland management plans are to
-------
B - WETL - 15(2) ... 5040010 ... GaJ. 6
Figure 1. Map of wetlands in the Hackensack Meadowlands and their relative score for the wildlife habitat group of Auctions.
-------
be effective. The numeric estimates generated through
the IVA provide a means for quantifying the amount
and type of compensation needed. At a planning level,
impacts to functions or groups of functions are assessed
in terms of the "hectare-points" lost. These values
must be replaced by function, usually at a ratio of
hectare-points that is higher than one to one. Com-
pensation is addressed in the three regional plans being
developed by identifying areas that can be restored or
enhanced to compensate for the impacts to wetland
functions.
Attempts, however, to add all the value scores for
functions, or groups of functions, to obtain a single
value for a wetland are not appropriate because hect-
are-points for functions are not interchangeable. Too
much information about functions is lost if the scores
are combined. The only comparison that can be made
using the IVA is that a hectare-point for one function
represents approximately the same value to society as
a hectare-point for another function. As an analogy,
consider an apple and an orange. One may value the
two fruits the same, but they cannot be combined to
form a single larger fruit. By agreeing to value them
the same, however, it is possible to compensate for
losing an apple by "creating or restoring" an orange
without feeling cheated.
For example, the enhancement of fish habitat in the
Mill Creek basin is considered a primary goal for the
region (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1994). To ad-
dress this need, the draft management plan is recom-
mending that some exchanges between group functions
be allowed when compensating for unavoidable im-
pacts. At present, the draft recommendation is to allow
the replacement of up to 25% of the value of Habitat
for Non-Fish Species (in hectare-points) that may be
lost through unavoidable development with 1.25 times
the hectare-points of Fish Habitat. The ratio of 1.25
is included to compensate for potential risks in the
compensatory activities i^d to account for some of the
uncertainty associated with the qualitative judgments
made in developing the IVA.
The IVA method is also being used to assess the
potential for restoration or enhancement in the three
planning regions and to link this to the compensation
plan. Areas that might be suitable for restoration or
enhancement are re-assessed for the presence of new
or changed indicators based on the proposed activities.
The change in the value score for each function or
group of functions represents the potential for com- i
pensation at a site. |
An inherent risk with this approach is that compen-
sation plans will be tailored to maximize points rather
than focusing on regional needs. To avoid this prob-
lem, restoration/enhancement guidelines for all sites
are being developed as part of the regional plans. These
guidelines are focused on meeting local needs for im-
provements to wetland functions. Any proposed en-
hancement to an existing degraded wetland, restora-
tion of previously filled wetlands, or creation of new
wetlands, will be constrained to the specific strategies
and tactics outlined in site-specific guidelines.
Assessment methods also need to be rapid and rel-
atively inexpensive to be usable in developing regional
wetland management plans. Our experience with the
IVA has been that it takes 3 to 5 days for the scientific
committee to develop the scoring models and another
2 to 3 meetings of an advisory committee to establish
the relative importance of functions. The actual data
collection takes less than 3 hours per wetland and is
best done by 2 or 3 people together. The presence of
many indicators can be determined in the office from
aerial photographs and local maps. Altogether, the lev-
el of effort required to assess wetlands using the IVA
is approximately the same as that required to use other
, ."rapid" assessment methods.
Limitations of the IVA Method
The IVA method does not address possible syner-
gistic relationships among different indicators and per-
formance. These relationships are known to exist, but
the information is only qualitative. This valid criticism
is difficult to address in any general or regional valu-
ation method at present. Our knowledge about the
relationship between many environmental character-
istics and functions is qualitative and correlative, and
it is not reasonable to add an additional level of in-
teractions at this stage: one that includes multivariate,
non-linear algorithms, and for which we have little
information.
Another potential criticism is that scientific data are
presently not adequate to substantiate separations be-
tween wetlands by one point out of a 100 (Adamus
1986). We agree with this and do not suggest the IVA
be used in this manner. The reason for scoring wetlands
on a finer scale is that it helps identify breaks in the
data that can be used in the planning effort Decisions
to include or exclude wetlands from planning alter-
natives can be based on the distribution of scores. The
decisions are not constrained by an arbitrary 3-rank
system such as a High, Medium, Low. Figure 2 shows i
the distributions of performance scores for the four j
function groups assessed in the Mill Creek basin. Scores '
for Non-fish Habitat and Water Quality Improvement :
were approximately normally distributed. The deci-
sion of the SAMP committee was to identify three
groups of wetlands for planning purposes: 1) the 13
highest scoring wetlands (top 10%) for a function group,
2) the 38 highest scoring wetlands (top 30%), and 3) !
all the rest. This, however, was not the case for Fish
-------
B - WETL - 15(2) ... 5040010 ... GaJ. 7
Floodflow Alteration
Non-Fish Habitat
r-TC 11-20
e>J1 _1
Ftah Habitat
Water Quality Improvement
Score range
Figure 2. Distribution of scores for the four function groups in the Mill Creek basin.
& fcH
91 -100
Habitat or Floodflow Alteration. Since the scores had
a bimodal distribution, wetlands were grouped into
those with relatively high scores and those with rela-
tively low scores.
CONCLUSIONS
The IVA method was developed to meet an im-
mediate need to provide information for developing
wetland management plans in small watersheds or ba-
sins. As discussed above, it is not conceptually different
from some of the other, more general, numeric meth-
ods that already exist It is different, however, in the
way models of performance and value are developed.
Rather than modifying more general models, we began
with the premise that models for assessing performance
of wetland functions need to be developed locally to
generate the information needed for regional plans.
This conclusion is based on our experience with the
three planning efforts described, as well as from track-
ing similar planning efforts (City of Eugene 1992). The
focus of our efforts has been to develop a standard and
easily understood process by which the models are
developed and local levels of performance and values
are estimated. We hope that this standardized process
facilitates future regional efforts at managing wetlands.
Throughout the process, we have attempted to main-
tain a strong separation between the concepts of per-
formance of a function in a wetland and its regional
importance. The separation of the two concepts facil-
itates participation by interested parties and meets the
planning needs for assessments of both performance
and value. On one hand, the public is involved in
establishing the relative importance of different func-
tions and does not feel left out of the process. Such
^participation is necessary for regional management
plans to work (Broadhunt and Tanner 1994, U.S. For-
est Service 1994). On the other hand, the more sci-
entific decisions regarding performance of functions
are left to the local experts. Thus, assessments of per-
formance are made by the scientists. The assessments
of value, however, reflect the needs and perceptions of .
the general public and regulators.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is spearheading
efforts to develop quantitative models for functions
based on the Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Brin-
son (1993b). These models will be geographically based i
but on a larger scale than tmaii watersheds or basins.
These new models will be quantitative, more rigorous,
and based on actual measurements of performance at
reference sites (Smith and Bartoldus 1994). Once de-
veloped, these models may meet the needs of regional
-------
.yj\
planning, and if 50, will provide a more quantitative
assessment than the IVA and other current methods.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The development of the method in its final form was
an evolutionary process with members of the SAMP
scientific subcommittees (see Appendix A for list of
members on subcommittees) providing guidance, dis-
cussion, and suggestions. We thank the members of
the two scientific subcommittees of the SAMPS, listed
in Appendix A, for their helpful discussions and com-
ments during the development of the method. Many
of the refinements in the approach are a result of the
continuing input from these two groups. Special thanks
are due to Dr. Mary Ann Thiesing for helping us refine
the assumptions of the method and identify its differ-
ences from the WET.
LITERATURE CITED
Aiiimm, P. R_ 1986. Uses and proposed revisions for the Adamus
assessment methodology. p.73--77. In J. A. Kusler and P. Riex-
inger(etL) Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium.
Association of State Wetland Managers Technical Report 1.
Adamus, P. R., E. J. dairain, Jr., R. D. Smith, and R. E. Young.
1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Volume II: Meth-
odology. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. USA. Operational Draft.
Adamus, P. R., L. T. Stockwell, E J. Clairain, Jr., M. E Morrow,
L- P. Rozaj, and R. D. Smith. 1991. Wetland Evaluation Tech-
nique (WET), Volume 1: Literature review and evaluation ration-
ale. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg.
MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-2.
Ammana, A. P. and A. L Slone. 1991. Method for the comparative
evaluation of nontidal wetlands in New Hampshire. New Hamp-
shire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH, USA.
NHDES-WRD-1991 -3.
Brinson, M. M. 1993a. Changes in the functioning of wetlands
along environmental gradients. Wetlands 13:65-74.
Brinson, M. M. 1993b. A hydrogeomorphie classification for wet
lands. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicks-
burg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-4.
Broadhurst, G. and C D. Tanner. 1994. Development of resto-
ration goals on a regional basis, p. 184-190. In M. Martz, A
Jarvela, K. Kunz, C. Simenstsd, an* F. Weinman (ed.) Parmer-
ihips and Opportunities in Wetland Restoration. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, USA. EPA
91Q/R-94-003
City of 1992. West Eugene Wetlands Plan: A product of
the West Eugene wetlands special area study. Eugene, OR, USA.
Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's Wetlands:
An Action Agenda. Washington, DC, USA.
Dahl, T. E., C E. Johnson, and W. E Frayer. 1991. Sutus and
trends of wetlands in the coterminous United Slates, mid-1970's
to mid-1980'a. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington D.C 28 pages.
Hausman, S. 1986. Special assessment needs and issues; The re-
gulator's perspective, p. 2-3. In J. A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed)
Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Asso-
ciation of State Wetland Managers, Chester, VT, USA. Technical
Report 1.
Hirsch, A 1988. Regulatory context for cumulative impact re-
search. Environmental Management !2:71S-723. J
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. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Corvallis, OR, USA. EPA/600/R-92/150.
Kusler, J. A. 1986. Wetland assessment The regulator's perspec-
tive. p.2-3. In J. A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed.) Proceedings:
National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Association of State
Wetland Managers, Chester, VT, USA Technical Report I.
Mitsch, W. J.andJ. G.Gosselini. 1993. Wetlands, Second Edition.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY, USA
National Governors Association. 1992. Water Resource Manage-
ment: Wetlands. Policy Document revised and adopted February
1992.
Polling, D. L. and E T. McCoUigan, Jr. 1986. The use of FHWA's
wetland functional assessment methodology in New Jersey, p. 103-
107. In 3. A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed.) Proceedings: National
Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Association of State Wetland
Managers, Chester, VT, USA Technical Report 1.
Reed, R. H. 1986. Alternate methodologies: The Wisconsin ex-
perience in modification of the FHWA's (Adamus) methodology.
p.96-97. In J. A Kusler and P. Riexinger (ed.) Proceedings: Na-
tional Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Association of State
Wetland Managers, Chester, VT, USA Technical Report 1.
Reppert, R. T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Beyers.
1979. Wetland Values: Concepts and Methods for Wetland Eval-
uation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Re-
sources, Fort Belvoir, VA, USA.
Richardson, C. J. 1994. Ecological functions and human values in
wetlands: a framework for assessing forestry impacts. Wetlands
14:1-9.
Romesburg, C 1981. Wildlife science: pining reliable knowledge.
Journal of Wildlife Management 45:293-313.
Roth, E. M., R. D. Olsen, P. L Snow, and R. R. Sumner. 1993.
Oregon freshwater wetland assessment methodology, ed. S.G.
McCannell. Oregon Division of State t "»t« Salem, OR, USA
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. Inslrip, R. F. Raleigh, and K.
L. Williamson. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Appen-
dix A. Guidelines for riverine and lacustrine applications of fish
HSI models with the Habitat Evaluation Prooedures. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA FWS/OBS-82/10A.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District). 1992. Mill Creek
SAMP Wetland Evaluation Technique, inventory, and Washing-
ton State rating. July 27, 1992. draft report.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer! (Seattle District). 1994. Draft M,
Mill Creek SAMP Wetland Management Plan, June, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Final report func-
tional assessment of wetlands in New Jersey's Hackensack Mead-
owlands. Prepared for U.S.EPA region II by the Maguire Group
Inc.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat evaluation proce-
dures. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological
Services, Washington, DC, USA ESM 102.
U.S. Fuh and Wildlife Service. 19S1. Standard! for development
ofhabiiat suitability index models. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Division of Ecological Services, Washington, DC, USA 103 ESM.
U.S. Forest Service. 1994. A (federal agency guide for pilot water-
shed analysis. Version 1.2. January 1994. U"S Department of Ag-
riculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, USA
Walbridge, M. R. 1993. Functions and vnlues of forested wetlands
in the toutbern United States. Journal of Forestry 91:15-19.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1993. Washington State
Wetlands Rating System: Western Washington. Second Edition.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA USA
Manuscript received 14 January 1994; revisions received 25 July
1994 and 28 November 1994; accepted 19 January 1995.
-------
B
— WETL- 15(2) ...5040010...Gal.8
Appendix A. Members of the technical subcommittee for
each SAMP.
MILL CREEK SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
Kenneth Brunner, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dr. Thomas Hniby, WA State Department of Ecology
Andrew Levesque, King County Surface Water Manage-
ment Agency
Joseph Robel, Washington State Department of Fisheries
Michael Scuderi, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jonathan Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lois Stark, City of Auburn Planning Office
Dr. Fred Wciamann, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS SPECIAL AREA
MANAGEMENT PLAN
William Cesanek, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Don Smith, Consultant to Hackensack Meadowlands De-
velopment Commission
Robert Hargrove, U.S. EPA
Dr. Thomas Hraby, WA State Dept of Ecology (formerly
with Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.)
Keith Miller, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Ken Scarletelli, Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission
Dr. Mary Anne Thiesing, U.S. EPA
Richard Tomer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
The method for assessing wetland impacts of SAMP alternatives on the Hackensack
Meadowlands involves identifying, ranking, and scoring wetland characteristics that are
considered to be important in the expression of valuable wetland attributes, and that could b
lost in the process of developing specific parcels in the District. 6
The general wetland assessment method agreed upon for the SAMP/EIS is summarized in
Section 1.0 below. The results of testing and evaluating different indexing methods and other
method refinements are presented in Section 2.0 and Section 3.0. This resulted in a wetland
indexing system for the SAMP/EIS that provides a relative measure of the extent to which the
SAMP land use and environmental management scenarios being considered alter existing
wetland characteristics. 5
This report was prepared to document the development and testing of the wetland assessment
method for the HMD SAMP/EIS. The final method used in the SAMP/EIS is discussed in the
article "Estimating Relative Wetland Values for Regional Planning", which precedes this report.
Several revisions in nomenclature have been made since the preparation of this report Most
importantly, the term "characteristic", used extensively in this report, has been replaced with the
term indicator , which more appropriately represents its role in the method. Also, this report
references a fourth wetland attribute—Important Habitats (IH)—which has been addressed
separately in the EIS, and is no longer a component of the IVA method. The reader should be
aware of these changes while reading this report.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
1.0 OVERVIEW OF WETLAND ASSESSMENT METHOD
1.1 OBJECTIVE
The purpose of the wetland resource evaluation is to provide a framework in which to ensure
"no net loss of wetland values". The outputs from the wetland assessment method will result in
a relative measure of the degree of impact to wetland resources from each SAMP management
alternative, and an indication of the related mitigation that would be necessary to achieve "no
net loss in wetland values".
1.2 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT METHOD
The method chosen for assessing the impacts of management alternatives on the Meadowlands
District's wetlands involved three phases:
¦ First, the environmental characteristics that are associated with high value attributes of
wetlands were identified using the WET and AVID results.
¦ Second, these environmental characteristics were assigned semi-quantitative ranks, based
on their importance in wetland functioning. An overall score for each wetland areas was
calculated based on the characteristics present in that wetland and the size of the wetland.
The impacts of different management alternatives on important environmental
characteristics were then evaluated.
¦ Third, mitigation needs were assessed based on creation or improvement of important
characteristics pursuant to mitigation, to meet the MOU's stipulation of "no net loss of
wetland values".
This method has been developed explicitly for purposes of screening area-wide management
alternatives during the SAMP/EIS. The method is not designed or tested for site-specific
wetland assessment and is not recommended for use beyond the preparation of the SAMP/EIS.
1.3 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS
This section of the wetlands indexing methodology describes the process used to identify
important wetland characteristics. It is based on evaluating the existing WET and AVID data set
to identify the most significant characteristics that contribute to wetland functioning.
1.3.1 Identifying Existing High Value Wetlands
Wetland areas in the Meadowlands which are currently considered to have high value were
identified based on the results of the AVID and other existing information. Thus, the high value
locations were a subset of the assessment areas defined for the WET, which represent
approximately 90% of the wetlands in the District.
The identification of higher value wetlands was performed using three methods. The first
method was to identify wetlands with a high probability of performing wetland functions, as
evaluated by WET. The second method was to identify those wetlands that fulfilled each of the
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
1
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
10 AVID criteria for unsuitability for fill. The third method was based on identifying wetlands
that expressed, to a higher degree, each of three general wetland attributes. These general
wetland attributes and the criteria used to identify a high level of expression of the attributes are
summarized in table 1-1. These attributes and criteria were used to identify the specific
characteristics that are important in the functioning of the wetlands. (A fourth general wetland
attribute—important habitats—was added later in the method development.)
The wetland characteristics on which the analysis is based are those identified by the WET
questionnaire. The WET database developed for the AVID was used. Before doing the analysis,
however, the data matrix (WET answers for each AA) was purged of any questions that do not
pertain to specific wetland characteristics or groups of characteristics; particularly those that
were included in the WET to direct the assessment to different hierarchical WET keys (i.e., is the
wetland tidal? If so, then ...).
1.3.2 Cluster Analysis of Characteristics Associated with High Value Wetlands
Prior to the analysis of the identified "high value" wetlands (as discussed above), a cluster
analysis of characteristics by WET function rank was performed. The clustering was performed
in an attempt to determine characteristics with a high likelihood of association with given
wetland functions in the Meadowlands.
1.3.3 Statistical Analysis of Wetland Characteristics Associated with High Value Wetlands
The data on wetland characteristics were further analyzed to determine those characteristics that
are associated with specific WET functions, AVID criteria, and general wetland attributes. This
analysis was based on the answers to the WET questionnaire as follows.
¦ Characteristics that are common to AAs with a high probability of performing a WET
function, fulfilling an AVID criterion, or expressing a general wetland attribute, were
tabulated.
¦ The significance of the association between a wetland characteristic and a function,
criterion, or attribute was then tested statistically. The "null" hypothesis for the statistical
test was that the observed frequency of "yes" and "no" answers in the group of Assessment
Areas (AAs) that indicated a high value wetland is similar to the observed frequency in the
AAs that do not indicate a high value wetland. The Chi-square test was used, with percent
of AA's that do not indicate a high value wetland, but do have the characteristic as the
"expected frequency" (see section 2.1.3).
1.3.4 Incorporation of Professional ludgment
The statistical analyses were supported by professional judgment, especially where the statistical
analyses did not provide an adequate number of significantly associated characteristics. The list
of wetland characteristics was supplemented based on available information, the importance of
characteristics in establishing a functional rank in the WET, and consensus among the
professionals working on the project. In addition, a literature search was conducted regarding
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
2
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
the relationship between wetland characteristics and functions, to support, in the context of a
programmatic EIS, the professional judgments rendered during this aspect of the EIS.
1.3.5 Submission to SAMP/EIS Subcommittee
The final list of characteristics that are related to the specific valuable wetland attributes was
submitted to the SAMP/EIS Subcommittee for concurrence.
1.4 ASSF.SSMF.NIT OF IMPACTS ON IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS
The assessment of potential impacts of management alternatives includes three major activities.
First, a numerical indexing system was developed so that the relative loss or enhancement of
characteristics under a variety of management alternatives could be readily identified. Second, a
baseline score indicating the presence of wetland characteristics and the size of the AA was
prepared describing the existing wetlands in the District. Third, the changes in wetland
characteristics that could be attributed to the management alternatives were identified. These
changes were scored using the numerical indexing system, and compared with the baseline score
to indicate the relative change in wetland characteristics associated with each management
alternative.
In limited instances where the AA exhibits characteristics that vary by location within the AA,
the method provides for subdivision of the AA to characterize the impacts of different
management alternatives. Where necessary, CDM and/or appropriate participating agencies will
conduct field analysis to characterize the subdivided area.
The specific steps of the Assessment Phase are outlined in the following subsections.
1.4.1 Development of Wetland Characteristic Indexing System
An index of relative importance was developed for each wetland characteristic identified in the
previous analysis. The index reflects in a semi-quantitative manner the estimated importance of
that characteristic in the maintenance or expression of the valuable attribute as it relates to the
Meadowlands.
To establish the rank of a characteristic several factors were reviewed:
¦ the number of AA's that exhibit the characteristic (commonality);
¦ whether the characteristic contributes to a high rating in the WET keys;
¦ the uniqueness of the characteristic (see section 2.3.3);
¦ the strength of the association between a characteristic and an attribute (as described
below); and/or
¦ professional judgment based upon the best available information.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
It is important in any ranking method to include professional consensus in the assignment of
ranks. The importance of a given characteristic to a wetland function, although not measured by
the present study, must be used to weight the associated characteristics for their ecological value
to be considered in this project. The final importance ranks were established by a working
group of wetland scientists from EPA, ACE, HMDC and CDM, with technical advice provided
by NJDEPE, and are discussed further in section 2.0.
1-4.2 Determination of Baseline Attribute Score
Once the importance of the wetland characteristics was determined, semiquantitative ranks were
assigned to each characteristic and a numerical index value was established for each attribute for
each AA, using the data collected for the WET/AVID. Section 3.3 discusses CDM's analysis of
various semi-quantitative ranking procedures.
This raw index score for each AA was normalized by dividing by the highest observed baseline
index for each attribute in the Meadowlands, and then multiplied by 100 to eliminate the need
for decimals. For Example, if the maximum score for the water quality improvement attribute
achieved in any of the 147 AA's in the Meadowlands District is 55, and the raw index in an AA
is 40, the normalized index for that AA would be 40 divided by 55 times 100. This results in an
index for each attribute, which under existing conditions can range from 0 (no characteristics
present) to 100 (th^ highest scoring wetland for that attribute).
The final step in determining the baseline attribute score is to multiply the normalized index for
each AA by its area.
1.4.3 Determinatioh of Impacts and Evaluation of Alternatives
Characteristics that will be eliminated or changed by a management alternative were identified
for each AA impacted under that management alternative. The overall relative impacts resulting
from the different Management alternatives will be compared by generating a new normalized
index for each valuable attribute, and then multiplying by the AA's area. The relative severity of
the impacts was assessed by comparing the baseline attribute scores to the management
alternative attribute scores. Changes in an AA were indicated by a reduction in the baseline
score for the different valuable attributes, and by identifying the amount of land with the
changed characteristics.
1.5 ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION NEEDS
A list of possible mitigation alternatives will be developed for the Meadowlands; including
creating new wetlands, improving the functioning of existing wetlands through enhancement,
and implementing controls and practices that establish additional actions for protection of
wetlands.
These mitigation alternatives will be assigned index scores in a mariner similar to the way
impacts were assessed in section 1.4.3 above. Improvements to wetlands based on creating,
adding, or changing wetland characteristics will be identified and assigned a score based on the
CDM Camp Dresse^ & McKee
4
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
importance of that characteristic. These scores will then be added to the baseline index as
determined above.
Mitigation plans for specific management alternatives will be developed so the net "index" of
impacts is equal to, or less than, the net "index" for mitigation alternatives proposed.
CDM Camp Dresser Si McKee
5
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
Table 1-1
Valuable Wetland Attributes and Criteria Used to Identify Assessment Areas
Likely to Exhibit Important Functions
ATTRIBUTE
Water Quality Improvement
Wildlife Habitat
Social Significance
- Recreation & Education
Floodflow alteration
CRITERION
"High" effectiveness and opportunity rank in WET for
Sediment/Toxic retention (AVID Criterion #8)
"High" effectiveness and opportunity rank in WET for
Nutrient Removal (AVID Criterion #9)
Proximity to point source discharge locations (incl.
haz. waste sites)
Criteria #3,4,5,6 of AVID (based on WET functional
ranks)
Existing data on bird usage
Existing data on mammal sightings
T & E Species Habitats (AVID Criterion #1)
"High" rank in WET for Recreation
AVID Criterion #7
Accessibility via public transportation routes
Designation of R/E locations by planning agencies
"High" rank in WET for floodflow alteration (social
significance)
Conservation
Criterion #10 from AVID
CDM Camp Dresser Si McKee
6
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
2.0 EVALUATION OF DATA IN DEVELOPING INDEXING METHOD
Three approaches were used to identify important wetland characteristics:
1. Characteristics associated with the expression/performance of specific wetland functions;
where the functions are those defined in the WET.
2. Characteristics associated with the expression/performance of the values represented by
the Criteria identified as part of the AVID.
3. Characteristics associated with the expression/performance of the general valuable wetland
attributes of water quality, wildlife habitat, and social significance.
The characteristics that were identified and the preliminary rank indicating their importance
under the three approaches are described below. The choice of which level of statistical analysis
to use for developing the list of important wetland characteristics was based on the number of
characteristics identified. The most useful approach (i.e. WET, AVID, attribute) was that which
identified the greatest number of important characteristics. CDM's evaluation, presented below,
indicates that the attribute level of analysis is the most appropriate for the wetland impact
assessment in the SAMP/EIS.
(In the discussion of index scoring that follows, it should be noted that the final score to be
assigned an Assessment Area (AA) for a category will be normalized by dividing its raw index
by the highest index achieved by an AA in the set of 148 AAs used in the WET analysis and
then multiplying by the AA's area.)
2.1 CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH WET FUNCTIONS
2.1.1 Cluster Analysis of WET Questions by WET Functional Rank
As part of the process to identify wetland characteristics that may be important in the expression
of wetland functions, a preliminary test was performed. This test involved clustering the
answers to the WET questions relative to one wetland function - STRE. The clustering was done
by separating the answers to the WET questions for the Assessment Areas (AA's) that ranked
High, Medium, and Low for one WET function in the Meadowlands. A yes answer was
considered to be indicative of the presence of the characteristic described by the question.
Method
Clustering is a two step process. The first step involves calculating a similarity matrix which
includes a measure of the similarity between all characteristics based on the distribution of YES's
across the appropriate set of AA's (i.e., all AAs ranked either High, Medium, or Low). The
second step involves clustering the characteristics into groups which have increasingly lower
average similarities between the groups (average linkage). The results of this process are
presented as a hierarchical tree diagram. The following procedures were followed for clustering
the High, Medium, and Low rankings for the STRE function.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
1. The original WET database was reduced by eliminating all questions that had a yes, no, or
blank answer for all 148 AAs. This was done to reduce the size of the data matrix.
Questions that had the same answer for all AAs did not provide any information on
differences between characteristics that might be differently distributed in AAs with
different functional ranks. In addition the initial 31 questions in the WET relating to Social
significance were deleted since they represented characteristics not used in the 11
functional effectiveness ratings. Subsequent conversations with Paul Adamus confirmed
that this was an appropriate deletion.
2. The list of questions for clustering was further reduced by eliminating all questions in
which the answer was blank for more than 100 AA's. This was done because similarity
calculations treat all blanks as a NO answer. Too many blanks would have resulted in a
biased dataset where NO's take on a weight that was out of proportion of their actual
distribution. After the deletions described above, 190 questions remained from the original
question list.
3. Three initial answer matrices were generated giving the answers to each WET question for
the AAs that ranked High, Medium, and Low for STRE, and from the answer matrices a set
of similarity matrices were calculated using the Jaccard similarity coefficient. The Jaccard
coefficient provides an estimate of similarity ranging from 0 (the two WET questions do
not have the same YES answer in any of the individual AAs) to 1.0 (the two wet questions
both have a YES answer in all of the AAs).
4. The similarity matrix was reduced in size by deleting all WET questions with an overall
low total similarity. This was done by deleting all questions whose total sum of similarities
was less than 20 (out of a total possible sum of 190). These deletions were done to reduce
the matrix to a size which could be handled by a PC-based clustering program.
Furthermore, they improved the analysis of the clustering results by eliminating questions
which would have been outliers to the major clusters because of their low similarities to
other questions.
5. Clustering was performed using the group average as the linkage in the SYSTAT software
package. Three resulting tree diagrams were produced, one for each STRE functional rank.
The three tree diagrams generated from the similarity matrices all have two major characteristics.
First, approximately half of the questions all cluster in one large cluster. The remaining
questions are mostly all outliers, joining the tree individually or in small groups at very low
similarities. Second, the questions that cluster together at the higher similarities do not seem to
follow any pattern that is related to the function or to the functional ranking.
For example, in the AA's that ranked high in STRE, the tightest grouping (i.e. a sub-cluster at the
highest similarity) was made up of the following questions/characteristics:
* area of zone A + zone B > zone C
* <5 miles to major water
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
8
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
* nutrient source present in the buffer zone
* toxic source present in the buffer zone
* secondary vegetation was emergent and persistent
* bottom water > 21 degrees
In the AAs ranked low the tightest grouping was made up of the following characteristics:
* <5 miles to major water
* AAs within 1 mi + 20 day fish access/yr : velocity < 1 ft/sec
* nutrient source present in the buffer zone
* toxic source present in the buffer zone
* secondary vegetation was emergent and persistent
* pH between 6.0 and 8.5
As shown above many of the same characteristics clustered very highly in both the AAs that
ranked high in STRE, and those that ranked low.
Based on this initial analysis it can be concluded that the clustering does not provide sufficiently
useful information to help determine which wetland characteristics are associated with the
wetlands that have high functional rankings for the different wetland functions. Because the
clustering does not provide any measure of the importance of a characteristic/question in the
expression of the high functional rank it was hoped that the clustering of the answers in the
three groups of AAs might show different patterns that could be useful in indicating relative
importance. However, the clustering showed little difference between AAs ranking High and
those ranking Low. Furthermore, only one major cluster was formed in each case, with many
outliers, and there were few differences in the pattern of clusters or the similarities at which they
were joined.
2.1.2 AAs with High Probabilities of.Performing WET Functions
The answers to the WET questions for AAs that were ranked High for the 11 "effectiveness"
WET functions were used as the database for the analysis of wetland characteristics that might
be associated with each function. The WET effectiveness functions, and their acronyms, are
listed in table 2-1. (Tables are included following the text.) On examination of the results of the
WET, it was found that no AA was ranked high for Ground Water Recharge Effectiveness
(GWRE), and this function has been dropped from further analysis. The lists of AAs ranked
high for the functions can be found in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands in N.J.'s
Hackensack Meadowlands (EPA 1989). At this level of analysis, wetland functions are defined
as in the WET manual. Thus, for example, General Wildlife Habitat (GWL) does not include
Waterfowl Habitat (GWF) because it is a separate WET function.
2.1.3 Statistical Analysis of Characteristics and Their Importance Ranks
Statistically significant associations of WET questions and the wetland characteristics they
represent were calculated using the chi-square significance test as described below. The list of
significant characteristics was edited and supplemented based on the best available information
on wetland ecosystems and their functions.
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
9
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
The distributions of yes/no answers to the WET questions in the AAs that ranked high in a
WET function can be assessed in two ways:
1. The first approach is to set up a two-way contingency table with the distribution of yes/no
answers in AAs ranked high in the first column and the distribution of the answers in the
AAs ranked both the medium and low in the second. Calculating a Chi-square statistic for
this distribution and comparing it to a tabulated value tests the following hypothesis:
The distribution of yes/no answers in the AAs ranked high is the same as the distribution
of yes/no answers in all the AAs.
In this case the expected frequency against which the highs are compared is the predicted
frequency in all AAs (H, M, & L) under independence.
2. The second approach is to use the frequency of yes/no answers for the AAs that are
ranked medium and low as the expected frequency. Thus, using this approach the
expected frequency is one that is extrinsic to the data ("data" being defined as the counts of
yes/no answers in only the AAs ranked high). The hypothesis tested in this case is:
The frequency of yes/no answers in the AAs ranked high is equal to frequency of yes/no
answers for AAs ranked medium and low.
The second method is preferred because it better fulfills the purpose of the
analysis—establishing characteristics that are specifically associated with the AAs that
ranked High for a WET function. If the first method is used, some important
characteristics may not yield significant Chi-square scores, especially when most of the 148
AAs are ranked high, and few are ranked low or medium. This is because the set of
yes/no answers for the high AAs becomes a dominant subset of the predicted frequency
under independence.
The resulting lists of characteristics that are considered to be important for the 10 WET wetland
"effectiveness" functions are presented in tables 2-2 to 2-11. The list identifies which
characteristics were found to be significantly associated with the AAs that ranked High for the
specific function, which ones lead to a High ranking in the WET, and which were added based
on professional judgment and a survey of literature references. The list includes a preliminary
rank score (indicative of importance on a scale of 1 to 3) that was assigned to each characteristic
by CDM and that was used as the basis for further discussion. The tables also present a brief
reason for the importance of each selected characteristic, supporting the inclusion of each
characteristic and its CDM-assigned rank.
In compiling the list of characteristics, several points, observations, and modifications to the
method were made. These are:
1. In the statistical analyses of each function, approximately one-third of the wetland
characteristics that were significantly associated with a High rank do not appear to be
relevant to the specific function. For example, the statistically significant presence of Black
ducks in 98% of the AAs ranked High as a general fish habitat is not considered to be an
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
10
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
important characteristic in the functioning of a wetland as a fish habitat. Such questions
were, therefore, given a rank of "0" in light of the absence of relationship to the function.
2. The statistical analyses of the WET database identified almost all the characteristics that can
be considered important to some of the wetland functions. However, this was not the case
for all functions. The chi-square tests identified almost all the characteristics that are
considered to be important for GF3, GWL, and GWF; many for PE and SSE, and only some
for ADA, STRE, FFAE, GWDE, and NRTE.
CDM's analysis of the questions that are considered important but that did not score high
on the statistical "significance" list suggests that the questions are related to biological
characteristics such as productivity and habitat structure, rather than hydrodynamic ones.
For example, in the chi-square analysis of the AAs ranked high for PE (production export),
none of the characteristics that identify an abundance of vegetation, nutrients, or
production were significantly associated with the AAs ranked High in WET for this
function. CDM, therefore, added these characteristics to the list.
In ADA (aquatic diversity and abundance), the questions that indicate the presence of
habitat for invertebrates (soft bottoms, irregular edges, high primary productivity) did not
have a significant statistical association and were also added.
For NRTE (nutrient removal/transformation effectiveness) the WET questions indicating
the presence of vegetation that can absorb the nutrients were not significantly associated,
but because they were important in the performance of this function they were added.
In STRE (sediment/toxicant retention effectiveness) the questions that indicate the presence
of vegetation that can trap and absorb toxics did not appear in the list of those significantly
associated with the function, and were also added.
3. The original method proposed for indexing was modified to include characteristics that
preclude, or severely impair, wetland functions. These characteristics are those from the
WET where a yes answer leads to a LOW or MODERATE ranking. AAs that exhibit
important "negative" characteristics will have their index scores reduced by the factor listed
in the table. In reviewing the WET questions the following examples have been identified:
a. In the WET keys, Fioodflow Alteration Effectiveness (FFAE) is considered to be Low
when the AA is tidal. This conclusion is reasonable for the Meadowlands.
b. In the WET keys, fish habitat is given a Low or Moderate ranking if dissolved oxygen is
limiting or toxic compounds are present (Questions 61 and 27.1). These factors reduce
the effectiveness of wetlands as fish habitat and therefore act to reduce the overall
index score regarding this habitat.
4. In determining the list of important characteristics, all WET questions were reviewed,
rather than the shortened list of WET questions used for the statistical analyses. In this
way, characteristics that might be important for a wetland function, but were not
appropriate for statistical analysis, continued to be considered.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
11
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
(To facilitate the statistical analysis, 117 WET questions were deleted from the statistical analysis
because they had the same yes/no answer for all 148 AAs, or over 100 AAs showed "blank" (no
information collected) answers. These questions were deleted because they would not have
shown any significant difference between the AAs ranked High and those ranked Medium or
Low. A wetland characteristic that is present with the same frequency in AAs ranking High and
those ranking Medium and Low may still be considered important for a specific function
(especially if it is present in all AAs). Questions with too many blank answers were deleted
because they did not provide sufficient useful information on actual characteristics, and reduced
the relevance of the statistical analysis in assessing actual conditions in the Meadowlands.)
5. In general, the statistical analysis provided a very useful baseline of information ^
wetland characteristics that can be considered important in the Meadowlands fnr earh of
the wetland effectiveness functions addressed in the WET. Of the characteristic fo1nH
be statistically significant more than 50 percent of the characteristics are considprpH hy
CPM to be important for the function in the Meadowlands.
The list generated by the statistical analyses, however, needed to be supplemented based
on other available information. This was because some characteristics that are known to be
important for a function were evenly distributed among all the AAs or not enough AAs
had a question answered to show a clear statistical association.
2.2 CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH AVTD CRITERIA
The statistical analysis of characteristics was based on the answers to the WET questions for
those AAs that met each of the 10 AVID criteria, as developed by EPA. The list of the AAs that
met each criterion was obtained from EPA's data files on the AVID. The information available
from the statistical analyses of the AVID Criteria did not reveal useful associations with
characteristics beyond that available from the analysis of WET functions. Furthermore, because
the AVID Criteria often contain somewhat unrelated WET functions, the interpretation of the
statistical results was difficult. These issues are described below. As a result of the limited
potential of this approach, important characteristics were identified, but no indexing ranks were
developed.
2.2.2 Statistical Analysis of Wetland Characteristics Associated with AVID Criteria
The data for the AAs that met each of the 10 AVID criteria were analyzed using the same
procedure as in the analysis of the WET functions. The results of the chi-square statistical
analysis are given in tables 2-12 to 2-21. The statistical analyses of the AVID criteria did not
provide any more information regarding important natural wetland characteristics (WET
questions 32 to 307) than was available from the analysis of the individual WET functions. Very
often, characteristics that are considered to be important for one or another of the WET
functions, on which many of the criteria are based, were not significantly associated at the level
of the AVID criteria. A comparison of tables 2-2 to 2-11 and tables 2-12 to 2-21 indicated that
the statistical analysis of characteristics associated with AAs at the AVID criteria level did not
provide additional information.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
12
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
The problem of interpreting the statistical analyses was compounded by the fact that some of the
criteria included valuable human/social functions as well as natural ones. Many of the valuable
human functions may have only a loose association with specific wetland characteristics. For
example, the use of a wetland for education or recreation may be associated more with its
accessibility than its hydrology, or its effectiveness as wildlife habitat. More detailed analyses
for each criterion are described below.
As a result of the problems in interpreting the outcome of the statistical analyses at the AVID
Criteria level, several different approaches were used in developing a list of wetland
characteristics that are important in the expression or fulfillment of each AVID criterion. The
approaches used for each AVID criterion combine different interpretations of the statistical
results from the WET function analyses and the AVID Criteria analyses, and also include factors
related to social significance. The approach used for each criterion is listed below.
AVID Criterion 1: Habitat for Threatened/Endangered Species.
This criterion was met for 39 AAs in the AVID. Only very general hydrologic characteristics
that were commonly found in the 39 AAs showed significant association with Criterion 1. The
most common characteristics include the fact that the AAs were estuarine, had a channel with a
slow velocity, and had a permanent inlet and outlet. The AAs also had some open water that
was deeper than 5 inches.
The statistical analysis does not provide any specific information about the suitability of an AA
as a habitat for threatened or endangered species. The characteristics identified through the
statistical analysis cannot be associated with an individual endangered species that needs to be
protected because most of the characteristics are also quite common in the AAs that do not
provide habitat for endangered species.
Another group of characteristics, however, can be identified from the numerical analysis that
may be more important for establishing the suitability of the wetland as a habitat for threatened
or endangered (T/E) species. These are the characteristics that are sometimes found in the 39
AAs identified in AVID but almost never in the remaining 109 AAs that are not identified as a
T/E habitat in AVID. These can be considered unique to the set of 39 AAs, and may represent
characteristics that are critical for one or more of the T/E species found in an individual AA.
The characteristics that were ound in the 39 AAs but were absent in the other 109 (with the
exception of 1) are:
Q 4.2C -100 to 2500 square mile watershed (found in 14 of 39 AAs)
Q 15.1.C - vegetation/water in a checkerboard (found in 11 of 39)
Q 13.Cc - presence of rooted vascular aquatic vegetation (8 of 39)
Q 19.2 - protected from waves (found in 5 of 39 AAs)
These four characteristics can be used as indicators of existing T/E species habitats, but in and of
themselves are not the sole indicators of good T/E species habitats.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
13
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
AVID Criterion 2: Remnant Habitat with a) High effectiveness for GWF or GWL or AD/y ^
Recreational/Educational Use.
This AVID criterion consists of two disparate criteria, one of which has several sub-criteria. In
this case the statistical analysis did not provide much information on the natural characteristics
that are important for meeting this criterion. Furthermore, many of the significantly associated
characteristics could not be ranked in a rational manner because of the disparate nature of the
criterion. Wetland characteristics that are important for one function may not be for another.
Also, the recreational/educational use of a wetland may be as much a function of its accessibility
as its specific natural characteristics. It would therefore be difficult to find a set of characteristics
that are important for all these wetland functions and uses.
These general observations were confirmed in the analysis. In the 10 AAs that meet Criterion #2
there were no wetland characteristics that could be associated with all AAs meeting the criteria
and only 5 WET questions were answered yes in more than 5 of the 10 AAs. This was the
lowest number of questions that were answered yes, and were significantly associated, among
any group of AAs used in the statistical analyses (i.e., WET functions or AVID criteria).
As a result of this analysis it was decided that no natural wetland characteristics would be
associated with AVID criterion #2. The values that are linked with this criterion, and therefore
worth assessing in the SAMP/EIS, can be addressed in other ways, as noted below:
1. Remnant or unique habitats are identified and listed separately in AVID. Any AA that
meets this criterion can be given an additional "index score" commensurate with its
importance as a remnant or unique habitat. The wetland characteristics that are associated
with remnant or unique habitats do not need to be specified or indexed because the entire
habitat would have to be re-created for mitigation. Restoring individual characteristics of a
remnant habitat would not lead to the re-creation of that habitat.
2. The Recreational/Educational uses are addressed and indexed elsewhere as a separate
AVID criterion (criterion #7).
AVID Criteria 3 through 5: Combines General Fish Habitat. General Wildlife Habitat, and
General Waterfowl Habitat, each with Aquatic Diversity and Abundance.
I iiese AVID criteria are each based on combinations of two WET functions. The statistical
analyses did not provide more information about important questions/characteristics associated
with the AAs meeting the criterion than was present in a combination of the two lists for the
WET functions that comprised the criterion. In fact, some information was lost.
For AVID criterion #3 only 4 WET questions were significantly associated with the AAs that
were also not significantly associated with GWF and ADA, and of these only two are considered
to be important for the WET functions. On the other hand, 17 characteristics that were
associated with GWF and ADA were not significant in the AAs that met criterion No. 3, and of
these nine are considered to be important for the functions.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
14
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
For AVID criterion #4, 10 WET questions that were significantly associated with the AAs
meeting criterion No. 4 were not present in the list of those associated with either the GWL or
ADA functions. Of these 10 WET questions, however, only one is considered to be important to
the functions. Five of the 10 significant questions/characteristics were related to the presence of
dead forest and shrub vegetation, found in only 2 of the 17 AAs that met the criterion, but at an
even lower frequency in those that did not. On the other hand, there were 7
questions/characteristics that were associated with GWL and ADA functions but did not show
statistical association with the criterion. Of these, five are considered to be important for the
GWL or ADA functions.
For AVID criterion #5 only 6 significantly associated WET questions did not show statistical
significance for either GF3 and ADA functions, and of these, only one is considered to represent
an important characteristic for the functions. On the other hand, 12 questions were associated
with either GF3 or ADA functions that were not associated with the AAs meeting AVID criteria
No. 5. Of these 8 are considered to be important for the functions.
Thus, use of the characteristics determined in the analysis of WET functions provides more detail
than the analysis of AVID Criteria. On the basis of these results the list of characteristics to be
used for AVID criteria 3 through 5 was generated by combining the lists for the two WET
functions that comprise each criterion. The list is additive (i.e. if a characteristic is present for
one function but not the other it is still included).
AVID Criterion 6: Production Export and Aquatic Diversity and Abundance.
No AAs in the Hackensack Meadowlands met Criterion #6 and therefore no statistical analysis
was possible. A list of important characteristics was, however, compiled by combining the lists
for the two functions (PE and ADA) on which the criterion is based.
AVID Criterion 7: Important Recreational or Educational Use.
The natural wetland characteristics associated with recreational or educational uses of wetlands
are difficult to assess because the attributes valued in this criterion are not directly linked to
hydrologic or habitat elements in a wetland. The results of the statistical analysis for Criterion 7
did not identify any significant characteristics that could be considered, other than general
hydrologic ones. In fact, the characteristics that were significantly associated with this criterion
ami were frequent in the 20 AAs that met this criterion (i.e. present in more than 75% of the
subset of AAs), are almost identical to the most frequent characteristics for Criterion #1. Of the
13 most frequent and significant characteristics associated with Criterion #1,12 appear at the top
of the list for Criterion #7. However, there were no characteristics common (i.e., frequency >
50%) to the AAs that met the Criterion, but absent from those that did not meet it.
For the reasons listed above the 20 AAs of recreational or educational use could be assigned a
normalized index score of [1] for this criterion directly, without trying to identify wetland
characteristics that can be associated with this criterion. AAs that do not meet the criterion
could be scored [0]. The impacts of different management alternatives on the recreational
and/or educational aspects of a wetland can be assessed without analyzing the individual
wetland characteristics that might be impacted.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
15
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
AVID Criteria 8 and 9: Combines Effectiveness and Opportunity ranks for either K[RT y>r FTP,
with either: 1) Waters on the 304(1) list (impaired water quality): or 2) Areas subjprj tf> nutrion^
or toxicant loadings.
The statistical analyses of the WET questions that are significantly associated with the AAs that
meet these criteria did not identify any important characteristics that were not already present
on the list for NRTE or STRE functions. Limiting the AAs that are high in either STRE or NRTE
to those that are on the 304(1) list did not add information to the analysis. Also, most of the AAs
in the Hackensack Meadowlands were ranked high in opportunity for both functions (NRTO
and STRO), and this did not reduce the list of AAs to a subset of ones that can be considered
more valuable.
Separate statistical analyses of the NRTO and STRO function data did not provide additional
information, because so few AAs were ranked Medium or Low for opportunity for these
functions. The difference between a YES or NO answer in just one AA had a major impact on
the "expected" frequency to be used in the statistical analysis.
Based on these results the list of important characteristics for AVID criteria #8 and #9 are the
same as the lists developed for STRE and NRTE. Because these AVID criteria place a significant
value on the presence of nutrient and toxic loadings to the AAs, however, the questions related
to these characteristics should be given additional importance by increasing their index rank.
AVID Criterion 10: ftaset^ on ftAs ranked Hieh for at least 6 of the 11 WET functions
Only 7 AAs in the Hackensack Meadowlands met this AVID criterion. The statistical analysis of
WET data identified only 36 questions that were significantly associated with the AAs meeting
this criterion. Given the low number of AAs that met criterion #10 it was more informative to
identify those questions/characteristics frequently occurring in the 7 AAs but absent (or at a
very low frequency) in the AAs not meeting the criterion.
(NOTE: The reason for this is related to the actual number of AAs that exhibit a wetland
characteristic. For example, 100% of the AAs meeting Criterion 10 have Migrating Geese
present. This, however, represents only 7 AAs. Only 37% of the AAs not meeting the criterion
have migrating geese present (and this is significantly lower), but the wetlands included under
the 37% equal 52 AAs. Thus, many more AAs not meeting the criterion have migrating geese
than those that do, and the statistical analysis is not very informative in this situation.)
There were only 4 WET questions that had more YES answers in the group of AAs meeting the
criterion than those that did not meet the criterion. Given that only 7 of the 148 AAs were
included in the first set, the associations for these were very significant. The 4 WET
questions/characteristics were:
Q15.1.C - Vegetation-water was a checkerboard
Q13.Cc - Secondary vegetation was aquatic bed/rooted vascular
Q16.C - Vegetation class = mosaic
Q9.2 - Sheet flooding was present
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
16
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
Two questions identify characteristics that indicate a wetland has very high habitat diversity; one
question identifies a rare plant category that is not common in the Meadowlands (rooted
vascular). The last question is difficult to interpret because all AAs meeting the criterion were
estuarine and thus tidal in the Meadowlands (all 7 AAs had salinities between 5 and 18 ppt). If
tidal flooding was considered to be a type of sheet flooding then it might be expected that more
AAs should have this characteristic. If, however, sheet flooding is considered to be more a
riverine phenomenon (as described in the WET manual), then the 7 estuarine AAs that meet
Criterion 10 should probably be re-evaluated for the answer to this question.
Because only three important characteristics were identified from the statistical analysis of the
AAs that meet AVID criterion 10, the list for this criterion was developed instead by combining
the list of characteristics for the 10 WET functions on which the criterion is based. All
characteristics would be combined and the importance rank for each calculated by summing the
ranks over all functions in which it was listed. The three important characteristics that were
identified in the statistical analysis all appear in the combined list.
2.3 CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH WF.TI.AND ATTRIBUTES
2.3.1 Identifying AAs That Fulfill the Selected Attributes
The WET data from the AAs that met the criteria for each attribute (see table 1-1) were analyzed
using the same procedure as used in the analysis of the WET functions. In this case, however,
the list of AAs that expressed the attribute were not previously identified as part of the WET
and AVID and thus needed to be identified before any statistical analyses were possible. The
statistical analysis of characteristics associated with the general wetland attributed is based on
comparing the WET data for AAs that met all, or most of, the criteria for the attribute to the data
for the AAs that meet none, or only one, of the criteria. The criteria used were those presented
in the methodology report and are shown in table 2-22. Each assessment area was evaluated
with respect to its ability to meet each of these criteria. The following presents a discussion of
how each criterion was applied. The procedure used to identify locations for positive expression
of each attribute is also described below.
Water Quality Improvement Attribute
® Criterion WOl—Sediment/Toxicant Retention. AVID Criterion #8 was used as the first
criterion (WQ1). If an assessment area met AVID Criterion #8, it met this first criterion for
Water Quality Improvement. A total of 39 AAs met this criterion.
¦ Criterion WQ2—Nutrient Removal/Transformation. AVID Criterion #9 was used as the
second criterion (WQ2). If an assessment area met AVID Criterion #9, it met this criterion.
A total of 53 AAs met this criterion.
¦ Criterion WQ3—Proximity to pollutant source discharge locations. Criterion WQ3 was
determined by using existing data on point source discharges (municipal and industrial
treatment plants, power plant discharges, and combined sewer overflows (CSOs)) and non-
point sources (past and present solid waste disposal areas). Computerized mapping
(ARC/INFO GIS) was used to find assessment areas that were "close" to these discharge
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
17
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
locations. For point sources, an elliptical shaped buffer zone was placed around each point
and oriented in the general direction of flow. The elliptical shape was chosen because, in a
tidal environment, effects of point sources are seen both upstream and downstream of the
discharge location. Also, due to tidal effects there is strong potential for lateral tidal
flushing.
The dimensions of this ellipse was determined by the discharge rate of the point source,
and was based on results of the BCUA model for the lower Hackensack River. For large
point source discharges (75 MGD and above), the downstream apex of the ellipse was 3
miles from the source, and the upstream apex was 2 miles from the source. The width of
the ellipse was 2 miles. For small point source discharges (less than or equal to 10 MGD,
or unknown) and CSOs, the downstream apex of the ellipse was 1 mile from the source,
and the upstream apex was one-half mile from the source. The width of the ellipse was
one-half mile. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show these buffer zones in the District for CSOs and
wastewater discharge locations. There were no point source discharges greater than 10
MGD and less than 75 MGD. The GIS was used to determine the assessment areas that
were within any of these buffer areas. There were 31 AAs within the CSO buffer areas,
and 108 AAs within the wastewater discharge buffer areas.
Past and present solid waste activity locations were buffered by a distance of one-quarter
mile. Figure 2-3 shows the result of this buffering in the District. Again, the GIS was used
to determine the assessment areas that were within any of these buffer areas. There were
120 AAs within fee landfill buffer areas.
Any assessment area that was within any of the buffer areas for wastewater discharge,
CSO, or solid waste locations, was considered as having met the proximity criterion. A
total of 145 AAs met this criterion.
Wildlife Habitat Attribute
¦ Criterion WH1—General Waterfowl Habitat. AVID Criterion #3 was used as the first
criterion (WH1). If an assessment area met AVID Criterion #3, it met this criterion. A total
of 34 AAs met this criterion.
¦ Criterion WH2—General Wildlife Habitat. AVID Criterion #4 was used as the second
criterion (WH2). If an assessment area met AVID Criterion #4, it met this criterion. A total
of 17 AAs met this criterion.
¦ Criterion WH3—General Fish Habitat. AVID Criterion #5 was used as the third criterion
(WH3). If an assessment area met AVID Criterion #5, it met this criterion. A total of 31
AAs met this criterion.
¦ Criterion WH4-Production Export. AVID Criterion #6 was used as the fourth criterion
(WH4). If an assessment area met AVID Criterion #6, it met this criterion. There were no
AAs met this criterion.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
18
-------
0 6?*, VnJ'Wf.r,
~DRAFT*
Figure 2-1
Combined Sewer Overflow Buffer Zones ond
Wetlond Assessment Areas
Haelcentack Mtadowlands SAMP/[IS
Dole: 05-13-1992
Scale. 1:24000
CDM
tMKWftMM MfNMTIi ICWHistt,
ptonMri I miaywrt twftmit
-------
-------
Figure 2-3
Solid Waste Buffer Zones and
Wetland Assessment Areas
Hackensack Mtadowlands SAMP/EIS
luflers
~ D R A F T ~
Dale: 05-13-1992
Scale: 1:24000
CDM
Mvirwmntal wemNfi, Kwntiitt,
jtowwi k mtmfumi mmUUrU
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
¦ Criterion WH5 -Existing Data on Bird Usage. This criterion was not assessed because of
insufficient locational data on bird sightings.
¦ Criterion WH6 -Existing Data on Mammal Sightings. Data from the "Species Lists of
Organisms Found in the Hackensack Meadowlands: Vascular Plants - Mammals" was used
to determine AAs that met this criterion. For this analysis, only a select list of mammals
were used. The mammals used included: long-tailed weasel, red fox, gray fox, and
meadow jumping mouse. Assessment areas that were in the locations noted in the above-
noted report were assumed to have met this criterion. There were 14 AAs that met this
criterion.
¦ Criterion WH7—Threatened and Endangered Species Habitats. AVID Criterion #1 was
used as the seventy criterion (WH7). If an assessment area met AVID Criterion #1, it met
this criterion. A total of 39 AAs met this criterion.
Social Significance (SS) Attribute
¦ Criterion SSl--rWET Recreation Social Significance. The Recreation Social Significance
ranking from WET was used for the first SS criterion (SSI). If an assessment area ranked
"High" for recreation social significance in WET, it met this criterion. A total of 2 AAs met
this criterion.
¦ Criterion SS2—Important Recreational or Educational Use. AVID Criterion #7 was used as
the second criterion for SS (SS2). If an assessment area met AVID Criterion #7, it met this
criterion. A total of 20 AAs met this criterion.
¦ Criterion SS3—Accessibility via Public Transportation. The AAs meeting the third SS
criterion were determined by using information on existing public roads (SS3). Major roads
were delineated on the GIS and were buffered by 500 feet. This distance was chosen to
account for minor roads and an acceptable walking distance to a wetland. Limited access
roads (such as the New Jersey Turnpike) and bridges were excluded from this analysis.
Figure 2-4 shows major roads and the associated buffer zones. The GIS was used to
identify all assessment areas that were within 500 feet of major roads. A total of 59 AAs
met this criterion.
¦ Criterion SS4—Designation of Recreational/Educational Locations by Planning Agencies.
The HMDC December 1990 "Open Space Plan Report" was used to determine assessment
areas that met this criterion. All assessment areas that were at least partially within the
boundaries of planned open spaces were considered to have met this criterion. A total of
100 AAs met this criterion.
¦ Criterion SS5—Floodflow Alteration Social Significance. The Floodflow Alteration Social
Significance ranking from WET was used as the fifth SS criterion (SS5). If an assessment
area was ranked "High" for the Floodflow Alteration Social Significance Function in
WET /AVID, it met this criterion. A total of 29 AAs met this criterion.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
22
-------
Q Major Rood Buffiri
Figure 2-4
~DRAFT*
Major Road Buffer Zones and
Wetland Assessment Areas
Hackensack M«adowlands SAMP/EIS
Dole: 05-13-1992
Scale: 1:24000
CDM
MvitwiMfftd waiMirt, iciwtiiti,
ptflm«rt k coMuftonti
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
¦ Criterion SS6 — Conservation. AVID Criterion #10 was used as the sixth SS criterion (SS6).
If an assessment area met AVID Criterion #10, it met this criterion. A total of 7 AAs met
this criterion.
2.3.2 Statistical Analysis of Characteristics Associated with Attributes
Each assessment area was evaluated using the criteria discussed above. A data base was
developed with the assessment areas as rows and the individual attribute criteria as columns.
For each assessment area and criterion, if the AA met that criterion, a 1 (one) was entered in the
data base. Otherwise, a 0 (zero) was entered. For each attribute, a sum was determined
representing the number of criteria met. Wetlands that exhibited relatively few of the criteria
were compared to a wetlands that exhibited most of the criteria. Answers to the WET questions
for assessment areas "exhibiting few attribute criteria" and "exhibiting most attribute criteria"
were compared iising a chi-square statistic. A discussion of statistical results follows.
The wetland characteristics that are significantly associated with each set of AAs exhibiting the
selected attributes are presented in tables 2-23 to 2-25. These statistical analyses were not as
informative in most cases as the analyses performed on the 10 WET functions. This results from
the fact that some of the criteria for the attributes were based on human/social functions and
values rather than natural ones. This mix reduces the potential for statistical association and this
issue has been discussed previously for the AVID criteria.
Water Quality ImprovemeHt - Statistical Analysis
The number of water quality improvement criteria exhibited in assessment areas in the District
ranged from 0 (zero) to 3. Two AAs met none of the criteria, 77 met one criterion, 47 met two,
and 22 met three criteria. The WET questions for assessment areas exhibiting one or no water
quality criteria were compared against the data for those exhibiting all three water quality
criteria.
There were 22 AAs that fulfilled all three criteria for water quality improvement. The statistical
analysis identified only 27 questions reflecting natural characteristics that were significantly
associated with the AAs that met the water quality improvement attribute. This is in contrast to
the 74 significant characteristics identified for wetlands that were High in STRE and NRTE (the
two WET functions on which the criteria for the attribute are based). The criterion of proximity
to point source discharges did not provide additional information on characteristics because
most AAs in the District lie within the impact zone of at least one point source discharge.
Wildlife Habitat - Statistical Analysis
The number of wildlife habitat criteria met in assessment areas in the District ranged from 0
(zero) to 5. There were 90 AAs that met none of the criteria, 22 that met one criterion, 11 that
met two, 12 that met three, 10 that met four, and 3 that met five criteria. Assessment areas
exhibiting none of the wildlife habitat criteria were compared against those exhibiting 4 or 5
wildlife habitat criteria.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
24
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
There were 51 WET questions that were significantly associated with the 13 AAs that met 4 or 5
of the criteria for being valuable as wildlife habitat. However, there were 93 statistically
significant characteristics identified among the 5 WET functions that pertain to wildlife habitat
(GWL, GWF, GF3, ADA, PE). Only one of the 51 attribute characteristics did not appear on the
list of the 93 function characteristics.
Social Significance - Statistical Analysis
The number of social significance criteria found in assessment areas in the District ranged from 0
(zero) to 4. There were 31 AAs that met none of the criteria, 49 that met one criterion, 46 that
met two, 12 that met three, and 10 that met four criteria. Assessment areas exhibiting none of
the wildlife habitat criteria were compared against those exhibiting 3 or 4 social significance
criteria.
There were 58 questions reflecting natural characteristics that were significantly associated with
the 22 AAs that met 3 or 4 criteria for the Social Significance attribute. Also 11 of the 31 WET
questions reflecting social significance were determined to be statistically associated with this
attribute. Questions related to a high value for floodflow alterations (Q. 9 and Q. 18) were
significantly associated. This was not the case> however, with the questions indicating the
wetland was of recreational or educational importance (Q. 23 to 26). It was determined that 57
of the 58 questions reflecting natural characteristics were the same as those that were
significantly associated with the five WET functions indicating a high probability of wildlife
habitat. On the other hand, a total of 93 .questions were associated with ADA, GWL, GWF, GF3,
and PE functions; almost twice the number associated with the 22 AAs.
2.3.3 Important Characteristics Relevant to Attributes
In general, the statistical analyses of characteristics associated with AAs at the attribute level did
not provide any more information than was available from the statistical analysis of the AAs
associated with individual WET effectiveness functions (where applicable). As a result, CDM
has proposed a list of important wetland characteristics for each attribute and an importance
rank based on combining the important characteristics for the appropriate WET functions and
then adding special criteria that were not based on the WET functions. The important
characteristics that were identified, and the approach used for each attribute is described below.
Water Quality Improvement (WO) - Characteristics Analysis
The statistical analysis of the WET questions associated with the 22 AAs that met all three
criteria for water quality improvement identified only 27 significant questions. Only three of
these questions represent wetland characteristics that are considered to be important for either
sediment toxicant retention or nutrient removal and transformation. On the other hand, there
are 74 questions/characteristics that were considered important for these functions and were
ranked under AVID criteria 8 and 9 (which themselves are based on the functions STRE and
NRTE).
The statistical analysis at the attribute level did not provide any more information than was
available from the WET function analysis. See table 2-26 for the chi-square score results. Thus,
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
25
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
the basic list of important characteristics that are associated with the WQ attribute was generated
by combining the important characteristics from the analysis of STRE and NRTE functions. An
analysis of AAs that ranked high for STR and NRT opportunity did not add information because
almost all the AAs are ranked high for opportunity in the AVID.
The importance rank for a characteristic at the attribute level was established by adding the
ranks of the related functions (in this case 2 functions). In this way, a characteristic that is
important to both functions is given relatively more weight in the overall indexing than a
characteristic that is important in only one function.
To address the last criterion important for WQ (proximity to a point source) in the ranking
process, CDM proposes that the overall index score of important characteristics be doubled for
those AAs that are close to a point source discharge, as described in section 2.3.1. In this way
the baseline index score for an AA will reflect all three major criteria (AVID criteria No. 8 and
No. 9, and proximity to pollutant discharges) by which AAs that are valuable for water quality
improvement have been identified.
Wildlife frjabitat
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
answer to the first question (II) identifies the AAs whose basic WH score needs to be multiplied
because of the presence of threatened or endangered species.
The presence of a remnant or unique habitat in an AA has also been considered a valuable
aspect of a wetland. This aspect, however, was not explicitly listed in the criteria to be used in
identifying AAs with valuable attributes, but it has been included. Because a remnant or unique
habitat is valuable insofar as it provides a special habitat for wildlife in the region, this aspect is
included under the WH attribute. AAs that contain a remnant or unique habitat will have their
basic wildlife habitat index score doubled so this important aspect of the District's wetlands is
included in the overall assessment of impacts.
Social Sienificance CSS) - Characteristics Analysis
There is no clear relationship between many of the natural wetland characteristics and human
resource values such as education and recreation, and this lack of association was reflected in
the statistical analysis. The list of significant characteristics (see table 2-28) included a wide
range of different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, hydrographic and biological parameters.
Furthermore, none of the appropriate WET questions that reflect the. socially important aspects
listed in the criteria were found to be significantly associated except for two of the five questions
related to floodflow alteration (Q. 19). None of the questions related to recreation or education
showed a statistically significant association (Q. 23 to 26).
Because the statistical analysis did not prove useful in developing an indexing system to track
the values linked to the SS attribute, a composite method was developed. The revised index
scoring is based on developing a separate score for each of the three sub-attributes (Recreation
and Education, Floodflow Alteration, and Conservation), and then adding them together.
1. Recreation and Education
There are 5 WET questions that relate to the recreational and educational aspects of a
wetland's value (Q. 6,23,24,26,27). A yes to each of these is assigned an index score of 1,
and the basic score for this sub-attribute in an AA will be the sum. If an AA has been
designated as a recreational or educational site by planning agencies, but not yet so used
they will still be scored as recreational/ educational uses. The appropriate WET questions
will be answered yes for the AA.
The basic score will be doubled if there is accessibility to the AA via public transportation.
This will increase the importance of accessible AAs, and address that criterion.
2. Floodflow Alteration
There are 5 questions in the WET that lead to a High ranking for the Social Significance
aspect of the Floodflow Alteration function. These are questions 5, 9,18, 29, and 31.
Because question 9 has to be a yes for the AA to rank High, while only one of the other
four has to be a Yes, question 9 is given a rank of "3" while the other four are ranked "1".
As in all previous cases, the index score for an AA for this sub-attribute will be the sum of
the ranks of each question that has a Yes answer in the WET database.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
27
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
3. Conservation
The criterion for determining if an AA is valuable for conservation is whether it meets
Criterion 10 of the AVID. Because only three important characteristics were identified from
the statistical analysis of the AAs that meet AVID criterion 10, another method was used to
develop the list to index this AVID criterion. The intent of AVID criterion 10 is to assign a
high value to those AAs that have a high probability of fulfilling a number of different
functions. At the level of wetland characteristics this can be interpreted to mean that AAs
should be indexed relative to those characteristics that are most important to the 10
functions.
The list of "most" important characteristics for all 10 functions was generated in the
following manner:
a. The lists of important characteristics for the 10 functions were combined to generate a
list of important characteristics for all functions.
b. An overall importance rank for each characteristic was assigned by summing its ranks
over all functions in which it was found.
c. The most important characteristics identified were those whose overall ranking score
was 5 or greater or were "negative" factors used to indicate reduced function. There
were 44 WET questions that met these criteria.
The baseline index score for an AA relative to this AVID criterion is determined by recalculating
an index score for each WET function using only the list of the 44 most important characteristics.
The ranks used for each characteristic are those originally assigned for each function. In
addition, the score for each function is reduced by the "negative" factors, if appropriate, before
the overall sum for the AA is calculated.
The index score for each function is then normalized to the highest observed index score,
resulting in normalized index scores between zero and one. Hie test used for the conservation
aspect of the social significance attribute was to determine if at least 6 functions had normalized
index scores that were above two-thirds of the maximum value (0.667 out of 1.0). This test was
chosen because it reflected the intention of AVID Criterion 10 (a majority of WET functions
being performed at a high level). Of the 148 AAs assessed in the District, seven met this
sub-attribute test. Of the seven, four (AAs 2-6, 2-8, 3-3, and 3-8) also met AVID Criteria 10. The
remaining three (AAs 3-2, 303, and 54) did not meet AVID Criteria 10, but are considered to be
important wetlands.
This multi-step process is needed so the AAs are scored relative to the most important
characteristics for all functions without losing the information about negative wetland
characteristics (which can become significant in mitigation plans). One question/characteristic in
the WET is scored [2] for one function and has a "negative" factor of 0.5 for another function.
Using an overall sum of scores in the indexing for the criterion would cancel out these two
pieces of data and valuable information would be lost.
CDM Camp Dresser Si McKee
28
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
Using a threshold value for determining the most important wetlands for each function is
important in order to differentiate from wetlands where all ten functions are performed at a
lower (Low or Moderate) level. A threshold value is used to indicate wetlands where a majority
(6 or more out of 10) of the wetland functions are likely to be performed at a high level.
Wetlands meeting the threshold value will then be given a normalized index score of "1.0" for
the conservation sub-attribute. If an AA does not exceed the 0.667 normalized threshold value
for at least 6 of the normalized function index scores it will be assigned an index score of "0.0"
for the conservation sub-attribute.
Because there are three sub-attributes for the SS attribute, the overall index score for the SS
attribute will be obtained by summing the scores for the three sub-attributes.
2.4 RECOMMENDED INDEXING METHOD
The previous sections described how index scoring systems for wetland characteristics were
developed at three levels of resolution - WET functions, AVID criteria, and general valuable
wetland attributes. The system used in developing a baseline index against which the impacts of
different management alternatives will be assessed is the last one discussed - a scoring system at
the level of general valuable attributes. This choice is based on the following determinations:
1. A baseline index score for A As based on only the WET functions provides a good
assessment of specific valuable natural functions. It does not, however, allow for an
assessment of some of the socially valuable attributes of a wetland with the detail needed
for the SAMP/EIS. There are specific aspects of social and habitat values in the District's
wetlands, such as accessibility, presence of wildlife, and proximity to point source
discharges, that are not addressed in any function, but that add to the analysis.
A second problem with basing an indexing system on the WET functions is that there are
differing numbers of functions related to the three selected important wetland attributes.
Two effectiveness functions are related to the water quality attribute, while five are related
to wildlife habitat. If scores are normalized to each function, then the general wildlife
habitat attribute would have a maximum score of 5 while water quality would have a score
of only 2. If these attributes are to be valued in a different ratio, then the scoring becomes
increasingly complex.
2. A baseline index scoring system based on only the 10 AVID criteria presents a different,
but equally difficult set of problems. In this case socially valuable functions of wetlands
are considered, but the structure of the AVID criteria creates significant redundancies in
some lists of characteristics. A high ranking for the ADA function is listed in four different
AVID criteria. The wetland characteristics that are important for this wetland habitat
function would therefore be scored four times, once for each function. The other functions
that represent other wildlife habitats, however, would only be scored once.
This gives an added importance to ADA which is not commensurate with its value relative
to the other functions. As with the WET functions, there are a different number of AVID
criteria for each of the 3 major wetland attributes, and the scoring becomes increasingly
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
29
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
complex if the three attributes are valued .he same or in different ratios .han among the ,0
AVID criteria.
,4, based on general wetland attributes, as described in Section 2.33,
An indexing approach basca ^ g . impacts, developing mitigation strategies,
provides the greatest nexibi Memorandum of understanding of "no net loss of wetland
°< ws approach are us,ed beiow:
a. The A As are assessed on both the important natural wetland characteristics and those
valuable for social reasons.
ortundancies in the number of times a wetland characteristic is scored
b. There are no reduIWJ^ f wildlife habitat or water quality improvement,
relative to its ™P°rtan tant for mQre than one wetland function, however, are
,he ",ion cti,erion-
c«.d relative to functions that were not considered as valuable for the
C- « snu°h "those related to groundwater recharge or discharge.
U K A As are indexed at the level of general wetland attributes, wetland
d. Even though AAs are individual wetland functions are incorporated
£ K generated tor each WET function.
^ relative to only three major, and valuable, wetland attributes, each of
e. AAs are assessed_ re iate relative value. This keeps the overall number of
which can be asslSnc~ .^ds many potentially difficult-to-resolve issues on the
indexes manageable, an WET functions or AVID criteria. It is much easier to
L^nst eWva»ue o. three attributes than te,
u • H.V scores one for water quality improvement, one for wildlife
Each AA will have three index ' than the 10 that would be calculated for either of
habitat, and one for social sigm many different criteria and characteristics that will be
the other two systems. Because attribute, the scores should be normalized to 100 rather
used to calculate an mdex sco ^ ^ carry the scoring to two decimal places. (At a later
vhan one. This wiH ehnuna e attribute, {or important habitats, was necessary. See section
date, it was determined that a rou
3.
3.2 for a discussion.)
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
30
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
3.0 DETERMINING ATTRIBUTE INDEXES
The methodology for indexing wetland characteristics calk for i,w, • ,
by monitoring wetland characteristics, grouped by valuable wetland IZtt^ t0 Wetlands
describes the step-by-step procedures used to evaluate a rani, fn f " es> ^ section
and to calculate a baseline index score for each attribute fn h 6 wetland characteristic
section also describes the refinements that wereadded to (AA)" ^
fourth attribute, Important Habitat) based on analyses of the prelimin^S^011"1'^ 3
a^gS'to ^ ^ SpeCife "-e been
Wetland attribute (or just attribute) - This refer* tr> ,
being assessed (Water Quality Improvement, Wildlife Habitat WCtland attributes
Habitat). Ue Habltat' 800131 Significance, and Important
Wetland characteristic - A physical binlnmV*! „u • >
wetland that contributes to or impairs its functionim^n T 8f° glcal characteristic present..
the WET questions are analyzed. Each WET auestinn i Y !^?Se characteristics addressed in
though many were deleted from the database because tL"* *8 3 Separate characteristic,
classifiers (see tables 3-1 and 3-2 for a list of questions actually'uS^)PPr°Pnate *° ^ Db,,fcl'
~ th°- addressed in the
AVID criteria - These are the criteria developed bv the EPA tn , Ll
District as part of the AVID process. dentify valuable wetlands in the
Characteristic rank - A semi-quantitative numerical rank .
This term can apply to either a characteristic rank that when adH w° WetIand characteristic,
index, or that, when added, leads to an attrib"e ind™ '° 8 WCBand *»*«<">
f^^^e(7rZ^^oXev''>'u Z™*"* charact<*a*
ssasr""""""1"¦ —» sassr ™"
in a
in
or
The
how a
"**••** Mvwiymc,
following sections describe how the wetland chxr* ^ • •
how a baseline index of existing conditions in the District? ^ere chosen and ranked, and
assessment of wetland impacts using the index wetIands was derived. The
Screening" and Environmental Impacts" sections of the SAMP/EK^ ,Alternativ«*
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
31
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
3.1 ESTABLISHING WETLAND CHARACTERISTIC RANKS
During technical meetings on the wetland method among the state and federal agencies it was
agreed that the most appropriate method for indexing wetland characteristics for the
Meadowlands was at the level of general wetland attributes. However, it was felt that because
the most information relating wetlands characteristics to wetland functioning was available at
the individual function level, the determination of ranks for wetland characteristics should occur
at the WET function level. Wetland professionals from the SAMP participants met to discuss
and agree on ranks for each characteristic for each of the 10 important WET functions.
The initial characteristic ranks as presented in tables 2-2 to 2-11 were used as starting points for
discussion of the characteristic ranks. It was agreed to establish three distinct ranks for
individual characteristics: characteristics that are related to the performance or expression of a
wetland function, characteristics that are important in the performance of a function, and
characteristics that are very important in the performance of a function. It was also agreed to
treat certain characteristics that impair wetland functions as "reducing" characteristics, whereby if
that characteristic was present in an AA, the entire function score would be reduced by
multiplying by a selected fraction.
The results of the characteristic ranking identified by the interagency working group are
presented in table 3-1. In this table, a rank of 1 represents related characteristics, a rank of 3
represents important characteristics, and a rank of 9 represents very important characteristics
(see section 3.3 for a discussion of the scoring).
Additionally, characteristic rankings for the "Level I" social significance characteristics were
assigned for the recreation/education and floodflow alteration sub-attributes of the social
significance attribute. These rankings are presented in table 3-2.
3.2 INTRODUCTION OP A FOURTH ATTRIBUTE f IMPORTANT HABITAT)
Initially, the "Level I" social significance questions relating to threatened or endangered species
(T/E) and remnant or unique (R/U) habitats (WET questions II and 14) were indexed with the
wildlife habitat attribute, by increasing the WH attribute score by a predetermined multiplier.
However, the results of this technique were not satisfactory when measuring impacts and
mitigation. One effect of such an indexing technique would be to increase the "importance" (in
the indexing system) of characteristics in T/E or R/U habitats, when compared to the same
characteristics elsewhere. Thus, when possible mitigation is examined, many more "points"
would be gained by performing a certain mitigation (e.g., clearing a blocked outlet) in a T/E or
R/U habitat than in an AA which was not a T/E or R/U habitat because the characteristic ranks
were altered by the T/E multiplier. This would have the effect of "encouraging" mitigation in
T/E and R/U habitats, which might actually disturb the habitat. Another, "numerical" effect of
this indexing technique would be to create two "groups" of normalized scores — one "group" of
AAs with T/E or R/U habitats, and another "group" of AAs without. Because the proposed
multipliers were such that an AA with both a T/E and R/U habitat would have its WH attribute
index score multiplied by 10, and all scores are to be normalized to 100, this would mean that
the range of WH attribute scores for AAs without T/E or R/U habitats would range only from 0
to 10. This would be an another unsatisfactory result of this indexing technique.
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
32
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
To eliminate these unsatisfactory results, while still retaining the important information on
threatened/endangered and remnant/unique habitats, it was decided to add a fourth attribute,
the Important Habitat (IH) attribute. This, solution allows the direct tracking of T/E and R/U
habitats in the indexing system. To index this attribute, T/E habitats are assigned an index of
50, and R/U habitats are assigned an index of 20, Habitats that are bath T/E and R/U are
assigned an index of 70.
In implementing the IH attribute in the indexing system, differences were identified between the
answers WET database to the questions relating to T/E and R/U habitats (questions II and 14)
and the AVID atlas map entitled "Special Habitats". Because the data presented in the AVTD
atlas map were more accurate, and reflected more recent data, this map was chosen as the
preferred data source to locate T/E and R/U habitats in the District.
The wetland characteristics that are important to wetland functions were ranked based on their
relative importance. Three categories of characteristics were established, as discussed in section
3,1: those that are related to the performance or expression of a function, those that are
important in the performance of a function, and those that are y?rv important in the
performance of a function. Because these categories represent semi-quantitative ranks, the
actual score assigned to each should be regarded only as a relative indicator. For this reason,
three different rank scoring methods were evaluated toward the development of attribute index
scores. In the first method, the ranks were assigned scores of 1, 2, and 3 for related, important,
and very important, respectively. In the second method, the ranks were assigned scores of 1, 3,
and 5; in the third method, scores of 1, 3, arid 9 were tested.
In ail three methods, it is assumed that a related characteristic ranks one point. Under the
"1-2-3" method an important characteristic ranks one point more than a related characteristic,
and a very important characteristic ranks one point more than an important characteristic. The
"1-3-5' method differs from the "1-2-3" method by expanding the range of possible point values,
and assumes that each increase in importance increases the rank by two points. The "1-3-9"
method assumes that each increase in importance increases the rank by three times the point
value. Thus, under the "1-3-9" method, the rank for a very important characteristic is three times
greater than that for an important characteristic, and nine times greater than that for a related
; hiracteristic.
An analysis of the sensitivity of each of the three methods was conducted. As would be
expected, the "1-3-9" method gave higher raw indexes than the "1-3-5" method, which in turn
produced higher indexes than the "1-2-3" method. However, when the raw indexes were
normalized by dividing by the maximum index found in the District, the three methods could be
compared on an "equal" footing.
To track the differences between the methods, the results of the indexing for several wetland
functions were viewed against the results of the WET and AVID analyses. It must be noted that
the wetland indexing scheme developed for the SAMP/E1S is fundamentally different than the
methods used for the WET and AVID analyses/ and the output of each method should rvot result
in identical relative rank positions. The purpose of the SAMP/ESS wetland indexing method is
COM Camp Dresser &l MclCee
33
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
, u important wetland characteristics under various land management
to track potential changes t AviD/WET was to identify wetland resources in the
However, one
higher SAMP/EIS mdex€S . maximum normalized indexes for each scoring method (i.e.,
the mean, moderate, and high for four WET functions. The
"1-2-3", "1-3-5 , and 1-3 ) aquatic diversity and abundance (ADA), general wildlife
four WET functions exai™ transformation (NRT), and sediment/toxicant retention (STR). A
(GWL), nutrient re™ova . . ge methods whereby the mean, median, minimum, and
general trend can be ** are enerany higher for those AAs rated high by WET than those
maximum norm*hz*d , the normalized indexes are generally higher for those AAs rated
^"r'rratedloWbyWET.
, ^ A ;« that the mean, median, minimum, and maximum normalized indexes
Another general trend derate decrease from the "1-2-3" method to the "1-3-5" method,
for those AAs ratedlcw ^ ^ "1-3-9" method. This is due to the fact that the AAs that
and from the "1-3-5 met o characteristics that are considered only related, but not
score low for a funJ1O^fimcti0n As noted earlier, these characteristics receive ranks of 1
important, to a particular AAs that receive a relatively low index for a WET
under all three scoring ^ indexes under all three scoring methods. The wetlands that
function usually recede ^ ^ vVET function have characteristics that are important and
receive a relatively high in ^ and the raw index correspondingly increases under the
very important for a par 'scoring method/ the AAs that receive relatively high
three methods. Thus, using• than under the and "1-3-5" scoring methods. Because
indexes receive higher raw 1. dividine by the highest achieved index under each scoring
the normalized index is c wetlands that score iOWer for a function decrease for the
method, the normalized ma serves to better differentiate between low and
"1 3-5" and "1-3-9" scoring methods, lhis e
high indexes for the AAs in the Distort.
u t f the three methods on the attribute indexes, function indexes for the
To determine the ettect or 1 of the WH attribute) were calculated and added
ADA and GWL functions ( J results of AVid Criteria #4 ("high effectiveness reported by
together, and compared ag ^ ^ ^ Qr moderate effectiveness for aquatic diversity and
WET for general vyildMe nao < _ median, minimum, and maximum normalized index
abundance"). Table 3-7 presen s the^mea,^ ^ ^ ^ AAs ^ ^ ^
for each method for the sum with the ^dividual functions, the indexes for those AAs
Criterion #4 and those tha ^ than for those AAs not meeting AVID Criteria #4 for all
meeting ^dividual functions, the normalized indexes for the AAs receiving
statistics. And lower for the "1-3-9" method than the "1-3-5 method, etc.
7 rine AA that met AVID Criteria #4 in an ordered list (highest to
The position of the k>we8: sco g ^ also noted {or each of the three scoring methods,
lowest) of indexes (ADA plus J ^ AA that met AVID Criteria #4 was 102nd in the
Using the "1-2-3 met , method the lowest scoring AA wns 87th in the list; and using the
ranked list; using the, - - ' ^ 57th -n the list_
ranked list; using the i-j-o mc ULUVa; _
"1-3-9" method, the lowest scoring AA was 57th in the list.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
34
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
The analyses discussed above suggest that the "1-3-9" method gives both a larger spread of
scores, and ranks AAs more similarly to AVID than the other methods. For these reasons the
"1-3-9" method was chosen as the preferred ranking method, and all further analyses have been
conducted using this method.
3.4 METHOD FOR CALCULATING ATTRIBUTE INDEXES
The attribute indexes for an AA for the water quality and wildlife habitat attributes are
determined based on characteristics that are important for different wetland functions (as
identified in the WET). The raw attribute index is then re-scored, as needed, based on whether
special characteristics are present. Within the set of characteristics related to each WET function
there are special characteristics that decrease the overall score because they represent conditions
that impair a wetland function (thus, they are assigned multiplicative factors that are less than
1.0).
Because ranks have been assigned by wetland function, assessment areas can be indexed for
wetland attributes in two different ways. The first is to calculate an index (for each AA) for each
wetland function that contributes to that attribute, based on the rankings of characteristics for
that function (both additive and multiplicative). Each AA's indexes for the relevant functions are
then summed to obtain the attribute index. The second approach is to assign an attribute rank
for each characteristic that is the sum of the ranks for all the functions that are related to the
attribute and then calculate the AA's attribute indexes by adding the ranks for the characteristics
present in that AA. Under the first approach, the attribute index for an AA is calculated by
developing indexes for each function for each AA, and then summing the relevant function
indexes. Under the second approach, the attribute index for an AA is calculated by summing
the appropriate function ranks for each characteristic and then directly calculating attribute
indexes for each AA.
These two approaches would give identical results (due to additive commutativity) if there were
no multiplicative (i.e. "reducing") characteristics. However, because multiplicative ranks are
present, the results from the two approaches will be different. To minimize these differences, in
the second approach questions that represent "reducing" characteristics are assigned a weighted
factor that is determined based on the number of WET functions that contribute to the attribute.
For example, if a "reducing" characteristic modifies the index for one of the 5 WET functions that
, ontribute to the wildlife 'labitvit attribute by 0.5, it will change the overall attribute index by 1/5
,,i (his value, or 0.1. The rrnimplicative factor by which this characteristic modifies the attribute
index is therefore 0.9 (1.0 - 0.1). The characteristic ranks obtained for the WH and WQ
attributes, and the conservation sub-attribute (CON) of the SS attribute are presented in table 3-8.
The WH attribute ranks were computed by adding the characteristic ranks presented in table 3-1
(and weighing the "reducing" characteristics as discussed above) for the five functions
contributing to the WH attribute. The WQ attribute ranks were computed by adding the
characteristic ranks (and weighing the "reducing" characteristics) for the two functions
contributing to the WQ attribute. The method for determining the CON sub-attribute ranks is
described in section 3.5.
Calculating attribute indexes for AAs using the two approaches do not result in identical scores,
for reasons discussed above. The second approach, where the "negative" characteristics for a
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
35
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
function are weighted and used to modify the overall attribute index, in general results in
slightly higher attribute indexes. Of the AAs tested, 119 had higher attribute indexes using the
second approach, and 28 had slightly lower attribute indexes. There was, however, little
difference between the attribute indexes resulting from the two approaches. On the average, the
absolute value of the difference between the two attribute indexes for each AA was only 4.6% of
the total for the WH attribute. The difference was less than 0.5% for the WQ attribute. In
addition, the most valuable and highest scoring AAs did not change significantly under either
approach. For the WH attribute, the 10 AAs with the highest indexes, and the 11 with the
lowest indexes, maintained identical ranks under either approach. The AAs in the middle of the
rankings changed relative position only slightly. There were no differences in the rank positions
of the AAs for the WQ attribute.
Because the analysis of the AAs tested under the two indexing approaches did not identify any
substantive differences reflecting a qualitative difference in "value", the second approach was
chosen for its computational directness. In developing attribute indexes for the different
management alternatives it is computationally simpler to develop an index at the attribute level
rather than at the level of the functions, which then requires an additional step of adding the
indexes for the related functions. Using the second approach, the rankings for each attribute are
more clearly presented and the effects of changing wetland characteristics are easier to
determine. For these reasons, the assessment areas were indexed based on the rankings
developed for each characteristic related to each attribute.
3.5 NORMALIZING THE ATTRTBIJTF, INDEXES
The total raw index for an AA that was calculated for each attribute was normalized relative to
the highest raw index achieved by any AA for that attribute, and multiplied by 100 to eliminate
decimals. The indexes were normalized in this manner to preclude attempts to establish an raw
baseline "value" for the wetlands, which is invalid using this methodology. By normalizing the
indexes in the manner described above, the AAs in the District are assessed for the presence and
absence of important characteristics only relative to each other.
Wildlife Habitat Attribute
The highest raw index achieved for the WH attribute was 325.5. To normalize, the raw indexes
for the WH attribute were divided by 325.5 and multiplied by 100. The resulting normalized
indexes ranged from 10 (AAs number 110 and 98) to 100 (AA number 2-3).
The highest raw index achieved for the WQ attribute was 130.0. To normalize, the raw indexes
for the WQ attribute were divided by 130.0 and multiplied by 100. The resulting normalized
indexes ranged from 24 (AA number 2-1) to 100 (AAs number 54 and 3-3).
Social Significance Attribute
The SS attribute is comprised of three sub-attributes; recreation/ education (REC), floodflow
alteration (FFAS), and conservation (CON). Because each sub-attribute receives an equal
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
36
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
weighing in the overall SS attribute, each sub-attribute index must be normalized to the highest
index achieved in the District, and then added together.
To normalize, the REC raw indexes were divided by 38 (the highest raw index among the A As
in the District), and the FFAS raw indexes were divided by 3 (the highest raw index among the
AAs in the District).
The conservation sub-attribute was indexed by selecting a list of characteristics meeting, at
minimum, one of the following tests: (a) the characteristic was related to six of the 10 WET
functions; (b) the characteristic was related to four WET functions and important to one; (c) the
characteristic was related to three WET functions and very important to one; (d) the
characteristic was related to two WET functions and important to two; (e) the characteristic was
related to one WET function, important to one, and very important to one; (f) the characteristic
was important to three WET functions; (g) the characteristic was very important to two WET
functions; or (h) the characteristic was a "reducing" characteristic. The total rank for each
characteristic "of overall importance" was determined by adding the ranks across all ten
functions, and "averaging" the effect of "reducing" characteristics, as discussed in the attribute
indexing methodology description (section 3.4). The resulting characteristic ranks for the
conservation sub-attribute are presented in table 3-8. These ranks were used to index each AA
for the conservation sub-attribute. The resulting raw index for each AA was normalized by
dividing by 394.82 (the highest raw index achieved in the District). AAs whose normalized
indexes for the CON sub-attribute were above 0.88 were given a normalized index of one (1) for
the conservation sub-attribute; all others were given a normalized index of zero (0). Using this
method, under existing conditions, eleven assessment areas (AAs number 2-3, 2-8, 3-2, 3-3, 3-5,
3-6, 3-8, 4-C, 4-D, 54 and 303) received a normalized index of one (1) for the conservation
sub-attribute. Five of these AAs were among the seven AAs to meet AVID Criterion #10 (which
was intended to identify high functioning AAs for conservation).
The normalized indexes for each social significance sub-attribute were then added together to
arrive at an raw index for the SS attribute. The highest raw index achieved for the SS attribute
was 2.02. Thus, the raw indexes for the SS attribute were divided by 2.02 and multiplied by 100.
The resulting normalized indexes ranged from 0 to 100 (AA number 3-2).
Important Habitat
The possible raw indexes for the IH attribute are 0 (no T/E or R/U habitat), 20 (R/U habitat), 50
(T/E habitat), or 70 (R/U and T/E habitat). However, there are a few cases where more than
one distinct habitat is located within one AA. For example, AA number 2-11 has 25.81 acres of
R/U habitat, 179.56 acres of T/E habitat, and 65.81 acres of both T/E and R/U habitat. Because
the final IH attribute score is calculated by multiplying the normalized attribute index times the
area of important habitat, a single "average" IH attribute index must be obtained for this AA
which reflects the relative presence of the three important habitat areas. This "average" IH
attribute index equals (as a raw, non-normalized number)
(25.81 + 179.56 + 65.81)
= 52.0
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
37
-------
Appendix F.2
Development of Wetland Assessment Method
To normalize the IH attribute index, the raw indexes for the IH attribute were divided by 70 and
multiplied by 100. The resulting normalized indexes ranged from 0 to 100.
|o: \ hmdceisN append fj
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
38
-------
TABLE 2-1
WET/AVID Effectiveness Functions
Identifier WET Function
ADA Aquatic Diversity and Abundance
FFAE Floodflov Alteration Effectiveness
GF3 General Fish Habitat
GVDE Ground Vater Discharge Effectiveness
GWF General Vaterfovl Habitat
GWL General Vildlife Habitat
GVRE Ground Water Recharge Effectiveness
NRTE Nutrient Removal/Transformation Effectiveness
PE Production Export
SSE Sediment Stabilization Effectiveness
STRE Sediment/Toxicant Retention Effectiveness
-------
KEY FOR TABLES 2-2 through 2-11
H = Number of Assessment Areas ranked High by WET and ansvered "Yes" to the specified question.
H% = Percent of Assessment Areas ranked High by VET that ansvered "Yes" to the specified question.
LM = Number of Assessment Areas ranked Low or Medium by WET and answered "Yes" to the specified
question.
LMZ = Percent of Assessment Areas ranked Low or Medium by WET that answered "Yes" to the specified
question.
Chi-Test = Chi-square score (Hypothesis 1) minus critical Chi-square value (3.84 at 95% confidence)
Hypothesis 1 = Distribution of answers for AAs ranked high equal to distribution of answers for all AAs.
Chi'-Test = Chi-square score (Hypothesis 2) minus critical Chi-square value (3.84 at 95% confidence)
Hypothesis 2 = Distribution of answers for AAs ranked high equal to distribution of answers for AAs
ranked medium and low.
In Key? = Is the question present in the WET key for that function, regardless of answer.
Y = question is in WET key
Y* = "parent" question is in WET key (e.g., if Q12.C is in the key, Q12.Ca - Y*)
N = question is not in WET key
High Ans = What answer, for each WET question, contributes to a high rank for that function?
Y = "Yes" answer needed on path to high rank
N = "No" answer needed on path to high rank;
Y/N = "Yes" or "No" answer possible on path to high rank;
NH = Question not encountered on path to high rank.
Draft Rank = Draft preliminary rank for question identified by CDM based on Chi-square score, relevance
of question, presence in WET key, and professional judgement.
>1 = additive rank
<1 = multiplicative factor
Summary = Short mnemonic description summarizing the WET question.
Reason = Short description of reason for assigned draft rank. No reason presented for questions
i.muvcu ^UCOUWIW Wilt A. W CI J. UiiOWCi L V a ki.±gll J. UilJV. ail LAIC ItUl •
(PP = primary productivity)
-------
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions
TABLE 2-2
Draft -- 7/15/91
Aquatic Diversity and Abundance
Chi-
Chi'-
In
High Draft
H
HZ
LN
LKX
Test
Test Key?
Ans
Rank
Suimary
Reason
Total
27
121
08.3
26
96X
89
74X
2.75
3.34
T
Y
3
Permanent outlet?
access for fish from ocean
047.A
26
96X
114
94X
-3.65
-3.63
N
3
6.0 < pH < 8.5
optimal pH for fish and inv
037
17
63X
52
43X
-0.30
0.56
N
3
Open water (d»2ft,w>6ft,l>1000ft)?
Fish hab/bottom is invert hab
049.2
9
33X
14
12X
4.13
8.66
Y
Y
3
Fish cover?
fish habitat
033.A
6
22X
28
23X
-3.83
-3.83
r
Y
3
Permanent Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
year-round water for fish and inv
02.1.3
4
15X
5
4X
0.57
3.94
Y
Y
3
Are* > 200 acres?
protection/genetic stability
032.A
4
15X
14
12X
-3.62
-3.56
N
3
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
year-round water for fish and inv
034.3.1
3
11X
16
13X
-3.75
-3.74
N
3
Flooding due to downs lope impounctaent?
creates open water
052.1
0
OX
0
OX
••
••
Y
Y
3
Freshwater Invertebrate Density > 500 sq.ft.
indicates excellent inv populations
053.1
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
N
3
Tidal flat Invertebrate Density = UH"
high chance of benthic inv
031.3
26
96X
86
71X
3.79
4.51
N
2
Area of Zone B > Zone A?
food src t prot for fish and inv
02.1.2
20
74X
23
19X
28.63
49.34
Y
Y
2
Area > 40 acres?
protection/genetic stability
045.D
14
52X
82
68X
-1.39
-0.71
Y
N
2
Substrate: sand?
inv habitat
046.C
9
33X
9
7X
10.02
22.46
Y
V
2
Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
varied habitats=higher diversity
043.0
6
22X
29
24X
-3.80
-3.79
N
2
9 in < dominant water depth < 20 inches
good fish and inv habitat
043.E
5
19X
13
11X
-2.59
-2.14
N
2
21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
good fish and inv habitat
043.N
4
15X
10
8X
-2.73
-2.31
N
2
6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
good fish and inv habitat
043.G
3
11X
6
5X
-2.38
-1.67
N
2
5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
good fish and inv habitat
045. B
3
11X
10
8X
-3.62
-3.55
N
2
Substrate: Muck?
inv habitat
043.1
2
7X
5
4X
-3.31
-3.11
N
2
dominant water depth > 26 feet
good fish and inv habitat
049.1.1
1
4X
10
8X
-3.17
-3.10
Y
Y
2
20X-80X Pools?
good fish and inv habitat
043.F
0
OX
4
3X
-2.92
-2.92
N
2
40 in < dominant water depth * 59 inches
good fish and inv habitat
045. A
0
OX
2
2X
-3.39
-3.39
N
2
Substrate: mud?
inv habitat
026.1
27
100X
115
95X
-2.44
-2.43
N
1
Nutrient source in buffer zone?
stimulates PP as food for fish/inv
Q8.1
25
93X
77
64X
4.80
5.94
Y
Y
1
Permanent inlet?
access for fish and larvae
029.1
25
93X
85
70X
1.94
2.61
N
1
Dense understory edge?
protection for young fish
031.2
25
93X
95
79X
-0.99
-0.67
Y
Y
1
Area of Zone B > 10X of AA?
protection and food for young fish
044.D
25
93X
90
74X
0.39
0.86
N
1
9 in < secondary water depth < 20 inches
good fish t inv hab/UET has 8" min
010.E
23
85X
76
63X
1.15
1.95
Y
Y/N
1
Estuarine?
nursery for marine fish
022.1.1
23
85X
94
78X
-3.09
-2.96
N
1
AA contains a Channel?
access for fish
044. F
20
74X
65
54X
-0.10
0.66
N
1
40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
good fish and inv habitat
044.G
20
74*
58
48X
2.21
3.55
N
1
5 feet < secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
good fish and inv habitat
044. N
18
67X
60
50X
-1.26
-0.69
N
1
6.5 feet < secondary water depth < 26 feet
good fish and inv habitat
015.1.B
15
56X
47
39X
-1.31
-0.67
N
1
Vegetation<-->Water = intermediate
varied habitats=higher diversity
044.1
12
44X
28
23X
1.24
3.05
N
1
secondary water depth > 26 feet
good fish and inv habitat
016.B
8
30%
17
14X
-0.02
1.59
Y
Y
1
Vegetation class = intermediate
varied habitats=higher diversity
014.1
7
26X
4
3X
12.58
39.38
N
1
AA on 25 square foot island?
shorelines add habitat varation
015.1.C
7
26X
3
2X
15.42
57.55
Y
Y
1
Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
varied habitats=higher diversity
034.1
7
26X
34
28X
-3.79
-3.78
Y
N
1
Local dams?
creates open water
013.Ca
6
22X
12
10X
-0.71
0.74
Y*
Y
1
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and algal
food src ( prot for fish and inv
016. C
6
22X
5
a
6.66
18.46
Y
Y
1
Vegetation class = mosaic
varied habitats=higher diversity
012.Cc
5
19X
4
3X
5.10
15.71
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
food src t prot for fish and inv
013.Cc
4
15X
4
3%
1.88
7.35
Y*
Y
1
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
food src I prot for fish and inv
018
3
11X
11
9X
-3.73
-3.71
N
1
Upland<-->Uetland edge irregular?
var shore adds hab diversity/prot
053.2
1
4X
1
IX
-2.47
-1.11
Y
NH
1
Tidal Flat Invertebrate Density = "L"
inv pop present even though low
014.2
0
OX
0
OX
**
••
N
1
AA on 2 acre island?
shorelines add habitat varation
020.1
0
OX
2
2X
-3.39
-3.39
Y
Y
1
Zone B shaded?
shade provides prot for small fish
032.D
0
OX
5
4X
-2.69
-2.68
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = seasonally flooded nontidal?
seas flood reg enough to support inv
032. H
0
OX
0
OX
**
«*
N
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = artifically flooded nontidal?
perm flooded = good fish habitat
033. H
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
Y
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = artifically flooded nontidal?
perm flooded = good fish habitat
Note: H =
High
rating
; lh
= Low
or Moderate Rat
ing;
** =
Stat'i
Stic not calculated due to zero demoninator
Page
-------
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions
TABLE 2-2
(continued)
Draft -- 7/15/91
045 .E
0
OX
2
2X
-3.39
-3.39
N
1
Substrate: cobble-gravel?
049.1.2
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
r
r
1
Ri ffles?
051.2
0
OX
1
IX
-3.62
-3.62
N
1
Plant productivity > 1500 g/sq.m/yr
027.1
27
100X
117
97X
-2.92
-2.92
Y
N
0.5
Toxic source in buffer zone?
061
15
56X
73
60X
-3.63
-3.58
Y
N
0.1
DO Iimiting to fish?
044. C
25
93X
86
71X
1.61
2.24
N
0
5 in < secondary water depth < 8 inches
05.2
22
81X
52
43X
9.25
12.50
Y
Y
0
llpslope wet depressions > 5X of watershed?
048.C
20
74X
40
33X
11.57
16.69
Y
N
0
5.0 < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
025.2.B
17
63X
39
32X
5.02
7.83
N
0
Primary source of sediment = channel flow?
050
17
63X
26
21X
14.58
23.69
N
0
Plants: waterfowl value?
015.2
16
59X
33
27X
6.36
10.09
Y
Y
0
Channel flow spreading?
031.6.b
15
56X
20
17X
14.78
25.97
N
0
emergent in Zone B = IX - 30X of Zones B and C?
066.2.10
15
56%
44
36X
-0.45
0.46
N
0
Geese Mig/Uint present?
013. C
13
48X
24
20X
5.60
9.77
Y
Y
0
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
066.2.7
12
44X
23
19X
4.07
7.51
N
0
Buffiehead/GoIdeneye Mig/Uint present?
04.2B
9
33X
10
8X
8.56
18.54
Y
N
0
1 -100 square mile watershed?
031.4
6
22%
8
7X
2.44
6.82
N
0
Area of submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
Q3B.5
6
22X
8
7X
2.44
6.82
N
0
mudflat > 5 acre or emergent veg > 5 acre & other adjacent
012. C
5
19X
6
5X
2.06
6.69
Y
Y
0
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
019.1.B
5
19X
3
2X
7.27
24.89
N
0
Wind shelter ~ fetch?
04.2C
4
15X
0
OX
14.58
**
Y
Y
0
100-2500 square mile watershed?
09.2
4
15X
6
5X
-0.44
1.73
N
0
Sheet flooding?
010.0
4
15%
1
IX
9.39
60.62
N
0
Riverine tidal?
04.20
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
Y
0
> 2500 square mile watershed?
017
0
OX
3
zx
-3.16
-3.15
Y
Y
0
Plant fori* richness
033. B
0
OX
0
OX
**
••
Y
Y
0
Permanent Hydroperiod = intermit exposed nontidal?
040.1
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
N
0
Bottom water < 5 degrees C?
nesting/ habitat for fish
good fish habitat
high prod=food for fish and inv
impairs grth & survival of fish/inv
if DO fish limiting=no fish
not relevant to fish and inv
not an important habitat factor
exclusive with Q13Ca+c
exclusive with Q12.Cc
size not relevant to fish and inv
size not relevant to fish and inv
plant div less imp than phys intersp
all 148 AA's have NO
doesn't occur in Meadowlands
Note; H = High rating; LM = Lou or Moderate Rating; ** = Statistic not calculated due to zero demoninator
Page 2
-------
TABLE 2-3
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions
Flow FIom Alteration Effectiveness
Chi-
Chi •-
In
H
HX
ML
MLX
Test
Test
Key?
Total
14
134
02.1.3
0
OX
9
7X
-2.84
-2.83
Y
035.1
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
02.1.2
1
7X
42
31X
-0.24
-0.03
Y
063.1
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
010.B
14
100X
34
25X
28.37
37.34
N
05.1.2
13
93X
41
31X
17.36
21.72
N
025.2.A
13
93X
74
55X
3.57
4.18
N
031.5
12
86X
65
49X
3.19
3.92
Y
031.6.e
5
36X
7
5X
11.98
22.45
Y
032.G
5
36X
9
7X
8.60
14.95
N
09.1
3
21X
86
64X
5.82
7.29
Y
032.E
2
HX
10
7X
-3.05
-2.90
Y
015.1.C
1
7X
9
7X
-3.84
-3.84
N
031.6.d
1
7X
0
OX
5.80
**
Y
09.2
0
OX
10
7X
-2.72
-2.71
Y
012.Ab
0
OX
0
OX
*+
**
Y*
012.Ac
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y*
012.Ad
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y*
012.Ae
0
OX
2
IX
-3.63
-3.63
Y*
012.Bb
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y*
012.Be
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y*
012.Bd
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y*
012.Be
0
OX
1
IX
3.73
-3.73
V*
015.2
0
ox
49
37X
3.81
4.23
Y
034.3.1
0
ox
19
14X
-1.56
-1.53
N
010.D
0
ox
5
4X
-3.30
-3.30
Y
010. E
0
ox
99
74X
27.40
35.76
Y
010.F
0
ox
0
ox
**
**
Y
036.2.1
12
86X
32
24X
19.36
25.61
N
015.1.A
10
71X
66
49X
-1.35
-1.09
Y
02.1.1
9
64X
31
23X
7.04
9.49
Y
033. A
S
57*
26
19X
6.36
8.91
N
036.2.2
8
57X
21
16X
10.00
14.38
N
019.1.A
6
43X
21
16X
2.44
3.99
N
043. A
6
43X
3
2X
32.78
101.69
N
013.Cb
4
29X
8
6X
4.85
8.90
N
019.3
4
29X
5
4X
9.85
20.21
N
032. A
4
29X
14
10X
0.06
1.07
Y
013. B
2
14X
5
4X
-0.71
0.50
N
013.Be
2
14X
4
3X
0.32
2.33
N
022.1.1
2
14X
115
86X
35.33
55.03
Y
032.K
2
14X
5
4X
-0.71
0.50
N
01.1
0
ox
0
ox
*•
**
Y
Draft -- 7/15/91
High Draft
Ans Rank Suimary
Reason
Y/N
Y
Y/N
Y/M
/N
/N
/N
0.0
0.0
0.0
3 Area > 200 acres?
3 Does AA expand 3x+ > 25 days?
2 Area > 40 acres?
2 Floodpeaks: inlet > outlet ?
Palustrine?
AA > 20X of watershed?
Primary source of sediment = sheetflow?
Area of Zone A >= 10X of Zone B and C?
emergent in Zone B - 100X of Zones B and C or not present?
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = intermit flooded nontidal?
Outlet < one third average width?
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = saturated nontidal?
Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
emergent in Zone B = 61X - 99X of Zones B and C?
Sheet flooding?
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved evergreen
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved deciduous
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved evergreen
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved evergreen
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved deciduous
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
Channel flow spreading?
Flooding due to downsIope impoundnent?
Riverine tidal?
Estuarine?
Marine?
0 Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B < 20 feet?
0 Vegetation<-->Water = solid form
0 Area < 5 acres?
0 Permanent Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
0 Avg width of robust erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B <20 feet?
0 Wind shelter?
0 Dominant Uater Depth < 1 inch
0 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
0 Upland habitat wind shelter?
0 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod - perm flooded nontidal?
0 Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub
0 Secondary veg: Scrii>-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
0 AA contains a Channel?
0 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly flooded tidal?
0 Evaporation > precipitation?
large wetland=large water capacity
will hold floodflows
large wetland=large water capacity
retards floodflows
100X of High AA's have this
high prob of receiving floodwaters
high X/indicative of flows to wetlnd
veg zone to slow water during floods
veg zone to slow water during floods
capacity to hold floodflows
retardation of floodflows
no standing water/can be flooded
phys heterogeneity slows floodflows
veg zone to slow water during floods
wetland acts to retard flooding
Irg veg abv wat Ivl retards fldflows
I v I
Ivl
Ivl
Ivl
Ivl
Ivl
Ivl
retards
retards
retards
retards
retards
retards
retards
fIdf tows
fIdftows
fIdflows
fIdf tows
ftdftows
fIdf tows
fIdflows
Irg veg abv wat
Irg veg abv wat
Irg veg abv wat
Irg veg abv wat
Irg veg abv wat
Irg veg abv wat
Irg veg abv wat
important in WET
flood control possible
no FFAE according to UET
no FFAE according to WET
no FFAE according to UET
redundant w/ Q31.6.e/no phys heterog
incr floodflow out/does not retard
All AA's answered NO
Mote: H = High rating; LM - Low or Moderate Rating; ** = Statistic not calculated due to zero demoninator
Page 3
-------
TABLE 2-4
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions
Draft -- 7/15/91
General Fish
Chi •
Total
042.2.1
08.3
042.2.2
042.2.3
02.1.3
032. A
033. A
032. H
037
033.1
015.1.C
026.1
044.D
08.1
022.1.1
010.E
031.2
044. E
031.3
044. F
044. G
044.H
02.1.2
032.1
015.1.B
044.1
031.6.b
034.1
043. N
012.Cc
043. E
046. C
013.Cc
043. G
034.3.1
043.0
043.1
018
014.2
043.F
045.E
051.2
027.1
061
066.2.1
066.2.3
03.2
021.E
066.1.1
044. C
H HX Ml ML% Test
47 101
47 100X 91 90% 1.15
45 96X 70 69X 9.10
36 77X 46 46* 8.68
34 72X 36 36% 13.49
7 15X 2 2X 5.52
6 13X 12 12X -3.82
6 13X 28 28% 0.21
0 OX 0 OX **
34 72X 35 35X 14.47
22 47X 22 22X 5.78
8 17X 2 2X 7.68
46 98X 96 95X -3.18
45 96X 70 69X 9.10
43 91X 59 58X 12.54
43 91X 74 73X 2.59
42 89% 57 56X 11.86
41 87X 79 78X -2.14
41 87X 58 57X 9.03
40 85X 72 71X -0.51
38 81X 47 47X 11.61
38 81X 40 4OX 18.05
38 SIX 40 4OX 18.05
28 60X 15 15X 27.28
28 60X 39 39X 1.85
27 57X 35 35X 3.01
21 45X 19 19X 7.04
15 32X 20 20X -1.23
11 23X 30 30X -3.20
11 23X 3 3X 11.80
9 19X 0 OX 16.75
9 19X 9 9X -0.69
9 19X 9 9X -0.69
8 17X 0 OX 14.33
8 17X 1 1X 10.59
7 15X 12 12X -3.58
7 15X 28 28X -0.92
7 15X 0 OX 11.95
3 6X 11 11X -3.08
0 OX 0 OX **
0 OX 4 4X -1.93
0 OX 0 OX "
0 OX 1 IX -3.37
47 100X 97 96X -1.93
35 74% 53 52X 2.60
46 98X 74 73X 8.82
46 98X 76 75X 7.50
44 94% 82 81X 0.08
43 91% 77 76% 1.02
43 91% 68 67% 6.15
42 89X 69 68X 3.74
Chi'- In
Test Key?
High Draft
Ans Rank
I.32
11.60
14.43
23.75
36.54
-3.80
1.41
**
25.64
13.44
50.94
-3.04
II.60
17.32
4.13
16.88
-1.60
13.24
0.55
18.41
29.59
29.59
70.50
4.87
6.94
16.75
0.50
-2.95
64.25
*#
2.23
2.23
**
119.38
-3.43
0.02
**
-2.86
-1.90
**
-3.37
-1.90
5.28
10.69
9.08
0.91
2.20
8.63
5.78
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
M
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y*
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Sunmary
3 AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: 03.3 ft/sec
3 Area > 200 acres?
3 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
3 Permanent Hydroperiod - perm flooded nontidal?
3 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = artifically flooded nontidal?
2 Open water (d>2ft,w>6ft,l>1000ft)?
2 Permanent Hydroperiod ~ regularly flooded tidal?
2 Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
Nutrient source in buffer zone?
9 in < secondary water depth < 20 inches
Permanent inlet?
AA contains a Channel?
Estuarine?
Area of 2one B > 10X of AA?
21 in < secondary water depth < 39 inches
Area of Zone B > Zone A?
40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
5 feet < secondary water depth <6.5 feet
6.5 feet < secondary water depth < 26 feet
Area > 40 acres?
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
Vegetation<-->Uater = intermediate
secondary water depth > 26 feet
emergent in Zone B = 1% - 30X of Zones B and C?
Local dams?
6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
Flooding due to downsI ope impoundment?
9 in < dominant water depth < 20 inches
dominant water depth > 26 feet
Upland<-->Wetland edge irregular?
AA on 2 acre island?
40 in < dominant water depth < 59 inches
Substrate: cobble-gravel?
Plant productivity > 1500 g/sq.m/yr
0.5 Toxic source in buffer zone?
0.1 DO limiting to fish?
0 Uaterfowl Group 1 Mtg/Wint present?
0 Black Duck Mig/Uint present?
0 Cluster wetland?
0 Subwatershed dominant (and cover: urban lawn/filP
0 Group 1 Uaterfowl Breeding present?
0 5 in < secondary water depth < 8 inches
Reason
high X + good fish habitat
access for fish from ocean
indicates fish habitat
indicates fish habitat
protection/genetic stability
year-round water for fish
year-round water for fish
implies presence of open water
year-round water for fish
intertidal zone is habitat for fish
prot ~ increased habitat diversity
stimulates growth of food for fish
depth > 8" good fish habitat (WET)
access for fish
access for fish
high X ~ estuaries are fish habitat
submerged veg provides prot/food
depth > 8" good fish habitat (WET)
submerged veg provides prot/food
depth > 8" good fish habitat (UET)
depth > 8" good fish habitat (WET)
depth > 8" good fish habitat (WET)
protection/genetic stability
intertidal zone is habitat for fish
prot ~ increased habitat diversity
depth > 8" good fish habitat (WET)
submerged veg provides prot/food
create open water habitats
depth > 8" good fish habitat (WET)
submerged veg provides prot/food
depth > 8" good fish habitat (UET)
protection + increased hab diversity
submerged veg provides prot/food
depth > 8" good fish habitat (WET)
creates open water
depth > 8" good fish habitat (UET)
depth > 8" good fish habitat (WET)
adds diversity in edge habs ~ prot
shoreline adds habitat variation
depth > 8" good fish habitat (WET)
breeding habitat for some fish
high PP supports fish food web
impairs growth and survival of fish
if DO fish limiting = no fish
Note: H = High rating; LH = Low or Moderate Rating;
= Statistic not calculated due to zero demoninator
Page
-------
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions
I'ABl.K 2-4
(con! i nucri )
Draf t
7/Ib/VI
05.2
36
77*
38
38X
15.65
26.58
N
0
Upslope wet depressions > 5X of watershed''
U25.2.B
36
77X
20
POX
40.15
91.62
N
0
Pi imar y souf c:c of sediment - channel flow"5
048.C
35
74X
25
25X
29.05
58.53
N
0
S.O < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
066.2.10
31
66X
28
28X
15.72
30.45
N
0
Geese Mig/Uint present?
030
29
62X
24
24X
16.24
33.50
N
0
Is AA subject to frequent Hunan disturbance?
025.J
27
57*
35
35X
3.01
6.94
N
0
Uetland stabilizes erosion?
066.2.7
27
57*
8
8X
39.73
154.22
N
0
Bufflehead/Goldeneye Hig/Uint present'
015.2
21
45X
28
28X
0.32
2.91
N
0
Channel flow spreading?
066.2.5
20
43X
8
8X
21.24
73.45
N
0
Mergansers Hig/Uint present?
045. C
19
40X
19
19X
4.01
10.54
N
0
Substrate: peat?
050
19
40X
24
24X
0.48
3.36
N
0
Plants: waterfowl value?
013.C
17
36X
20
20X
0.74
4.09
T
Y
0
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
041.2
16
34X
6
6X
16.18
62.59
N
0
Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s'
04.2C
15
32X
0
OX
32.03
•*
N
0
100-2500 square mile watershed?
032. J
12
26X
10
10X
2.35
9.03
Y
Y
0
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod - irregularly exposed tidal?
012. C
9
19X
2
2X
9.90
67.54
N
0
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
031.4
9
19X
5
5X
3.71
16.30
N
0
Area of submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
036.2.3
9
19X
8
8X
0.14
4.28
N
0
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
09.2
8
17X
2
2X
7.68
50.94
N
0
Sheet flooding?
014.1
7
15X
4
4X
1.73
10.93
N
0
AA on 25 square foot island?
016. C
7
15X
4
4X
1.73
10.93
N
0
Vegetation class = mosaic
019.1 B
7
15X
1
IX
8.29
88.84
N
0
Wind shelter ~ fetch7
032. B
0
OX
0
OX
**
*•
Y
Y
0
Sp.iti.il Dominant Hydroperiod - intermit exposed nontidal?
032.C
0
OX
1
IX
3.37
-3.37
Y
Y
0
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod - semiperm flooded nontidal7
exclusive with 013.Cc
fish habitat in Meadowlands
exclusive with 012.Cc
interm flood not constdeicd tmpoi \
fish habitat in Meadowtands
Mote: H = High rating; IH = Low or Moderate Rating; ** = Statistic not calculated due to zero demon mat or
Page *>
-------
Results of Chi-Square Analysis or\ Functions
TABLE 2-5
Draft -- 7/15/91
Ground Water Discharge Effectiveness
Chi -
Chi ' -
1 n
High
Draft
H
HX
ML
MLX
Test
Test
Key?
Ans
Rank
Simnary
Total
4
144
034.2
0
0*
0
OX
**
.«
Y
r
2
Upstream impoundment7
08.3
4
100X
111
77X
-2.66
-2.65
Y
Y
1
Permanent outlet?
05.1.2
3
75X
51
35X
-1.21
-1.10
Y
Y
1
AA > 20X of watershed?
032. J
3
75X
19
13X
7.91
9.50
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
032. A
0
OX
18
13X
-3.27
-3.27
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
032. B
0
OX
0
OX
**
*•
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = intermit exposed nontidal?
032. E
0
OX
12
8X
-3.48
-3.48
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = saturated nontidal?
032. H
0
OX
0
OX
**
*«
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = artifically flooded nontidal
032.1
0
OX
67
47X
-0.44
-0.36
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
015.1.A
4
100X
72
50X
0.05
0.16
N
0
Vegetation*-->Uater = solid form
023
4
100X
66
46X
0.74
0.89
Y
N
0
Is the AA Channelized?
031.6.c
4
100X
48
33X
3.75
4.16
N
0
emergent in Zone B = 31X - 60X of Zones B and C?
048.B
4
100X
43
30X
4.99
5.56
N
0
0.5 < Salinity < 5.0 ppt
02.1.1
3
75X
37
26X
0.96
1.25
N
0
Area < 5 acres?
04.2A
3
75X
40
28X
0.37
0.61
N
0
< 1 square mile watershed?
043.B
3
75X
41
28X
0.19
0.41
N
0
1 in < dominant water depth < 4 inches
036.2.3
2
SOX
15
10*
2.16
2.88
N
0
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
010.D
1
25X
4
3X
2.05
3.47
N
0
Riverine tidal?
032. K
1
25X
6
4X
-0.09
0.51
N
0
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly flooded tidal?
043.F
1
25X
3
2X
3.93
6.46
N
0
40 in < dominant water depth < 59 inches
059.1
1
25X
0
OX
32.40
**
Y
Y
0
Water qual anomalies - elevated?
06.2
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
Y
0
Geologic fault or low hyd. con. downstream ?
012.Cd
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
Y
0
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and aquatic moss
060
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
Y
0
Water temperature anomalies?
Reason
iirportant
n
UET
important
n
WET
important
n
UET
important
n
UET
important
n
WET
important
n
UET
important
n
UET
important
n
UET
important
n
UET
not answered in database (146 AAs)
not answered in database (148 AAs)
148 no answers in database
not applicable to estuary condition
Note: H - High rating; LH = Low or Moderate Rating; ** = Statistic not calculated due to zero demomnator Page t
-------
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions
TAlBLE 2-6
Draft -- 7/15/91
General Waterfowl
Chi-
Chi ¦-
In
High Draft
H
HX
ML
MLX
Test
Test
Key?
Ans
Rank
Sunmary
Total
59
89
066.2.1
59
100X
61
69X
19.05
23.24
r
Y
3
Waterfowl Group 1 Mig/Uint present?
066.2.3
59
100X
63
71*
17.07
20.51
r
Y
3
Black Duck Mig/Uint present?
066.1.1
57
97X
54
61X
20.60
28.09
y
Y
3
Group 1 Waterfowl Breeding present?
066.2.10
34
58X
25
28X
9.07
21.64
r
Y
3
Geese Mig/Uint present?
OSO
28
47X
15
17X
12.28
35.59
Y
Y
3
Plants: waterfowl value?
066.2.7
20
34X
15
17X
1.87
8.39
r
Y
3
Bufflehead/Goldeneye Mig/Uint present?
066.2.5
17
29*
11
12*
2.42
10.91
r
Y
3
Mergansers Mig/Uint present?
02.1.3
7
12X
2
2X
1.91
21.00
N
3
Area > 200 acres?
029.1
55
93X
55
62X
14.52
20.84
r
Y
2
Dense understory edge?
044. B
53
90X
68
76X
0.45
2.06
N
2
1 in < secondary water depth < 4 inches
044.C
53
90X
58
65X
7.67
11.97
2
5 in < secondary water depth < 8 inches
044.D
53
90%
62
70*
4.49
7.51
N
2
9 in < secondary water depth < 20 inches
044.E
53
90X
46
52X
19.47
30.54
N
2
21 in < secondary water depth < 39 inches
019.1.A
12
20X
15
17X
-3.55
-3.33
M
2
Uind shelter?
026.1
59
100X
83
93X
0.31
0.43
N
1
Nutrient source in buffer zone?
042.2.1
59
100X
79
89X
3.27
3.63
1
AAs within 1 mi*20 day fish access: 0 10X of AA?
08.3
57
97X
58
65X
16.40
21.86
1
Permanent outlet?
031.3
49
83X
63
71*
-0.94
0.45
N
1
Area of Zone B > Zone A?
037
44
75X
25
28*
26.97
59.28
Y
Y
1
Open water (d>2ft,w>6ft,l>1000ft)?
044.H
44
75*
34
38*
14.99
29.23
N
1
6.5 feet < secondary water depth < 26 feet
032.1
40
68X
27
30*
16.25
35.33
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
046.B
37
63X
30
34*
8.21
18.37
N
1
Physical Habitat Interspersion = intermediate
015.1.B
35
59X
27
30X
8.41
19.61
Y
Y
1
Vegetation<-->Uater = intermediate
02.1.2
32
54X
11
12*
26.35
91.68
Y
Y
1
Area > 40 acres?
044.1
31
53X
9
10*
28.55
113.01
N
1
secondary water depth > 26 feet
033.1
23
39X
21
24*
0.18
3.91
N
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
046. C
16
27X
2
2*
16.70
162.30
N
1
Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
043.C
13
22X
3
3*
8.98
59.25
N
1
5 in < dwd < 8 inches
043.E
11
19X
7
8*
0.02
5.62
N
1
21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
014.1
10
17X
1
IX
9.08
129.16
Y
Y
1
AA on 25 square foot island?
033.A
10
17X
24
27*
-1.83
-0.83
N
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
015.1.C
9
15X
1
IX
7.40
102.20
Y
Y
1
Vegetation<--»Uater = checkerboard
016. C
9
15X
2
2*
4.88
41.60
N
1
Vegetation class = mosaic
018
8
14X
6
7X
-1.91
0.52
N
1
Uplandc-->Uetland edge irregular?
034.3.1
8
14X
11
12X
-3.79
-3.76
N
1
Flooding due to downs I ope impoundment?
013.Cc
7
12X
1
IX
4.16
57.43
N
1
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
043.0
7
12X
28
31X
3.71
6.67
N
1
9 in < dominant water depth < 20 inches
043. H
6
10X
8
9X
-3.78
-3.74
Y
Y
1
6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
Q12.Cc
5
8X
4
4X
-2.86
-1.66
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
043.G
4
7X
5
6X
-3.76
-3.69
N
1
5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
032.A
2
3X
16
18X
3.23
4.67
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
043. F
1
2X
3
3X
-3.46
-3.33
N
1
40 in < dominant water depth < 59 inches
043.1
1
2X
6
7X
-1.83
-1.45
Y
Y
1
dominant water depth > 26 feet
012.Cb
0
OX
2
2*
-2.50
-2.48
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
014.2
0
ox
0
OX
**
**
N
1
AA on 2 acre island?
032.B
0
ox
0
OX
**
**
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = intermit exposed nontidal?
032. C
0
ox
1
IX
-3.17
-3.17
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = semiperm flooded nontidal?
032. N
0
ox
0
OX
**
**
Y
Y
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = artificatly flooded nontidal?
033.C
0
ox
2
2X
-2.50
-2.48
N
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = semiperm flooded nontidal?
Mote: H = High rating; LM = Low or Moderate Rating; ** = Statistic not calculated due to zero demoninator
Reason
waterfowl present
waterfowl present
waterfowl present
waterfowl present
good waterfowl habitat
waterfowl present
waterfowl present
protection/decreased disturbance
protection and shelter
suit hab for wfowl feeding underwat
suit hab for wfowl feeding underwat
suit hab for wfowl feeding underwat
suit hab for wfowl feeding underwat
shelter for rafting
nutr to stim plants of waterfowl val
high X/slow currents for resting
high X/incr chance approp food plant
maintain high water quality
high X/incr chance approp food plant
resting place for waterfowl
open water for resting
important in UET
protect i on/she1ter
protect ion/shelter
large area = less disturbance
open water for resting
important in UET
protection/shelter
good d for plants of waterfowl value
suit hab for wfowl feeding underwat
habitat diversity/protection
open water for resting/feeding
protect ion/shelter
high diversity of food plants
shelter along shore
open water for resting/feeding
plants of waterfowl value
suit hab for wfowl feeding underwat
suit hab for wfowl feeding underwat
plants of waterfowl value
suit hab for wfowl feeding underwat
open water for resting/feeding
suit hab for wfowl feeding underwat
open water for rafting
plants of waterfowl value
habitat diversity/protection
open water for rest ing/feeding
open water for resting/feeding
open water for resting/feeding
open water during migrations
Page 7
-------
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions
TABLE 2-6
(continued)
Draft -- 7/15/91
Q3S.H
0
0*
0
OX
**
**
N
1
022.1.1
58
98%
59
66X
18.12
23.22
N
0
OB. 1
51
86X
51
57X
10.22
16.63
N
0
Q10.E
51
86X
48
54X
13.09
21.26
N
0
026.3
50
85*
43
48X
16.33
27.52
N
0
061
47
80%
41
46X
12.77
22.96
N
0
027.3
46
78X
40
45X
12.05
22.16
N
0
042.2.2
46
78X
36
40X
16.37
30.63
N
0
044. f
46
78X
39
44X
13.08
24.10
N
0
044. G
46
78X
32
36X
21.28
41.38
N
0
Q4B.C
41
69X
19
21X
30.27
77.60
N
0
09.1
40
68X
49
55X
-1.44
0.03
N
0
042.2.3
40
68X
30
34X
12.70
26.84
N
0
OS.1.1
35
59%
27
30X
8.41
19.61
N
0
025.2.8
34
58X
22
25X
12.50
30.50
N
0
025.3
32
54%
30
34X
2.30
7.29
N
0
030
32
54%
21
24%
10.65
26.89
N
0
015.2
31
53%
18
20%
12.89
34.35
N
0
022.1.2
27
46%
13
15%
13.62
42.08
N
0
013. C
25
42%
12
13X
11.95
38.37
N
0
045. C
19
32%
19
21%
-1.65
0.30
N
0
041.2
15
25%
7
8%
4.80
21.26
N
0
055.1
15
25%
5
6X
8.07
39.81
N
0
04.2B
14
24%
5
6%
6.56
32.66
N
0
013.Ca
14
24%
4
4%
8.45
47.01
N
0
021. B
14
24%
13
15%
-1.86
0.10
N
0
038.5
11
19%
3
3%
5.82
38.41
N
0
04.ZC
10
17%
5
6%
1.16
10.45
N
0
036.2.3
10
17%
7
8%
-0.96
2.88
N
0
Permanent Hydroperiod = artifically flooded nontidal''
AA contains a Channel?
Permanent inlet?
Estuarine?
Primary source of nutrients = channel flow?
DO limiting to fish?
Primary source of toxics = channel flow?
AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: 13.3 ft/sec
AA < 5X of watershed?
Primary source of sediment - channel flow?
Uetland stabilizes erosion?
Is AA subject to frequent Hunan disturbance?
Channel flow spreading?
AA contains a Sinuous channel?
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
Substrate: peat?
Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s?
Suspended Sol ids < 25 mg/l
1 -100 square mile watershed?
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and algal
Subwatershed dominant land cover: impervious?
mudflat > 5 acre or emergent veg > 5 acre £ other adjacent
100-2500 square mile watershed?
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
open water for resting/feeding
exclusive with 13.Cc
Note: H = High rating; LH = Low or Moderate Rating; ** = Stat\st\c rvot calculated due to zero democ\\rva\or Pa9i- 6
-------
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions
TABLE 2-7
Draft -- 7/15/91
General Uildlife
Chi-
Chi' -
In
High Draft
H
HX
ML
MIX
Test
Test
Key?
Ans
Rank
Surma ry
Reason
Total
22
126
015.1.C
9
41*
1
IX
44.00
445.81
Y
Y
3
Vegetation*-->Uater = checkerboard
high habitat diversity
02.1.3
6
27X
3
2X
16.48
54.81
Y
Y
3
Area > 200 acres?
protect ion/1 ess disturbance
02.2.2
2
9*
0
OX
7.77
**
N
3
Forested area > 40 acres ?
protect ion/1 ess disturbance
OH.2
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
N
3
AA on 2 acre island?
increases habitat diveristy
02.1.2
19
86X
24
19X
37.34
60.81
Y
Y
2
Area > 40 acres?
protect ion/1 ess distubance
029.1
18
82X
92
73X
-3.08
-2.97
Y
Y
2
Dense understory edge?
protection of terrestrial access
016.C
9
41X
2
2X
38.25
213.92
Y
Y
2
Vegetation class = mosaic
increases habitat diveristy
014.1
8
36X
3
2X
27.60
105.47
Y
Y
2
AA on 25 square foot island?
increases habitat diveristy
Q15.1.B
5
23X
57
45X
0.06
0.66
Y
Y
2
Vegetation*-->Uater = intermediate
increases habitat diversity
039
4
18X
6
5X
1.51
4.90
Y
Y
2
Special habitat features?
good wildlife habitats
017
2
9X
1
1X
2.65
15.40
N
2
Plant form richness
increases habitat diversity
021. A
0
OX
1
IX
-3.66
-3.66
N
2
Subwatershed dominant land cover: forest and scrub?
access of land species to wetland
022.1.1
22
100X
95
75X
3.01
3.34
N
1
AA contains a Channel?
highX/prov wildlife access/corridor
08.3
21
95X
94
75X
0.86
1.21
Y
Y
1
Permanent outlet?
flushing improves habitat quality
038.3
21
95X
120
95X
-3.84
-3.84
N
1
(estuarine/marine) or (fw palustrine/lacustrine) & other < 5 mi
high diversity of nearby habitats
044.C
21
95X
90
71X
1.93
2.38
N
1
5 in < secondary water depth <¦ 8 inches
highX/access for muskrat
044.D
21
95X
94
75X
0.86
1.21
N
1
9 in < secondary water depth < 20 inches
highX/access for muskrat
044.E
19
86X
80
63X
0.58
1.12
N
1
21 in < secondary uater depth < 39 inches
highX/access for muskrat
037
18
82X
51
40X
9.02
11.77
N
1
Open water (d>2ft,w>6ft,1>1000ft)?
high X/habitat diversity
08.1
17
77X
85
67X
-3.00
-2.88
Y
Y
1
Permanent inlet?
corridor for wildlife movements
036.1.2
12
55X
24
19X
8.98
14.14
N
1
Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
large vegetation habitat zone
012.Cc
8
36X
1
IX
37.65
349.69
Y
Y/N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
food for wiIdlife
046.C
8
36X
10
8X
10.33
20.49
Y
Y
1
Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
increases habitat diversity
013.Ca
7
32X
11
9X
5.51
10.88
Y*
Y
1
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and algal
food for wiIdlife
043.E
7
32X
11
9X
5.51
10.88
N
1
21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
highX/access for muskrat
013.Cc
6
27X
2
2X
20.33
89.07
Y*
Y
1
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
access for muskrat
016.8
6
27X
19
15X
-1.86
-1.29
Y
Y
1
Vegetation class = intermediate
increased habitat diversity
019.1.A
6
27X
21
17*
-2.43
-2.06
Y
Y
1
Wind shelter?
protection
038.5
6
27*
8
6X
5.73
12.36
Y
Y
1
mudflat > 5 acre or emergent veg » 5 acre & other adjacent
high diversity of nearby habitats
018
4
18X
10
8X
-1.54
•0.68
Y
Y
1
Upland<-->Uetland edge irregular?
protect ion/increased hab diversity
013.Ae
3
14X
0
OX
13.70
**
Y*
Y
1
Secondary veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
high diversity in habitat structure
013.Be
3
14X
3
Zt
2.26
8.15
Y*
Y
1
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
heterogeneity of plant structures
019.2
3
14X
2
2X
4.49
16.61
N
1
Wave protection?
shelter
038.1
3
14X
2
2X
4.49
16.61
Y
Y
1
Perm flood or seas flood & other < 1 mi
high diversity of nearby habitats
038.2
2
9X
2
2X
0.17
4.09
Y
Y
1
(nontidal with erect veg) or 1 acre hardwood & other < 0.5 mi
high diversity of nearby habitats
02.2.1
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
N
1
Forested area < 5 acres ?
increased habitat diversity
013.Ab
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Secondary veg: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
high diversity in habitat structure
013.Ac
0
OX
0
ox
*•
**
Y«
Y
1
Secondary veg: forested and broad-leaved evergreen
high diversity in habitat structure
013.Ad
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Secondary veg: forested and needle-leaved deciduous
high diversity in habitat structure
013.Bb
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved evergreen
high diversity in habitat structure
013.Bc
0
OX
0
ox
**
• •
Y*
Y
1
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved evergreen
high diversity in habitat structure
013.Bd
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved deciduous
high diversity in habitat structure
038.4
0
OX
0
ox
*•
**
Y
Y
1
mudflat or tidal scrub-shrub & other adjacent
high diversity of nearby habitats
038.6
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y
Y
1
agr/early succession or evergr forest>10 acres & other < 0.5 mi
high diversity of nearby habitats
066.1.1
22
100X
89
71X
4.77
5.31
N
0
Group 1 Uaterfowl Breeding present?
066.2.1
22
100X
98
78X
2.19
2.45
N
0
Uaterfowl Group 1 Hig/Uint present?
066.2.3
22
100X
100
79X
1.67
1.88
N
0
Black Duck Mig/Uint present?
030
17
77X
36
29X
15.49
21.73
N
0
Is AA subject to frequent Hunan disturbance?
044. f
17
77X
68
54X
0.32
0.97
N
0
40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
048. C
17
77X
43
34X
10.62
14.38
N
0
5.0 < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
Note: H = High rating; LM = low or Moderate Rating; ** = Statistic not calculated due to zero demoninator
Page 9
-------
Results of Chi-Square Analysts on Functions
TABLE 2-7
(cont inued)
Draft -- 7/15/91
044. G
16
73X
62
49X
0.32
1.03
N
0
5 feet < secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
050
16
73X
27
21X
20.07
30.55
Y
Y
0
Plants: waterfowl value?
not rel/waterfowl considered
025.2.B
15
68X
41
33X
6.28
8.89
N
0
Primary source of sediment = channel flow?
066.2.10
15
68X
44
35X
4.80
6.87
N
0
Geese Mig/Uint present?
013.C
14
64X
23
18X
16.73
26.53
Y
Y
0
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
exclusive with Q13.Ca+c
015.2
11
50X
38
30X
-0.51
0.27
N
0
Channel flow spreading?
031.6.a
11
5 OX
37
29X
-0.20
0.68
N
0
emergent in Zone B = OX of Zones B and C?
066.2.7
10
45X
25
20X
2.97
5.23
N
0
Bufflehead/Goldeneye Mig/Uint present?
04.2B
9
41X
10
8X
14.36
28.89
N
0
1 -100 square mile watershed?
08.2
9
41X
48
38X
-3.78
-3.77
Y
Y
0
Intermittent inlet?
retards movement of wildlife
031.4
9
41X
5
4X
26.00
74.94
N
0
Area of subntergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B + C?
012. C
8
36X
3
2X
27.60
105.47
N
0
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
exclusive with 012.Cc
032. J
8
36X
14
11X
5.60
10.36
N
0
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
09.2
7
32X
3
2X
21.92
78.18
N
0
Sheet flooding?
031.5
7
32X
70
56X
0.39
1.18
Y
Y
0
Area of Zone A >= 10X of Zone B and C?
gd trans edge between up and
045. B
7
32X
6
5X
13.27
31.67
N
0
Substrate: Muck?
034.3.1
6
27X
13
10X
0.97
3.00
N
0
Flooding due to downs Iope impoundment?
043.G
4
18X
5
4X
2.79
7.82
N
0
5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
043.1
4
18X
3
2X
6.54
19.79
N
0
dominant water depth > 26 feet
013.B
3
14X
4
3X
0.71
3.99
Y
Y
0
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub
exclusive with Q13.Cb-e
032.D
3
14X
2
2X
4.49
16.61
N
0
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = seasonally flooded nontidal?
08.4
1
5X
17
13X
-2.44
-2.33
Y
Y
0
Intermittent outlet?
retards movement of wildlife
Note: H = High rating; LM = Low or Moderate Rating; ** = Statistic not calculated due to zero demoninator Page 10
-------
TABLE 2-8
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions Draft -- 7/15/91
Nutrient Removal/Transformation Effectiveness
Chi-
Chi*-
In
High Draft
H
HX
ML
MLX
Test
Test
Key?
Ans
Rank
Summary
Reason
Total
102
46
02.2.2
2
zx
0
OX
-2.93
**
N
3
Forested area > 40 acres ?
large vegetated area for NRT
031.1
100
98X
38
83X
8.14
13.06
N
2
Area of Zone A ~ Zone B > Zone C?
large vegetated area for NRT
026.1
97
95X
45
98X
-3.23
-0.27
N
2
Nutrient source in buffer zone?
nutrient source present
026.2
B3
81X
26
57X
6.25
21.79
r
Y
2
Primary source of nutrients = sheetflow?
source of nutrients that spread out
025.2.A
72
71X
15
33X
15.03
63.11
N
2
Primary source of sediment - sheet flow?
nutrient source present
036.1.2
25
25X
11
24X
-3.83
-3.82
Y
Y
2
Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
large vegetated area for NRT
036.2.3
8
8X
9
20X
0.44
5.07
r
Y
2
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
large vegetated area for NRT
051.2
0
OX
1
2X
-1.61
-1.57
N
2
Plant productivity > 1500 g/sq.m/yr
high need for nutrients
041.1
101
99X
24
52X
49.17
85.87
r
Y
1
Peak flow velocity < 10 cm/s?
low velocity gives time for NRT
042.1.1
100
98X
45
98X
-3.83
-3.82
N
1
>1 acre or 10X of AA: 0Uater = solid form
veg present for nutrient absorption
033. J
47
46X
9
20X
5.63
41.72
Y
Y
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
nutrient import from Bay
05.1.2
42
41X
12
26X
-0.73
8.20
N
1
AA > 20X of watershed?
high prob. of nutrient imputs
031.6.c
40
39X
12
26X
-1.44
5.28
N
1
emergent in Zone B = 31X - 60* of Zones B arid C?
vegetation present for NRT
015.1.B
36
35X
26
57X
2.03
14.86
N
1
Vegetation*-->Uater = intermediate
ret flow/impr acc of plants to nutr
033. A
33
32X
1
2X
12.48
432.99
Y
Y
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
disperses nutrients/hab for phytopt
032. A
17
17X
1
2X
2.39
96.90
N
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
disperses nutrients/hab for phytopl
013.Cb
12
12X
0
OX
2.05
**
N
1
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
vegetation present for NRT
012.Cc
8
8X
1
2X
-2.06
11.58
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
vegetation present for NRT
015.1.C
7
7X
3
7X
-3.83
-3.82
N
1
Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
ret flow/impr acc of plants to nutr
024.2
5
5X
1
2X
-3.23
-0.27
Y
Y
1
Fine mineral soiIs?
important in WET
012.Ae
2
2X
0
OX
-2.93
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
vegetation present for NRT
012.Cb
2
2X
0
OX
-2.93
**
Y
Y
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
vegetation present for NRT
033.K
2
2X
0
OX
-2.93
**
Y
Y
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = irregularly flooded tidal?
nutrient import from Bay
012.Be
1
1X
0
OX
-3.39
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
vegetation present for NRT
02.2.1
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
N
1
Forested area < 5 acres ?
vegetation present for NRT
07
0
OX
0
OX
*•
**
Y
Y
1
v < 10 cm/s?
slow vel./improves time for NRT
012.Ab
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
vegetation present for NRT
012.Ac
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved evergreen
vegetation present for NRT
012.Ad
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved deciduous
vegetation present for NRT
012.Bb
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved evergreen
vegetation present for NRT
012.Be
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved evergreen
vegetation present for NRT
012.Bd
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved deciduous
vegetation present for NRT
012.Ca
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and algal
vegetation present for NRT
012.Cd
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and aquatic moss
vegetation present for NRT
012.0b
0
ox
0
ox
*•
*«
N
1
Dominant veg: Emergent and non-persistent
vegetation present for NRT
024.1
0
ox
0
ox
*•
**
Y
Y
1
Aliminun in soiI?
important in WET
040.2
100
98X
39
85X
5-91
10.05
N
0
Bottom water > 21 degrees C?
038.3
99
97X
42
91X
-1.51
0.41
N
0
(estuarine/marine) or (fw palustrine/lacustrine) & other < 5 mi
027.2
89
87X
30
65X
5.93
18.00
N
0
Primary source of toxics = sheetflow?
045.D
73
72X
23
50X
2.63
15.14
N
0
Substrate: sand?
026.3
55
54X
38
83X
7.33
54.59
Y
Y
0
Primary source of nutrients = channel flow?
nutr in channel tend to flow out
046.A
47
46X
14
30X
-0.64
7.95
N
0
Physical Habitat Interspersion = uniform
Q10.B
43
42X
5
11X
10.32
99.22
N
0
Palustrine?
048.B
38
37X
9
20X
0.74
16.44
N
0
0.5 « Salinity < 5.0 ppt
034.1
35
34X
6
13X
3.32
36.85
N
0
Local dams?
Note: H = High rating; LM = Low or Moderate Rating; ** = Statistic not calculated due to zero demoninator pagt. 11
-------
TABLE 2-8
(cont inued)
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions Draft -- 7/15/91
04.2A
34
33X
9
20X
-0.92
8.45
N
0
< 1 square mile watershed?
02.1.1
32
31X
8
17X
-0.70
10.04
N
0
Area < 5 acres?
024.4
31
30X
6
13X
1.25
23.23
N
0
Slow percolation in watershed?
013.C
28
27X
9
20X
-2.79
0.19
N
0
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
exclusive with Q13.Cb
043.0
27
26X
8
17X
-2.39
2.01
N
0
9 in < dominant water depth < 20 inches
038.7
25
25X
6
13X
-1.32
7.98
N
0
semiperra, seas flood or perm flood/intermit
exposed & others<1 mi
048. A
25
25X
2
4X
4.80
95.86
N
0
Salinity < 0.5 ppt
036.2.2
24
24X
5
11X
-0.61
13.03
N
0
Avg width of robust erect veg (d<0.5 heigt)
in Zone B <20 feet?
019.1.A
21
21X
6
13X
-2.63
1.28
N
0
Wind shelter?
034.3.1
16
16X
3
7X
-1.46
10.21
N
0
Flooding due to downsIope impoundnent?
043.C
14
14X
2
4X
-0.95
17.73
N
0
5 in < dwd < 8 inches
018
12
12X
2
4X
-1.80
9.65
N
0
Upland<-->Uetland edge irregular?
032. E
11
11X
1
2X
-0.69
31.72
N
0
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = saturated nontidal?
09.2
10
10X
0
OX
1.00
•*
Y
Y/N
0
Sheet flooding?
012.C
10
10X
1
2X
-1.16
24.08
N
0
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
exclusive with 012.Ca-d
016.C
10
10X
1
2X
-1.16
24.08
N
0
Vegetation class = mosaic
033.E
4
4X
0
OX
-1.99
**
Y
Y
0
Permanent Hydroperiod - saturated nontidal?
no surf wat to transp nutr to plants
017
3
3X
0
OX
-2.46
**
Y
Y
0
Plant form richness
veg div not imp in NRT just pres/abs
Hote: H - High rating; LM = Lou or Moderate Dating; ** - Statistic not calculated due to zero demon mat or
Page 1?
-------
TABLE 2-9
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions
Draft -- 7/15/91
Production Export
Chi -
Chi •-
In
High Draft
M
MX
L
LX
Test
Test Key?
Ans
Rank
Sunmary
Reason
Total
124
24
026.1
119
96X
23
96X
-3.84
-3.85
N
3
Nutrient source in buffer zone?
stimulates production for export
08.3
113
91X
2
8X
75.72
1108.93
r
Y
3
Permanent outlet?
makes continuous export possible
042.2.3
67
54X
3
13X
10.07
191.72
N
3
AAs within 1 mi*20 day fish access: v>3.3 ft/sec
high vel to transport out of wetland
057.2
2
2X
0
OX
-3.45
**
Y
Y
3
Probable Eutrophic condition
stimulates productivity for export
051.2
1
1X
0
OX
-3.65
**
r
Y
3
Plant productivity > 1500 g/sq.m/yr
high primary productivity
031.6.d
0
OX
1
4X
1.36
1.55
M
3
emergent in Zone B = 61X - 99X of Zones B and C?
Irg area of PP w/ acc to wat for exp
022.1.1
109
88X
8
33X
32.32
162.33
Y
Y
AA contains a Channel?
facilitates export of organic matter
042.2.2
79
64X
3
13X
17.50
293.47
N
2
AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: 1 500 feet?
Irg area of PP w/ acc to wat for exp
036.2.3
17
14X
0
OX
-0.12
**
N
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
Irg area of PP w/ acc to wat for exp
046. C
17
14X
1
4X
-2.13
24.44
M
2
Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
PP access to water for export
042.2.1
120
97X
18
75X
11.29
27.51
N
1
AAs within 1 «ii+20 day fish access: 0 Zone C?
vegetation present for PP
066.2.3
111
90X
11
46X
22.66
91.47
N
1
Black Duck Mig/Uint present?
high X ~ grazing ducks export PP
012.Da
110
89X
23
96X
-2.72
11.92
N
1
Dominant veg: Emergent and persistent
vegetation present for PP
031.2
103
83X
17
71X
-1.88
5.14
Y
Y
1
Area of Zone B > 10X of AA?
area of PP w/ acc to wat for export
066.1.1
100
81X
11
46X
9.16
56.69
N
1
Group 1 Waterfowl Breeding present?
breeding waterfowl feed ~ export PP
031.3
97
78X
15
63X
-1.14
9.24
N
1
Area of Zone B > Zone A?
area of PP w/ acc to wat for export
029.1
95
77X
15
63X
-1.74
6.70
N
1
Dense understory edge?
area of PP with acc to wat for exp
010.E
91
73X
8
33X
10.73
85.68
Y
Y
1
Estuarine?
high X ~ tide cortd facilitate export
037
67
54X
2
8X
13.03
335.16
N
1
Open water (d>2ft,u>6ft,l>1000ft)?
area for phytopl PP/easy export
023
63
51X
7
29X
-0.06
24.27
N
1
Is the AA Channelized?
faciIitates export
046.B
60
48X
7
29X
-0.84
18.33
N
1
Physical Habitat Interspersion = intermediate
PP access to water for export
015.1.B
56
45X
6
25X
-0.48
23.04
N
1
Vegetation<--»Uater = intermediate
PP access to water for export
066.2.10
54
44X
5
21X
0.49
34.95
N
1
Geese Mig/Uint present?
grazers export PP
033.J
53
43X
3
13X
3.98
99.85
N
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
tidal conditions facilitate export
015.2
48
39X
1
4X
6.99
366.70
Y
Y
1
Channel flow spreading?
important in WET
02.1.2
42
34X
1
4X
4.77
270.16
N
1
Area > 40 acres?
large area for PP to take place
031.6.b
34
27X
1
4X
2.18
164.06
N
1
emergent in Zone B = 1X - 30X of Zones B and C?
area of PP w/ acc to wat for export
041.2
22
18X
0
OX
1.16
**
Y
N
1
Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s?
high velocities facilitates export
032. J
19
15X
3
13X
-3.71
-2.94
N
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
tidal conditions faciIitate export
013.Ca
18
15X
0
OX
0.13
**
Y*
N
1
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and algal
vegetation present for PP
011
17
14X
0
ox
-0.12
**
Y
Y
1
Fringe or island wetland?
Terrestrial PP accessible to water
031.4
12
10X
2
8X
-3.80
-3.55
Y
Y
1
Area of submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
area of PP w/ acc to wat for export
012.Cc
9
7X
0
OX
-1.99
**
V*
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
vegetation present for PP
015.1.C
9
7X
1
4X
-3.53
-0.87
N
1
Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
PP access to water for export
032. K
5
4X
2
8X
-3.01
-0.84
N
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly flooded tidal?
tidal conditions facilitate export
012.Ae
2
2X
0
OX
-3.45
**
Y*
N
1
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
vegetation present for PP
012.Be
1
IX
0
OX
-3.65
**
Y«
N
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
vegetation present for PP
012.Cb
1
IX
1
4X
-2.14
-0.33
Y*
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
vegetation present for PP
012.Ab
0
ox
0
OX
**
**
Y*
N
1
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
vegetation present for PP
012.Ac
0
ox
0
OX
**
**
Y*
N
1
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved evergreen
vegetation present for PP
012.Ad
0
ox
0
OX
**
**
Y*
N
1
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved deciduous
vegetation present for PP
012.Bb
0
ox
0
OX
**
**
Y*
N
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved evergreen
vegetation present for PP
012.Be
0
ox
0
OX
**
**
Y*
N
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrii) and broad-leaved evergreen
vegetation present for PP
012.Bd
0
ox
0
ox
**
**
Y*
N
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrUi and needle-leaved deciduous
vegetation present for PP
012.Ca
0
ox
0
ox
**
**
Y*
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and algat
vegetation present for PP
Note: H
= High rating; LM
= Low or Moderate Rating
. **
= Stat
stic not calculated due to zero demoninator
Page 1
-------
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on functions
TABLE. 2-9,.
(continued)
Draft -• 7/15/91
012.Cd
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
T*
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and aquatic moss
012.Db
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
N
1
Dominant veg: Emergent and non-persistent
035.1
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y
Y
1
Does AA expand 3x+ > 25 days?
047. A
120
97X
20
83X
3.26
12.29
N
0
6.0 < pH < 8;5
058
109
88X
15
63X
5.71
30.30
N
0
High Coliform?
066.2.1
109
88X
11
46X
19.36
84.56
N
0
Uaterfowl Group 1 Mig/Uint present?
044.B
104
84X
17
71X
-1.55
6.36
N
0
1 in < secondary water depth < 4 inches
044. D
104
84X
11
46X
12.95
68.43
N
0
9 in < secondary water depth < 20 inches
08.1
101
81X
1
4X
52.23
1851.00
N
0
Permanent inlet?
044. C
100
81X
11
46X
9.16
56.69
N
0
5 in < secondary Mater depth < 8 inches
044. E
93
75*
6
25X
18.86
161.49
N
0
21 in < secondary Mater depth < 39 inches
026.3
91
73X
2
8X
32.60
683.13
N
0
Primary source of nutrients * channel floM?
09.1
86
69X
3
13X
23.27
362.63
N
0
Outlet < one third average width?
027.3
84
68X
2
8X
25.31
569.07
N
0
Primary source of toxics = channel floM?
061
84
68X
4
17X
17.92
229.06
N
0
DO limiting to fish?
044.F
81
65X
4
17X
15.63
207.52
N
0
40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
044.G
76
61X
2
8X
18.78
451.40
N
0
5 feet < secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
044.H
76
61X
2
8X
18.78
451.40
N
0
6.5 feet < secondary Mater depth < 26 feet
029.2
72
58X
9
38X
-0.41
18.53
N
0
Buffer zone slopes < 5X?
OS.2
68
55X
6
25X
3.32
55.04
N
0
tips I ope wet depressions > 5X of Matershed?
05.1.1
61
49X
1
4X
12.91
625.75
N
0
AA < 5X of Matershed?
048.C
60
48X
0
OX
15.69
**
N
0
5.0 < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
025.3
59
48X
3
13X
6.33
135.68
N
0
Wetland stabilizes erosion?
025.2.B
55
44X
1
4X
9.97
497.71
N
0
Primary source of sediment = channel flow?
08.2
54
44X
3
13X
4.35
105.45
N
0
Intermittent inlet?
030
50
40X
3
13X
2.93
83.92
N
0
Is AA subject to frequent Human disturbance?
022.1.2
39
31X
1
4X
3.75
227.35
N
0
AA contains a Sinuous channel?
034.1
39
31X
2
8X
1.53
82.92
Y
N
0
Local dams?
044.1
39
31X
1
4X
3.75
227.35
N
0
secondary water depth > 26 feet
05.1.2
38
31X
16
67X
7.42
68.56
Y
Y
0
AA > 20X of watershed?
013.C
34
27X
3
13X
-1.45
21.40
Y
N
0
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
045. C
34
27X
4
17X
-2.62
6.48
N
0
Substrate: peat?
010.B
33
27X
15
63X
7.98
64.30
Y
Y
0
Palustrine?
066.2.7
33
27X
2
8X
-0.12
50.40
N
0
Buff1ehead/Goldeneye Mig/Uint present?
021. B
27
22X
0
ox
2.55
**
N
0
Subwatershed dominant land cover: impervious?
066.2.5
26
21X
2
8X
-1.75
22.07
N
0
Mergansers Mig/Uint present?
016.B
23
19X
2
8X
-2.35
13.10
N
0
Vegetation class = intermediate
055.1
20
16X
0
OX
0.64
**
N
0
Suspended Solids < 25 mg/l
04.2B
18
15X
1
4X
-1.92
29.42
Y
N
0
1 -100 square mile watershed?
08.4
18
15X
0
OX
0.13
**
Y
Y
0
Intermittent outlet?
034.3.1
18
15X
1
4X
-1.92
29.42
N
0
Flooding due to downslope impourx±nent?
043. E
18
15X
0
OX
0.13
**
N
0
21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
04.2C
15
12X
0
OX
-0.61
**
N
0
100-2500 square mile watershed?
043.C
15
12X
1
4X
-2.53
15.69
M
0
5 in < dwd < 8 inches
038.5
14
11X
0
OX
-0.85
**
N
0
mudflat > 5 acre or emergent veg > 5 acre & other adjacent
010.0
5
4X
0
OX
-2.84
**
Y
Y
0
Riverine tidal?
055.2
2
2X
0
OX
-3.45
**
Y
Y
0
Suspended Solids > 80 mg/l
07
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
Y
0
v < 10 cm/s?
010. A
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y
Y
0
Lacustrine?
010.C
0
OX
0
OX
**
#*
Y
Y
0
Riverine nontidal?
010.F
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y
Y
0
Marine?
056.2
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y
Y
0
Morphedaphic index < 7 or > 35 ?
vegetation present for PP
vegetation present for PP
flood acc Irg areas of PP for export
watershed not important in PP
exclusive with 013.Ca
PP not dependent on hydro category
intermittent outlet retards expert
PP not dependent on hydro category
SS not related to export
stow velocity retards export
PP not dependent on hydro category
PP not dependent on hydro category
PP not dependent on hydro category
not answered in WET for Meadowlandb
Note: H = High rating; LM = Low or Moderate Rating; " = Statistic not calculated due to zero demoninator
Page K
-------
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on functions
TABLE 2-10
Draft
7/15/91
Sediment Stabilization Effectiveness
Chi-
Ch i * -
In
High
Draft
H
H*
ML
ML*
Test
Test
Key?
Ans
Rank
Suimary
Reason
Total
84
64
042.1.1
84
100*
61
95*
0.18
0.29
N
3
>1 acre or 10% of AA: 0 10% of AA?
aquatic vegetation traps sediments
015.1.B
35
42*
27
42*
-3.84
-3.83
N
2
Vegetation<-->Water = intermediate
heterogeneous env promotes settling
031.6.c
34
40*
18
28*
-1.41
2.50
N
2
emergent in Zone B = 31X - 60% of Zones B and C7
aquatic vegetation traps sediments
022.1.2
28
33*
12
19*
0.08
7.89
N
2
AA contains a Sinuous channel?
implies slow vel/promotes settling
036.1.2
28
33*
8
13*
4.72
29.49
N
2
Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
aquatic vegetation traps sediments
046. C
13
15*
5
8*
-1.84
3.01
N
2
Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
ptiys env promotes sediment trapping
032.A
10
12*
8
13*
-3.83
-3.81
N
2
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = perm flooded nonttdal?
implies slow vel/promotes settling
015.1.C
8
10*
2
3*
-1.48
7.52
N
2
Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
heterogeneous env promotes settling
055.4
0
0*
2
3*
-1.18
-1.13
N
2
Suspended Solids > 4000 mg/l
source of material for SS
031.1
79
94*
59
92*
3.64
-3.44
Y
N
1
Area of Zone A ~ Zone B > Zone C?
veg acts to stabilize sediments
044.B
77
92*
44
69*
8.95
16.69
N
1
1 in < secondary water depth < 4 inches
shall d in tid areas promote trap
022.1.1
76
90*
41
64*
11.46
21.62
Y
Y
1
AA contains a Channel7
important in WET
08.1
64
76*
38
59X
0.95
6.01
N
1
Permanent inlet?
no obstr to source ot sedinient
09.1
61
73*
28
44*
8.79
24.61
N
1
Outlet < one third average width?
reduced outflow/promotes settling
023
61
73*
9
14*
46.13
234.49
Y
Y
1
Is the AA Channelized?
high X/import ant in WET
025.3
51
61*
11
17*
24.43
107.97
Y
Y
1
Wetland stabilizes erosion7
indicat ive of SS
044.G
47
56*
31
48*
-3.02
1.94
N
1
5 feet <• secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
deep wat allows trap of sol/low vol
044. H
47
56*
31
48*
3.02
1.94
N
1
6.5 feet < secondary water depth < 26 feet
deep wat allows trap ot sol/low vel
046.B
45
54*
22
34*
1.56
9.88
N
1
Physical Habitat Interspersion = intermediate
pfiys env promotes sediment trapping
037
44
52*
25
39*
-1.25
2.42
N
1
Open water (d>2ft,w>6ft,I>1000ft)?
implies slow vel/promotes settling
025.2.B
37
44*
19
30*
-0.66
4.46
N
1
Primary source of sediment = channel flow7
important in WET
030
35
42*
18
28*
-0.94
3.78
N
1
Is AA subject to frequent Hunan disturbance7
high chance of sediment coming in
043. B
32
38*
12
19*
2.67
16.79
N
1
1 in < dominant water depth < 4 inches
shall d in tid areas promote trap
044.1
J 2
MX
n
13X
8.23
46.47
N
1
secondary water depth > 26 feet
deep wat allows trap ot sol/low vol
02.1.2
29
35*
14
22*
1.02
4.02
N
1
Area > 40 acres?
large area tor SS and trapping
031.6.b
26
31*
9
14*
1.90
15.99
N
1
emergent in Zone B = 1X - 30X of Zones B and C7
aquatic vegetation traps sediments
034.3.1
15
18*
4
6*
0.53
15.47
N
1
Flooding due to downslope impoundment7
prevents outf1ow/traps sedimnents
036.2.2
12
14*
17
27X
-0.37
2.65
N
1
Avg width of robust erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B >-Z0 feet7
sediment trapping along edges
036.2.3
12
14*
5
8X
-2.34
1.05
N
1
Avg width of erect veg (d^O.5 heigt) in Zone B > S00 feet7
aquatic vegetation traps sediments
031.4
8
10*
6
9*
-3.84
3.84
N
1
Area ot submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
sediment trapping along edges
08.4
7
8*
11
17*
1.17
0.79
N
1
Intermittent outlet?
impaired outflow/better sed trapping
019.1.B
6
7*
2
3*
-2.69
0.64
Y
Y
1
Wind shelter ~ fetch?
protection from resuspension
043.H
6
7*
8
13*
2.62
1.64
N
1
6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
deep wat allows trap ot sol/low vet
019.2
5
6*
0
OX
0.10
••
Y
Y
1
Wave protection?
protects from ressupension
043.G
4
5*
5
8X
3.25
-2.75
N
1
5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
deep wat allows trap of sol/low vel
012.Cc
3
4*
6
9*
-1.70
0.51
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
veg acts to stabilize sediments
012.Ae
2
2*
0
0*
2.30
* *
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
Irg plants pres to stabilize sed
012.Be
1
1*
0
0*
-3.07
* 1200 mg/l
source of sediments to wetland
012.Ab
0
OX
0
OX
• •
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
Irg plants pres to stabilize sed
012.Ac
0
0*
0
0*
4k*
1*
Y
1
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved evergreen
Irg plants pres to stabilize sed
012.Ad
0
ox
0
ox
* «
* *
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved deciduous
Irg plants pres to stabilize sed
012.Bb
0
ox
0
ox
« *
« A
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: Scrub shrub and needle leaved evergreen
Irg plants pres to stabilize sed
Mote: H = High rating; IM - Low or Moderate Rating; ** = Statistic not calmlated duo to zero demomnator
rage is
-------
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions
TABLE 2-10
(cont inued)
Draft -• 7/15/91
012.Be
0
0*
0
ox
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved evergreen
012.Bd
0
OX
0
0%
• *
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved deciduous
012.Ca
0
OX
0
ox
**
**
Y*
Y
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and algal
043.1
0
OX
7
11X
5.80
6.48
N
1
dominant water depth > 26 feet
027.1
64
100X
60
94X
1.56
1.76
N
0
Toxic source in buffer zone?
040.2
83
99X
56
88X
4.29
5.98
N
0
Bottom water > 21 degrees C?
066.2.1
75
89X
45
70X
4.68
10.65
N
0
Waterfowl Group 1 Mig/Uint present'
066.2.3
75
89X
47
73X
2.46
6.98
N
0
Black Duck Mig/Uint present?
08.3
72
86X
43
67X
3.36
9.24
N
0
Permanent outlet?
066.1.1
69
82X
42
66X
1.45
6.32
N
0
Gi'oup 1 Waterfowl Breeding present?
045.D
60
71X
36
56X
-0.17
4.02
N
0
Substrate: sarvd?
026.3
59
70X
34
53X
0.72
6.04
N
0
Primary source of nutrients = channel flow?
027.3
57
68X
29
45X
3.74
13.39
N
0
Primary source of toxics = channel flow?
05.2
52
62X
22
34X
7.17
24.38
N
0
Upslope wet depressions > 5X of watershed?
066.2.10
26
31X
33
52X
2.60
10.45
N
0
Geese Mig/Wint present?
038.7
21
25X
10
16X
-1.91
1.76
N
0
seroiperm, seas flood or perm flood/intermit exposed & others<1 mi
066.2.5
20
24X
8
13X
-0.81
5.98
N
0
Mergansers Mig/Uint present?
066.2.7
20
24X
15
23X
-3.84
-3.83
N
0
Bufflehead/Goldeneye Mig/Wint present?
0A8.A
19
23X
8
13X
-1.35
4.02
N
0
Salinity < 0.5 ppt
041.2
16
1VX
6
9X
-1.15
5.41
Y
Y
0
Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s?
04.2B
15
18X
4
6X
0.53
15.47
N
0
1 -100 square mile watershed?
018
10
12X
4
6X
-2.48
0.74
N
0
Upland<-->Wetlar>d edge irregular?
032. E
10
12X
2
3X
-0.08
17.55
N
0
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = saturated nontidal?
039
10
12X
0
OX
4.33
**
N
0
Special habitat features?
012. C
4
5X
7
11X
-1.83
-0.55
Y
Y
0
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
022.3
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
Y
0
Evidence of Long term erosion?
034.2
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
Y
0
Upstream impoundnent?
045.F
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
Y
Y
0
Substrate: rubble?
Irg plants pres to stabilize sed
Irg plants pres to stabilize sed
veg acts to stabilize sediments
deep wat allows trap of sol/low vel
limits sediment setting
exclusive with Q12.Ca-c
indicates sediment destabiIization
prevents sediments from reaching AA
All 148 AA's answered NO
Mote: H = High rating; LM - Lou or Moderate Rating; ** r Sf&tistic not calculated due to zero demonmator
Pdyc 16
-------
TABLE 2-11
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions Draft -- 7/15/91
Sediment/Toxicant Retention Effectiveness
Chi-
Chi ¦ -
In
Hi gh
Draft
H
HX
HI
MLX
Test
Test
Key?
Ans
Rank
Sunmary
Reason
Total
71
77
041.1
64
90%
61
79X
-0.48
1.30
r
Y
3
Peak flow velocity < 10 cm/s?
low velocity = better sedimentation
025.2.A
47
66X
40
52X
-0.74
1.94
Y
NH
3
Primary source of sediment = sheet flow?
sprd & trap toxic sed over Irg area
038.7
20
28X
11
14X
0.46
7.34
N
3
semiperm, seas flood or perm flood/intermit exposed & others<1 miinterm flow through=better trapping
09.2
10
14X
0
OX
7.79
**
v
Y/N
3
Sheet flooding?
sprd t trap toxic sed over Irg area
031.6.d
1
IX
0
OX
-2.75
**
N
3
emergent in Zone B = 61X - 99X of Zones B and C?
large area of veg to act as trap
027.1
70
99X
74
96X
-2.97
-2.67
N
2
Toxic source in buffer zone?
sources of toxics to wetland
012.0a
59
83X
74
96X
3.02
28.23
r
Y
2
Dominant veg: Emergent and persistent
vegetation acts as trap for sed
027.2
59
83X
60
78X
-3.21
-2.73
N
2
Primary source of toxics = sheetflow?
sources of toxics to wetland
027.3
30
42X
56
73X
10.25
29.40
N
2
Primary source of toxics = channel flow?
sources of toxics to wetlands
034.1
26
37X
15
19X
1.58
9.46
N
2
Local dams?
retard flow vel/irtcr sedimentation
031.6.c
23
32X
29
38X
-3.39
-3.00
N
2
emergent in Zone B = 31X - 60X of Zones B and C?
vegetation acts as trap for sediment
015.1 .B
21
30X
41
53X
4.66
12.14
N
2
Vegetation*-->Uater = intermediate
retards flow and acts as sed trap
034.3.1
17
24X
2
3X
11.20
124.04
y
Y
2
Flooding due to downsI ope inpouncinent?
retard flow velocity during flooding
045. C
12
17X
26
34X
1.67
5.19
N
2
Substrate: peat?
adsorbs certain toxics
031.4
11
15X
3
4X
1.96
21.66
r
Y
2
Area of sufcmergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
large area of veg to act as trap
015.1.C
7
10X
3
4X
-1.76
2.90
N
2
Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
retards flow and acts as sed trap
046. C
7
10X
11
14X
-3.16
-2.70
N
2
Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
retards flow and acts as sed trap
055.4
0
OX
2
3X
-1.97
-1.95
N
2
Suspended Solids > 4000 mg/l
indicates heavy sed loading/poss tox
064
0
OX
0
OX
**
**
y
Y
2
Total Suspended Solids at inlet > outlet?
indicates settling of SS occurs
042.1.1
69
97X
76
99X
-3.41
-2.56
V
Y
1
>1 acre or 10X of AA: 0 500 feet?
vegetation acts as trap for sediment
024.4
30
42X
7
9X
17.83
90.64
N
1
Slow percolation in watershed?
bett chance of tox reaching wetland
046.B
27
38X
40
52X
-0.95
1.67
N
1
Physical Habitat Interspersion = intermediate
interspersion acts to trap sediments
02.1.2
25
35X
18
23X
-1.33
1.71
N
1
Area > 40 acres?
large area for trapping
036.2.1
25
35X
19
25X
-1.88
0.40
y
NH
1
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B < 20 feet?
some submerged veg to act as trap
030
24
34X
29
38X
-3.60
-3.39
N
1
Is AA subject to frequent Hunan disturbance?
high probability of toxics present
033.A
24
34X
10
13X
5.21
23.38
N
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
flood implies low vel/sed settling
036.2.2
18
25X
11
14X
-0.97
3.26
N
1
Avg width of robust erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B <20 feet?
veg acts as trap for sediments
022.1.2
17
24X
23
30X
-3.18
-2.65
N
1
AA contains a Sinuous channel?
slows flow velocity/traps sediments
036.2.3
15
21X
2
3X
8.63
92.51
N
1
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
veg acts as trap for sediments
019.1.A
14
20X
13
17X
-3.64
-3.43
y
Y
1
Uind shelter?
prov quiescent zones for settling
032. A
13
18X
5
6X
0.99
12.49
N
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod - perm flooded nontidal7
implies low vet/allows for settling
031.6.b
11
15X
24
31X
1.19
4.29
N
1
emergent in Zone B = IX - 30X of Zones B and C?
vegetation acts as trap for sediment
045.B
9
13X
4
5X
-1.26
4.23
N
1
Substrate: Muck?
sediment type that binds toxics
08.4
8
11X
10
13X
-3.74
-3.65
Y
Y/N
1
Intermittent outlet?
restricted outflow=better trapping
013. Cb
8
11X
4
5X
-2.01
1.48
N
1
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
vegetation acts as trap for sed
043. A
8
11X
1
IX
2.59
51.21
y
N
1
Dominant Water Depth < 1 inch
slows flow velocity/traps sediments
012.Cc
6
8X
3
4X
-2.50
0.09
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
vegetation acts as trap for sed
024.2
6
8X
0
OX
2.94
**
N
1
Fine mineral soils?
sediment type that binds toxics
019.2
4
6X
1
IX
-1.71
6.57
y
Y
1
Uave protection?
prov quiescent zones for settling
043.1
3
4X
4
5X
-3.76
-3.70
N
1
dominant water depth > 26 feet
deep water=slow vel/better trapping
012.Cb
2
3X
0
OX
-1.64
**
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
vegetation acts as trap for sed
043.H
2
3X
12
16X
3.19
4.96
N
1
6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
deep water=slow vel/better trapping
055.3
1
1X
2
3X
-3.58
-3.44
N
1
Suspended Solids > 1200 mg/l
high SS=better chance of tox loading
07
0
OX
0
OX
• *
**
y
Y
1
v < 10 cm/s?
slow vel=better sed of SS bound tox
012.Ca
0
ox
0
OX
**
**
N
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and algal
vegetation acts as trap for sed
045. A
0
ox
2
3X
-1.97
-1.95
N
1
Substrate: mud?
sediment type that binds toxics
03.2
66
93X
60
78X
2.76
5.49
N
0
Cluster wetland?
045.D
51
72X
45
58X
-0.93
1.40
N
0
Substrate: sand?
Note: H = High rating; LH = Low or Moderate Rating; ** = Statistic not calculated due to zero demomnator
fajc 1<
-------
TABLE 2-11
(cont inued)
Results of Chi-Square Analysis on Functions Draft -- 7/15/91
ai5.i.A
43
61X
33
43%
0.80
5.25
N
0
Vegetation<-->Uater = solid form
alO.B
38
54*
10
13X
23.86
99.39
N
0
Palustrine?
046.A
35
49%
26
34X
-0.16
3.82
N
0
Physical Habitat Interspersion = uniform
05.1.2
30
42*
24
31X
-1.88
0.23
U
0
AA > 20% of watershed?
031.6.3
29
41X
19
25X
0.57
6.15
r
H
0
emergent in Zone B = OX of Zones B and C?
02.1.1
23
32X
17
22X
-1.85
0.55
N
0
Area < 5 acres?
048. A
21
30X
6
8%
7.91
43.06
N
0
Salinity < 0.5 ppt
04.2B
13
18X
6
8%
-0.19
7.09
N
0
1 -100 square mile watershed?
032. E
10
14X
2
3X
2.70
33.19
N
0
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = saturated nontidal?
032.G
10
14X
4
5X
-0.43
7.55
N
0
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = intermit flooded nontidal?
039
9
13X
1
1X
3.75
67.86
N
0
Special habitat features?
012. C
8
11X
3
4X
-0.92
6.46
N
0
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
016. C
8
11X
3
4X
-0.92
6.46
N
0
Vegetation class = mosaic
019.3
8
11X
1
IX
2.59
51.21
N
0
Upland habitat Mind shelter?
exclusive with Q12.Ca-c
Note: H s High rating; IN - Low or Moderate Rating; ** = Statistic not calculated due to zero demoninator
Page 18
-------
KEY FOR TABLES 2-12 THROUGH 2-21
Met = Number of Assessment Areas that net the AVID Criterion, and ansvered "Yes" to the specified
question.
MetZ = Percent of Assessment Areas that met the AVID Criterion that ansvered "Yes" to the specified
question.
Not = Number of Assessment Area that did not meet the AVID Criterion, and ansvered "Yes" to the
specified question.
NotZ = Percent of Assessment Areas that did not meet the AVID Criterion that ansvered "Yes" to the
specified question.
Chi = Chi-square score for Hypothesis 1
Chi-Test = Chi-square score (Hypothesis 1) minus critical Chi-square value (3.84 at 95Z confidence)
Hypothesis 1 = Distribution of ansvers for AAs meeting the AVID Criterion equal to distribution of
ansvers for all AAs.
Chi' = Chi-square score for Hypothesis 2
Chi'-Test = Chi-square score (Hypothesis 2) minus critical Chi-square value (3.84 at 95Z confidence)
Hypothesis 2 = Distribution of ansvers for AAs meeting the AVID Criterion equal to distribution of
ansvers for AAs not meeting the AVID Criterion.
Summary = Short mnemonic description summarizing the VET question.
-------
Draft -07/30/91
AVID1
Met
MetX
Not
NotX
Chi
Chi-Test
Chi •
TOTAL
39
109
042.2.1
39
100X
99
91X
3.84
-0.00
3.94
022.1.1
35
90X
82
75X
3.65
-0.19
4.41
08.3
35
90X
80
73X
4.43
0.59
5.34
O10.E
35
90X
64
59X
12.49
8.65
15.49
044. C
34
87X
77
71X
4.19
0.35
5.14
044. E
34
87X
65
60X
9.84
6.00
12.29
08.1
32
82X
70
64X
4.26
0.42
5.40
044. F
31
79X
54
50X
10.54
6.70
13.99
048. C
31
79X
29
27X
33.32
29.48
55.85
044. G
30
77X
48
44X
12.46
8.62
17.12
044. H
30
77X
48
44%
12.46
8.62
17.12
042.2.2
29
74X
53
49X
7.70
3.86
10.34
061
28
72X
60
55X
3.34
-0.50
4.42
05.2
27
69X
47
43X
7.63
3.99
10.84
037
27
69X
42
39X
10. B8
7.04
15.52
025.2.B
27
69X
29
27X
22.19
18.35
36.29
042.2.3
26
67X
44
40X
7.97
4.13
11.21
02.1.2
26
67X
17
16X
36.34
32.50
77.27
030
25
64X
28
26X
18.44
14.60
30.15
025.3
24
62*
38
35X
8.40
4.56
12.22
066.2.7
22
56X
13
12%
31.48
27.64
73.47
05.1.!
21
54X
41
38X
3.11
-0.73
4.38
066.2.10
21
54X
38
35X
4.32
0.48
6.19
066.2.5
19
49X
9
8X
30.65
26.81
84.28
044.1
18
46X
22
202
9.82
5.98
16.33
045. C
18
46X
20
18X
11.64
7.80
20.13
041.2
18
46X
4
4X
40.96
37.12
199.12
033.1
16
41X
28
26X
3.23
-0.61
4.81
050
16
41X
27
25X
3.68
-0.16
5.53
036.1.2
16
41X
20
18X
8.02
4.18
13.39
022.1.2
15
38X
25
23X
3.51
-0.33
5.32
031.6.b
15
38X
20
18X
6.44
2.60
10.53
013. C
14
36X
23
21X
3.35
-0.49
5.13
04.2C
14
36X
1
1X
38.59
34.75
524.97
032. J
12
31%
10
9X
10.58
6.74
21.83
043. H
11
28X
3
3X
21.73
17.89
94.40
043. E
9
23X
9
8X
5.91
2.07
11.31
046. C
9
23X
9
8X
5.91
2.07
11.31
015.1.C
9
23X
1
IX
22.39
18.55
210.68
04.28
8
21X
11
10X
2.79
-1.05
4.67
011
8
21X
9
8X
4.24
0.40
7.73
Q14.1
8
21*
3
3X
13.17
9.33
45.96
016.C
8
21X
3
3X
13.17
9.33
45.96
Q13.Cc
8
21X
0
OX
23.64
19.80
**
038.5
7
18X
7
6X
4.46
0.62
8.62
031.4
7
18X
7
6X
4.46
0.62
8.62
02.1.3
7
18X
2
2X
13.06
9.22
56.22
Q39
6
15X
4
4X
6.26
2.42
15.14
019.1.B
6
15X
2
2X
10.31
6.47
39.75
012.C
5
13X
6
6X
2.23
-1.61
4.01
09.2
5
13X
5
5X
3.09
-0.75
6.04
012.Cc
5
13X
4
4X
4.21
0.37
9.24
019.2
5
13X
0
OX
14.46
10.62
**
032.K
4
10X
3
3%
3.59
-0.25
8.21
TABLE 2-12
Chi¦-TestSuimary
0.10 AAs within 1 day fish access: 0 5X of watershed?
11.68 Open water (d>2ft,w>6ft,I>1000ft)?
32.45 Primary source of sediment = channel flow?
7.37 AAs within 1 tni-»20 day fish access; v>3.3 ft/sec
73.43 Area > 40 acres?
26.31 Is AA subject to frequent Human disturbance?
8.38 Wetland stabilizes erosion?
69.63 BuffIehead/Goldeneye Mig/wint present?
0.54 AA < 5% of watershed?
2.35 Geese Hig/Uint present?
80.44 Kergarsers Hig/Uint present?
12.49 secondary water depth > 26 feet
16.29 Substrate: peat?
195.28 Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s?
0.97 Permanent hydroperiod - regularly flooded tidal?
1.69 Plants: waterfowl value?
9.55 Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
1.48 AA contains a Sinuous channel'
6.69 emergent in Zone B = 1X - 30X of Zones B and C?
1.29 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
521.13 100-2500 square mile watershed5
17.99 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
90.56 6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
7.47 21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
7.47 Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
206.84 Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
0.83 1 -100 square mile watershed?
3.89 Fringe or island wetland?
42.12 AA on 25 square foot island?
42.12 Vegetation class = mosaic
** Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
4.78 mudflat > 5 acre or emergent veg > 5 acre and other adjacent
4.78 Area of submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
52.38 Area » 200 acres?
11.30 Special habitat features?
35.91 Wind shelter + fetch?
0.17 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
2.20 Sheet flooding?
5.40 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
** Wave protection?
4.37 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly fIooded tidal7
-------
TABLE 2-13
Draft -07/30/91
AVID2
Met
HetX
Not
NotX
Chi
Chi Test
Chi'
Ch i1 -T estSummnry
TOTAL
10
138
02.1.2
9
90X
34
25X
19.33
15.49
17.75
13.91 Area > 40 acres?
08.2
BOX
49
36X
7.79
3.95
5.80
1.96 Intermittent inlet?
030
8
SOX
45
33X
9.11
5.27
7.13
3.29 Is AA subject to frequent Human disturbance?
050
7
70X
36
26X
8.72
4.88
7.58
3.74 Plants: waterfowl value?
013.C
6
60X
31
22X
7.01
3.17
6.40
2.56 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
OA.28
5
50X
14
10X
13.24
9.40
15.79
11.95 1 -100 square mile watershed?
013.Ca
5
SOX
13
9X
14.37
10.53
17.61
13.77 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and algal
039
4
40X
6
4X
18.81
14.97
29.33
25.49 Special habitat features?
018
3
30X
11
8X
5.28
1.44
6.13
2.29 Upland<-->Wetland edge irregular?
OH.1
3
30X
8
6X
7.94
4.10
10.15
6.31 AA on 25 square foot island?
016.C
3
30X
8
6X
7.94
4.10
10.15
6.31 Vegetation class = mosaic
019.3
3
30X
6
4X
10.74
6.90
15.18
11.34 Upland habitat wind shelter?
013.B
3
30X
4
3X
15.20
11.36
25.39
21.55 Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub
013.Be
3
30X
3
2X
18.56
14.72
35.67
31.83 Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
013.Ae
3
30X
0
OX
42.26
38.42
• •
" Secondary veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
013.A
3
30X
0
OX
42.26
38.42
**
** Secondary veg: forested
02.1.3
2
20X
7
5X
3.64
-0.20
4.41
0.57 Area > 200 acres?
032. D
2
20X
3
2X
9.08
5.24
14.64
10.80 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = seasonally flooded nontidal?
038.1
2
20X
3
2X
9.08
5.24
14.64
10.80 Perm flood or seas flood and other < 1 mi
019.2
2
20X
3
2X
9.08
5.24
14.64
10.80 Wave protection?
017
2
20X
1
1X
17.44
13.60
51.30
47.46 Plant form richness
051.1
2
20X
0
OX
27.98
24.14
• *
" Plant productivity < 500 g/sq.m/yr
012.Ae
2
20X
0
OX
27.98
24.14
**
** Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
012.A
2
20X
0
OX
27.98
24.14
**
** Dominant veg: forested
020.2
2
20X
0
OX
27.98
24.14
**
** Balance sun<-->shade?
020.1
2
20X
0
OX
27.98
24.14
**
" Zone B shaded?
012.Be
1
10X
0
ox
13.89
10.05
**
•• Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
013.Aa
10X
0
ox
13.89
10.05
**
** Secondary veg: forested and dead
013.Ba
1
10X
0
ox
13.89
10.05
**
** Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and dead
012.B
1
10X
0
ox
13.89
10.05
**
** Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub
Page 1
-------
Draft--07/30/91
AVID3
Met
HetX
Not
NotX
Chi
Chi - Test
Chi ¦
10TAL
34
114
03.2
34
100X
92
81X
7.71
3.87
8.13
066.2.3
34
100X
88
77X
9.41
5.57
10.05
066.2.1
34
100X
86
75X
10.30
6.46
11.07
022.1.1
34
100X
83
73X
11.70
7.86
12.70
031.2
33
97X
87
76X
7.35
3.51
8.09
08.3
33
9 rx
82
72X
9.55
5.71
10.63
044. E
33
97X
66
58X
18.14
14.30 •
21.39
066.1.1
32
94X
79
69X
8.60
4.76
9.84
O10.E
32
94%
67
59X
14.77
10.93
17.53
Q44.D
31
91X
84
74 X
4.63
0.79
5.37
044. C
31
91X
80
70X
6.16
2.32
7.16
08.1
31
91X
71
62X
10.21
6.37
12.08
029.1
30
88X
80
70X
4.48
0.64
5.30
044. F
30
88X
55
48X
17.13
13.29
21.78
026.3
29
85X
64
56X
9.53
5.69
11.74
044. G
29
85X
49
43X
18.81
14.97
24.84
02.1.2
29
85X
14
12X
67.73
63.89
168.25
042.2.2
27
79X
55
4BX
10.30
6.46
13.23
044. H
27
79X
51
45X
12.63
8.79
16.54
Q61
26
76X
62
54X
5.30
1.46
6.68
027.3
26
76X
60
53X
6.11
2.27
7.75
037
26
76X
43
38X
15.80
11.96
21.73
048. C
26
76X
34
30X
23.64
19.80
35.35
05.2
24
7IX
50
44X
7.48
3.64
9.86
032.1
24
71X
43
38X
11.42
7.58
15.64
025.2.B
24
71X
32
28X
20.13
16.29
30.44
042.2.3
23
tax
47
41X
7.33
3.49
9.79
046. B
22
6SX
45
39X
6.73
2.89
9.06
025.3
21
62X
41
36X
7.16
3.32
9.83
015.1.B
20
59X
42
37X
5.20
1.36
7.06
030
20
59X
33
29X
10.17
6.33
14. 76
066.2.10
19
56X
40
35X
4.72
0.88
6.46
Q66.2.7
18
53X
17
15X
20.98
17.14
38.75
033.1
17
50X
27
24 X
8.68
4.84
13.03
044.1
17
50X
23
20X
11.81
7.97
18.78
022.1.2
17
50*
23
20X
11.81
7.97
18.78
Q15.2
16
47X
33
29X
3.88
0.04
5.42
031.6.b
15
44X
20
18X
10.24
6.40
16.60
066.2.5
15
44X
13
11X
18.27
14.43
36.02
050
14
41X
29
25X
3.15
-0.69
4.44
045. C
13
38X
25
22X
3.65
-0.19
5.28
036.1.2
13
38X
23
20X
4.64
0.80
6.89
041.2
13
38%
9
8X
19.05
15.21
43.04
04.2C
10
29X
5
4X
18.01
14.17
50.78
04.2S
9
26X
10
9X
7.33
3.49
13.31
036.2.3
9
26X
8
7X
9.75
5.91
19.72
046. C
8
24X
10
9X
5.34
1.50
9.25
014.1
8
24 X
3
3%
16.62
12.78
57.95
038.5
7
2IX
7
6X
6.38
2.54
12.31
015.1.C
7
21X
3
3X
13.40
9.56
42.79
02.1.3
7
21X
2
2X
16.27
12.43
69.97
043.H
6
18%
8
7X
3.45
-0.39
5.89
Page 1
TABLE 2-14
Ch i'-T est Summary
4.29 Cluster uetland?
6.21 Black Duck Hig/Uint present?
7.23 Waterfowl Group 1 Hig/Wint present?
8.86 AA contains a Channel?
4.25 Area of Zone B > 10% of AA?
6.79 Permanent outlet?
17.55 21 in < secondary water depth < J9 inches
6.00 Group 1 Uaterfowl Breeding present?
13.69 Estuarine?
1.53 9 in < secondary water depth < 20 inches
3.32 5 in < secondary water depth < 8 inches
8.24 Permanent inlet?
1.46 Dense understory edge?
17.94 40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
7.90 Primary source of nutrients = channel flow?
21.00 5 feet < secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
164.41 Area > 40 acres?
9.39 AAs within 1 mi»20 day fish access: 12ft,w>6ft,I>1000ft)?
31.51 5.0 < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
6.02 Upstope wet depressions > 5X of watershed?
11.80 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
26.60 Primary source of sediment = channel flow?
5.95 AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: v>3.3 ft/sec
5.22 Physical Habitat Interspersion 1 intermediate
5.99 Uetland stabilizes erosion?
3.22 Vegetation<-->Uater = intermediate
10.92 Is AA subject to frequent Human disturbance?
2.62 Gcesc Hig/Uint present?
34.91 BuffIchead/Goldeneye Mig/Uint present?
9.19 Permanent Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
14.94 secondary water depth > 26 feet
14.94 AA contains a Sinuous channel?
1.58 Channel flow spreading?
12.76 emergent in Zone B = 1X - 30% of Zones B and C?
32.18 Mergansers Hig/Uint present?
0.60 Plants: waterfowl value?
1.44 Substrate; peat?
3.05 Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
39.20 Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s?
46.94 100-2500 square mile watershed'
9.47 1 -100 square mile watershed?
15.88 Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
5.41 Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
54.11 AA on 25 square foot island?
8.47 mudfiat > 5 acre or emergent veg > 5 acre and other adjacent
38.95 Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
66.13 Area > 200 acres?
2.05 6.5 feet < dominant water depth < ?6 feet
-------
Ornft 07/W/91
AVID3
Mrt
HrtX Not
Not*
(hi (til
Ir'it
016. C
6
IB* S
4X
6.A9
?. 85
qi3.c<
5
15* 3
«
1.1,1
J.ftl
012.Cc
4
12* 5
4*
2.50
1.34
043.G
4
12* 5
6*
2.50
•1.34
019. VB
4
12* 4
4*
J.49
0.35
019.?
4
12* 1
1*
9.51
Page ?
TAIil.K "/ 1 A
(« out i nurd )
( h i ' ( li» ' 1 < t !.tarnuii y
14.26 10.42 Vegetation cl.v.s mobile
19.54 1V*jO Set oikI.k y v«*q: A({uattr t**'l at*l v.r.
-------
Draft- 07/30/91
AVID4
Met
Met*
Not
Not7.
Chi
Chi-Test
Chi'
TOTAL
17
131
Q66.2.3
17
100X
105
80X
4.09
0.25
4.21
066.2.1
17
100X
103
79X
4.48
0.64
4.62
022.1.1
17
100X
100
76X
5.09
1.25
5.27
066.1.1
17
100X
94
72X
6.40
2.56
6.69
02.1.2
17
100X
26
20X
46.90
43.06
68.65
044. C
16
94X
95
TlX
3.74
-0.10
3.98
Q10.E
15
88X
84
64X
3.95
0.11
4.30
044. E
15
88X
84
64X
3.95
0.11
4.30
044. F
14
82X
71
54X
4.88
1.04
5.43
048. C
14
82X
46
35X
13.93
10.09
16.65
044. G
13
76X
65
SOX
4.35
0.51
4.90
037
13
76X
56
43X
6.88
3.04
7.90
030
13
76X
40
31X
13.81
9.97
16.91
066.2.10
12
71X
47
36X
7.56
3.72
8.90
Q50
12
71X
31
24X
16.07
12.23
20.72
025.2.B
11
65X
45
34X
5.89
2.05
6.95
013.C
10
59X
27
21X
11.72
7.88
15.17
066.2.7
10
59X
25
19X
13.16
9.32
17.39
036.1.2
8
47X
28
21X
5.39
1.55
6.67
031.6.b
8
47X
27
21X
5.83
1.99
7.27
014.1
8
47X
3
2X
43.83
39.99
152.27
Q4.2B
7
41X
12
9X
13.78
9.94
20.94
046. C
7
41X
11
8X
15.13
11.29
23.75
013. Ca
7
41X
11
8X
15.13
11.29
23.75
031.4
7
41X
7
5X
22.56
18.72
43.16
038.5
6
35X
8
6X
14.97
11.13
25.26
045. B
6
35X
7
5X
16.85
13.01
30.15
016. C
6
35X
5
4X
21.67
17.83
45.88
015.1.C
6
35X
4
3X
24.83
20.99
59.69
02.1.3
6
35X
3
2X
28.70
24.86
82.76
041.2
5
29X
17
13X
3.21
-0.63
4.07
032. J
5
29X
17
13X
3.21
-0.63
4.07
012.C
5
29X
6
5X
13.49
9.65
23.99
012.Cc
5
29X
4
3X
18.30
14.46
39.90
09.2
4
24X
6
5X
8.58
4.74
13.97
039
3
18X
7
5X
3.62
-0.22
5.09
043. G
3
18X
6
5X
4.50
0.66
6.64
013.Cc
3
18X
5
4X
5.63
1.79
8.86
019.1.B
3
18X
5
4X
5.63
1.79
8.86
043.1
3
18X
4
3X
7.11
3.27
12.23
019.2
3
18X
2
2X
11.98
8.14
29.38
038.1
3
18X
2
2X
11.98
8.14
29.38
028
2
12X
4
3X
2.94
-0.90
4.36
013.Be
2
12X
4
3X
2.94
-0.90
4.36
032.0
2
12X
3
2X
4.14
0.30
6.82
017
2
12X
1
IX
9.17
5.33
27.16
013.Ae
2
12X
1
IX
9.17
5.33
27.16
013.A
2
12X
1
IX
9.17
5.33
27.16
012.Ae
2
12X
0
ox
15.62
11.78
ft*
012. A
2
12X
0
ox
15.62
11.78
ft*
051.1
2
12X
0
ox
15.62
11.78
**
020.1
2
12X
0
ox
15.62
11.78
ft*
Page 1
TABLE 2-15
Chi'-TestSummary
0.37 Black Duck Mig/Uint present?
0.78 Waterfowl Group 1 Mig/Uint present?
1.43 AA contains a Channel?
2.85 Group 1 Waterfowl Breeding present?
64.81 Area > 40 acres?
0.14 5 in < secondary water depth < 8 inches
0.46 Estuarine?
0.46 21 in < secondary water depth < 39 inches
1.59 40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
12.81 5.0 < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
1.06 5 feet < secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
4.06 Open water (d>2ft,w>6ft,I>1000ft)?
13.07 Is AA subject to frequent Human disturbance?
5.06 Geese Mig/Uint present?
16.88 Plants: waterfowl value?
3.11 Primary source of sediment = channel flow?
11.33 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
13,55 Bufflehead/Goldeneye Mig/Uint present?
2.83 Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
3.43 emergent in Zone B = IX - 30% of Zones B and C?
148.43 AA on 25 square foot island?
17.10 1 -100 square mile watershed?
19.91 Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
19.91 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and algal
39.32 Ar?a of submergent in 2one B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
21.42 mudflat > 5 acre or emergent veg > 5 acre and other adjacen
26.31 Substrate: Muck?
42.04 Vegetation class = mosaic
55.85 Vegetation<-->Water = checkerboard
78.92 Area > 200 acres?
0.23 Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s?
0.23 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
20.15 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
36.06 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
10.13 Sheet flooding?
1.25 Special habitat features?
2.80 5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
5.02 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
5.02 Wind shelter ~ fetch?
8.39 dominant water depth > 26 feet
25.54 Wave protection?
25.54 Perm flood or seas flood and other < 1 mi
0.52 Has AA been Directly alterated?
0.52 Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
2.98 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = seasonally flooded nontidal?
23.32 Plant form richness
23.32 Secondary veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
23.32 Secondary veg: forested
** Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
** Dominant veg: forested
" Plant productivity < 500 g/sq.m/yr
** Zone B shaded1
-------
TABLE 2-15,
(continuea)
Draft--07/30/91
AVI 04
Met
HetX
Mot
NotX
Chi
Chi - Test
Chi' Chi'
- T e<;t Sunmary
Q20.2
2
12X
0
OX
15.62
11.78
**
** Balance sun<-->shade?
013.Aa
1
6X
0
ox
7.76
3.92
**
** Secondary veg: forested and dead
013.Ba
1
6X
0
ox
7.76
3.92
* *
*# Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and dead
Page 2
-------
Draft--07/30/91
AVID5
Met
Met*
Not
Not*
Chi
Chi-Test
Chi'
TOTAL
31
117
03.2
31
100*
95
81*
6.85
3.01
7.18
066.2.3
31
100*
91
78*
8.36
4.52
8.86
066.2.1
31
100*
89
76*
9.15
5.31
9.75
022.1.1
31
100*
86
74*
10.39
6.55
11.17
08.3
31
100*
84
72X
11.25
7.41
12.18
044.0
30
97X
85
73*
8.23
4.39
9.08
066.1.1
30
97*
81
69*
9.92
6.08
11.04
Q44.C
30
97X
81
69*
9.92
6.08
11.04
010.E
30
97*
69
59*
15.81
11.97
18.31
044. E
30
97*
69
59*
15.81
11.97
18.31
021 .E
29
94*
91
78*
3.97
0.13
4.46
08.1
29
94*
73
62*
11.10
7.26
12.82
044. F
28
90*
57
49*
17.35
13.51
21.48
044. G
28
90*
50
43*
22.26
18.42
28.69
02.1.2
28
90*
15
13*
71.41
67.57
166.60
026.3
27
87*
66
56*
9.88
6.04
11.87
044. H
27
87*
51
44*
18.61
14.77
23.86
025.2.B
27
87X
29
25*
40.45
36.61
64.56
037
26
84*
43
37*
21.86
18.02
29.61
042.2.2
25
81X
57
49*
10.11
6.27
12.65
048. C
25
81*
35
30*
26.16
22.32
38.05
027.3
24
77*
62
53X
6.01
2.17
7.43
05.2
24
77*
50
43*
11.79
7.95
15.24
061
23
74*
65
56*
3.53
-0.31
4.36
042.2.3
23
74*
47
40X
11.38
7.54
14.93
030
22
71*
31
26X
21.09
17.25
31.48
032.1
21
68X
46
39X
7.99
4.15
10.50
066.2.7
21
68*
14
12X
42.22
38.38
91.55
025.3
19
61*
43
37*
6.06
2.22
8.03
066.2.10
19
61X
40
34X
7.51
3.67
10.12
Q44.1
18
58*
22
19X
19.15
15.31
31.30
033.1
16
52X
28
24X
8.99
5.15
13.05
066.2.5
16
52*
12
10X
27.32
23.48
57.60
045. C
14
45*
24
21*
7.80
3.96
11.55
Q31.6.b
14
45*
21
18X
10.05
6.21
15.59
050
13
42*
30
26X
3.16
-0.68
4.32
022.1.2
13
42*
27
23X
4.42
0.58
6.21
041.2
13
42*
9
8*
22.71
18.87
51.19
013.C
12
39*
25
21*
3.93
0.09
5.55
04.2C
12
39*
3
3*
35.15
31.31
162.11
04.28
8
26*
11
9*
5.89
2.05
9.79
046. C
8
26*
10
9*
6.83
2.99
11.81
043. H
8
26*
6
5*
12.23
8.39
27.24
036.2.3
7
23*
10
9*
4.75
0.91
7.81
014.1
7
23*
4
3*
13.08
9.24
34.47
02.1.3
7
23*
2
2*
18.69
14.85
80.37
031.4
6
19*
8
7*
4.48
0.64
7.62
012. C
6
19*
5
4*
8.10
4.26
17.24
015.1.C
6
19*
4
3X
9.88
6.04
23.84
043. G
6
19*
3
3*
12.10
8.26
34.98
012.Cc
6
19*
3
3*
12.10
8.26
34.98
016.C
5
16*
6
5*
4.31
0.47
7.71
Page 1
2-16
Chi ¦ -TestSimnary
3.34 Cluster wetland?
5.02 Black Duck Hig/Wint present?
5.91 Waterfowl Group 1 Mig/Uint present?
7.33 AA contains a Channel?
8.34 Permanent outlet?
5.24 9 in < secondary water depth < 20 inches
7.20 Group 1 Waterfowl Breeding present?
7.20 5 in < secondary water depth < 8 inches
14.47 Estuarine?
14.47 21 in < secondary water depth < 39 inches
0.62 Subwatershed dominant land cover: urban lawn/fill?
8.98 Permanent inlet?
17.64 40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
24.85 5 feet < secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
162.76 Area > 40 acres?
8.03 Primary source of nutrients = channel flow?
20.02 6.5 feet < secondary water depth < 26 feet
60.72 Primary source of sediment = channel flow?
25.77 Open water (d>2ft,w>6ft,I>10OOft)?
8.81 AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: 1 5* of watershed?
0.52 DO limiting to fish?
11.09 AAs within 1 mi*20 day fish access: v>3.3 ft/sec
27.64 Is AA subject to frequent Human disturbance?
6.66 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal7
87.71 Bufflehead/Goldeneye Mig/Wint present?
4.19 Wetland stabilizes erosion?
6.28 Geese Mig/Wint present?
27.46 secondary water depth > 26 feet
9.21 Permanent Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
53.76 Mergansers Mig/Wint present?
7.71 Substrate: peat?
11.75 emergent in Zone B = 1X - 307. of Zones B and C?
0.48 Plants: waterfowl value?
2.37 AA contains a Sinuous channel?
47.35 Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s?
1.71 Secondary vcg: Aquatic bed
158.27 100-2500 square mile watershed?
5.95 1 -100 square mile watershed?
7.97 Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
23.40 6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
3.97 Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet7
30.63 AA on 25 square foot island?
76.53 Area > 200 acres?
3.78 Area of submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C7
13.40 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
20.00 Vegetation<-->Water = checkerboard
31.14 5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
31.14 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
3.87 Vegetation class = mosaic
-------
Draft--07/30/91
AVID5
Met
HetX
Not
NotX
Ch i Ch i- Test
Q9.2
5
16X
5
AX
5.47 1.63
Q13.Cc
5
16X
3
3X
8.82 4.98
019.1.B
5
16X
3
3X
8.82 4.98
039
4
13X
6
5X
2.35 -1.49
019.2
4
13X
1
IX
10.90 7.06
Page 2
TABLE 2-16
(continued)
Chi' Chi1 -TestSuimary
10.65 6.81 Sheet flooding?
22.83 18.99 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
22.83 18.99 Uind shelter ~ fetch?
3.85 0.01 Special habitat features?
53.11 49.27 Wave protection?
-------
TABLE 2-17
AVID Criteria #6
This table is blank, because no AAs met AVID Criteria
-------
Draft--07/30/91
AV107
Het
Met*
Hot
NotX
Chi
Chi-Test
Chi •
TOTAL
20
128
03.2
20
100X
106
83X
4.04
0.20
4.15
066.2.3
20
100X
102
80X
4.93
1.09
5.10
066.2.1
20
100*
100
78X
5.40
1.56
5.60
022.1.1
20
100*
97
76X
6.13
2.29
6.39
08.3
20
100*
95
74X
6.64
2.80
6.95
066.1.1
20
100X
91
71X
7.71
3.87
8.13
044.0
19
95*
96
75X
3.99
0.15
4.27
044. C
19
95*
92
72X
4.93
1.09
5.29
08.1
19
95X
83
65X
7.34
3.50
7.98
010. E
19
95*
80
63X
8.25
4.41
9.01
044. E
18
90*
81
63X
5.58
1.74
6.14
061
18
90*
70
55X
8.95
5.11
10.06
044. f
18
90*
67
52X
10.03
6.19
11.37
044.G
18
90*
60
47X
12.91
9.07
14.94
O30
17
85*
36
28X
24.34
20.50
32.00
044. H
16
80*
62
48X
6.91
3.07
7.98
025.3
16
80*
46
36X
13.80
9.96
16.87
048.C
16
80*
44
34X
14.94
11.10
18.46
066.2.10
16
BOX
43
34X
15.54
11.70
19.31
025.2.B
16
BOX
40
31X
17.48
13.64
22.12
02.1.2
16
SOX
27
21X
29.12
25.28
41.70
042.2.2
15
75X
67
52X
3.59
-0.25
4.12
05.2
15
75X
59
46X
5.78
1.94
6.73
042.2.3
15
75X
55
43X
7.12
3.28
8.37
037
15
75X
54
42X
7.48
3.64
8.83
066.2.7
12
60X
23
18X
16.92
13.08
23.97
050
11
55X
32
25X
7.55
3.71
9.60
045. C
11
55X
27
21X
10.42
6.58
13.81
031.6.a
10
50%
38
30X
3.26
-0.58
3.95
013.C
10
50X
27
21X
7.71
3.87
10.04
044.1
9
45X
31
24X
3.79
-0.05
4.71
036.1.2
9
45X
27
21X
5.37
1.53
6.87
066.2.5
8
40X
20
16X
6.70
2.86
9.01
046. C
8
40X
10
8X
16.77
12.93
28.77
016.C
8
40X
3
2X
35.65
31.81
123.91
015.1.C
8
4 OX
2
2X
40.56
36.72
192.11
013.Cc
8
40X
0
OX
54.13
50.29
**
032. J
7
35*
15
12X
7.41
3.57
10.48
041.2
7
35X
15
12X
7.41
3.57
10.48
04.2B
7
35X
12
9X
10.15
6.31
15.46
043.E
7
35X
11
9X
11.29
7.45
17.75
031.4
6
30*
8
6X
11.39
7.55
19.25
038.5
6
30*
8
6X
11.39
7.55
19.25
012. C
6
30X
5
4X
17.12
13.28
36.28
09.2
6
30X
4
3X
19.83
15.99
47.72
012.Cc
6
30X
3
2X
23.16
19.32
66.84
Q34.3.1
5
25X
14
11X
3.06
-0.78
4.06
04.2C
5
25X
10
8X
5.61
1.77
8.20
043. N
5
25X
9
7X
6.52
2.68
9.88
014.1
5
25*
6
5X
10.37
6.53
18.47
02.1.3
4
20X
5
4X
7.84
4.00
13.80
019.1.B
3
15X
5
4X
4.16
0.32
6.56
012.B
1
5X
0
OX
6.44
2.60
* *
012.Be
1
5X
0
OX
6.44
2.60
*•
TABLE 2-18
Chi'-T es tSummary
0.31 Cluster wetland?
1.26 Black Duck Hig/Uint present?
1.76 Waterfowl Group 1 Hig/Uint present?
2.55 AA contains a Channel?
3.11 Permanent outlet?
A.29 Group 1 Waterfowl Breeding present?
0.43 9 in < secondary water depth < 20 inches
1.45 5 in < secondary water depth < 8 inches
A.14 Permanent inlet?
5.17 Estuarine?
2.30 21 in < secondary water depth < 39 inches
6.22 DO limiting to fish?
7.53 40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
11.10 5 feet < secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
28.16 Is AA subject to frequent Human disturbance?
4.14 6.5 feet < secondary water depth < 26 feet
13.03 Wetland stabilizes erosion?
14.62 5.0 < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
15.47 Geese Mig/Wint present?
18.28 Primary source of sediment = channel flow?
37.86 Area > 40 acres?
0.28 AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: 1 5% of watershed?
4.53 AAs within 1 mi*20 day fish access: v>3.3 ft/sec
4.9V Open water 2ft,«>6ft,I>1000ft)?
20.13 Bufflehend/Goldeneye Mig/Wint present?
5.76 Plants: waterfowl value?
9.97 Substrate: peat?
0.11 emergent in Zone B = OX of Zones B and C?
6.20 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
0.87 secondary water depth > 26 feet
3.03 Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet7
5.17 Mergansers Mig/Wint present?
24.93 Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
120.07 Vegetation class - mosaic
188.27 Vegetation<-->Water = checkerboard
** Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
6.64 Spatial Dominant Hydroporiod = irregularly exposed tidal'
6.64 Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s?
11.62 1 -100 square mile watershed?
13.91 21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
15.41 Area of submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
15.41 mudflat > 5 acre or emergent veg > 5 acre and other adjacent
32.44 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
43.88 Sheet flooding?
63.00 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
0.22 Flooding due to downs I ope impouncknent?
4.36 100-2500 square mile watershed?
6.04 6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
14.63 AA on 25 square foot island?
9.96 Area > 200 acres?
2.72 Wind shelter + fetch?
** Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub
** Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
-------
Draft--07/30/91
AVI 08
Met
Met*
Not
Not*
Chi
Ch i-Test
Chi •
TOfAL
39
109
03.2
38
97*
88
81X
6.33
2.49
6.99
09.1
30
77X
59
54X
6.23
2.39
8. 16
061
28
72*
60
55X
3.34
-0.50
4.42
05.2
26
67X
48
44X
5.88
2.04
8.10
036.1.2
24
62*
12
11X
39.84
36.00
101.64
033. J
20
51X
24
22X
11.77
7.93
19.45
031,6.c
18
46*
34
31X
2.82
-1.02
4.07
02.1.2
17
44*
26
24X
5.43
1.59
8.36
066.2.7
13
33*
22
20X
2.75
-1.09
4.19
036.2.3
13
33X
4
4*
24.86
21.02
97.08
034.3.1
11
28*
8
7X
11.18
7.34
24.97
031.4
9
23X
5
5X
11.47
7.63
30.46
043. E
8
21X
10
9X
3.46
-0.38
6.02
09.2
8
21X
2
2X
15.90
12.06
75.54
012. C
7
18X
4
4X
8.51
4.67
22.49
015.1.C
6
15X
4
4X
6.26
2.42
15.14
039
6
15X
4
4X
6.26
2.42
15.14
012.Cc
6
15X
3
3X
8.03
4.19
23.25
013.Cc
6
15X
2
2X
10.31
6.47
39.75
016. C
5
13X
6
6*
2.23
-1.61
4.01
043. G
5
13X
4
4X
4.21
0.37
9.24
032.K
4
10X
3
3X
3.59
-0.25
8.21
024.2
4
10X
2
2X
5.24
1.40
15.36
019.2
4
10X
1
IX
7.67
3.83
37.42
033.E
3
ex
1
1X
S.01
1.17
19.69
055.2
2
5X
0
ox
5.67
1.83
**
Page 1
TABLE 2-19
Chi'-T estSummary
3.15 Cluster wotlnnd?
4.32 Outlet < one third average width?
0.58 00 limiting to fish?
4.26 UpsI ope wet depressions > 5* of watershed7
97.80 Average width of erect veg in Zones A and 8 > 500 feet1
15.61 Permanent Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
0.23 emergent in Zone B - 31* - 602 of Zones B and C7
4.52 Area > 40 acres?
0.35 Bufflehead/Goldeneye Mig/Uint present?
93.24 Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
21.13 Flooding due to downslope impoundment?
26.62 Area of subroergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
2.18 21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
71.70 Sheet flooding?
18.65 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
11.30 Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
11.30 Special habitat features?
19.41 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
35.91 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
0.17 Vegetation class = mosaic
5.40 5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
4.37 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly flooded tidal7
11.52 fine mineral soils7
33.58 Uave protection?
15.85 Permanent Hydroperiod = saturated nontidal7
** Suspended Solids > 80 mg/l
-------
Praft--0?/30/91
AVJ09
Net
MetX
Not
Mot*
Chi
Chi-Test
Chi ¦
101AL
53
95
QJ1.3
50
94*
62
65*
15.63
It.79
19.77
041.1
49
92*
76
80S
4.02
0.18
5.14
066.2.3
49
92*
73
77*
5.72
1.88
7.26
031.2
48
91*
72
76*
4.84
1.00
6.31
066.2.1
48
91*
72
76*
4.84
1.00
6.31
027.2
47
89*
72
76*
3.59
-0.25
4.80
OS. 3
47
89*
68
77X
5.74
1.90
7.62
022.1.1
46
era
71
75*
2.99
-0.85
4.08
Q44.0
46
87*
69
73*
3.94
0.10
5.35
066.1.1
46
87X
65
68*
6.12
2.28
8.28
08.1
46
87*
56
59*
12.31
8.47
16.98
044.C
44
83*
67
71*
2.83
-1.01
3.98
010.£
44
83*
55
58*
9.70
5.86
13.72
644. E
41
77*
58
61*
4.08
0.24
5.93
061
41
77*
*7
49*
10.97
7.13
16.49
044.f
41
77*
44
46*
13.41
9.57
20.54
Q44.N
38
72*
40
42*
11-95
8.11
19.04
042.2.2
37
70*
45
47%
6.94
3.10
10.71
044. G
37
70*
41
43*
9.70
5.86
15.35
032.1
33
62%
34
36*
9.62
5.78
16.16
033. J
33
62*
23
24*
20.94
17.10
41.83
037
30
S7X
39
. 41*
3.31
-0.53
5.30
066.2.10
30
57*
29
31*
9.65
5.81
16.99
05.1.1
27
51*
35
37*
2.78
-1.06
4.S3
048. C
27
51*
33
35*
3.71
-0.13
6.14
~15.2
27
51*
22
23*
tl .86
8.02
22.99
031.6.c
25
47*
27
28*
5.25
1.41
9.16
044.1
21
40X
19
20*
6.64
2.80
12.75
021.8
IS
28*
12
13*
5.60
1.76
11.79
055.1
10
19*
10
11*
2.03
-1.81
3.92
043.C
10
19*
6
6*
5.56
1.72
14.11
018
9
17*
5
5*
5.45
1.61
14.60
Q12.C
8
15X
3
3*
7.05
3.21
24.69
012.Cc
8
15*
1
1*
11.74
7.90
100.33
09.2
7
13*
3
3*
5.45
1.61
17.50
016.C
6
11*
5
5*
1.81
-2.03
3.90
013.Cc
5
9*
3
3*
2.62
-1.22
6.83
013.Cd
5
9*
0
0*
9.26
5.44
043. F
3
6X
1
1*
2.75
-1.09
10.80
032. C
1
2*
0
0*
1.80
-2.04
«*
Page 1
TA.BLE 2-20
Chi'-TestSuramary
15 .95 Area of Zone 8 » Zone A?
1.30 Peak flow velocity < 10 cm/s?
3.4Z Black Duck Miff/Uint present?
2.47 Area of Zone 8 > 10% of AA"?
?.47 Uaterfowl Croup 1 Mig/Wint present?
0.96 Primary source of toxics = sheetflow?
3.78 Permanent outlet?
0.24 A* contains a Channel?
1.SI 9 in < secondary water depth < 20 inches
4.44 Croup 1 Waterfowl Breeding present?
13.14 Permanent inlet?
0.14 5 in < secondary water depth < S inches
9.88 Estuarirw?
2.09 21 in < secondary water depth <¦ 39 inches
12.65 00 Uniting to fish?
16.70 40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
15.20 6.5 feet « secondary water depth < 26 feet
6.B7 AAs within I mi*20 day fish access: 1cv<3.3 ft/sec
11.51 5 feet < secondary water depth <6.5 feet
12.32 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
37.99 Permanent Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidnl?
1.46 Open water (d>2ft,w>6ft,l>1000ft)>
13.15 Geese Hig/Uint present?
0.69 AA « 5* of watershed?
2.30 5.0 < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
19.15 Channel flow spreading?
5.32 emergent in Zone 8 - 31% - SOU of Zones B and C
8.91 secondary water depth > 26 feet
7.95 Subwatershed dominant land cover: impervious?
0.08 Suspended Solids < 25 «g/l
10.27 5 in t dud * 6 inches
10.76 0pland<-->Wetland edge irregular?
20.CS Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
96.49 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
13.66 Sheet flooding?
0.06 Vegetation class - mosaic
2.99 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
** Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and aquatic moss
A.96 40 in < dominant water depth < 59 inches
** Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = semiperm flooded nontidal?
-------
Draft--07/30/91
AVID10
Met
MetX
Not
NotX
Chi
Chi-Test
Chi '
TOTAL
7
141
09.1
7
100X
82
58X
4.87
1.03
5.04
061
7
100X
81
57X
5.01
1.17
5.19
044. F
7
100X
78
55X
5.45
1.61
5.65
044.H
7
100X
71
50X
6.59
2.75
6.90
044.G
7
100X
71
50X
6.59
2.75
6.90
05.2
7
100X
67
48X
7.35
3.51
7.73
037
7
100X
62
44X
8.41
4.57
8.92
025.3
7
100X
55
39X
10.19
6.35
10.95
048.C
7
100X
53
38X
10.78
6.94
11.62
066.2.10
7
100X
52
37X
11.08
7.24
11.98
025.2.B
7
100X
49
35X
12.07
8.23
13.14
044.1
7
100X
33
23X
19.84
16.00
22.91
036.1.2
7
100X
29
21X
22.86
19.02
27.03
030
6
86X
47
33X
7.96
4.12
8.64
Q15.2
6
86X
43
30X
9.18
5.34
10.07
O50
6
S6X
37
26X
11.44
7.60
12.79
013.C
6
86X
31
22X
14.45
10.61
16.57
043.E
6
86X
12
9X
37.21
33.37
53.58
015.1.C
6
86X
4
3X
72.71
68.87
174.43
013.Cc
6
86X
2
IX
92.68
88.84
355.72
02.1.2
5
71X
38
27X
6.40
2.56
7.03
034.1
5
71X
36
26X
7.01
3.17
7.76
031.6.b
5
71X
30
21X
9.29
5.45
10.51
032. J
5
71X
17
12X
18.58
14.74
23.27
034.3.1
5
71X
14
10X
22.54
18.70
29.60
046. C
5
71X
13
9X
24.16
20.32
32.37
016. C
5
71X
6
4X
43.74
39.90
77.53
09.2
5
71X
5
4X
48.78
44.94
94.31
045.C
4
57X
34
24X
3.81
-0.03
4.17
04.2B
4
57X
15
11X
12.89
9.05
15.92
031.4
4
57X
10
7X
19.51
15.67
26.61
012.C
3
43X
8
6X
13.40
9.56
18.08
012.Cc
3
43X
6
4X
17.40
13.56
25.60
014.1
2
29X
9
6X
4.77
0.93
5.77
019.1.B
2
29X
6
4X
7.71
3.87
10.16
038.2
1
14X
3
2X
3.75
-0.09
4.97
Page 1
2-21
Chi' -TestSuimary
1.20 Outlet < one third average width?
1.35 00 limiting to fish?
1.81 40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
3.06 6.5 feet < secondary water depth < 26 feet
3.06 5 feet < secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
3.89 Upslope wet depressions > 5X of watershed?
5.08 Open water (d>2ft,w>6ft,l>1000ft)?
7.11 Wetland stabilizes erosion?
7.78 5.0 < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
8.14 Geese Hig/Wint present?
9.30 Primary source of sediment = channel flow?
19.07 secondary water depth > 26 feet
23.19 Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
4.80 Is AA subject to frequent Hunan disturbance?
6.23 Channel flow spreading?
8.95 Plants: waterfowl value?
12.73 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
49.74 21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
170.59 Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
351.88 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
3.19 Area > 40 acres?
3.92 Local dams?
6.67 emergent in Zone B = IX - 30% of Zones B and C?
19.43 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
25.76 Flooding due to downstope impoundment?
28.53 Physical Habitat Interspersion - mosaic
73.69 Vegetation class = mosaic
90.47 Sheet flooding?
0.33 Substrate: peat?
12.08 1 -100 square mile watershed?
22.77 Area of submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
14.24 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
21.76 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
1.93 AA on 25 square foot island?
6.32 Wind shelter ~ fetch?
1.13 (nontidal with erect veg) or 1 acre hardwood and other < 0.5 mi
-------
TABLE 2-22
Valuable wetland attributes and criteria used to identify
assessment areas likely to exhibit important functions
attribute
Water Quality
Improvement
Wildlife Habitat
Social Significance
- Recreation &
Education
CRITERION
"High" effectivenes
rank in WET for
retention (AVID
"High" effectivenes
rank in WET for
(AVID Criterion
Proximity to point
locations (incl.
s and opportunity
Sediment/Toxic
Criterion #8)
s and opportunity
Nutrient Removal
#9)
source discharge
haz. waste sites)
- Floodflow
alteration
"High" effectiveness in WET for Water-
fowl Habitat and Aquatic Diversity
(AVID Criteria #3)
"High" effectiveness in WET for Wild-
life Habitat and Aquatic Diversity
(AVID Criteria #4)
"High" effectiveness in WET for Fish
Habitat and Aquatic Diversity (AVID
Criteria #5)
"High" effectiveness in WET for Produc-
tion Export and Aquatic Diversity
(AVID Criteria #6)
Existing data on bird usage
Existing data on mammal sightings
Threatened & Endangered Species Habitats
(AVID Criterion #1)
"High" rank in WET for Recreation
AVID Criterion #7
Accessibility via public transportation
routes
Designation of R/E locations by planning
agencies
"High" rank in WET for floodflow
alteration (social significance)
SYMBOL
WQ1
WQ2
WQ3
WH1
WH2
WH3
WH4
WHS
WH6
WH7
551
552
553
554
SS5
- Conservation
Criterion #10 from AVID
SS6
-------
KEY FOR TABLES 2-23 THROUGH 2-25
Number of criteria met = Number of Assessment Areas that met the specified number of attribute criteria,
and answered "Yes" to the specified question.
Percentage "Yes" = Percent of Assessment Areas that met the specified range of attribute criteria
(e.g., "<=One" means that either one or no criteria were met) that answered "Yes"
to the specified question.
Chi = Chi-square score for Hypothesis 1
Chi-Test = Chi-square score (Hypothesis 1) minus critical Chi-square value (3.84 at 95% confidence)
Hypothesis 1 = Distribution of answers for AAs "exhibiting most attribute criteria" equal to
distribution of answers for all AAs.
Chi' = Chi-square score for Hypothesis 2
Chi'-Test = Chi-square score (Hypothesis 2) minus critical Chi-square value (3.84 at 95% confidence)
Hypothesis 2 = Distribution of answers for AAs "exhibiting most attribute criteria" equal to
distribution of answers for AAs "exhibiting few attribute criteria."
Summary = Short mnemonic description summarizing the WET question.
-------
Draft--08/01/91
TABLE 2-23
Water Quality Attribute
Nuiber of criteria net Percentage "Yes" Three vs. <=One
Question
None
One
Two
Three
Three
<=0ne
Chi
Chi-test
Chi' Chi'
'-test Suimary
Total
2
77
47
22
03.2
2
65
37
22
100X
8SX
3.8
-0.0
3.9
0.1 Cluster wetland?
11
0
59
41
22
100X
75X
6.9
3.1
7.5
3.6 Threatened/Endangered Species?
066.2.3
1
60
40
21
95*
77X
3.7
-0.1
4.2
0.3 Black Duck Hig/Uint present?
031.3
2
50
40
20
9U
66X
5.3
1.5
6.2
2.3 Area of Zone B > Zone A?
08.1
1
46
35
20
91X
59X
7.6
3.8
9.0
5.2 Permanent inlet?
061
0
37
33
18
82X
47X
8.5
4.7
10.8
7.0 00 limiting to fish?
044. F
0
37
32
16
73X
47*
4.6
0.8
5.9
2.1 40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
044.H
0
32
30
16
73*
41X
7.2
3.3
9.5
5.6 6.5 feet < secondary water depth < 26 feet
044.G
0
33
30
15
68X
42X
4.8
1.0
6.3
2.5 5 feet < secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
037
0
32
22
15
68X
41X
5.3
1.5
7.0
3.2 Open water (d>2ft,w»6ft,l>1000ft)?
036.1.2
0
11
10
15
68X
UX
26.5
22.7
54.0
50.2 Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
066.2.10
0
25
20
14
64X
32X
7.4
3.6
10.4
6.6 Geese Hig/Uint present?
118
0
17
9
12
55X
22X
9.2
5.3
14.2
10.4 Features in erosion prone areas?
031.6.c
2
17
23
10
45X
24X
3.9
0.0
5.5
1.7 emergent in Zone B = 31X - 60X of Zones B and C?
02.1.2
0
18
15
10
45X
23X
4.4
0.6
6.4
2.6 Area > 40 acres?
01S.2
1
14
24
10
45X
19X
6.5
2.6
10.0
6.2 Channel flow spreading?
044.1
0
13
19
8
36X
16X
4.1
0.3
6.3
2.5 secondary water depth > 26 feet
034.3.1
1
6
4
8
36X
9%
10.3
6.5
20.6
16.8 Flooding due to downstope impouncknent?
036.2.3
0
3
7
7
32X
4X
15.1
11.3
47.3
43.4 Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
09.2
0
2
1
7
32X
3X
18.2
14.3
76.5
72.6 Sheet flooding?
043.E
0
9
3
6
27X
11X
3.4
-0.4
5.5
1.7 21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
04.2B
0
9
4
6
27X
11X
3.4
-0.4
5.5
1.7 1 -100 square mile watershed?
12
0
9
7
6
27X
m
3.4
-0.4
5.5
1.7 Designated/Controlled Area?
031.4
0
4
4
6
27X
5X
9.5
5.7
22.6
18.7 Area of submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
012. C
0
2
3
6
27X
3X
14.4
10.6
54.6
50.7 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
012.Cc
0
1
2
6
27X
IX
18.0
14.2
119.1
115.2 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
14
0
7
1
5
23X
9X
3.2
-0.7
5.2
1.4 Unusual or rare local type?
016. C
0
5
1
5
23X
6%
5.2
1.3
10.0
6.1 Vegetation class - mosaic
015.1.C
0
4
1
5
23X
SX
6.6
2.8
14.3
10.4 Vegetation<-->Uater = checkerboard
013.Cc
0
2
1
5
23X
3X
10.9
7.0
36.4
32.5 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
122
0
1
1
5
23X
1X
14.2
10.3
81.1
77.2 Limited dependent species?
043.1
0
3
1
3
14X
4X
3.0
-0.9
5.8
2.0 dominant water depth > 26 feet
043.G
0
2
4
3
14X
3X
4.5
0.7
11.0
7.2 5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
043. F
0
1
1
2
9X
IX
3.7
-0.2
10.8
6.9 40 in < dominant water depth < 59 inches
013.Cd
0
0
4
1
5X
OX
3.6
-0.2
**
** Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and aquatic moss
123
0
0
2
1
5X
OX
3.6
-0.2
**
** Education opportunity?
055.2
0
0
1
1
5X
OX
3.6
-0.2
**
** Suspended Solids > 80 ag/l
Page 1
-------
raft--08/01/91
Wildlife Habitat
Attribute
Number
of criteria met
Percentage
"Yes"
Question
None
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
>=Four
None
Chi
Total
90
22
11
12
10
3
69
19
10
11
10
3
100X
77X
3.8
066.2.3
68
19
10
12
10
3
100*
76X
4.0
044.D
67
14
9
12
10
3
100*
74X
4.3
066.2.1
66
19
10
12
10
3
100*
73X
4.5
029.1
65
17
8
7
10
3
100*
72X
4.8
022.1.1
63
19
10
12
10
3
100X
70X
5.3
044.C
63
14
9
12
10
3
100X
70X
5.3
08.3
62
19
9
12
10
3
100*
69X
5.6
066.1.1
61
16
9
12
10
3
100*
68X
5.8
044.E
50
15
9
12
10
3
100*
56X
9.4
010. E
49
16
9
12
10
3
100X
54X
9.8
044. F
42
12
7
11
10
3
100X
47*
13.0
02.1.2
6
4
9
11
10
3
100X
7*
65.8
08.1
55
15
8
12
9
3
92X
61X
4.9
044.G
36
11
8
11
9
3
92X
40X
12.5
048. C
20
11
6
11
9
3
92*
22X
26.1
044. H
36
13
7
11
8
3
85X
4 OX
9.1
05.2
40
8
5
11
7
3
77X
44 X
4.8
042.2.2
39
14
9
10
7
3
77X
43X
5.1
037
29
12
7
11
7
3
77X
32X
9.6
050
21
7
2
3
2
77X
23X
15.5
02S.2.B
19
9
8
10
7
3
77X
21X
17.5
031.6.b
15
5
4
1
7
3
77X
17X
22.4
066.2.10
29
9
6
6
7
2
69X
32X
6.7
015.2
26
7
5
2
7
2
69X
29X
8.2
013. C
19
5
2
3
2
62X
21X
9.6
030
19
10
6
10
2
62X
21X
9.6
044.1
17
5
4
6
5
3
62X
19X
11.2
066.2.7
7
6
5
9
2
62X
8X
26.4
04.28
7
4
0
1
5
2
54X
8X
20.5
119
1
3
1
6
2
54X
1*
44.1
022.1.2
18
8
3
5
3
3
46X
20X
4.3
118
15
5
5
7
4
2
46X
17*
6.1
Q46.C
8
1
1
2
3
3
46X
9*
13.4
015.1.C
1
2
0
1
4
2
46X
1X
36.4
014.1
1
1
1
2
4
2
46X
1X
36.4
12
12
0
4
1
4
1
38X
13X
5.2
013.Ca
9
2
2
0
4
1
38X
10X
7.8
066.2.5
5
6
3
9
3
2
38X
6X
14.0
124
4
3
2
3
4
1
38X
4X
16.5
14
3
4
0
1
4
1
38X
3X
19.6
016. C
2
3
0
1
S
0
38X
2*
23.6
032. J
10
5
0
3
4
0
31X
11X
3.7
043.E
9
4
0
1
3
1
31X
10*
4.4
031.4
5
2
3
0
3
1
31X
6X
9.1
038.5
5
1
2
2
3
1
31X
6X
9.1
041.2
2
5
2
9
2
2
31X
2X
16.9
Page 1
TABLE 2-24
>=Four vs. None
Chi-test Chi' Chi'-test S urinary
-0.0 4.0 0.1 Threatened/Endangered Species?
0.2 4.2 0.4 Black Duck Hig/Uint present?
0.4 4.5 0.6 9 in < secondary water depth < 20 inches
0.7 4.7 0.9 Waterfowl Group 1 Hig/Uint present?
0.9 5.0 1.2 Dense understory edge?
1.4 5.6 1.7 AA contains a Channel?
1.4 5.6 1.7 5 in < secondary water depth < 8 inches
1.7 5.9 2.0 Permanent outlet?
2.0 6.2 2.3 Group 1 Uaterfowl Breeding present?
5.6 10.4 6.6 21 in < secondary water depth < 39 inches
6.0 10.9 7.0 Estuarine?
9.1 14.9 11.0 40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
61.9 182.0 178.2 Area > 40 acres?
1.0 5.3 1.5 Permanent inlet?
8.6 14.8 11.0 5 feet < secondary water depth <6.5 feet
22.2 36.9 33.1 5.0 < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
5.3 10.8 6.9 6.5 feet « secondary water depth < 26 feet
1.0 5.6 1.7 Upslope wet depressions > 5X of watershed?
1.3 6.0 2.1 AAs within 1 roi*20 day fish access: 12ft,w>6ft,1>1000ft}?
11.7 20.9 17.0 Plants: waterfowl value?
13.7 24.3 20.5 Primary source cf sediment = channel flow?
18.6 34.0 30.1 emergent in Zone B = 1X - 30* of Zones B and C
2.8 8.2 4.3 Geese Hig/Uint present?
4.4 10.3 6.5 Channel flow spreading?
5.8 12.8 8.9 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
5.8 12.8 8.9 Is AA subject to frequent Hunan disturbance7
7.4 15.4 11.6 secondary water depth > 26 feet
22.5 52.4 48.5 Bufflehead/Goldeneye Hig/Uint present?
16.7 38.5 34.6 1 -100 square imte watershed?
40.3 329.0 325.2 USfUS/IRP fishery?
0.5 5.6 1.7 AA contains a Sinuous channet?
2.2 8.1 4.3 Features in erosion prone areas?
9.6 22.3 18.5 Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
32.5 240.0 236.2 Vegetation<-->Water = checkerboard
32.5 240.0 236.2 AA on 25 square foot island'
1.4 7.1 3.3 Designated/Controlled Area?
4.0 11.7 7.9 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and algal
10.2 26.8 23.0 Hergansers Hig/Uint present'
12.6 35.4 31.6 Research resource''
15.7 49.8 45.9 Unusual or rare local type?
19.7 78.6 74.7 Vegetation class = mosaic
-0.1 5.1 1.2 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
0.6 6.2 2.4 21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
5.2 15.8 11.9 Area of submergent in Zone B 1 open water of Zones B « C
5.2 15.8 11.9 mudflat > 5 acre or emergent veg > 5 acre and other adjacent
13.0 48.8 44.9 Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s?
-------
Draft--08/01/91
Uildlife Habitat Attribute
Umber of criteria met Percentage "Yes"
Question
None
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
»=Four
None
02.1.3
1
0
0
4
3
1
31X
1*
122
0
2
0
1
3
1
31X
OX
012.C
4
1
2
1
3
0
23*
4%
043. N
3
3
1
4
2
1
23*
3*
012.Cc
2
1
2
1
3
0
23*
ZX
013.Cc
0
3
0
2
2
1.
23*
OX
043.G
3
0
2
2
2
0
15*
3X
09.2
3
2
2
1
2
0
15*
3X
123
0
0
1
0
2
0
15*
OX
019.2
0
0
1
2
1
1
15*
OX
04.2C
0
3
2
8
1
1
15*
OX
16
0
0
0
0
2
0
1SX
OX
019.1.B
0
3
1
2
0
2
1SX
ox
13
0
0
0
1
1
0
sx
ox
Page 2
TAPT E 2-24
(continued)
>=Four vs
. None
Chi
Chi-test
Chi' Chi
-test Sunnary
21.6
17.8
104.1
100.2 Area > 200 acres?
28.8
25.0
• *
** Limited dependent species?
6.2
2.4
10.6
6.8 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
8.1
4.2
15.7
11.9 6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
10.7
6.9
26.0
22.2 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
21.4
17.6
**
•• Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
3.6
-0.3
5.9
2.0 5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
3.6
-0.3
5.9
2.0 Sheet flooding?
14.1
10.3
**
** Education opportunity?
14.1
10.3
**
** Uave protection?
14.1
10.3
**
** 100-2500 square mile watershed?
14.1
10.3
**
** Substantial previous % expenditure?
14.1
10.3
»*
*• Uind shelter ~ fetch?
7.0
3.2
•a
" State Listed Cultural Resource?
-------
Draft--08/01/91
Social Significance Attribute
Number of Criteria Net Percentage "Yes"
Question Hone One Two Three Four >=Three Hone Chi C
Total 31 49 46 12 10
110
24
44
44
12
10
100X
77%
5.7
us
24
46
44
12
10
100X
77X
5.7
111
24
44
41
12
10
100X
77X
5.7'
042.2.1
24
47
45
12
10
100X
77X
5.7
03.2
22
38
44
12
10
100X
71X
7.7
120
22
44
45
12 .
10
100*
71X
7.7
066.2.1
20
39
39
12
10
100X
65X
9.9
066.2.3
20
40
40
12
10
100X
65X
9.9
044. D
19
37
37
12
10
100X
61%
11.0
044. C
16
37
36
12
10
100X
52X
14.8
058
22
48
33
12
9
95X
71X
5.0
022.1.1
18
40
38
11
10
95X
58X
9.3
11
19
44
39
10
10
91X
61X
5.8
08.3
16
40
39
10
10
91X
52%
9.1
08.1
14
32
36
11
9
91X
45%
11.7
066.1.1
17
37
38
9
10
86X
55X
5.9
044.E
13
33
34
10
9
86X
42%
10.6
044.F
12
25
29
10
9
86X
39%
12.0
044.G
7
24
29
10
8
82%
23%
18.1
044.H
7
26
27
10
8
82X
23%
18.1
025.3
6
21
17
9
9
82X
19%
20.3
037
3
22
27
7
10
77X
10X
25.0
02.1.2
0
6
20
9
8
77X
OX
35.3
025.2.B
4
14
22
7
9
73%
13%
19.6
09.1
13
31
30
7
8
68X
42X
3.6
05.2
13
19
27
7
8
68%
42%
3.6
061
12
33
28
7
8
68X
39%
4.5
042.2.2
11
26
30
9
6
68%
35%
5.5
066.2.10
9
17
18
7
8
68%
29%
8.0
042.2.3
8
23
24
9
6
68X
26X
9.4
030
2
18
18
6
9
68X
6%
22.5
026.3
12
34
33
8
6
64X
39X
3.2
048.C
4
16
26
6
8
64X
13X
14.8
118
5
4
16
5
8
59%
16%
10.6
036.1.2
1
7
15
6
7
59X
3X
20.7
05.1.1
6
28
16
6
6
55X
19X
7.1
031.6.a
5
14
17
7
5
55X
16X
8.7
034.1
4
17
9
5
6
50X
13X
8.7
013.C
3
10
13
4
7
50%
10%
10.8
050
7
8
18
3
7
45X
23X
3.1
044.1
2
16
12
3
7
45X
6%
11.2
066.2.7
2
7
16
5
5
45X
6%
11.2
045.C
6
11
12
4
5
41X
19X
2.9
14
0
0
4
7
41X
OX
15.3
022.1.2
5
14
13
5
3
36X
16X
2.8
043.E
1
5
4
3
5
36%
3%
10.0
013.Cc
0
0
0
2
6
36X
OX
13.3
Page 1
TABLE 2-25
>=Three vs. None
-test Chi' Chi'-test Sunmary
1.9
6.4
2.6
Dredging - spawning - ss
1.9
6.4
2.6
Nutrient sensitive waters?
1.9
6.4
2.6
MWTP Priority Areas?
1.9
6.4
2.6
AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: 02ft,w>6ft,l>1000ft)?
31.4
**
**
Area > 40 acres?
15.8
70.1
66.2
Primary source of sediment = channel flow?
-0.3
6.2
2.4
Outlet < one third average width?
-0.3
6.2
2.4
Upslope wet depressions > 5% of watershed?
0.6
8.1
4.2
DO limiting to fish?
1.7
10.3
6.4
AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: 13.3 ft/sec
18.7
138.9
135.1
Is AA subject to frequent Hunan disturbance?
-0.6
5.8
1.9
Primary source of nutrients = channel flow?
10.9
50.4
46.5
5.0 < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
6.7
30.0
26.2
Features in erosion prone areas?
16.8
219.9
216.1
Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
3.3
17.5
13.6
AA < 5X of watershed?
4.9
24.0
20.2
emergent in Zone B = OX of Zones B and C?
4.9
26.9
23.1
local dans?
6.9
40.9
37.1
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
-0.7
6.6
2.7
Plants: waterfowl value?
7.3
55.5
51.6
secondary water depth > 26 feet
7.3
55.5
51.6
Bufflehead/Goldeneye Hig/Uint present?
-0.9
6.5
2.7
Substrate: peat?
11.4
**
Unusual or rare local type?
-1.0
6.7
2.8
AA contains a Sinuous channel?
6.2
77.4
73.5
21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
9.4
**
**
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
-------
Draft--08/01/91
Social Significance Attribute
Number of Criteria Het Percentage "Yes"
Question
None
One
Two
Three
Four
>=Three
None
Chi Chi
033.1
4
13
20
4
3
32X
13X
2.8
031.6.b
3
12
13
2
5
32X
10X
4.1
016.C
2
0
2
2
5
32X
6X
5.9
015.1.C
1
0
2
1
6
321
3X
8.2
04.2B
1
2
9
2
5
32*
3X
8.2
046. C
1
7
3
0
7
32X
3X
8.2
12
0
7
8
4
3
32X
OX
11.4
122
0
0
0
X
6
32*
0*
11.4
19
0
10
12
5
2
32*
0*
11.4
031.4
2
2
4
3
3
27*
6X
4.4
041.2
2
3
11
2
4
27*
6*
4.4
066.2.5
2
7
13
2
4
27X
6X
4.4
012. C
1
1
3
4
2
27X
3*
6.5
09.2
0
2
2
2
4
27X
OX
9.5
012.Cc
0
0
3
4
2
27*
0*
9.5
043. H
2
1
6
2
3
23*
6X
3.0
04.2C
2
2
6
2
3
23*
6*
3.0
016. B
2
8
10
4
1
23*
6X
3.0
119
1
2
10
1
4
23X
3X
4.9
02.1.3
0
2
2
2
3
23*
0*
7.8
038.5
0
5
4
4
1
23*
OX
7.8
Q18
1
5
4
2
2
18*
3X
3.4
014.1
0
2
5
1
3
18*
0*
6.1
036.2.3
1
4
9
1
2
14*
3*
2.0
124
1
5
8
0
3
14*
3X
2.0
123
0
0
0
3
0
14*
OX
4.5
055.1
0
13
4
2
1
14*
OX
4.5
045. B
0
2
8
2
1
14*
OX
4.5
013.Ca
0
8
8
1
1
9*
OX
2.9
043.G
0
2
5
2
0
9*
OX
2.9
043.1
0
0
5
2
0
9*
OX
2.9
127
0
0
0
0
2
9*
ox
2.9
18
0
7
6
1
1
9*
ox
2.9
16
0
0
1
1
0
5*
ox
1.4
013.Ae
0
0
2
0
1
5*
ox
039
0
3
6
0
1
5X
ox
013.A
0
0
2
0
1
5*
ox
1.4
012.Be
0
0
0
0
1
5X
0*
1.4
019.2
0
1
3
0
1
5*
ox
1.4
012. B
0
0
0
0
1
5X
ox
Page 2
TABLE 2-25
(continued)
>=Three vs. None
-test Chi' Chi'-test Sunmary
-1.0 7.0 3.2 Permanent Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
0.3 12.3 8.5 emergent in Zone B = 1X - 30* of Zones B and C?
2.0 23.5 19.6 Vegetation class - mosaic
4.4 57.6 53.8 Vegetation<-->Water = checkerboard
4.4 57.6 53.8 1 -100 square mile watershed?
4.4 57.6 53.8 Physical Habitat lnterspersion - mosaic
7.5 ** ** Designated/Control led Area?
7.5 " ** Limited dependent species?
7.5 ** " DownsIope sensitive features in floodplain?
0.5 15.8 12.0 Area of submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B ~ C?
0.5 15.8 12.0 Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s?
0.5 15.8 12.0 Mergansers Mig/Uint present?
2.7 40.8 36.9 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
5.7 ** ** Sheet flooding?
5.7 ** ** Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
-0.9 9.7 5.8 6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
-0.9 9.7 5.8 100-2500 square mile watershed?
-0.9 9.7 5.8 Vegetation class = intermediate
1.0 26.8 23.0 USfUS/IRP fishery?
3.9 ** ** Area > 200 acres?
3.9 ** ** mudflat > 5 acre or emergent veg » 5 acre and other adjacent
-0.5 15.3 11.9 Uptand<-->Uetland edge irregular?
2.3 ** ** AA on 25 square foot island?
-1.8 7.6 3.8 Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
-1.8 7.6 3.8 Research resource?
0.6 ** " Edueation opportunety?
0.6 ** •* Suspended Solids < 25 mg/l
0.6 ** ** Substrate: Muck?
-0.9 " ** Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and algal
-0.9 ** " 5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
-0.9 ** ** dominant water depth > 26 feet
-0.9 ** ** Recreation access point?
-0.9 ** ** Features sensitive to flooding?
-2.4 ** ** Substantial previous S expenditure?
-2.4 ** ** Secondary veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
-2.4 ** ** Special habitat features?
-2.4 ** •• Secondary veg: forested
-2.4 ** *• Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
-2.4 ** " Wave protection?
-2.4 ** ** Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub
-------
Draft--07/31/91
TABLE 2-2 6
WATER QUALITY A
RIBUTE RANKS
QUEST SUMRAN
Surmary
025.2.A
Primary source of sediment - sheetflow?
041.1
Peak flow velocity < 10 cm/s?
038.7
semiperm or seas flood or perm flood/intermit exposec
and otKe
09.2
Sheet flooding?
015.1.8
Vegetation<--'Water = intermediate
015.1.C
Vegetation<-->Water = checkerboard
031.6.c
emergent in Zone B = 31X - 60X of Zones 8 and C?
031.6.d
emergent in Zone B « 61X - 99X of Zones B and C?
036.1.2
Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
012.0a
Dominant veg: Emergent and persistent
036.2.3
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500
feet?
02.2.2
Forested area > 40 acres ?
031.1
Area of Zone A ~ Zone B > Zone C?
026.2
Primary source of nutrients * sheetflow?
034.1
Local dams?
033. A
Permanent Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
032. A
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod » perm flooded nontidal?
034.3.1
Flooding due to dounslope impoundment?
031.4
Area of subnergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B
~ C?
046. C
Physical Habitat Interspersion * mosaic
045. C
Substrate: peat?
027.3
Primary source of toxics * channel flow?
027.2
Primary source of toxics * sheetflow?
027.1
Toxic source in buffer zone?
026.1
Nutrient source in buffer lone?
051.2
Plant productivity > 1500 g/sq.m/yr
055.4
Suspended Solids > 4000 ong/l
012.Cc
>1 acre or 10X of AA: 0 outlet?
024.2
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
07
v < 10 cm/s?
021.E
Subwatershed dominant land cover: urban lawn/fill?
044. A
Secondary Water Depth < 1 inch
029.1
Oense understory edge?
015.1.A
Vegetation<-->Uater = solid form
024.4
Slow percolation in watershed?
05.1.2
AA > 20* of watershed?
036.2.1
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B < 20 feet?
02.1.2
Area » 40 acres?
036.2.2
Avg width of robust erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B
<20 feet?
045.8
Substrate: Muck?
013.Cb
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
043. A
Dominant Water Depth < 1 inch
012.Be
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved evergreen
012.Cb
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
012.Bd
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved deciduous
012.Bb
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved evergreen
012.Ae
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
012.Ca
emergent in Zone B = IX • 30X of Zones B and C?
030
Is AA subject to frequent Hunan disturbance?
043.1
dominant water depth > 26 feet
012.Ab
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
033. K
Permanent Hydroperiod * irregularly flooded tidal?
043. N
6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
012.Ad
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved deciduous
09.1
Outlet « one third average width?
012.Ac
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved evergreen
012.Cb
5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
08.4
Intermittent outlet?
012.Be
Oominant vtg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
033. J
Permanent Hydroperiod « irregularly exposed tidal?
045. A
Substrate: mud?
042.1.1
Wind shelter?
055.3
Suspended Solids > 1200 mg/l
019.1.A
v < 10 em/s?
012.Db
Dominant veg: Emergent and non-persistent
046.8
Physical Habitat Interspersion » intermediate
012.Ca
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and algal
02.2.1
Forested area < 5 acres ?
019.2
Wave protection?
012.Cd
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and aquatic moss
Page f
-------
Draft--07/31/91
WATER QUALITY ATTRIBUTE RANKS
TABLE 2-26
(continued)
QUEST SUMRANKS Suimary
022.1.2 1 AA contains a Sinuous channel?
Q12.Cc 1 Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
Q24.1 1 Aluninum in soil?
QQQQ X*2 PROXIMITY TO POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE LOCATION
Page 2
-------
Draft--07/31/91
TABLE 2-2 7
WILDLIFE
HABITAT ATTRIBUTE RANKS
QUEST
SUMRANKS
Summary
02.1.3
12
Area > 200 acres?
Q8.3
11
Permanent outlet?
Q15.1.C
8
Vegetation<-->Water = checkerboard
037
8
Open water (d>2ft,u>6ft,l>1000ft)?
02.1.2
7
Area > 40 acres?
Q32.A
7
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
033.A
7
Permanent Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
046. C
7
Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
OH.2
6
AA on 2 acre island?
015.1.8
6
Vegetation<-->Water = intermediate
Q26.1
6
Nutrient source in buffer zone?
Q29.1
6
Dense understory edge?
042.2.3
6
AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: v>3.3 ft/sec
012.Cc
5
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
022.1.1
5
AA contains a Channel?
031.3
5
Area of Zone B > Zone A?
032. H
5
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = artifically flooded nontid
033.1
5
Permanent Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
034.2
5
Upstream impoundment?
042.2.1
5
AAs within 1 mi*20 day fish access: 0 1500 g/sq.m/yr
013.Cc
4
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
014.1
4
AA on 25 square foot island?
016.C
4
Vegetation class = mosaic
018
4
Upland*-->Uetland edge irregular?
031.2
4
Area of Zone B > 10% of AA?
043. D
4
9 in < dominant water depth < 20 inches
043. F
4
40 in < dominant water depth < 59 inches
043. G
4
5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
Q43.I
4
dominant water depth > 26 feet
044. E
4
21 in < secondary water depth < 39 inches
066.1.1
4
Croup 1 Waterfowl Breeding present?
066.2.10
4
Geese Mig/Wint present?
066.2.3
4
Black Duck Mig/Wint present?
010.E
3
Estuarine?
013.Ca
3
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and algal
019.1.A
3
Wind shelter?
031.6.d
3
emergent in Zone B = 61% - 99X of Zones B and C?
032.1
3
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod * regularly flooded tidal?
Q36.1.2
Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
03.1
3
Another Wet Depression within 1 mile?
043. H
3
6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
044. C
3
5 in < secondary water depth < 8 inches
044. H
3
6.5 feet < secondary water depth < 26 feet
044.1
3
secondary water depth > 26 feet
045. A
3
Substrate: mud?
047. A
3
6.0 < pH < 8.5
049.2
3
Fish cover?
050
3
Plants: waterfowl value?
052.1
3
Freshwater Invertebrate Density > 500 sq.ft.
052.2
3
Freshwater Invertebrate Density < 25 sq.ft.
053.1
3
Tidal flat Invertebrate Density * "H"
057.2
3
Probable Eutrophic condition
066.2.1
3
Waterfowl Group 1 Mig/Wint present?
066.2.5
3
Mergansers Hig/Wint present?
066.2.7
3
Bufflehead/Goldeneye Mig/Wint present?
08.1
3
Permanent inlet?
012.Cb
2
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
013.Be
2
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
016.B
2
Vegetation class ¦ intermediate
017
2
Plant form richness
Q21.A
2
Subwatershed dominant land cover: forest and scrub?
031.6.b
2
emergent in Zone B » IX - 30% of Zones B and C?
Q31.6.C
2
emergent in Zone B « 31* - 60* of Zones B and C?
033. H
2
Permanent Hydroperiod * artifically flooded nontidal?
034.1
2
Local dams?
036.2.3
2
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
039
2
Special habitat features?
Pag* 1
-------
Draft--07/31/91
WILDLIFE HABITAT ATTRIBUTE RANKS
TABLE 2-27
(continued)
QUEST
SUMRANKS
Sunmary
044. B
2
1 in < secondary water depth < 4 inches
Q44.F
2
40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
aa.c
2
5 feet < secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
045. B
2
Substrate: Muck?
045.D
2
Substrate: sand?
Q46.B
2
Physical Habitat Interspersion = intermediate
049.1.1
2
20X-80X Pools?
011
1
Fringe or island wetland?
012.Ab
1
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
012.Ac
1
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved evergreen
012.Ad
1
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved deciduous
012.Ae
1
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
012.Bb
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved evergreen
012.Be
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved evergreen
012.Bd
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved deciduous
012.Be
1
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
012.Ca
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and algal
012.Cd
1
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and aquatic moss
Q12.0a
1
Dominant veg: Emergent and persistent
012. Db
1
Dominant veg: Emergent and non-persistent
013.Ab
1
Secondary veg: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
013.Ac
1
Secondary veg: forested and broad-leaved evergreen
013.Ad
1
Secondary veg: forested and needle-leaved deciduous
013.Ae
1
Secondary veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
013.Bb
1
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved evergreen
013.Be
1
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved evergreen
013.Bd
1
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved deciduous
015.2
1
Channel flow spreading?
019.2
1
Wave protection?
020.1
1
Zone B shaded?
Q23
1
Is the AA Channelized7
02.2.1
1
Forested area < 5 acres ?
031.1
1
Area of Zone A ~ Zone B > Zone C?
031.4
1
Area of submergent in Zone B * open water of Zones B ~ C?
031.5
1
Area of Zone A >» 10% of Zone B and C?
032. B
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = intermit exposed nontidal?
032. C
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod * semiperm flooded nontidal?
032. D
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod « seasonally flooded nontidal?
032. J
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod * irregularly exposed tidal?
032. K
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod » irregularly flooded tidal?
033. C
1
Permanent Hydroperiod * semiperm flooded nontidal?
033. J
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
035.1
1
Does AA expand 3x+ > 25 days?
038.1
Perm flood or seas flood and other < 1 mi
038.2
1
(nontidal with erect veg) or 1 acre hardwood and other < 0.5 mi
038.3
1
(estuarine/marine) or (fw palustrine/lacustrine) and other < 5 mi
038.4
1
mudflat or tidal scrub-shrub and other adjacent
038.5
1
mudflat > 5 acre or emergent veg > 5 acre and other adjacent
038.6
1
agr/early succession or evergr forest>10 acres and other < 0.5 mi
041.2
1
Peak flow velocity » 30 cm/s?
043. C
1
5 in < dwd < 8 inches
045. E
1
Substrate: cobble-gravel?
049.1.2
1
Riffles?
053.2
1
Tidal Flat Invertebrate Density = "L"
027.1
X*0.5
Toxic source in buffer zone?
061
X-0.01
DO limiting to fish?
11
X>5
Threatened/Endangered Spec i es?
14
X«2
Unusual or rare local type?
Page 2
-------
TABLE 2-28
Draft --07/31/91
WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS FOR CONSERVATION SUB-ATTRI BUTE
QUEST Summary
02.1.3 Area > 200 acres?
Q15.1.C Vegetation<-->Vater = checkerboard
Q8.3 Permanent outlet?
032.A Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
02.1.2 Area > 40 acres?
015.1.8 Vegetation<-->Water = intermediate
046.C Physical Habitat Interspersion * mosaic
033.A Permanent Hydroperiod * perm flooded nontidal?
Q25.2.A Primary source of sediment ¦ sheetflow?
037 Open water (d>2ft,w»6ft,l>1000ft)7
034.3.1 Flooding due to downslope impoundnent?
012.Cc Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
036.1.2 Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
026.1 Nutrient source in buffer zone?
09.2 Sheet flooding?
031.6.d emergent in Zone B * 61% - 99% of Zones B and C?
051.2 Plant productivity > 1500 g/sq.m/yr
031.6.c emergent in Zone B * 31X - 60% of Zones B and C?
029.1 Dense understory edge?
034.1 Local dams?
031.2 Area of Zone B > 10% of AA?
032.H Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod * artifieally flooded nontidal?
043.1 dominant water depth > 26 feet
014.2 AA on 2 acre island?
043.H 6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
012.Da Dominant veg: Emergent and persistent
036.2.3 Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
042.2.3 AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: v>3.3 ft/sec
022.1.1 AA contains a Channel?
02.2.2 Forested area > 40 acres ?
015.2 Channel flow spreading?
042.2.1 AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: 01 acre or 10% of AA: 0
-------
Ranks for All WETFunclions —o^{2 f/^l
TABLE 3-1
QN
QUES
ADA
FFAE
GF3
GWD
GWF
GWL
NRT
PE
SSE
STR
SUMMARY
32
Ql.l
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Evaporation > precipitation?
33
Q1.2
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Rainfall-erosivity > 300?
34
Q13
3
Freeze-over > one month?
35
Q2.1.1
0.8
0.8
Area < 5 acres?
36
Q2.1.2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
Area > 40 acres?
37
QZ1.3
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
3
9
Area > 200 acres?
38
Q2.2.1
Forested area < 5 acres ?
39
Q2.2.2
1
9
9
1
1
Forested area > 40 acres ?
40
Q3.1
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
R
Another Wet Depression within 1 mile?
41
Q32
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
R
Cluster wetland?
42
Q33
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
R
Oasis wetland?
43
Q4.1
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
R
< 5 miles to major water?
44
Q4.2A
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
R
< 1 square mile watershed?
45
Q4.2B
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
R
1 -100 square mile watershed?
46
Q4.2C
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
R
100-2500 square mile watershed?
47
Q4.2D
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
R
> 2500 square mile watershed?
48
Q5.1.1
AA < 5% of watershed?
49
Q5.1.2
3
1
3
1
3
AA > 20% of watershed?
50
Q5.2
1
1
Upslope wet depressions > 5% of watershed?
51
Q53
N
O
T
A
P
P
R
O
P
AA outside annual floodplain ?
52
Q6.1
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Downslope drop > upslope rise?
53
Q6.2
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Geologic fault or low hyd. con. downstream ?
54
Q7
3
1
3
v < 10 cm/s?
55
Q8.1
3
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
Permanent inlet?
56
Q8.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Intermittent inlet?
57
Q8.3
9
9
1
1
1
9
Permanent outlet?
58
Q8.4
1
1
1
1
1
1
Intermittent outlet?
59
Q9.1
1
1
1
1
Outlet < one third average width?
60
Q9-2
1
9
9
9
Sheet flooding?
61
Q93
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Outflow from precip. or snowmelt in WD ?
62
Q10.A
N
o
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Lacustrine?
63
Q10.B
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
Palustrine?
64
Q10.C
N
o
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Riverine nontidal?
65
Q10X)
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Riverine tidal?
66
Q10.E
3
0.5
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
Estuarine?
67
Q10.F
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Marine?
68
Oil
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
Fringe or island wetland?
69
Q12.A
R
E
D
u
N
D
A
N
T
Dominant veg: forested
Page 1
-------
Ranks for All WET Functions —o
TABLE 3-1
(continued)
QN QUES ADA FFAE] GF3 GWD| GWF GWLINRT PE SSE STR SUMMARY
JO
71
72
73
74
75
QlZAa
QlZAb
QlZAc
Q12.Ad
Q12.Ae
Q12.B
76 Q12.Ba
77 |Q12-Bb
Q12.Bc
QlZBd
Q12.Be
Q12.C
QlZCa
QlZCb
Q12.Cc
Q12.Cd
Q12.D
QlZDa
Q12.Db
Q12.E
Q13.A
Q13.Aa
Q13.Ab
Q13.Ac
Q13.Ad
Q13.Ac
Q13.B
Q13.Ba
Q13.Bb
Q13.Bc
Ql3.Bd
13.Be
102 IQ13.C
103 IQ 13.Ca"
Q13.Cb
104
105
106
Q13.Cc
Q13.Cd
Q13.D
Dominant veg: forested and dead
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved evergreen
Dominant veg: forested and needle-leaved deciduous
Dominant veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and dead
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved evergreen
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved evergreen
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved deciduous
Dominant veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and algal
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
Dominant veg: Aquatic bed and aquatic moss
Dominant veg: Emergent
Dominant veg: Emergent and persistent
Dominant veg: Emergent and non-persistent
Dominant veg: Moss lichen
Secondary veg: forested
Secondary veg: forested and dead
Secondary veg: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
. ¦ , . . . Secondary veg: forested and broad-leaved evergreen
1 I 1 J 1 1 /Secondary veg: forested and needle-leaved deciduous
Secondary veg: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and dead
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved evergreen
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved evergreen
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved deciduous
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and algal
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and aquatic moss
Secondary veg: Emergent
Page 2
-------
Ranks for All WET Functions - |
TABLE 3-1
(continued)
QN
QUES
ADA
FFAE
3F3
3 WD <
jWF c
3WL 1
^RT
PE S
SE J
>TR S
UMMARY
108
Q13.Da
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3 S
•econdary veg: Emergent and persistent
109
Q13.Db
1
1
3
1
1
9
5
Secondary veg: Emergent and non-persistent
110
Q13.E
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C 5
Secondary veg: Moss lichen
111
Q14.1
1
1
1
3
1
I
\A with 25 square foot island?
112
Q14.2
1
1
I
9
1
AA with 2 acre island?
113
Q15.1A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vegetationc—>Water = solid form
114
Q15.1.B
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
Vegetation<—>Water = intermediate
115
Q15.1.C
9
1
9
9
9
11 3
3
3
Vegetation<->Water = checkerboard
116
Q15.2
3
1
3
1
1
9
3
9
9
Channel flow spreading?
117
Q16.A
1
Vegetation class = solid
118
Q16.B
3
Vegetation class = intermediate
119
Q16.C
1
9
Vegetation class = mosaic
120
Q17
3
Plant form richness
121
Q18
1
1
1
1
1
1
Upland <—> Wetland edge irregular?
122
Q19.1.A
9
3
1
Wind shelter?
123
Q19.1.B
1
No wind shelter + large fetch?
124
Q19.2
1
1
1
3
3
Wave protection?
125
Q19.3
1
Upland habitat wind shelter?
126
Q20.1
1
1
Zone B shaded?
127
Q20.2
1
Balance sun<~>shade?
128
Q21.A
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
R
Subwatershed dominant land cover: forest and scrub?
129
Q21.B
C
L
A
s
s
I
F
I
E
R
Subwatershed dominant land cover: impervious?
130
Q21.C
c
L
A
s
s
I
F
I
E
R
Subwatershed dominant land cover: crops?
131
Q21.D
c
L
A
s
s
I
F
I
E
R
Subwatershed dominant land cover: pasture?
132
Q21.E
c
L
A
s
s
I
F
I
E
R
Subwatershed dominant land cover: urban lawn/fill?
133
Q22.1.1
1
3
1
1
3
1
AA contains a Channel?
134
Q22.1.2
1
1
3
1
AA contains a Sinuous channel?
135
Q22.2
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Active Delta accretion?
136
Q22.3
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Evidence of Long term erosion?
137
Q23
1
Is the AA Channelized?
138
Q24.1
N
O
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
Aluminum in soil?
139
Q24.2
1
3
Fine mineral soils?
140
Q24.3
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Slow percolation in wetland?
141
Q24.4
1
Slow percolation in watershed?
142
Q24.5
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Is AA in a Karst region?
143
Q25.1
N
O
T
A
P
P
R
O
P
Source of Inorganic sediment in buffer zone?
144
Q25.2.A
1
1
9
9
Primary source of sediment = sheetflow?
145
Q25.2.B
1 1
| 1
1
Primary source of sediment = channel flow?
Page 3
-------
Ranks for All WET Functions — On
TABLE 3-1
(continued)
QN
QUES
ADA
FFAE
GF3
GWD
GWF
GWL
NRT
PE
SSE
STR
SUMMARY
146
Q25.3
1
9
3
Wetland stabilizes erosion?
147
Q26.1
1
1
3
Nutrient source in buffer zone?
148
Q26.2
1
1
9
Primary source of nutrients = sheetflow?
149
Q26.3
1
Primary source of nutrients = channel flow?
150
Q27.1
0.8
0.8
3
Toxic source in buffer zone?
151
Q27.2
0.7
0.7
9
Primary source of toxics = sheetflow?
152
Q27.3
Zone C?
158
Q31.2
1
1
1
1
3
1
Area of Zone B > 10% of AA?
159
Q31.3
3
1
1
1
1
1
Area of Zone B > Zone A?
160
Q31.4
3
1
3
3
Area of submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B + C?
161
Q31.5
1
1
Area of Zone A > = 10% of Zone B and C?
162
Q31.6.a
emergent in Zone B = 0% of Zones B and C?
163
Q31.6.b
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
eminent in Zone B = 1% - 30% of Zones B and C?
164
Q31.6.C
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
emergent in Zone B = 31% - 60% of Zones B and C?
165
Q31.6.d
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
9
9
emergent in Zone B = 61% - 99% of Zones B and C?
166
Q31.6.e
emergent in Zone B = 100% of Zones B and C or not present?
167
Q32.A
9
9
1
3
1
1
3
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
168
Q32.B
1
1
1
1
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod «= intermit exposed nontidal?
169
Q32.C
1
1
1
1
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = semiperm flooded nontidal?
170
Q32.D
1
1
1
1
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = seasonally flooded nontidal?
171
Q32.E
1
1
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = saturated nontidal?
172
Q32.F
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = temp flooded nontidal?
173
Q32.G
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = intermit flooded nontidal?
174
Q32.H
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = artifically flooded nontidal?
175
Q32.I
9
9
9
9
9
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
176
Q32J
9
9
9
3
3
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
177
Q32.K
3
1
1
3
1
Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = irregularly flooded tidal?
178
Q33.A
9
9
1
3
1
1
3
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
179
Q33.B
1
1
1
1
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = intermit exposed nontidal?
180
Q33.C
1
1
1
1
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = semiperm flooded nontidal?
181
Q33.D
1
1
1
1
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = seasonally flooded nontidal?
182
Q33.E
1
1
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = saturated nontidal?
183
Q33.F
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = temp flooded nontidal?
Page 4
-------
Ranks for All WET Functions — Oifa f-f<\ /
TABLE 3-1
(continued)
QN
QUES
ADA
FFAE
GF3
GWD
GWF
GWL
NRT
PE
SSE
STR
SUMMARY
184
Q33.G
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = intermit flooded nontidal?
185
Q33.H
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Permanent Hydroperiod = artifically flooded nontidal?
186
Q33.I
9
9
9
9
9
Permanent Hydroperiod = regularly flooded tidal?
187
Q33J
9
9
9
3
3
Permanent Hydroperiod = irregularly exposed tidal?
188
Q33.K
3
1
1
3
1
Permanent Hydroperiod = irregularly flooded tidal?
189
Q34.1
1
1
1
9
3
Local dams?
190
Q34.2
1
Upstream impoundment?
191
Q343.1
3
1
1
1
1
1
Flooding due to downslope impoundment?
192
Q343.2
N
o
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Flooding due to beaver dam(s)?
193
Q35.1
N
o
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Does AA expand 3x+ > 25 days?
194
Q35.2
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
R
High flow / low flow > 1.5?
195
Q36.1.1
Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B < 20 feet?
196
Q36.1.2
3
3
3
3
Average width of erect veg in Zones A and B > 500 feet?
197
Q36.2.1
R
E
D
U
N
D
A
N
T
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B < 20 feet?
198
Q36.2.2
R
E
D
U
N
D
A
N
T
Avg width of robust erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B <20 feet?
199
Q36.2.3
R
E
D
U
N
D
A
N
T
Avg width of erect veg (d<0.5 heigt) in Zone B > 500 feet?
200
Q37
9
9
1
1
1
Open water (d>2ft,w>6ft,l> 1000ft)?
201
Q38.1
1
Perm flood or seas flood and other < 1 mi
202
Q38.2
1
(nontidal with erect veg) or 1 acre hardwood and other < 0.5 mi
203
Q38.3
1
(estuarine/marine) or (fw palustrine/lacustrine) and other < 5 mi
204
Q38.4
3
mudflat or tidal scrub-shrub and other adjacent
205
Q38.5
9
mudflat > 5 acre or emergent veg > 5 acre and other adjacent
206
Q38.6
1
agr/early succession or evergr forest > 10 acres and other < 0.5 mi
207
Q38.7
1
semiperm or seas flood or perm flood/intermit exposed and others < 1 mi
209
Q39
9
Special habitat features?
210
Q40.1
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Bottom water < 5 degrees C?
211
Q40.2
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Bottom water > 21 degrees C?
212
Q41.1
3
9
3
Peak flow velocity < 10 cm/s?
213
Q41.2
1
Peak flow velocity > 30 cm/s?
214
Q42.1.1
N
o
T
A
P
P
R
O
P
> 1 acre or 10% of AA: 01 acre or 10% of AA: l 1 acre or 10% of AA: v>3.3 ft/sec
217
Q42.Z1
N
o
T
A
P
P
R
0
P
AAs within 1 mi+20 day fish access: 03.3 ft/sec
220
Q43.A
1
1
3
1
Dominant Water Depth < 1 inch
221
Q43.B
1
1
3
1 in < dominant water depth < 4 inches
222 j Q43.C
1
1
1
3
5 in < dwd < 8 inches
Page 5
-------
Ranks for All WET Functions -
TABLE 3-1
(continued)
QN
QUES
ADA
FFAE
GF3
GWD
GWF
GWL
NRT
PE
SSE
STR
SUMMARY
223
Q43.D
3
1
1
1
9 in < dominant water depth < 20 inches
224
Q43.E
3
3
1
21 in < dominant water depth < 39 inches
225
Q43.F
3
3
1
40 in < dominant water depth < 59 inches
226
Q43.G
3
3
1
1
5 feet < dominant water depth < 6.5 feet
227
Q43.H
3
3
1
1
6.5 feet < dominant water depth < 26 feet
228
Q43.I
3
3
1
1
dominant water depth > 26 feet
229
Q44.A
1
1
3
1
Secondary Water Depth < 1 inch
230
Q44.B
1
1
3
1 in < secondary water depth < 4 inches
231
Q44.C
1
1
1
3
5 in < secondary water depth < 8 inches
232
Q44.D
3
1
1
1
9 in < secondary water depth < 20 inches
233
Q44.E
3
3
1
21 in < secondary water depth < 39 inches
234
Q44.F
3
3
1
40 in < secondary water depth < 59 inches
235
Q44.G
3
3
1
1
5 feet < secondary water depth < 6.5 feet
236
044.H
3
3
1
1
65 feet < secondary water depth < 26 feet
237
Q44.I
3
3
1
1
secondary water depth > 26 feet
238
Q45.B
3
1
1
Substrate: Muck?
239
Q45.C
3
3
Substrate: peat?
240
Q45.D
3
1
1
1
1
Substrate: sand?
241
Q45.A
3
1
1
1
1
1
Substrate: mud?
242
Q45.E
9
3
1
Substrate: cobble-gravel?
243
Q45.F
9
3
1
Substrate: rubble?
244
Q45.G
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Substrate: bedrock?
245
Q46.A
Physical Habitat Inters persion = uniform
246
Q46.B
1
1
1
1
1
Physical Habitat Inters persion = intermediate
247
Q46.C
3
3
1
3
3
1
Physical Habitat Inters persion = mosaic
248
Q47.A
N
O
T
A
P
P
R
O
P
6.0 < pH < 8.5
249
Q47.B
N
o
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
pH < 6.0
250
Q47.C
N
o
T
A
P
P
L
I
c
pH > 8.5
251
Q48A
1
Salinity < 0.5 ppt
252
Q48.B
0.5 < Salinity < 5.0 ppt
253
Q48.C
5.0 < Salinity < 18.0 ppt
254
Q48.D
N
o
T
A
P
P
L
I
c
18.0 < Salinity < 30.0 ppt
255
Q48.E
N
0
T
A
P
P
L
I
c
30.0 < Salinity < 40.0 ppt
256
Q48.F
N
o
T
A
P
P
L
I
c
Salinity > 40 ppt
257
Q49.1.1
1
20%-80% Pools?
258
Q49.1.2
1
Riffles?
259
Q49.2
9
9
Fish cover?
260
Q49.3
N
o
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
Carp prevalent in AA ?
Page 6
-------
Ranks for All WET Functions - i
TABLE 3-1
(continued)
QN
QUES
ADA
FFAE
GF3
GWD
GWF
GWL
NRT
PE
SSE
STR
SUMMARY
261
Q50
9
1
Plants: waterfowl value?
262
Q51.1
Plant productivity < 500 g/sq.m/yr
263
Q51.2
9
9
1
Plant productivity > 1500g/sq.m/yr
264
Q52.1
N
O
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
Freshwater Invertebrate Density > 500 sq.ft.
265
Q52.2
N
O
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
Freshwater Invertebrate Density < 25 sq.ft.
266
Q53.1
N
o
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
Tidal flat Invertebrate Density = "H"
267
Q53.2
N
o
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
Tidal Flat Invertebrate Density = "L"
268
Q54
N
o
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Ground water surface slopes away?
269
Q55.1
Suspended Solids < 25 mg/1
270
Q55.2
Suspended Solids > 80 mg/1
271
Q55.3
1
1
Suspended Solids > 1200 mg/1
272
Q55.4
3
3
Suspended Solids > 4000 mg/1
273
Q56.1
N
o
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
Alkalinity < 20 mg/1
274
Q56 2
N
o
I
N
F
0
R
M
A
Morphedaphic index < 7 or > 35 ?
275
Q57.1
N
o
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
Potential Eutrophic Condition
276
Q57.2
N
o
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
Probable Eutrophic condition
277
Q58
N
o
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
High Coliform?
278
Q59.1
N
o
I
N
F
o
R
M
A
Water qual anomalies - elevated?
279
Q59.2
N
o
I
N
F
o
R
M
A
Water qual anomalies - reduced?
280
Q60
N
o
I
N
F
o
R
M
A
Water temperature anomalies?
281
Q61
0.7
0.7
DO limiting to fish?
282
Q62
N
o
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Underlying strata > 10 ft porous mater or well-fractured rock?
283
Q63.1
3
Floodpeaks: inlet > outlet ?
284
063.2
3
1
1
Surface water inflows > outflows ?
285
064
3
1
Total Suspended Solids at inlet > outlet?
286
065.1
N
O
T
A
P
P
L
I
C
Cold Freshwater Fish present?
287
065.2
N
O
T
A
P
p
L
I
c
Cold Riverine Fish present?
288
065.3
3
9
Warm Freshwater Fish present?
289
065.4
N
o
T
A
P
p
L
I
c
Northern Lake Fish present?
290
066.1.1
9
Group 1 Waterfowl Breeding present?
298
066.2.1
9
Waterfowl Group 1 Mig/Wint present?
300
066.2.3
9
1
Black Duck Mig/Wint present?
302
066.2.5
9
Mergansers Mig/Wint present?
304
Q66.2.7
9
Bufflehead/Goldeneye Mig/Wint present?
307
066.2.10
9
1
Geese Mig/Wint present?
Page 7
-------
Ranks for All WET Functions —ol/af/v
TABLE 3
QN
QU
Social Sig.
REC
FFAS
WH
SUMMARY
II
X=5
Threatened/Endangered Species?
12
N
Designated/Controlled Area?
13
State listed Cultural Resource?
14
X-2
Unusual or rare local type?
15
N
Only wetland in locality?
16
Substantial previous $ expenditure?
17
N
Unnaturally high salinities?
18
Features sensitive to flooding?
19
Downslope sensitive features in floodplain?
10
110
N
Dredging - spawning - ss
11
111
N
WWTP Priority Areas?
12
112
N
Drinking water supplies?
13
113
N
Nutrient sensitive waters?
14
114
N
Bathing areas?
15
115
N
Sole source aquifer, groundwater discharge ?
16
116
N
Actively used wells?
17
117
N
Wildlife critically flow limited?
18
118
Features in erosion prone areas?
19
119
N
USFWS/IRP fishery?
20
120
N
USFWS/IRP wildlife?
21
121
N
USFWS Waterfowl Use Region?
22
122
N
Limited dependent species?
23
123
Education opportunity?
24
124
Research resource?
25
125
N
Pristine?
26
126
Recreation in deficient area?
27
127
Recreation access point?
28
128
N
Urban area?
29
129
N
Only or closest to named feature?
30
130
N
Region losing this type?
31
131
N
Acreage > than % annual loss rate?
Page 1
-------
Draft-27-Sep-91
TABLE 3-3
»
Aquatic Diversity and Abundance
Normalized Scores for
WET Scoring Methods
RATING "123" "135" "139"
Low
Mean
0.31
0.29
0.27
94 AAs
Median
0.29
0.27
0.27
Minimum
0.11
0.07
0.06
Maximum
0.71
0.69
0.68
Moderate
Mean
0.36
0.34
0.34
25 AAs
Median
0.55
0.33
0.33
Minimum
0.25
0.22
0.22
Maximum
0.83
0.95
0.76
High
Mean
0.50
0.48
0.47
27 AAs
Median
0.55
0.49
0.48
Minimum
0.15
0.14
0.13
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
TABLE 3-4
General Wildlife
Normalized Scores for
WET Scoring Methods
RATING "123" "135" "139"
LOW
Mean
0.44
0.40
0.36
52 AAs
Median
0.44
0.40
0.34
Minimum
0.23
0.20
0.17
Maximum
0.77
0.70
0.64
Moderate
Mean
0.64
0.61
0.54
72 AAs
Median
0.64
0.58
0.53
Minimum
0.35
0.30
0.30
Maximum
0.84
0.80
0.78
High
Mean
0.74
0.72
0.70
22 AAs
Median
0.75
0.73
0.70
Minimum
0.45
0.42
0.39
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
-------
Draft--27-Sep-91
TABLE 3-5
Nutrient Removal/Transformation
WET
RATING
Low
45 Ms
Moderate
High
101 Ms
Normalized Scores for
Scoring Methods
"123"
"135"
"139"
Mean
0.62
0.60
0.55
Median
0.63
0.60
0.65
Minimum
0.34
0.29
0.23
Maximum
0.86
0.88
0.90
No Ms were rated
Moderate
Mean
0.71
0.70
0.67
Median
0.71
0.69
0.57
Minimum
0.34
0.29
0.23
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
TABLE 3-6
Sediment/T oxicant Retention
WET
RATING
Low
33 Ms
Moderate
44 AAs
High
69 Ms
Normalized Scores for
Scoring Methods
"123" "135" "139"
Mean
0.56
0.53
0.52
Median
0.58
0.58
0.60
Minimum
0.34
0.29
0.24
Maximum
0.81
0.78
0.81
Mean
0.67
0.66
0.67
Median
0.69
0.68
0.71
Minimum
0.41
0.35
0.29
Maximum
0.88
0.87
0.90
Mean
0.67
0.66
0.66
Median
0.67
0.64
0.67
Minimum
0.36
0.34
0.33
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
-------
Draft-27-Sep-91
TABLE 3-7
ADA + GWL
AVID Normalized Scores for
CRITERIA Scoring Methods
#4 "123" "135" "139"
No
Mean
0.53
0.50
0.46
129 AAs
Median
0.52
0.51
0.46
Minimum
0.21
0.18
0.14
Maximum
0.87
0.87
0.83
Yes
Mean
0.74
0.73
0.70
17 AAs
Median
0.70
0.70
0.66
Minimum
0.50
0.49
0.51
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
-------
TABLE 3-8
Banks for All
Attributes 27-SOP-91
37
Q2.2.1
Q5.12
05.2
Q7
08.1
B7 Q8.3 l._
*TTq8.4 L
ign.
6o1mT__L
63 j
310.B .
65
310.P 1
66 __
310.E[
68
QtT l
71
Q12.Ab ]
72
Q12.AQ .
73
Ql2.Ad
74
Q12.AO
~JT_
Q12.Bb
73
Q12.Bc
79
012.Bd
80
Q12.Be
82
" Q12.Ca
83
Q12.Cb.
84
~ Q12 .Cc
~iflQl2.Pa
t 8f
Q12.0b
100
101
Ql3.Ab
Q13.AQ
Q13.Ad
Q13. A#
Q13.Bb
Q13.Bc
Q13.Bd
Q13.Ba
0
0
0
£
0
£
£
\
0.92
13
39
9
2
2
£
1£
_4
29
3
0
0
6
5
1J5
7
2
2
£
\
\
2
\
\
3
7
13
7
15
2
2
2
2
2
2
\
2
WQ
0
0
0
0
0
£
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
12
1£
6
0
6
2
2
0
2
2
18
2
2
2
2
REC
£
9
3
1
£
£
0
7
1
3_
3
"ffasT
o
o
0
_0_
1
CON SUMMARY "
0 Threatened/Endangered Species?
0 State Listed Cultural Resource?
~1 lntal tvne?
U IU iv
0 Unusual or rare local type?
0 Substantial previous $ expenditure?
Features sensitive to flooding?
J faihtrK
_0_
0
_0_
0
_o
_0
_0
_0
_0
_0
_0
_0
_0
_0
_0
jO
_0
_0
_0
_0
_0
_£
0
0 Features sciumirw
o Downslope sensitive features in floodplain?
o Features in erosion prone areas?
o Education opportunit"'*
0 Research resource?
o Recreation in deficient area?
0 Recreation access point?
0 1 Freeze-over > one month?
.5 97 Area < 5 acres?
Ana > 40 acres?
21
63 Area > 200 acres?
21 Forested area < 5 acres f
¦ «<»
rmwotvw w.—
11 AA > 20% of watershed?
o Upslope wet depressions > 5% of watershed?
o jv < 10cm/s? ~ ~
-i.
14 Permanent inlet?
~f intermittent inlet?
n— — 1 '
O
30 Permanent outlet?
6 Intermittent outlet?
0 Outlet < one third average width?
26 Sheet flooding?
8 Riverine tidal?
"ii" Estuarine?
"io"
Dominant vck. iuiw^ —
r5omhian*"^fl: forested and broad-leaved evergreen
n TfC^T^nt vefr forested and needle-leaved deciduous
¦L ¦ r *~.a KrftftHJpavpd Hftr.idimiK
Caiuonnv*
Fringe or island wetland?
Twninant vee: forested and needle-leaved evergreen
~----- and broad-leaved everereen
0 r>r«minant vefl: rorcsiw »»<* —
7" Ywninant vep: forested and broad-leaved deciduous
~ rSnminant vee: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved evergreen
—r=r •—. c#»rnVi.shrub and broad-leaved everereen
0 Dominant vep:
— 7C:^;»3nt vp.p: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved evergreen
— fSnminant veg: Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved deciduous
0 Dominant veft: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
"e" Dominant vep: Aquatic bed and algal
— "Dominant vef>: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
IT Dominant vcfi: Aquatic bedand rooted vascular
— vep|: Emergent ana persistent
TT Dominant Emergent and non-persistent
J-, f—and needle-leaved e\
Dominant vefr ~——-J--
rrr„^, forested and needle-leaved evergreen
J,- forested and broad-leaved evergreen
-7.rrnn^„Ty vp.p*. forested and needle-leaved deciduous
^... a.1 Jo- forested and broad-leaved deciduous
-¦rrin^o4 Scrub-shrub and needle-leaved evergreen"
Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved evergreen"
^r—TTT^r^S^b-shrub and needle-leaved deciduous
Secondary veg: Scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
Page 1
-------
TABLE 3-8
(continued)
Ranks for All Attribute# - 27-Sep-91
IQNOI QUES
103
104
Q13.Ca
Q13.Cb
WH
WQ
REC
FFAS
6 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and algal
10 Secondary veg: Aquatic bed and floating vascular
16 Secondary veg'. Aquatic bed and rooted vascular
105
108
16 Secondary veg: Emergent and persistent
m "g- ° - ¦ 1
16 Secondary veg; Emergent and non-persistent
. . ... — C~* !c<1a«il9
109
111
Q13,Db
Q14.1
7 AA with 25 square foot island?
112
Q14.2
13
13 I AA with 2 acre island?
113
114
115
116
Q15.1.A
7 Vegetation<-->Water — solid form
Q15.1.B
Q15.1.C
'
20 Vegetation<">Water = intermediate
47 Vegetation <--> Water = checkerboard
-- - — J« O
Q15.2
11
18
39 Channel flow spreading?
Q16.A
Q16.B
o Vegetation class = solid
o Vegetation class = intermediate
119
Q16.C
Q17
o Vegetation class = mosaic
o Plant form richness
120
121 Q18
6 Upland<-~>Wetland edge irregular?
13 I Wind shelter?
122
123
124
Q19.1.A
Q19.1.B
Q19.2
0 No wind shelter + large fetch?
9 Wave protection?
0
o
0 Upland habitat wind shelter?
126
127
o I Zone B shaded?
Q20.2
o I Balance sun<-->shade?
133
134
137
Q22.1.1
022.1.2
Q23
0
z_
0
10 AA contains a Channel?
o AA contains a Sinuous channel?
o | Is the AA Channelized?
o I Fine mineral soils?
139
141
Q24.4
o Slow percolation in watershed?
144
145
Q25.2.A
Q25.2.B
10
20 Primary source of sediment g sheetflow?
o Primary source of sediment « channel flow?
- • A
146
147
025.3
Q26.1
_0_
a
** I * —¦> - -
13 Wetland stabilizes erosion?
o [Nutrient source in buffer zone?
148
149
Q26.2
Q26.3
150 Q27.1
x-0.92
=0.88
xcQ.97 | Toxic source in buffer zone?
9
o Primary source of nutrients « sheetflow?
0 Primary source of nutrients = channel flow?
x»o.93 Primary source of toxics — sheetflow?
151
152
153
Q27.2
Q27.3
028
x-0.8
X-0.8
_1_
x-0.8
x-0.89 Primary source of toxics = channel flow?
x-0.82 Has AA been Directly alterated?
* " JnwtAni (IP1)
11 I Dense understory edge?
154
Q29.1
o l Buffer zone slopes < 5%?
155
156
159
Q29.2
030
031.1
Q31.2
I X-0.92
J.
4
x=0.95
_4_
2
x«o.93_ Is AA subject to frequent Human disturbance?
7_ Area of Zone A + Zone B > Zone C?
9 Area of Zone B > 10% of AA?
031.3
1
8 I Area of Zone B > Zone A?
10 Area of submergent in Zone B > open water of Zones B + C?
— — ¦ ¦ _ . . ^ ^ y >¦» r> t
160
161
Q31.4
031.5
163
164
031.6,b
031.6.0
o I Area of Zone A > = 10% of Zone B and C?
12 emergent in Zone B = 1% - 30% of Zones B and C?
* ' ' ' 1 _ /-AM T> 1 i"
24 emergent in Zone B =
41 emergent in Zone B = 61% - 99% of Zones B and C?
« - - - . V T « « J /I 1 ] .'J
Q31.6.d
Q32.A
13
18
165
I 167
22
28 Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = perm flooded nontidal?
168
Q32.B
o | Spatial Dominant Hydroperiod = intermit exposed nontidal?
Page 2
-------
TABLE 3-8
(continued)
Bank, lor AH Attribute.
- 27-Sep-91
Pago 3
-------
TABLE 3-8
(continued)
Ranks for All Attributes - 27-Sep-91
IQNOl
I 237
QUES
Q44.I
WH
7
WQ
REC
FFAS
8 | secondary water depth > 26 feet
0 I Substrate: Muck?
| 238 Q45.B
I 239 Q45.C
0 Substrate: peat?
0 7 Substrate: sand?
~0l 8 Substrate:mud?
I 241
242
243
Q45.E
Q45.F
o 13 Substrate: cobble-gravel?
~01 13 I Substrate; rubble?
246
046.B
o Physical Habitat Interspersion - intermediate
247
251
046. C
10
W ^ |_ — " -
~ Physical Habitat Interspersion = mosaic
_ f*_ I! 1a—. ^ Pt C
048.A
0 Salinity < 0.5 ppt
252
258
259
Q48.B
049.1.2
Q49.2
_1_
18
_ol
_0_
0
0 0.5 < Salini
0 Riffles?
18 Fish cover?
261 1050
263
271
272
Q51.2
Q55.3
Q55.4
10
9
_0_
0
_0_
_9_
_1_
3
281 1061
I x»0.88_
0
_0_
0
0 Plants: waterfowl value?
19_ Plant productivity > 1500 g/sq.m/y
o Suspended Solids > 1200 mf
o Suspended Solids > 4000 mg/1
^ vr»
o I x»0.93 DO limiting to fish?
"ol o~ Floodpeaks: inlet > outlet ?
263
284
Surface water inflows > outflows ?
Uluai iuw mh»*. _
o Total Suspended Solids at inlet > outlet?
o Warm Freshwater Fish present?
285
288
064
Q65.3
12
290
066.1.1
Tf ni in * » v"" j
Group 1 Waterfowl Breeding present?
298
066.2.1
v —r
0 Waterfowl Group 1 Mig/Wint present?
0 Black Duck Mig/Wint present?
- -¦ <«t »n
300 | 066.2.3
066.2.5
Q66.2.7
302
10_
_9_
9
10
_0J
_0_
ol
0 Mergansers Mig/Wint present?
0 Bufflehead/Goldeneye Mig/Wint present?
0 Geese Mig/Wint present?
r» *+>. k4al/sr QaaHwAVI
304
307
066.2.10
o Prrwimjty to Major Roadways
Pago 4
-------
Appendix
G
-------
APPENDIX G
ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION AND
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PEREGRINE FALCON
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT, NEW JERSEY
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WANDER ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
JANUARY 1995
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
927 North Main Street (Bldg. Dl)
Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232
REPLY REFER TO:
ES-94/53
Tel: 609-646-9310
FAX: 609-646-0352
April 14, 1994
Robert V. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Dear Mr. Hargrove:
This letter responds to your March 7, 1994 request to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) decision to conduct a Biological Assessment (BA) on the
federally-listed endangered peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA) regarding the Special Area Management
Plan (SAMP) for the Hackensack Meadowlands District.
This response is provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to ensure the
protection of federally-listed endangered and threatened species and does not
address all Service concerns for fish and wildlife resources regarding the
proposed SAMP.
The Service recommends that the subject BA for the peregrine falcon not be
restricted to the area you have indicated. Peregrine falcons are currently
known to nest or exhibit territorial behavior at nine locations, on bridges
and buildings, in the New York City metropolitan area within 15 miles of the
Hackensack Meadowlands District. These sites are located north, east, and
south of the Hackensack Meadowlands District and include: the George
Washington Bridge; the TLrogs Neck Bridge; the Verraz&no-Narrows Bridge; che
Outerbridge Crossing Bridge; the Goethals Bridge; and four buildings in
Manhattan. Peregrine falcons are also known to overwinter at these sites.
Although peregrine falcons prey on a variety of bird species, including
species that inhabit urban areas, many preferred prey items are obligate
wetland bird species (e.g., dunlin, wlllet, dowitcher, and green-winged teal).
Wetlands adjacent to the New York metropolitan area that support wetland prey
species, including the Hackensack Meadowlands, could be particularly important
to the resident peregrine falcon population that is established and expanding
in the surrounding urban areas. Additionally, migrating peregrine falcons
most likely forage throughout the Hackensack Meadowlands District.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PATER
-------
In your letter you Indicated that the EPA proposes to limit the geographical
extent of the BA for the SAMP to the area within the Hackensack Meadowlands
District, south of the New Jersey Transit Main Line and west of the Hackensack
River, that was reported in the December 1989 Functional Assessment of
Wetlands in New Jersey's Hackensack Meadowlands to have observations of
peregrine falcons. This area includes Kearny Marsh, the Sawmill Creek
Wildlife Management Area, the Kingsland Impoundment, and the landfills in the
vicinity of the Hackensack Meadowlands Environmental Center. It is possible
that recorded peregrine falcon observations are concentrated in these areas
because observers have focused their attention in these areas due to high
wetland habitat values. However, there is no indication that peregrine
falcons do not forage, perhaps extensively, in other areas within the
Hackensack Meadowlands District, particularly in the remaining wetlands on
both sides of the Hackensack River. Additionally, the area you have
identified for inclusion in the BA does not include the portion of the
Hackensack Meadowlands District that is closest to the known nesting and
territorial sites for the peregrine. For instance, the northern portion of
the Hackensack Meadowlands District closest to the George Washington Bridge,
where territorial peregrine falcons have been observed and the wetlands in the
vicinity of Little Snake Hill east of the Hackensack River closest to the
Goethals Bridge, are not included in your proposed BA area.
The Service is concerned that the documentation record for the peregrine
falcon in the Hackensack Meadowlands District is insufficient to conclude that
the area south of the New Jersey Transit Hain Line and west of the Hackensack
River is the only area utilized by the peregrine falcon. Limiting the subject
BA to this selected area may not represent the actual use and importance of
the entire Hackensack Meadowlands District to the peregrine
Therefore, the Service recommends that you include the entire Hackensack
Meadowlands District in the BA for the peregrine falcon to meet the
requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, which directs federal agencies to
review their actions to determine the likely affects of those actions on
federally-listed species.
future use and expansion of the peregrine raicon population In the area.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide this input to your BA
planning process. If y°« have further questions regarding federally-listed
species please contact Dana Peters of my staff.
Sincerely,
2
-------
yt0,r«>,
i A \
*1
MAR 0 7 igy
Clifford G. Day, Supervisor
Pleasantville Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
927 North Main Street (Bldg. D)
Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232
Dear Mr. Day:
During November and December 1991, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) conducted informal consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, for the environmental impact statement
(EIS) on the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the
Hackensack Meadowlands District. In these communications, FWS
indicated that the endangered peregrine falcon fFalco pereqrinus)
feeds in portions of the District and, therefore, a Biological
Assessment (BA) may be required.
As you know, the December 1989 wetlands functional assessment
report for the District identified the Kearny Marsh, the Saw Mill
Creek wildlife Management Area, the Kingsland Impoundment, and
the landfillB in the vicinity of the Hackensack Meadowlands
Environmental Center as areas in which peregrine falcons have
been observed. Most of these areas are in public ownership or
are not considered prime development sites. Accordingly, at the
time of our informal consultation, it did not appear that
projects resulting from the SAMP/EIS would affect the peregrine
falcon or its feeding areas.
Although we expect that this is still the case, the Hackensack
Meadowlands Development Commission's Hybrid document, which was
forwarded to you on January 27, 1994, identifies four (4) upland
parcels in the vicinity of the above-mentioned areas as proposed
locations for warehouse/secondary office development. Based on
this information, and discussions with Dana Peters of your staff
and Debbie Mignogno of the FWS Region S office, EPA has decided
to prepare a BA to evaluate the potential impacts of this
development on the peregrine falcon. Given the distribution of
the species in the area and the scope of the SAMP, we are
planning to limit the geographical extent of the BA to the area
within the District, south of the New Jersey Transit Main Line
and west of the Hackensack River.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JACOB K JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278-0012
ftlMTCD ON RECYCLED PAPCR
-------
2
I would appreciate any comments you may have on our approach to
conducting the BA for the peregrine falcon by March 15, 1994.
should you have any questions, please call me at (212) 264-1892,
or have your staff contact Marie Jenet at (212) 264-6714.
Sincerely yours.
R°
Environmental Impacts Branch
cc: 0. Mignogno, USFWS
SAMP/CIS Subcommittee
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Ocaanic and Atmoapharie Adminiatration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Northeast Region
Habitat and Protected
Resources Division
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930-2298
May 11, 1992
Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York 10278
Dear Mr. Hargrove:
This responds to your request for additional information
regarding shortnose sturgeon in the Hackensack Meadowlands water
complex. In New York waters, the federally endangered shortnose
sturgeon inhabits the freshwater and estuarine regions of the
Hudson River from Albany to New York City. Occasionally,
transient individuals may be found in salt water and the open
ocean.
It is unlikely that projects resulting from the Special Area
Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (SAMP/EIS) that
your office is preparing will adversely effect shortnose
sturgeon. Shortnose sturgeon use of the Hackensack and Passaic
River complex around the New Jersey Meadowlands has never been
documented.
Please contact me at (508) 281-9388 if you have any more
questions concerning shortnose sturgeon.
Sincerely,
Nancy J. Haley
Protected Species Program
Haley
-------
f A \
l&LJ
yt05r%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JACOB K JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278-OO1Z
APR 30 1992
Mr. Douglas 'Beach
Fishery Biologist
National Marine Fisheries Service
Resources Division
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-2298
Dear Mr. Beach:
Thank you for your letter responding to my request for
information on endangered species for the Hackensack Meadowlands
Special Area Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
(SAMP/EIS). In your letter, you indicate that the endangered
shortnose sturgeon (ftcipenser brevirostrunn inhabits the Hudson
River from Albany to New York City, and that any in-river work or
impacts to potential habitat of the shortnose sturgeon should be
evaluated for their effect on the species.
The SAMP/EIS involves the Hackensack and Passaic River complex
around the New Jersey Meadowlands. Based on follow-up
discussions with your staff, shortnose sturgeon have not been
found in the fisheries in the vicinity of the Hackensack
Meadowlands, but may occur in the water complex. Since the
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP is an environmental planning process
rather than a construction project, it may result in '
recommendations for projects near the waterways. However the
waterways themselves are not under consideration as developable
sites. Therefore, it is unlikely that projects resulting from
the SAMP will adversely effect shortnose sturgeon.
Nevertheless, the SAMP's potential impacts on the species will be
fully evaluated in the ongoing Els process. Moreover, should we
determine that projects associated with SAMP implementation could
have an adverse impact on the species, we will require the
project sponsor, through the SAMP, to complete the appropriate
endangered species consultation process prior to receiving final
project approval.
With this in mind, if you have any additional information
regarding shortnose sturgeon in the Hackensack Meadowlands water
complex, please let me know, so the information can be
incorporated and evaluated, as appropriate, in the EIS.
-------
2
I trust this information addresses your concerns about the
protection of endangered species in the Hackensack Meadowlands
SAMP/EIS. Should you have any questions, please contact
Marie Jenet of my staff at (212) 264-6714.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
cc: EIS Subcommittee
W. Cesanek, CDM
-------
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Division of Parks and Forestry
Office of Natural Lands Management
CN 404 Trenton New Jersey 08625-0404
Scott A. Weiner (609) 984-1339
Commissioner FAX (609) 984-1427
February 27, 1992
William E. Cesanek
Camp Dresser & McKee,
Raritan Plaza 1
Raritan Center
Edison, NJ 08818
Re: Proposed Development Areas in the Hackensack Meadowlands District
Dear Mr. Cesanek:
Inc.
mar
199%
Thank you for your data request regarding rare species information for the
above referenced project sites in Hudson and Bergen Counties.
The Natural Heritage Data Base has records for occurrences of northern
harrier, American coot, pied-billed grebe, Scirpus maritimus, and a coastal heron
rookery which may be on proposed development sites. There are records for
occurrences of grasshopper sparrow, American coot (observed in 1986), and pied-
billed grebe (observed 1986-??-??) in the immediate vicinity of development
sites. The attached list provides additional information about these
occurrences. Additionally, enclosed are lists of rare vertebrates of Bergen and
Hudson Counties together with descriptions of their habitats. If suitable
habitat is present at the project site, these species would have potential to
be present. If you have questions concerning the wildlife records or wildlife
species mentioned in this response, we recommend you contact the Division of
Fish, Game and Wildlife Endangered and Nongame Species Program.
PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED 'CAUTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON NHP DATA'.
Thank you for consulting the Natural Heritage Program. The fee to cover the
cost of processing this data request is $30.00. Payment should be made payable
to Treasurer, State of New Jersey and mailed to Office of Natural Lands
Management, DEPE Div. of Parks and Forestry, CN404, Trenton, NJ 08625-0404. To
ensure that your payment is properly credited, please provide a copy of this
letter with your remittance. Feel free to contact us again regarding any future
data requests.
cc: JoAnn Frier-Murza
Thomas Hampton
Joel Pecchioli
Sincerely,
Thomas F. Breden
Coordinator/Ecologist
Natural Heritage Program
Printed on recycled paper
-------
NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT
CAUTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON NATURAL HERITAGE DATA
The quantity and quality of data collected by the Natural
Heritage Program is dependent on the research and observations of
many individuals and organizations. Not all of this information
is the result of comprehensive or site-specific field surveys.
Some natural areas in New Jersey have never been thoroughly
surveyed. As a result, new locations for plant and animal species
are continuously added to the data base. Since data acquisition
is a dynamic/ ongoing process, the Natural Heritage Program cannot
provide a definitive statement on the presence, absence, or
condition of biological elements in any part of New Jersey.
Information supplied by the Natural Heritage Program summarizes
existing data known to the program at the time of the request
regarding the biological elements or locations in question. They
should never be regarded as final statements on the elements or
areas being considered, nor should they be substituted for on-site
surveys required for environmental assessments. The attached data
is provided as one source of information to assist others in the
preservation of natural diversity.
This office cannot provide a letter of interpretation or a
statement addressing the classification of wetlands as defined by
the Freshwater Wetlands Act. Requests for such determination
should be sent to the DEP Division of Coastal Resources, Bureau of
Freshwater Wetlands, CN 402, Trenton, NJ 08625.
This cautions and restrictions notice must be included
whenever information provided by the Natural Heritage Database is
published.
N.J. Department of Environmental Protection • Division of Parks & Forestry
-------
1
27 FEB 1992
OH OR IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE
RARE SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES PRESENTLY RECORDED IN
THE NEW JERSEY NATURAL HERITAGE DATABASE
NAME
*** Vertebrates
AMMODRAMUS SAVANNAROM
CIRCUS CYANEUS
FULICA AMERICANA
FULICA AMERICANA
POOILYMBUS PODICEPS
PODILYMBUS PODICEPS
*** Other types
COASTAL HERON ROOKERY
*** Vascular plants
SCIRPUS MARITIMUS
CCMOR NAME
GRASSHOPPER SPARROW
NORTHERN HARRIER
AMERICAN COOT
AMERICAN COOT
PIED-BILLED GREBE
PIED-BILLED GREBE
COASTAL HERON ROOKERY
SALT MARSH BULRUSH
FEDERAL STATE REGIONAL GRANK SRAHK DATE OBSERVED IDENT. LOCATION
STATUS STATUS STATUS
T/T
E/U
E/S
E/S
G4
GS
GS
GS
G5
G5
CU
GS
S2
52
SI
SI
SI
SI
53
SH
1971-SU1MR
1986-SUMMR
1985-TT-?? Y
1986-??-?? Y
1986-05-16 Y
1986-??-?? Y
1985-06-??
1944-08-06
TETERBORO AIRPORT, TETERBORO
BORO.
LYNDHURST, RUTHERFORD BORO
NEAR BERRY'S CR. AND
INTERCHANGE 16 W.
KEARNY MARSH, KEARNY TWP.
KINGSLAND MARSB, NORTH
ARLINGTON.
KEARNY MARSH, KEARNY, HUDSON
CO.
KINGSLAND MARSB, NORTH
ARLINGTON.
KEARNY MARSH, KEARNY TWP.
HACKENSACK MEADOWS, BETWEEN
ERIE RR & BERRY'S CREEK, S. OF
RR.
8 Records Processed
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmeapharic Adminiatration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Habitat and Protected
Resources Division
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930-2298
January 3, 1992
Mr. John Filippelli
U. s. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II, Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
New York, New York 10278
Dear Mr. Filippelli:
This is in response to your request for a list of endangered
species present in the vicinity of the Hackensack Meadowlands
near the Hudson River in New Jersey. The shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum) is an endangered species that inhabits
the Hudson River from Albany to New York, New York. Enclosed is
a copy of a Biological Synopsis for that species.
We have received no information on the proposed project.
Therefore, we are not able to provide you with any detailed
advice on the potential for the project to have an adverse effect
on shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River. Any in river work or
impacts to potential habitat of this species should be looked at
for their effect on the species. Either Stan Gorski at Sandy
Hook or Nancy Haley of my staff (508) 281-9388 should be able to
help you on the detailed effects of the project on sturgeon.
ncerely,
Douglas w. Beach
Fishery Biologist
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JACOB K JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278-O012
DEC 181391
Mr. Clifford G. Day
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
927 North Main Street (Bldg. D)
Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232
Dear Mr. Day:
Thank you for your December 4, 1991 response to my request for
information on endangered species for the Hackensack Meadowlands
Special Area Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
(SAMP/EIS). in your letter, you indicate that the endangered
peregrine falcon fFalco peregrine) feeds in portions of the
Hackensack Meadowlands and, therefore, a Biological Assessment
(BA) may be required as part of the SAMP/EIS.
The December 1969 wetlands functional assessment report for the
Hackensack Meadowlands identified the following as areas in which
peregrine falcons have been observed: Kearny Marsh; Saw Mill
Creek Wildlife Management Area; Kingsland impoundment; and the
landfills in the vicinity of the Hackensack Meadowlands
Environmental Center. The majority of these areas are in public
ownership or are not considered as prime development sites.
Therefore, it is unlikely that projects that result from the SAMP
will adversely impact them or the peregrine falcon. However, the
SAMP's potential impacts on the peregrine falcon will be fully
evaluated in the ongoing EIS process, with this in mind, if you
have more current information identifying other sites within the
Hackensack Meadowlands as peregrine falcon feeding areas, please
let me know, so that they can be reflected and evaluated, as
appropriate, in the EIS.
As you know, the Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP is, by definition,
an environmental planning process, not a construction project.
Accordingly, we are not required to prepare a BA for the
peregrine falcon as part of the SAMP/EIS. Nevertheless, as
indicated above, the EIS will fully evaluate the SAMP's potential
impacts on the peregrine falcon. Moreover, should we determine
that construction projects associated with SAMP implementation
-------
2
could have an adverse impact on this species, we will require,
through the SAMP, the project sponsor to complete an appropriate
BA and the endangered species consultation process prior to
receiving final project approval.
With respect to your concern about federal species that are not
under your jurisdiction (e.g., the shortnose sturgeon rAcipensar
brevirostruml), we requested inform*. :ion from the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding endangered species under its
jurisdiction concurrent with our request to you. We are awaiting
a response from the NMFS regarding this matter. Similarly, ve
have asked the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy (NJDEPE) to provide information on the locations of
state-protected species in the Hackensack Meadowlands. Once we
receive responses from the NMFS and the NJDEPE, we will perform
the necessary evaluations as part of the SAMP/EIS.
I trust that this information addresses your concerns about the
protection of endangered species in the Hackensack Meadowlands
SAMP/EIS. Should you have any questions, please contact Marie
Jenet of my staff at (212) 264-6714.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
cc: EIS Subcommittee
W. Cesanek, CDM
-------
United Stares Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
IN REPLY REFER TO:
ES-91/155
TTSTr»«4_W i n h a n c e m e n i
927 North Main Street (Bldg. D)
Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232
(609) 646-93\0
December 4, 1991
Mr. Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Dear Mr. Hargrove:
This letter responds to your November 1, 1991, request to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for information on the presence of federally listed
and proposed endangered and threatened species within the vicinity of the
Hackensack Meadowlands District, Bergen County, New Jersey for use in the
preparation of a Special Area Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
(SAMP/EIS) for the Meadowlands.
This response is provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act)
(87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to ensure the protection of
endangered and threatened species. These comments do not preclude separate
review and comment by the Service as afforded by the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) for any permits
required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act
of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.), nor do they preclude comments on any
forthcoming environmental documents pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended (83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Enclosed are summaries of the federally listed and candidate species in New
Jersey for your information. The Hackensack Meadowlands provide feeding
habitat for the endangered peregrine falcon (Falco peregrLnus), which nests on
bridge structures in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area. Peregrines
tend to prefer marshes and riparian habitats for hunting, as these areas
attract shorebird and passerine prey. Occasional use of the Meadowlands by
the endangered bald eagle (Hallaeetus leucocephalus) may also occur.
The lead federal agency for a project has the responsibility under Section
7(c) of the Act, to prepare a Biological Assessment, if the project is a
construction project that may require an EIS. The assessment should contain
information concerning listed or proposed species that may be present in the
action area and an analysis of any potential effect of the action on such
species. The following may be considered for inclusion in an assessment of
the proposed project, although actual contents are at the discretion of the
federal authorizing agency.
-------
(1) The results of field surveys to determine If listed species are
present or occur seasonally.
(2) The views of recognized experts on the species.
(3) A literature review.
(A) An analysis of direct, Indirect, and cumulative effects of the
action on the species.
(S) An analysis of alternative actions.
Biological Assessments may be consolidated with interagency cooperation
procedures required by other statutes such as the Fish and Vildlife
Coordination Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. The satisfaction
of the requirements of these other statutes, however, does not in itself
relieve a federal agency of its obligation to comply with the biological
assessment procedures of the Act. The results of a Biological Assessment may
be incorporated into a draft E1S. If the Biological Assessment indicates that
no listed or proposed species are present or will be affected, and the Service
concurs, In writing, with the assessment, then no formal consultation will be
required. This project may require a Biological Assessment as described
above. However, if a Biological Assessment is not required, the lead federal
agency still has the responsibility to review its proposed activities and
determine whether any listed species or critical habitat will ba affected.
This determination should be forwarded to the Service for review and
concurrence or nonconcurrencc. By copy of this letter, the Service is
informing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, co-lead federal agencies for this project, of potential
consultation requirements.
Furthermore, the federally endangered shortnose sturgeon (Aclpenser
brevlrostrua) has been documented from the Hudson River, and possibly the
lower Hackensack River, which is within the project study area. Principal
responsibility for this species and other marine species on the enclosed list
is vested with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Therefore, we
recommend you contact the NMFS at the following address regarding potential
Impacts to these species as a result of project implementation and pursuant to
responsibilities under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act:
National Marine Fisheries Service
7 Pleasant Street
Gloucester, Massachusetts 01903
(508/281-9251)
Candidate species are those species under consideration by the Service for
possible inclusion on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Although these species receive no substantive or procedural
protection under the Endangered Species Act, the Service encourages federal
agencies and other planners to consider candidate species in the project
planning process and avoid adverse Impacts to them. The Northern diamondback
terrapin (Halaclemys terrapin terrapin) occurs in the Hackensack River within
2
-------
the project area. The New Jersey Natural Heritage Program provides the most
up-to-date data source for candidate species in the State. Therefore, we
suggest you contact the National Heritage Program at the following address for
information on this and other candidate species and State listed species:
All candidate species identified during the Natural Heritage Program data
search and any potential project-related adverse impacts to these species
should be addressed in the EIS.
Further Information on the Northern diamondback terrapin and other State
listed wildlife species may also be obtained from the following office:
If substantial time elapses before completion of the EIS for this project, you
should contact this office to verify the current accuracy of the threatened
and endangered species list.
Information contained in this letter represents the public interest for fish
and wildlife resources and should warrant full consideration in the project
planning process. The Service requests that no part of this letter be taken
out of context and if reproduced, the letter should appear in its entirety.
Please contact Dana Peters of my staff if you have any questions or require
further assistance regarding threatened or endangered species.
Mr. Thomas Breden
Natural Heritage Program
Division of Parks and Forestry
CN 404
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609/984-0097)
Ms. JoAnn Frier-Murza
Endangered and Nongame Species Program
Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife
CN 400
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609/292-9101)
Sincerely,
Supervisor
Enclosures
3
-------
(A)
urw YORK. NEW YORK I0278-0OI2
NOV 011991
Mr. Douglas Beach
Endangered Species Coordinator
National Marine Fisheries Service
Environmental Assessment Branch
1 Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JACOB K JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
Dear Mr. Beach:
As you know, the Environmental Protection Agnecy and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers are co-lead agencies for the preparation
of a Special Area Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
(SAMP/EIS) for the Hackensack Meadowlands. This letter is
intended to initiate informal consultation with the National
Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether there are any
federal endangered/threatened species or critical habitats present
on or in the vicinity of the Hackensack Meadowlands District,
New Jersey.
In compliance with thp mandate of Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, EPA is requesting a written
statement from you indicating whether any endangered or threatened
species which are listed or proposed to be listed may be present
in the District. Please advise us concerning the range of
territory covered by any federal endangered/threatened species
that may be found in the area, and whether any specific actions
within the project area may result in impacts to these species or
their critical habitats.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact
Mr. John Filippelli, Chief Federal Activities Section at (212)
264-6723.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
•Environmental Impacts Branch
cc: S. Gorski, NMFS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1O278-0O12
NOV 011991
Mr. Clifford G. Day
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
927 North Main Street (Bldg. D)
Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232
Dear Mr. Day;
As you know, the Environmental Protection Agnecy and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers are co-lead agencies for the preparation of a
Special Area Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
(SAMP/EIS) for the Hackensack Meadowlands. This letter is
intended to initiate informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to determine whether there are any federal
endangered/threatened species or critical habitats present on or
in the vicinity of the Hackensack Meadowlands District, New
Jersey.
In compliance with the mandate of Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, EPA is requesting a written
statement from you indicating whether any endangered or threatened
species which are listed or proposed to be listed may be present
in the District. Please advise us concerning the range of
territory covered by any federal endangered/threatened species
that may be found in the area, and whether any specific actions
within the project area may result in impacts to these species or
their critical habitats.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact
Mr. John Filippelli, Chief Federal Activities Section at (212)
264-6723.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
cc: P. Plage, FWS
W. Patterson, DOI
-------
Biological assessment of potential impacts
to the Peregrine Falcon
associated with the Special Area Management Plan
for the Hackensack Meadowlands District
Environmental impacts Branch
United States Environmental protection Agency
region n
New York, New York
Prepared By:
Wander ecological consultants
28 Warner road
Newton, New jersey 07860
Submitted to:
Principal
January 17, 1995
-------
Wander Ecological Consultants
28 Warner Road, Newton, New Jersey 07860 Phone/Fax: (201) 579-2293
Wetland Delineations • Endangered Species Surveys* Vegetation and Wildlife Inventories
Habitat Evaluation • Impact Assessments • Mitigation Proposals • Ecological Research
January 24, 1995
Mr. Robert Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S.E.P.A., Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1104
New York, New York, 10278
Dear Mr. Hargrove:
By this letter we are formally submitting to your agency the.accompanying Boogied
Assessment of Potential Impacts to the Peregrine Falcon Associated with . P ,
Management Plan for the Hackensack Meadowlands District, prepared by this firm under
subcontract to Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., Edison, New Jersey.
'^ryt^uly yours, A
Sharon Ann Wander, Ph.D.
Managing Partner
cc: Bill Cesanek, CDM
-------
Biological Assessment of Peregrine Falcon
in the Hackensack Meadowlands District,
New Jersey
1.0 Introduction
The Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) anticipates future development in
approximately 840 acres of currently undeveloped wetland and in approximately 1,360 acres
of upland (680 acres of which are currently classified as "vacant"), and mitigation to
compensate for the wetland impact in approximately 3,402 acres of wetland. Additionally,
the SAMP includes an Environmental Improvement Program (EEP) aimed at remediating
many of the longstanding environmental abuses in the Hackensack Meadowlands. This
program will involve solid waste management, water resource protection, air quality
improvements, flood control and stormwater management, reclamation of contaminated
land, natural resource management, expansion of parks and recreation, and protection of
historic and cultural resources.
Owing to the known regional occurrence of the federally endangered Peregrine Falcon
(Falco peregrinus), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers determined, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
that a Biological Assessment (BA) of the possible effects on this species of the proposed
SAMP actions needed to be performed.
The principal authors and investigators for this Biological Assessment were Sharon Ann
Wander, Ph.D., and Wade Wander, M.Sc. of Wander Ecological Associates, 28 Warner
Road, Newton, NJ.
2.0 Methodology
Between April 22 and September 26,1994, various upland and wetland sites in the
Hackensack Meadowlands District (the District) that have been included in the SAMP
Preferred Alternative as Planning/Satellite Areas (P/SAs), mitigation areas (MAs), or
transportation improvements (TIs) were field-inspected and evaluated with regard to their
present suitability as habitat for Peregrine Falcon. Because all breeding peregrines in the
New Jersey-New York region now utilize manmade structures as nest sites (natural cliff sites
on the nearby Palisades were used before the species' decline) and no Peregrine Falcon nests
are known to exist in the District, the SAMP sites were evaluated in terms of their quality as
foraging habitat for peregrines rather than breeding habitat. The extensive wetlands found
within the District support numerous wetland-associated bird species commonly hunted by
peregrines and-upland sites support a lesser density and diversity of other avian prey;
therefore, these sites might represent important foraging areas for the regional breeding
population of peregrines as well as for migrants, wintering birds, and nonbreeding
individuals present during the breeding season. This assessment, therefore, focused on
evaluating the current importance of the various sites as foraging habitat for this raptor, and
January 17, 1995
1
-------
the probable consequent impact on the peregrines that utilize the District that might occur if
the sites were altered as proposed in the SAMP.
Peregrine Falcons feed almost exclusively on birds, which they usually catch in flight by
"stooping" on them from above or by overtaking them on the wing, often after flushing them
from the ground or water. Direct descriptions of the actual habitat utilized by hunting
peregrines are essentially absent from the literature, although there is extensive information
on prey species and hunting techniques. Sites were, therefore, evaluated with regard to their
potential for attracting significant numbers of potential prey species (primarily waterfowl
and shorebirds, but also pigeons and doves, crows, songbirds, and other birds of upland
habitats), and the suitability of the site for the aerial maneuvers utilized by hunting
peregrines. Attributes such as large size, high percentage of open water and/or tidal flats,
habitat diversity, and unobstructed flight space were considered to increase the suitability of
the site for use by peregrines, as described in detail below.
Evaluation Criteria
The P/SA, MA, and TI sites were ranked as having Poor, Below Average, Average, Above
Average, and Good potential habitat values for Peregrine Falcon in comparison to habitat
available in the Lyndhurst/North Arlington/Kearny area. (This wetland complex, comprising
the large brackish pools and extensive tidal flats of the Kingsland impoundment and
Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area (WMA), concentrates large numbers of
shorebirds, waterfowl, gulls, and other birds, and, therefore, was judged to provide Excellent
habitat for hunting by peregrine.) The following set of criteria was developed to provide
reasonably equal treatment for all sites, without resorting to a numerical scoring system.
These criteria were applied using best professional judgment. Evaluations for General
Waterfowl Habitat and Aquatic Diversity/Abundance WET functions developed in the 1989
USEPA Functional Assessment of District wetlands (the WET/AVID) were included in the
wetland evaluation criteria to provide qualitative input independent of the best professional
judgment of the preparers.
Potential Habitat
Value—Wetland
Sites Criteria
Poor small (<10 acres)
isolated from other wetlands
dominated by dense monoculture of Phragmites without
significant open water or tidal flats
low functional assessment rating for both General Waterfowl
Habitat and Aquatic Diversity /Abundance
obstructions to flight
2
January 17, 1995
-------
Below Average
Average
Above Average
relatively small (10-25 acres)
isolated from, or peripheral to, a wetland complex
small tidal creeks or ditches as the only open water
low functional assessment rating for either General Waterfowl
Habitat or Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
medium size (25-50 acres)
traversed by medium-sized creeks or ditches
contiguous with or peripheral to a large wetland (100 acres or
more)
at least moderate functional assessment rating for General
Waterfowl Habitat and/or Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
large (>50 acres)
river frontage or large (wide) tidal creeks and/or ditches, a
freshwater stream, or a permanent pond
contiguous with a wetland system of 200 acres or more (if <50
acres)
moderate to high functional assessment rating for both General
Waterfowl Habitat and Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
Good
very large (>100 acres)
>50% open water or tidal flats
some element of vegetation diversity
high functional assessment rating for both General Waterfowl
Habitat and Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
Potential Habitat
Value—Upland
Sites
Criteria
Poor
small (<20 acres),
isolated from other undeveloped habitat
high structural diversity of vegetation (i.e., more trees and
shrubs)
Below Average
relatively small (20-100 acres)
contiguous with other undeveloped habitat
moderate to high structural diversity of vegetation
Average
large (>100 acres)
contiguous with undeveloped habitat of 100 acres or more
moderate structural diversity of vegetation
January 17, 1995
3
-------
Above Average
large (>100 acres)
contiguous with undeveloped habitat of 200 acres or more
low to moderate structural diversity of vegetation
topographic features attractive to peregrines
Good
no set of upland-associated features present in the District was
considered to provide Good peregrine habitat
The rationale for each of the elements included in the criteria is as follows:
Size. The potential prey population that an area can support generally increases with size
either because larger areas may encompass greater habitat diversity (which usually supports
more prey species) or because larger areas simply support greater numbers of a given prey
species (e.g., more Red-winged Blackbirds breed on a 100-acre site than on a 10-acre site),
or both. Very small sites (unless they consist largely of open water) are unlikely to support
enough prey to make regular visitation by peregrines energetically feasible. Larger areas are
also more suited for peregrine hunting techniques. Sizes for upland areas at each rank are
larger than those for wetland areas because densities of prey species present at any season
would probably be lower than in wetlands. Suitability for hunting by peregrine is thus
considered to increase with size of site.
Isolation. Although the flight capability of peregrines, and their ability to hunt flying birds
no matter what habitat occupies the ground beneath, diminish the importance of isolation
(i.e., a site being separated from other potential habitat without an intervening undeveloped
corridor), it seems likely that a combination of small size and isolation would generally
reduce use of a site by peregrines. Thus, the suitability of small sites that are isolated or on
the extreme periphery of larger complexes of undeveloped habitat is considered to be lower
than that of sites contiguous with larger complexes.
Water. A significant portion of the prey utilized by Peregrine Falcon consists of waterfowl
(i.e., ducks), shorebirds (i.e., sandpipers, plovers, and allies), and other water-associated
species (e.g., grebes, moorhens, smaller herons, swallows). Because these species are most
common and most easily hunted in the vicinity of open water and tidal flats, increased extent
of these features—including increased size (i.e., width) of creeks and ditches—is considered
to increase the suitability of a site for hunting by peregrine.
General Waterfowl Habitat. Because waterfowl constitute a significant portion of the
peregrine's diet, especially on migration and in winter, the suitability of a wetland site for
peregrine hunting was considered to increase with increase of EPA's functional assessment
for this parameter from Low to High.
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance. Because greater aquatic diversity (e.g., of fish, plants, and
aquatic invertebrates) increases the potential food base for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other
prey utilized by peregrines, and thus may attract larger numbers of prey, the suitability of a
4
January 17, 1995
-------
wetland site for peregrine hunting was considered to increase with increase of EPA's
functional assessment for this parameter from low to high.
Vegetation Diversity. A greater diversity of wetland herbaceous species is likely to support a
corresponding greater diversity of prey species; therefore, the suitability of wetland sites for
peregrines is considered to increase with increasing vegetation diversity. In uplands,
however, increasing vegetation species diversity eventually encompasses trees and shrubs,
producing a structurally more diverse environment that is less suitable for the hunting
methods of peregrines. Therefore, the suitability of upland sites is considered to decrease
with increasing structural diversity of vegetation.
All wetland sites proposed for P/SAs, MAs, or TIs, and all upland sites larger than 20 acres
proposed for P/SAs, were inspected in the field, normally from one or more observation
points near the perimeter (because dense growth of Phragmites australis on most wetland
sites obstructed both visibility and movement, it generally was not productive to actually
walk the sites). Whenever possible, the observation point(s) permitted a view of any water
bodies present on the site. Information was recorded on dominant vegetation, approximate
percentage of open water and/or tidal flats, adjacent land uses, availability of perches, other
habitat characteristics, species and numbers of potential prey species present, and likelihood
of concentrations of prey species being present at other seasons. Color photographs were
taken from each observation point. Representative photographs are attached as Appendix A.
In addition, published records and other sources of information were searched, and
telephone interviews were conducted with state and federal biologists and other persons
knowledgeable about peregrines to assist in determining the Peregrine Falcon's regional
status and extent and pattern of occurrence in the District. Maps and aerial photographs of
the District (including functional assessment maps of the wetlands produced by USEPA in
1989) were also consulted in evaluating the sites.
The site evaluations were then analyzed as a group to determine the direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects (impacts) of the overall development and mitigation actions on Peregrine
Falcons that occur in the District. As defined at 50 CFR Part 402 §402.02,
"Cumulative effects" are those effects of future State or private activities, not involving
Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the
Federal action subject to consultation....
"Effects of the action" refers to the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species
or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or
interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental
baseline....Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in
time, but are still reasonably certain to occur.
January 17, 1995
5
-------
3.0 Background
Peregrine Falcon is a cosmopolitan species comprising many subspecies. It breeds in most
regions of the world where suitable cliffs provide nest sites. (Although cliffs are the primary
nesting habitat, the species can adapt to regional conditions by utilizing substitutes such as
river banks, trees, or bog hummocks, and even human constructions such as tall buildings
and bridges [Ratcliffe 1983].) The subspecies native to the eastern United States was the
American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anaturn).
3.1 Status of Peregrine Falcon in New Jersey, the New York Metropolitan Area,
and the Mid-Atlantic Coast Region.
Prior to the mid-1940s, peregrines nested in the area around the District on the Palisades at
Alpine and Englewood Cliffs and on at least one building in New York City (Bull 1974).
Individuals commonly wintered in New York City as well. Beginning in the 1950s, many
populations of peregrines declined severely owing principally to the eggshell-thinning
effects of organochlorine pesticides acquired through the food chain (Hickey 1969). The
species was extirpated east of the Mississippi Pviver by the mid 1960s (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1987).
In an attempt to restore Peregrine Falcon as a breeding species in the state, and as part of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the eastern population of the species, birds
produced through captive breeding were released in New Jersey beginning in the mid-1970s.
Peregrines were initially released at hacking towers in salt marshes along the Atlantic Coast
and Delaware Bayshore. The first nesting attempt in New Jersey by reintroduced peregrines
occurred in 1979, and by 1988 the New Jersey breeding population had stabilized at 12 to 14
pairs (Steidl, et al. 1991). The 1994 New Jersey breeding population consists of 15 pairs, of
which 10 are believed to have successfully fledged young. Because of the expansion of this
population, the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife has ended its program of
releasing captive-bred peregrines (Kathleen Clark, pers. comm.).
In 3 of 5 recovery regions in the eastern United States, including the Mid-Atlantic Coast
Region in which the District is located, populations of Peregrine Falcon have exceeded the
recovery goals of 20 breeding pairs per region established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (1987). In the Mid-Atlantic Coast Region the current population is estimated at
about 30 pairs. Approximately 100 pairs are currently known to breed in the east, and the
population is steadily increasing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program of releasing
captive-bred birds has essentially ended except for the possibility of additional releases in
Maine (Paul Nickerson, pers. comm.).
Although the Peregrine Falcon is not yet known to breed in the District, in 1994 12 pairs of
peregrines occupied nest sites within 15 miles of the District. Four were on buildings in
New York City and six others were on bridges, including the George Washington Bridge,
Goethals Bridge, and Outerbridge Crossing connecting New York and New Jersey (Chris
Nadareski, pers. comm.). One formerly unreported breeding pair was discovered (through
6
January 17, 1995
-------
interviews conducted for this study) to be utilizing a nest site at a power plant in Kearny
about three-quarters of a mile south of the District boundary (Wayne Greenstone, James
Schissias, and Sheldon Kay, pers. comms.); this pair apparently produced at least two
fledglings in 1993, but none were observed in 1994 (John Lung, pers. comm.). Also, NJ
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) reports a breeding pair on the 1-280
bridge over the Passaic River in Harrison, about 1.6 miles west of the District (Kathleen
Clark, pers. comm.). The breeding peregrines in New York City and New Jersey are
apparently nonmigratory (Chris Nadareski and Kathleen Clark, pers. comms., and Frier
1982).
3.2 Occurrence of Peregrine Falcon in the District
No Peregrine Falcons were observed during the fieldwork for the present study. The
literature search, however, indicates that Peregrine Falcon does occur regularly in the
District. American Birds (published by the National Audubon Society) was searched for the
period 1979 to present and Records of New Jersey Birds (published by the New Jersey
Audubon Society) was searched for the period 1975 to present. American Birds presented
only information about breeding pairs in the New York City area, while Records included
sightings made in the Meadowlands area. In addition, all observations of peregrine recorded
in the sightings logbook maintained by the Hackensack Meadowlands Environmental Center
(HMEC) were retrieved. Entries in the logbook are made by birders and other visitors to the
Center and vicinity, who represent a wide range of proficiencies at bird identification.
However, most of the peregrine entries are by reputable observers known to the preparers of
this report and are considered to be reliable.
A total of 67 observations of Peregrine Falcon in the District have been reported in the
literature and logbook, including one observation (of two birds) in May 1994. After
scattered reports from 1963, 1966, 1977, 1978, and 1980, this species has been reported
every year since 1982 with the exception of 1989. The peak numbers of observations in that
period were 9 in 1987, 10 in 1991, and 9 in 1992. The months with the greatest number of
observations are August (10 seen), September (11 seen), and October (10 seen), whereas
those with the lowest number are June, July, and November (with 2 observations each). It is
likely that the reported sightings constitute only a small fraction of the actual occurrences of
Peregrine Falcon in the District.
Of the 67 observations, 73% are from the Lyndhurst/North Arlington area (i.e., HMEC and
Sawmill Creek WMA, and immediate surroundings, including landfills). This is an area of
excellent waterbird habitat, including extensive tidal flats and marshes, with excellent public
access. It is well known to regional birding enthusiasts and is frequently visited by
experienced observers. Another 16% of the observations are from Keamy, either at Kearny
Marsh or adjacent landfills. Although public access to Kearny Marsh (a privately owned
site) is relatively limited, observation points are known to area birders, and because the site
is well known for its waterbirds it would be included on any birding trip to the area. The
paucity of reports from other areas of the District can be attributed, at least in part, to a lack
of public access to potential peregrine habitat elsewhere, but (owing to the presence of
January 17, 1995
7
-------
extensive open water and tidal flats) the Lyndhurst/North Arlington/Kearny area does
encompass the best waterbird habitat, and consequently the best hunting habitat for
Peregrine Falcon, in the District. The apparently rather regular use of landfills by peregrines
should also be noted—their activities are not restricted to wetlands.
Although Peregrine Falcon has been observed in the District in every month, the pattern of
occurrence (highest during the migration months of September-October and in the winter
months of January-February, lowest in June-July) suggests that the greatest use is by
migrating ana wintering birds rather than breeders from the surrounding region. An
independent investigator who has conducted more than 2,500 hours of observation of the
New York City peregrines, believes that breeding adults in the city do all their hunting in or
near the nesting territory, and considers it highly improbable that these birds travel to the
District to hunt (Sol Frank, pers. comm.). Even the breeding pair at Kearny is reported to
concentrate their breeding-season hunting on Rock Doves (Columba livia) that roost and
nest on the nearby Pulaski Skyway (John Lung, pers. comm.).
Egg dates for peregrine in New York state are generally March 26 to May 31 (Bull 1974),
and as incubation lasts 28-29 days and fledging occurs 35-42 days after hatching (Brown
and Amadon 1989), adults could be hunting to feed nestlings from late April into early
August. However, other than the August peak there is no increase in sightings during these
months, as might be expected if one or more of the nearby pairs were hunting frequently in
the District to feed themselves and their young. It seems unlikely that the regional
population has uniformly late egg dates that would result in an August peak in hunting
activity by breeders. This peak may, however, represent dispersal into the District by at
least one local breeding pair and possibly their young, since the peregrines breeding at the
PSE&G Kearny Generating Station are reported to disappear from that site each year in
August (John Lung, pers. comm.). Fledged young from other regional breeding sites may
also utilize the concentrations of shorebirds that occur during August on tidal flats such as
Sawmill Creek. According to Sol Frank (pers. comm.), banding results have shown that
New York City peregrine fledglings do disperse widely from their natal territories.
3.3 Prey and Foraging Habitat of Peregrines
Owing to its extraordinary flight speed, agility, and strength, the peregrine is able to catch
and kill a very wide range of prey species that are pursued over large areas of open space
(peregrines are not adapted to pursuing prey through thick cover in the manner of accipitrine
hawks) (Bent 1938). Starting from either an observation perch or soaring flight, Peregrines
generally dive ("stoop") on flying birds from a great height, either seizing them in midair or
striking a killing or crippling blow with closed feet and/or talons; sometimes they will take
prey (such as unfledged gamebirds and shorebirds) from the ground or water (Ratcliffe
1993).
Breeding falcons probably concentrate on hunting the most common suitable prey species in
the vicinity of the nest site. Thus "city" peregrines undoubtedly kill mostly Rock Doves and
European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), "rural" peregrines in New England may hunt birds
8
January 17, 1995
-------
overflying fields and forests, such as Northern Flickers (Colaptes auratus). Blue Jays
(Cyanocitta cristata), and Eastern Meadowlarks (Sturnella magna)', and pairs nesting near
colonies of seabirds (e.g., terns and gulls: Laridae, or alcids: Alcidae) may prey on their
neighbors. Nesting densities of peregrines are known to be highest in areas of abundant prey
such as seabird colonies (Brown and Amadon 1989), suggesting that this raptor does exploit
the most obvious and readily available food source. The peregrine's former name "Duck
Hawk" attests to its proclivity for hunting waterfowl (and thus for utilizing their wetland
habitats), and the species' skill at preying on shorebirds is frequently described (implying
use of th?. tidal wetlands where such species gather). Since the most significant
concentrations of shorebirds and waterfowl occur on migration and during the winter, it is
likely that these prey species and their habitats are used primarily by migrating and
wintering peregrines.
The extensive undeveloped areas found within the District support numerous prey species
commonly hunted by peregrines and, therefore, could represent important foraging areas for
both the regional population of breeding peregrines and for nonbreeding, migrating, and
wintering individuals.
4.0 Analysis of Alternatives
Alternative land management scenarios for the Hackensack Meadowlands District
SAMP/EIS were evaluated during the Alternatives Screening Analysis. The in-District
alternatives screening can be described as an environmental review comparing the relative
efficiency of land use ana resource protection associated with a series of alternative future
growth plans in the District. The in-District alternatives that have been examined include:
No Action, Upland Growth, Redevelopment, Highway Corridors, Dispersed Development
Areas, and Growth Centers. Subsequent to the analysis of these alternatives, a Preferred
Alternative was created from selected parcels composing each of the previous alternatives.
This Biological Assessment focused on evaluating the impacts from the Preferred
Alternative.
As mentioned above, a Screening Analysis of the Land Management Alternatives was
conducted to compare the environmental efficiency of land use and resource protection
associated with a series of alternative future growth plans in the District, by estimating the
potential impact of each alternative on a variety of environmental factors, including
wetlands and other aquatic resources, threatened and endangered species habitats, remnant
and unique habitats, water quality, terrestrial resources, transportation, air quality, and
cultural resources. In a ranking of the results of all of the environmental impact evaluations
performed for each of the alternatives (see Table 1), the Preferred Alternative ranked second
lowest in its overall environmental impact, behind the Redevelopment Alternative.
However, the Redevelopment Alternative (as well as the Upland Alternative) used
unreasonably high development densities to fulfill housing and employment needs, because
only limited acreage of redevelopable (and upland) sites exists in the District. Because the
required densities are not feasible in the District, the Redevelopment (and Upland)
January 17, 1995
9
-------
Table 1
Comparison of Screening Alternatives
For Overall Environmental Impact
Composite
Alternative Relative Rank'
Upland 2.2
Redevelopment 1.0
Highway Corridors 4.3
Dispersed Development Areas 3.1
Growth Centers 2.2
No Action 7.0
Preferred 1.7
'For a description of the method used to compute the composite relative rank
please see Section 4 of the SAMP/EIS
alternatives are not considered reasonable. Of the remaining alternatives, the Preferred
Alternative exhibits the lowest overall environmental impact.
The acreage of potential Peregrine Falcon feeding habitat that would be impacted by each
alternative is listed in Table 2. The area of potential impact to falcon feeding habitat was
determined by totalling the acreage of wetland and vacant upland within the various
Planning/Satellite Areas in each alternative. As is shown in Table 2, the Preferred
Alternative has the lowest areal impact to potential falcon feeding habitat among the
reasonable alternatives.
It should be noted that out-of-District alternatives have also been examined. It was
determined that out-of-District alternatives could not serve as practicable alternatives to
growth in the Meadowlands District. (See Section 4 of the EIS, Analysis of Alternatives.)
Nevertheless, as part of the Preferred Alternative, HMDC will pursue a research project to
evaluate mechanisms to redirect growth to out-of-District urban locations. This research
project is expected to further reduce impacts to wetlands in the District that will occur under
the Preferred Alternative.
In conclusion, the Preferred Alternative is the highest ranking feasible Land Management
Alternative in the Environmental Screening Analysis, and it has the lowest impact to
Peregrine Falcon habitat among the feasible alternatives.
10
January 17, 1995
-------
Table 2
Comparison of Screening Alternatives
For Peregrine Falcon Habitat Impact
Potential Peregrine Falcon
Feeding Habitat Impact
Alternative
(Acres)
Upland
727
Redevelopment
933
Highway Corridors
1,557
Dispersed Development Areas
1,543
Growth Centers
1,576
No Action
2,423
Preferred
1,390
5.0 Evaluation of Potential Disturbance Locations
I
The ratings of Peregrine Falcon feeding habitat quality for potential disturbance locations
(including both development and mitigation areas) in the District are presented in Figure 1.
The following sections discuss the evaluation of Planning/Satellite Areas (P/SAs),
Transportation Improvements (TIs) and Mitigation Areas (MAs)
5.1 Evaluations of Planning/Satellite Areas (P/SAs)
For the purposes of this BA, the 52 Planning/Satellite Areas (P/SAs) defined in the Preferred
Alternative have been subdivided into 65 discrete study locations, comprising 24 wetland
study locations and 41 upland study locations. Thirty-two upland tracts smaller than 20
acres were assigned a ranking of Poor, owing to their small size. The wetlands or uplands in
ten additional, larger P/SAs were rated Poor as potential peregrine habitat. These low-
quality P/SAs include wetlands in P/SAs 13, ac, f, h, q, p, and the sections of w west of
Murray Hill Parkway, and uplands in P/SAs s, z, and ag. All wetlands in P/SAs rated Poor,
except those in P/SA13, are smaller than 10 acres, have no open water other than small
ditches, are isolated from other wetlands or at best peripheral to a complex of wetlands
smaller than 100 acres, and most have low functional assessments for both Aquatic
Diversity/Abundance and General Waterfowl Habitat (USEPA, 1989, Functional
Assessment of Wetlands in New Jersey's Hackensack Meadowlands). (The assessments for
the eastern sub-tract of f were medium and high, respectively, for these parameters, but this
was not considered to outweigh the tract's small size—about 6 acres—and limited open
January 17, 1995
11
-------
water resources.) The vacant upland within site ag is isolated and supports numerous trees.
Uplands in sites s and z barely meet the 20-acre criterion, and in addition the upland in s has
an exceedingly dense growth of Common Mugwort (Artemesia vulgaris), which precludes a
diverse upland bird community, and that in z has both mugwort and extensive growth of
large trees, which is not suitable for peregrine hunting maneuvers. As a result of their small
size, isolated locations, and lack of appreciable open-water habitat for waterfowl and
shorebirds, these sites provide little to attract hunting peregrines.
Wetland sites in seven P/SAs ranked as potentially Below Average peregrine habitat,
specifically: 5, aa, av, the western section of i/j, k, the northernmost and two southernmost
(the three smallest) sub-tracts of x, and v. Except for 5, i/j, and v, these sites are smaller
than the criterion of between 10-25 acres, however, they are adjacent to medium or large
tidal creeks or have other open water, and most had high functional assessment for both
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance and General Waterfowl Habitat. Uplands in P/SAs 7,11,
ae/af, I/j, and aj were also ranked as potentially Below Average. They were ranked higher
than Poor largely because they are contiguous with large areas of undeveloped wetland or
upland habitat likely to be used by peregrines and would, therefore, probably receive a level
of incidental use somewhat greater than their intrinsic habitat values would suggest.
The wetlands in nine P/SAs (but no upland sites) were rated as Average potential foraging
habitat for peregrine: 3, 4,10,12, as, bb, the eastern section of i/j, the easternmost section of
w, and the largest section of x. These are generally larger sites (>25 acres) with medium-
size creeks or ditches to provide a moderate amount of waterfowl/shorebird habitat, and at
least moderate functional assessment for Aquatic Diversity/Abundance or General
Waterfowl Habitat. Although sites 3 and 4 are well over 100 acres each, they lack open
water or mudflats (except for a few medium ditches) commensurate with their size to
provide waterbird habitat, and are ranked Average principally because their size alone
enables them to support good numbers of Red-winged Blackbirds (a known prey species for
peregrine). P/SAs bb, I/j, and x are smaller than the criterion (25 acres), but are adjacent to
large creeks attractive to waterbirds (and x has medium and small creeks as well), are
associated with larger wetland systems, and have moderate to high functional assessment for
both Aquatic Diversity/Abundance and General Waterfowl Habitat.
P/SAs 7 and 14 were evaluated as Above Average potential habitat for Peregrine Falcon.
The two wetland sections of site 7 total about 73 acres—the northern section fronts on
Berrys Creek Canal and is traversed by numerous small ditches, while the southern section
is adjacent to Berry's Creek and includes fairly extensive medium and small creeks and
ditches. Both sections have High functional assessments for both Aquatic
Diversity/Abundance and General Waterfowl Habitat. This site is contiguous with the very
large Berrys Creek wetland system and offers good quality waterbird habitat. The vacant
upland in P/SA 14 (150 acres) is the largest vacant upland tract in the District being
considered for development. Although this area has some growth of trees, large areas consist
of sparse herbaceous vegetation or bare ground that could attract flocks of land birds. The
site is contiguous with the Hackensack River directly across the river from Sawmill Creek
12
January 17, 1995
-------
FEET
METERS
"DRAFT*
Legend
Poor Habitat
Below Average Habitat
=] Average Habitat
Above Average Habitat
Good Habitat
Excellent Habitat
Not Evaluated Wetland
or Vacant Upland
/\* HMDC Boundary
/"v" Roads
/ v Surface Water
A/ Railroads
December 08, 1994
CDM
Figure 1
Peregrine Falcon
Feeding Habitat Quality
Hackensack Meadowlarids SAMP/EIS
-------
Wildlife Management Area, and just north of high-quality wetland in MA 2-11 (see Section
5.3).
5.2 Evaluations of Transportation Improvements (TIs)
There are 34 transportation improvement projects proposed as part of the SAMP. The
proposed transportation improvements (TIs) were not individually evaluated, but were
assigned the evaluation of the nearest P/SA and MA sites. Of the 34 proposed transportation
improvements, 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. Accordingly,
these transportation projects are considered to have only negligible impacts on potential
Peregrine Falcon habitat. The wetlands and uplands potentially affected by the remaining
20 projects are listed in Table 3. The system developed to identify vacant upland sites
within TIs was to reference the nearest P/SA or MA. Potentially affected uplands are listed
in Table 3 by noting the nearest P/SA or MA and underlining the designation. (This system
should not be interpreted to indicate any impact to the underlined P/SAs or MAs.)
5.3 Evaluations of SAMP Wetland Mitigation Areas (MAs)
Seventy-two potential wetland mitigation areas were evaluated to determine their current
suitability as potential foraging habitat for Peregrine Falcon, applying the criteria discussed
under Methodology in light of best professional judgment. Of these, 50 MAs are proposed
to be included in the final mitigation plan.
The following MA sites were ranked as Poor potential for peregrine: 2-3 (part), 2-4A, 2Y-A,
and 107. These are typically small sites (<10 acres), often isolated from larger wetland
systems, with little or no open water to attract prey species, and with Low functional
assessments for both Aquatic Diversity/Abundance and General Waterfowl Habitat. The
section of MA 2-3 east of the bend in Valley Brook Road would otherwise have been ranked
higher, but was downgraded to Poor owing to the presence of tall radio towers with
extensive guy wires that present a severe hazard to the hunting flight of peregrines.
A total of 15 sites were considered to provide Below Average potential habitat for peregrine:
2-1, 2F, 2G, 21, 2T, 2V, 2X, 2Z, 33A, 33B, 34, 97, 99,100, and 108. These sites are
generally larger than Poor sites with somewhat more open water (those sites that are small
usually have ponds), are contiguous with larger wetland systems, and have low functional
assessment for either Aquatic Diversity/Abundance or General Waterfowl Habitat. Some
sites (2G, 2T, and 3-8) that otherwise would have been rated higher received this evaluation
because their river frontage has been diked.
MAs 2-9, 2-10, 2E, 2L, 2Q, 3-4, 3-7,3-8,13A, 13B, 13C, 27, 28, 54, and 312 represent
Average potential habitat for peregrines. These sites have a fairly wide range of sizes but
are generally larger than 25 acres, are traversed by at least medium-sized creeks or ditches to
attract waterbirds, are associated with larger wetland systems, and have at least moderate
functional assessment for Aquatic Diversity/Abundance or General Waterfowl Habitat.
January 17, 1995
13
-------
Table 3
Potential Indirect Impacts to Peregrine Falcon Habitats
from Transportation Improvements
Project Description
Wetland and Upland Potential Habitats
Directly Impacted (F.valn^i^*)
7 Extend/widen Bergen Avenue
8 Extend Meadowlands Pkwy
9 Connect/widen Paterson Plank Rd.
10 Bergen Arches Extension
12 Widen Belleville Tpk.
17 Teterboro Park & Ride
20 New ramp from NJ Tpk. W. Spur
21 New road east of Byrne Arena
22 Widen Paterson Plank Rd.
26 Rt. 17 South Extension
27 New rail line, Bergen Line to NYS&W
28 NJT/Secaucus Transfer Interchange
29 New rail line, Main Line to Bergen Line
31 Waterfront Corridor Transit Rail
32 Widen Newark-Jersey City Tpk.
34 Ramps at West Side Ave., P. PI. Rd.
39 Secaucus Transfer Station
40 Widen NE Corridor Line
41 Widen County Rd. to Tonnelle Ave
42 West Shore Line Commuter Rail
3-2 ("A"!, aim
2U_m
2U (AA)
148 ("P"), 149 ("P"), 150B ("BA"),
154 ("P"), 155 ("P"), 224 ("P"), 98 (P),
99 (BA), 150B C"P'">
3-2(G), 3-3 (AA), 3-4 (A), 3-5 (AA),
3-6 (AA), 76 ("P"), 77 ("P"), 78, 82
(P). 138 (A), 3-5 ("P"), 3-6 ("P"). 80A
CP"), am r'P"1
211 ("P")
2E (A), 2T (BA), 200 (P)
48 (P)
lLC£3, i/i ("BA">
3-2 (G), 54 (A), 221 ("BA"), 312 (A),
502 ("P"), iLiE), 3-2 r"A"1
107 (P), 3-1 (AA), 92 ("P")
100 (BA), 151 ("BA"), 152 ("BA"),
422 ("BA"), 90 ("P"), 97 (BA),
2-6 (AA), 2-9 (A)
27 (A), 32 (BA), 28 (A), 39 (BA), 421
("P")
138 ("A")
2R (AA)
99 (BA), 100 (BA)
2-10 (A), 2-11 (AA), 87B1 (P), 107
(P), 108 (BA), 87A ("P"), 90 ("P"), 91
("P"), 92 ('P"), 99 (BA)
108 (BA), 109 ("P")
2C (AA), 2D (AA), 2E (A), 2G (BA),
2H (AA), 19 ("P"), 4D ("AA")
* Potential habitat evaluation key: P=Poor, BA=Below Average, A=Average, AA=Above
Average, G=Good. Letters in quotes indicate estimated evaluations for sites that were not field-
inspected (generally because of very small size). Upland sites are underlined, and the locations
arc generally indicated by referencing the nearest P/SA or MA.
14
January 17, 1995
-------
Sixteen MAs provide Above Average potential habitat for hunting by peregrines: 2-2, 2-3,
2-6, 2-7, 2-11, 2C, 2D, 2H, 2K, 2M, IP, 2R, 2U, 3-1, 3-5, and 3-6. These sites range in size
from 20 to nearly 300 acres, have river frontage or large creeks, and moderate to high
functional assessments for both Aquatic Diversity/Abundance and General Waterfowl
Habitat.
One site in the District (MA 3-2—Kearny Marsh, a 350-acre freshwater impoundment) was
considered to provide Good potential habitat for peregrine hunting.
6.0 Discussion of Possible Impacts to Peregrine Falcon
Possible impacts are discussed in this section without attempting to simultaneously describe
the SAMP wetland mitigation efforts that will be required under the applicable federal
permits, and that will provide offsetting benefits. Mitigation measures were discussed, in
general terms, in the preceding section and are discussed in more detail below. Mitigation
measures are discussed in detail in Section 5 of the EIS.
6.1 Potential Direct Impacts to Peregrine Falcon
No peregrines will be directly impacted by any of the proposed actions, because no activities
proposed by the SAMP would cause direct mortality of these birds, and no nesting sites will
be destroyed (no Peregrine Falcon nests are known to exist in the District).
6.2 Potential Indirect Impacts to Peregrine Falcon
Figure 2 shows the locations of potential indirect impacts to Peregrine Falcon from P/SAs
and TIs. This map shows the habitat evaluations discussed in Section 5.0 (and shown on
Figure 1), but only for areas potentially disturbed by P/SAs and TIs. As is discussed below,
the potential disturbance in the Mitigation Areas would, in accordance with mitigation
standards established by the federal agencies, result in an increase in habitat quality.
Planning/Satellite Areas
Indirect Impacts from Proposed Planning/Satellite Areas. The principal indirect
impacts to Peregrine Falcon from development of wetland and upland P/SAs derive
principally from elimination of approximately 1,390 acres of feeding (i.e., hunting) habitat,
of which 747 acres have been evaluated as Average or better peregrine feeding habitat.
Without mitigation, such impacts might reduce the diversity and abundance of food
resources available to peregrines feeding in the District.
It is unlikely, however, that size of food supply is a limiting factor for the resident Peregrine
Falcon pppulation in New Jersey, since 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. The NJ Division of Fish, Game and
January 17, 1995
15
-------
Wildlife, for example, has not observed any deaths due to starvation in nestlings of NJ
breeding pairs of Peregrine Falcon—virtually all eggs that hatch produce fledglings
(Kathleen Clark, pers. comm.).
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 represents an important resource. For example, these
wetlands, waters, tidal flats, and open uplands may be particularly attractive to migrants
from the tundra who are not accustomed to hunting in city environs and, therefore, 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 one active landfill attracts year-round flocks of scavengers
such as crows, gulls, Starlings, and Rock Doves.
An abundant food supply such as that found in the District may be especially important to
the survival of recently fledged birds relatively inexperienced at hunting—starvation due to
imperfectly developed hunting prowess is apparently a common cause of mortality among
first-year peregrines, especially in harsh climates (Ratcliffe 1993). During the winter,
physiological stresses may make it especially critical that raptors be able to hunt
successfully. Because raptors sequester DDT metabolites in fat tissue, conditions (such as
winter starvation) that cause mobilization of fat reserves can release lethal amounts of these
compounds into other body tissues. Therefore, the waterfowl, gulls, and land birds that are
present in abundance within the District during winter may be particularly important to the
survival of peregrines wintering in this region.
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 indirect impact from developing a given site depends on the intensity of
a site's use by peregrines (of which the evaluation of site habitat quality is an estimate), and
the type and extent of alteration of the site. For the purposes of this B A it is conservatively
assumed that all P/SA and TI sites will be 100% developed and, therefore, be unusable by
peregrines. However, it is important to note that, because of this species' ability to utilize
prey associated with developed habitats, even fully developed sites will retain some habitat
value.
The severity of indirect impact also depends on the type and extent of additional indirect
impacts. Potential additional indirect impacts of development on Peregrine Falcon include:
(1) possible degradation of water quality (e.g., by sediment or contaminants in
stormwater runoff) that could reduce the food resources for waterfowl and
16
January 17, 1995
-------
Legend
Poor Habitat
Below Average Habitat
Average Habitat
Above Average Habitat
Good Habitat
Excellent Habitat
Not Evaluated Wetland
or Vacant Upland
/\* HMDC Boundary
/V Roadi
/ v Surface Water
/V Railroad*
December 08, 1994
CDM
Figure 2
Peregrine Falcon
Potential Indirect Impacts
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS
-------
shorebirds in adjacent remaining wetlands (and thus reduce the numbers of prey
present);
(2) changes in the hydrologic regime of adjacent wetlands that consequently change
the use by prey species; and
(3) various forms of disturbance that could reduce the use of adjacent wetlands by
potential prey species.
These additional indirect impacts are difficult to estimate in advance of specific site design,
but would be minimized by best management practices (BMPs) and compensated for by
mitigation. Of these potential indirect impacts, the only one that is not necessarily totally
negative (if not mitigated) is changes in hydrology of adjacent wetlands. If development of
a given site increased tidal or other flooding of adjacent wetlands to the point where new
pools or tidal flats attractive to prey species were formed, the impact could be positive.
Evaluations of anticipated impacts from P/SAs on specific sites are contained in Appendix
B. Because the individual site impacts are generally considered to be minimal, only the
cumulative impact of developing all the P/SAs is discussed here.
Cumulative Impacts from Proposed Planning/Satellite Areas. 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 to be developed, 747 acres of wetlands and
uplands have been evaluated in this study as Average or better habitat for Peregrine Falcon.
Without compensating mitigation, the total impact 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, although 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 Conclusion, below).
Transportation Improvements
Indirect Impacts from Proposed Transportation Improvements. 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 (which would reduce overall prey availability unless all
displaced prey are redistributed within the Meadowlands system); possible reduction in
habitat quality of adjacent areas for prey (and consequently in prey availability for
peregrines) due to disturbance or pollution effects emanating from the TIs; and changes in
hydrologic regimes of adjacent wetlands (which may be either detrimental or beneficial to
peregrines depending on whether pools and tidal flats are eliminated or created as a result of
adjacent improvements).
January 17, 1995
17
-------
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 (as with TIs 10, 27, and 41) 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 B.
Cumulative Impacts from Transportation Corridors. 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 low—that is, it would not remove enough habitat to affect the survival of healthy
individuals under normal conditions.
Mitigation Sites
Indirect Impacts from Proposed Mitigation Sites. As with the proposed development
sites and transportation improvements, 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 (745 acres) as Average, 16 (1,803 acres) as Above Average, and only 1
(Kearny Marsh, 347 acres) as Good. The mitigation strategies and techniques proposed to be
implemented on these sites (described in the draft "Approach To Wetland Mitigation" [CDM
1994]) are designed to improve overall habitat diversity and wildlife habitat value in the
District. The three principal mitigation strategies that will guide efforts to improve the
District's disturbed wetlands are as follows:
(1) Increasing the diversity of salt marsh habitats by improving tidal flo
circulation in areas poorly connected to tidal waters;
(2) Increasing the overall diversity of wetland habitats in the District bv
freshwater wetlands in areas more distant from tidal flow- recreating
(3) Increasing the wildlife habitat value of small, hydrologically discon
wetlands by combining them into larger units. nected
To implement these general strategies, nineteen specific enhancement techniques n
implemented, as appropriate, on specific sites. Examples of such techniques incl H ^
deepening channels, creating islands, and grading wetland edges. By allowing rh n-
to support larger populations of birds (and other wildlife), and possiblv a or* ?. str'ct
neater diversity of
18
January 17, 1995
-------
species, such mitigation will increase the prey base available to raptors, and thus will have a
substantial indirect positive impact on the peregrines that utilize the District. Specific
techniques that would provide the greatest benefit to Peregrine Falcon are discussed below
under Conservation Measures.
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 entire
Meadowlands ecosystem (including peregrines).
It is unlikely that the habitat value for Peregrine Falcon of any mitigation site would be
decreased by any of the mitigation strategies or techniques proposed. For those sites that
have been evaluated as Above Average, it is desirable to ensure no diminution of value by
specifically implementing, where possible, mitigation techniques that would be especially
beneficial to peregrines (discussed in Section 7).
As evidenced by the Hartz Mountain mitigation site (where maintaining Spartina is
problematic) it should not be assumed that all the proposed techniques can actually be
implemented, and that if they are, that the potential benefits to peregrines will materialize.
On the other hand, it should be noted that even though mitigation on the Hartz Mountain site
has not proceeded entirely as planned, the flats that now characterize the site, vegetated with
dwarf spike rush (Eleocharis parvula) and saltmarsh fleabane (Pluchea pupuascens), have
attracted numerous shorebirds (Don Smith, pers. comm.). The value of the site for Peregrine
Falcon has undoubtedly been increased beyond its pre-mitigation level. Mitigation results
will have to be carefully monitored to determine their actual effectiveness at achieving the
functions proposed.
Cumulative Impacts from Proposed Mitigation Sites. The impact on Peregrine Falcon
of implementing each individual mitigation project is anticipated to be positive. Likewise,
the cumulative impacts of 3,402 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
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, 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, the effects described for the P/SAs and TIs will result in no or negligible net
adverse effect on Peregrine Falcon.
January 17, 1995
19
-------
7.0 Conservation Measures
The SAMP provides a significant opportunity to implement a number of conservation
measures that could increase the carrying capacity of the District for peregrines, thus
contributing to conservation of the species in accordance with the goals of Section 7a(l) of
— < Q tv»Hes Act.
contributing iu
the Endangered Species Act.
In consultation
[ Species Act.
In consultation with the NJ Endangered and Nongame Species Program and the 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 ir
accessible locations could facilitate research on productivity, current pollutant loads, and
other aspects of the biology of urban peregrines.
To further promote conservation of peregrines in the District by enhancing feeding habitat,
the following mitigation techniques are recommended when implementing wetland
improvements: regrading of edges of wedands 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 Phragmites with a diversity of tidal plants (the lower stature of tidal plants
- j —f;wP use of such areas as shorebird roosts would greatly improve hunting
• ' -L - --j . .
planting
concerning., £>*¦¦ 0 »
replacement of Phragmites with a diversity of tidal plants t^ine lower stature 01 uaai pi;
and possible use of such areas as shorebird roosts would greatly improve hunting
opportunities for peregrines), creating special habitats (such as shorebird flats), plantir
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). It is the recommendation of the authors of this BA th
. w-morsndnm of Understanding CMOin enter intn a
V HlKv . -
water pools (which would provide shorebird roosts and increase
y species). It is the recommendation of the authors of this B A n,»t ^
the SAMP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) enter intn
reement (MO A) with USFWS for the investigation and impJemeruation
diversity 01 umw j _r_
signatory agencies to the SAMP Memorandum of Understanding (MOT n
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with USFWS for the investigation mt° 3
"<-ineervation measures as part of the SAMP. a ,mPlementation
8.0 Conclusion
There are no direct impacts to Peregrine Falcon anticipated a,, ,
Therefore, the evaluation of impacts has been confined to the T °f the proiea
cumulative impacts. In this regard, the potential effects on P * "atl0n of indir«* and
of implementing both the entire development and transportation iTdth ^ District
20 January 17j 1995
-------
mitigation plan and Environmental Improvement Program encompassed by the SAMP have
been evaluated.
Whereas the development and transportation plan would remove approximately 840 acres of
wetland habitat of varying quality (as well as 680 acres of similarly varying and currently
vacant potential upland habitat), the proposed mitigation plan will provide at least 3,402
acres of greatly improved wetlands habitat with enhanced hydrologic connections that will
benefit the entire Meadowlands wetland system. The three main mitigation strategies (i.e.,
increasing diversity of salt marsh habitats, recreating freshwater wetlands to increase the
diversity of wetland habitats in the District, and improving the wildlife habitat value of small
wetlands by connecting them hydrologically into larger units) have the potential to attract a
wider diversity of prey species, and a greater abundance of individual prey animals, for
Peregrine Falcon to hunt. As discussed above, wetland mitigation will be required to be
performed in advance of, or concurrently with, any SAMP-related projects that impact
wetlands. Also, as noted above, long-term monitoring and maintenance will be required to
assure that enhancement goals are realized.
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 increase the prey base for top
predators such as Peregrine Falcon. It could also reduce pollutant loads in prey animals that
are ingested by peregrines. Proposed reclamation of landfills for wildlife habitat values will
also expand the prey base for peregrines 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 Peregrine Falcon. The aforementioned MOA (see Section 7)
will help assure that conservation measures will be realized through the SAMP.
Assuming that the degree of improvement achieved in the mitigation areas is as significant
as planned, and results in a substantially increased prey base available to Peregrine Falcon in
the District, the benefits provided by the mitigation will far outweigh the current habitat
value of the development and transportation sites, and, therefore, the cumulative impact on
the species of implementation of the SAMP will be highly positive.
January 17, 1995
21
-------
Literature Cited
Bent, A.C. 1938. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey. PartTwo. Smithsonian
Institution United States National Museum Bulletin 170. Dover Publications Reprint
1961.
Brown, L., and D. Amadon. 1989. Eagles, Hawks & Falcons of the World. TheWellfleet
Press, Secaucus, NJ.
Bull, J. 1964. Birds of the New York Area. Harper & Row, NY. Dover Publications
reprint 1975.
. 1974. Birds of New York State. Comstock Publishing Associates, a division of
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Frier, J. 1982. Peregrine Falcon in Cromartie, W.J., ed., New Jersey's Endangered and
Threatened Plants and Animals. Stockton State College Center for Environmental
Research, Pomona, NJ.
Hickey, J.J. (ed.). 1969. Peregrine Falcon Populations: Their Biology and Decline. Univ.
Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
Ratcliffe, Derek. 1983. The Peregrine Falcon, Second Ed. Academic Press, San Diego.
Steidl, R.J, C.R. Griffir., L.J. Niles, and K. E. Clark. 1991. Reproductive success and
eggshell thinning of a reestablished Peregrine Falcon population. J. Wildl. Manage
55(2): 294-299.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Revised Peregrine Falcon, Eastern Population
Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA.
Personal Communications
Clark, Kathleen. Senior Wildlife Biologist. NJ Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife.
Frank, Sol. Peregrine investigator. New York City.
Greenstone, Wayne. Member, Board of Directors. New Jersey Audubon Society
Kay, Sheldon. Training Assistant. Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
Lung, John. Safety Supervisor. Public Service Electric & Gas Company Kearny Generating
Station
Nadareski, Chris. Biologist, New York City Department of Environmental Protection.
Nickerson, Paul. Regional Chief of Endangered Species. Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Schissias, James. Environmental Affairs Division. Public Service Electric and Gas Co., and
Member, Board of Directors. New Jersey Audubon Society.
Smith, Don. Naturalist. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission.
22
January 17, 1995
-------
APPENDIX A
Representative Photographs of P/SAs, TIs, and MAs
On the following pages are representative photographs of the Planning/Satellite Areas (P/SAs),
Transportation Improvements (TIs), and Mitigation Areas (MAs) evaluated in this study. As is
discussed in the body of the report, each site was evaluated for its potential feeding habitat value
for Peregrine Falcon. Below are the five ratings of peregrine habitat quality, and the criteria used
to assign a rating to each site.
Potential Habitat
Value—Wetland
Sites Criteria
Poor
Below Average
Average
Above Average
Good
small (<10 acres)
isolated from other wetlands
dominated by dense monoculture of Phragmites without significant open
water or tidal flats
low functional assessment rating for both General Waterfowl Habitat and
Aquatic Diversity /Abundance
obstructions to flight
relatively small (10-25 acres)
isolated from, or peripheral to, a wetland complex
small tidal creeks or ditches as the only open water
low functional assessment rating for either General Waterfowl Habitat or
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
medium size (25-50 acres)
traversed by medium-sized creeks or ditches
contiguous with or peripheral to a large wetland (100 acres or more)
at least moderate functional assessment rating for General Waterfowl Habitat
and/or Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
large (>50 acres)
river frontage or large (wide) tidal creeks and/or ditches, a freshwater
stream, or a permanent pond
contiguous with a wetland system of 200 acres or more (if <50 acres)
moderate to high functional assessment rating for both General Waterfowl
Habitat and Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
very large (>100 acres)
>50% open water or tidal flats
some element of vegetation diversity
high functional assessment rating for both General Waterfowl Habitat and
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
In the captions below, AD/A=Aquatic Diversity/Abundance, and GWH=General Waterfowl
Habitat, referring to elements evaluated in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands in New
Jersey's Hackensack Meadowlands (EPA 1989). Sites for which the functional assessments are
not mentioned were not evaluated in the EPA study.
January 17, 1995 t
-------
Poor Pi.anning/Satelute Areas
£
P/SA 13: Looking north from westerly corner of site. This site was rated as Poor owing to small size (I | acres)
lack of significant open-water habitat for peregrine prey species (the only water is along frontage on a medium-
width segment o! Penhorn Creek, visible at right), peripheral location relative to other wetlands alon» Penhorn
Creek, and low functional assessment for AD/A
P/SA ac: Looking southwest from southeast corner of site. This site represents Poor habitat for peregrine owing
to very small size (4.3 acres), isolation from other areas of undeveloped habitat, lack of open water, and low
functional assessments for AD/A and GWH. Additionally, the presence of large trees (visible in photo) reduces
the suitability of this site for the aerial hunting maneuvers of Peregrine Falcon.
A-2
January 17, 1995
-------
¦ /«atki lite Areas (continued)
POOR Pl-ANN1N<./SMH Ll
This 8 6- acre site includes a
P,SA , ^ rzzrxzzzx by
- ,hm m,swbe
January 17, 1995
-------
Below-Average Planning/Sateli.itk akeas
P/SA av: Looking south from near Starke Ave. Although this site is very small (4.3 acres), it is contiguous with
a much larger area of undeveloped wetland along upper Berry's Creek. It also has medium and small ditches and
a pond to provide waterbird habitat. The site's functional assessments tor both AD/A and GWH were High.
P/SA k: Looking east at pond from intersection of Commercial Ave, and Commerce Ave.
This is another small (6-acre site) ranked higher than its size would indicate because of an onsite pond (shown in
photo) that occupies much of the acreage, its association with very large undeveloped areas, and medium and
high functional assessments for AD/A and GWH, respectively.
A-4
January 17, 1995
-------
Below-Aver age Planning/Satellite Areas (continued)
P/SA x (middle): Looking down tidal ditch from Ebasco parking lot. This site occupies 6 of the total of 36
acres of P/SA x. Despite its small size it has many open-water features, including an internal tidal creek and
frontage on Berrys Creek, and is associated with (although peripheral to) the large complex of Berrys ree
wetlands. Its functional assessments were High for both AD/A and GWH.
January 17, 1995
A-
-------
Average Planning/Satellite Areas
P/SA bb: Looking southwest from bridge on West Side Ave. over Bellmans Creek. This 10-acre site is
contiguous with (although peripheral to) a larger wetland complex, and fronts on large, tidal Bellmans Creek. Its
functional assessment for AD/A was medium, and for GWH was high.
P/SA 3: Looking southwest from end of Commercial Ave. Although 164 acres, habitat value for peregrine is
relatively low. As shown, only small ditches provide waterbird habitat for peregrine prey species. In the burned
state shown here, the site did attract numbers of feeding landbirds and shorebirds that otherwise could not use the
Phragmites &onunalzd site, but this condition was a temporary one that was soon eliminated by aggressive
regrowth of the reeds. Ranked Average mainly because large size enables it to support a sizable population of
Red-winged Blackbirds.
A-6
January 17, 1995
-------
Average Pi.anninu/Satellite Areas (continued)
P/SA as: Looking east from Penhorn Ave. This 65-acre site represents a sizable percentage ot the remaining
Penhorn Creek wetlands. It has a long frontage on the medium-size freshwater creek (foreground ot photo), and
also has small tidal ditches and numerous small open-water patches. Its functional assessments were low for
AD/A and medium for GWH.
P/SA 10: Looking northeast from near southwest corner (at Mill Creek Mall parking lot). This 63-acre site is
dominated by Common Reed, but has more open water than is evident in this photo. Fronts on medium-size Mill
Creek and has many small tidal ditches and open-water patches. Contiguous with a very large wetland complex
that includes the Hart/. Mountain mitigation site. Rated medium for AD/A and high for GWH.
January 17, 1995
A-7
-------
Above Average Planning/Satellite areas
P/SA 7: Looking east from "Berrys Creek Road" a. tidal creek.^
It ,s contiguous with the very large, mainly h.gh-qual.ty, wel and comp> ,idal creeks and ditcheSi
fronts on that large tidal creek. It also is traversed by several other rn ^ were both high
and thus provides waterbird habitat. Its functional assessments lor A <
A-8
Januaiy 17, 1995
-------
Transportation Improvkmknts
Tl 12-Widcn Belleville Turnpike: Looking southwest toward MA 3-2 (Kearny Marsh, rated as Good potential
peregrine habitat) near PSE&G substation in southeast corner. Belleville Turnpike is in foreground. Project may
impact a narrow strip along periphery of the Kearny Marsh wetland.
TI 20-New ramp from NJ Turnpike western spur: Looking north from Paterson Plank Road overpass.
Existing Turnpike rainp at right. This transportation improvement is located at the southern end of MA 2E (rated
as Average potential peregrine habitat).
January 17. 1995
A-9
-------
Transportation Improvicm knts (continued)
TI 29-New rail line, Main Line to Berj-in Line: Looking northeast along berm west of Meadowlands Parkway
and south of Harmon Cove Towers (background). Project may impact MA 2-6 at left (rated Above Average
peregrine habitat).
TI 31-Waterfront Corridor Transit Rail: Looking south along tracks at 69th St. in North Bergen. At this
point, the project would affect developed areas only.
A-10
January 17, 1995
-------
Transportation Improvements (continued)
TI 41-Widen County Road to Tonnelle Ave.: Looking southeast along County Ave. (at right) from east ot
Am track Northeast Corridor. At this point the road traverses developed areas.
January 17, 1995
A-l 1
-------
Poor Mitigation areas
MA 2-2 (part): Although this section of 2-2 (the portion west of Berrys Creek) has frontage on this large tidal
creek, it was nevertheless ranked as Poor because of the presence of radio towers and numerous guy wires
(evident in photo) that present a hazard te the aerial hunting flight of Peregrine Falcons.
MA 107: Looking southwest from northeast corner of site. Although at 22 acres this site is fairly sizable, it was
ranked Poor owing to isolation from other undeveloped habitat, lack of significant open water, heavy domination
by Phragmites, and low ratings for both AD/A and GWH.
A-12
January 17, 1995
-------
Below Average Mitigation Akkas
MA 2T: Looking east from Transco Road. Because of size alone this 80-acre site was ranked better than Poor,
but no better than Below Average because of lack of any open water larger than this small tidal creek, diked
river frontage, and low functional assessments for both AD/A and GWH.
MA 2V: Looking toward Byrne Arena from the Transco Road. This is a "typical" Below Average site: fairly
small at 20 acres, a small tidal creek (barely visible in center) as the only water, and low functional assessments
for both AD/A and GWH.
January 17, 1995
A-13
-------
Below Average Mitigation Areas (continued)
MA 2X: Looking north from the Transco Road toward Rt 3. Although 102 acres, this site supports only a
monoculture ot Phragmites, is hydrologically isolated by diking, and has no open water. AD/A and GWH were
both rated low. Offers little to attract falcon prey species other than Red-winged Blackbird. Rated higher than
Poor only because size supports a fairly large population of this species, and because location near higher-quality
habitat probably results in higher potential incidental use by peregrines than would otherwise be the case.
MA 33B: Looking down Bellmans Creek from bridge on the Transco Road. Site 33B is on the left. Although
only 11.5 acres, was ranked better than Poor because it is adjacent to a medium tidal creek, is a central
component of a larger wetland complex, and had a high functional assessment for GWH.
A-14
January 17, 1995
-------
Average Mitigation Areas
MA 2-10: Looking southwest from near New Jersey Turnpike at northern boundary of site. At 24 acres, this
MA was at the small end of the size range for Average ranking, and had only small tidal ditches. It was
upgraded to Average owing to its river frontage and high functional assessments tor both AD/A and GWH.
MA 2E: Looking north from Paterson Plank Road. This very large site (166 acres) achieved Average ranking
mainly for its size, which enables it to support a sizable population of Red-winged Blackbirds, a prey species for
Peregrine Falcon. As this photo shows, this site has almost no open water. The vegetation is almost entirely
Phragmites, which here is regenerating from an earlier fire. This site had a low functional assessment for A/DA
and medium for GWH.
January 17. 1995
A-15
-------
Average Mitigation Arkas (continued)
MA 3-4: Looking west from eastern corner of site. This 45-acre site is contiguous with a larger wetland
complex, has relatively extensive open water (the pond shown here), and had high tunct.onal assessments for
both AD/A and GWH.
A-16
January 17, 1995
-------
Above Average Mitigation Areas
MA 2-6 (West): Looking north-northeast Iron) Jersey City Aqueduct. This view shows small tidal creek
(leading to river frontage), tidal flats, MASpartina alterniflora marsh thai provide habitat diversity within the
dominant Phragmites vegetation community. This site has high functional assessments for both AD/A and GWH.
MA 2-11: Looking west from top of closed landfill in center of site. This 60-acre site has river frontage, an
extensive network of small tidal waterways (visible in photo), and numerous patches ofSpctrtina marsh that
provide vegetation diversity. It had high functional assessments for both AD/A and GWH, and may be a
breeding area for Northern Harrier.
January 17, 1995
A-17
-------
Above Average Mitigation Areas (continued)
MA 2H: Looking northeast from dike near BCUA at tidal area connected to Hackensack River. Vegetation in
foreground has been burned. This 43-acre riverfront site is associated with a much larger wetland complex.
Although its river frontage is partially diked, ii is connected to the river by medium and small tidal creeks. It had
a high functional assessment for AD/A, and a medium assessment tor GWH.
MA 2M: Looking north from parking lot of adjacent warehouse. Bellmans Creek (a large tidal creek) bisects
this 75-acre site, and smaller waterways are also present. As shown here, tidal flats provide feeding habitat for
shorebirds preyed on by Peregrine Falcon. This site's functional assessment was medium for AD/A and high for
GWH.
A-18
January 17, 1995
-------
Above Average Mitigation Areas (continued)
MA 2P (West): Looking east from Transco facility at large ditch. This 200-acre site straddles the Hackensack
River, with three-quarters of the acreage on the west side. Overall, MA 2P constitutes about 30% ot a much
larger wetland complex, and is traversed by numerous medium and small tidal waterways that provide habitat for
waterfowl and shorebirds. It-had medium functional assessment for AD/A, and high assessment for GWH.
MA 2P (East): Looking down shoreline of Hackensack River from boat yard at end of Mill Ridge Road,
Secaucus. This shows vegetational diversity due to fringe oiSpartina alterniflora marsh along the shoreline. This
section of 2P also is traversed by several small tidal creeks and ditches.
January 17, 1995
A-19
-------
Above Average Mitigation Areas (continued)
MA 3-1: Looking north from near intersection of Secaucus Road and Amtrack corridor. At this point the
various large and medium waterways on this 179-acre site converge. These constitute the upper reaches of
Penhorn Creek, the only freshwater stream east of the Hackensack River. Although this site is somewhat
physically isolated by the Amtrack corridor, this site is hydrologically connected to, and an important component
of, a larger system of wetlands along Penhorn Creek. It had a medium functional assessment for AD/A and a
high assessment for GWH.
A-20
January 17, 1995
-------
Good Mitigation Ark as
MA 3-2: Looking southwest from railroad embankment at south end of Barczewski Ave., Kearny. The large
r«W "ei T ' . ni l"xtu'sl^t' *'antJs ot Phragmites growing in deep water that characterize the 350-acre
rh i'r nr mr 1 "L iere- 'hese habitat conditions attract large numbers of a high diversity of waterbirds
that prov.de prey tor Peregrine Falcon. Functional assessments for this site were high for both AD/A and GWH.
(o :/h m (k7bit/buphok>2. wpc)
January 17, 1995
A-21
-------
Appendix B
Site-Specific Impact Evaluations
The wetlands in P/SA k, although only 6 acres, are contiguous with a very large freshwater
system (including MAs 2E, 2F, and 2G, and P/SAs 3 and 4) and contain a pond, therefore
this site was ranked Below Average, rather than Poor. As one of the few significant open-
water areas in this system, the pond may attract waterfowl and possibly shorebirds. Its
elimination would probably have a very low impact on peregrines in the District. (Because a
larger pond nearby at the Bergen County Utilities Authority facility may actually be a more
important attractant, the pond on P/SA k could be monitored for several seasons to
determine its level of use by potential prey species, and if use is found to be very low, the
impact of developing k would be negligible.)
The 29-acre western section of P/SA l/J (ranked Below Average) includes extensive open
water, and is near a pond where numerous waterfowl and shorebirds were observed.
Because these potential prey species might also use the open-water areas on the western
section of P/SA i/j, peregrines may utilize this site occasionally.
The 26-acre section of P/SA w (ranked Average) that follows the bank of Berrys Creek
provides good waterfowl/shorebird habitat (in the creek) that would probably be somewhat
disturbed and degraded by adjacent development, thus possibly reducing use by prey
species.
P/SA bb (12 acres) is adjacent to a wide stretch of Bellman's Creek that is likely to attract
waterfowl, and also includes considerable habitat diversity (small tidal flats and upland
inclusions) for a variety of prey species.
The largest section of P/SA x (15 acres) borders an area of Bellman's Creek with relatively
large tidal flats to attract shorebirds, and is directly across the creek from P/SA 7 (rated
Above Average). Developing this tract alone would have a very low impact on Peregrine
Falcon, but if P/SA 7 is developed, the impact would be higher because of the cumulative
effect of developing both sites.
P/SA 10, about 65 acres in extent, constitutes about 10% of a large complex of contiguous
wetlands east of the Hackensack River (including MAs 2K, 2Q, 2R, and nearby 2P) that
includes the Hartz Mountain mitigation area. Reducing the size of this large area of
contiguous hunting habitat could have a low adverse impact on peregrine.
A similar situation exists for P/SA 12, which at 50 acres represents more than one-third of
the remaining headwaters area of the Penhorn Creek system. This is the only freshwater
system on the east side of the Hackensack River, and thus adds a potentially important
element of diversity to the wetland habitat (and thus the prey species) available to
peregrines.
January 17, 1995
B-l
-------
Development of P/S A as, a 65-acre section of the Penhorn Creek .
"stepping stone" of potential peregrine hunting habitat that lies between thehld remove a
and the wetlands near the juncture of the creek with the Hackensack River ters area
P/SAs 3 and 4 are large (165 and 120 acres of fill, respectively) contim,
large wetland complex, and had moderate functional assessments fnr r ^ 711? 3 Very
Habitat, but since they lack significant open water they were ranked a a" erfowl
these sites contain little open water for shorebirds or waterfowl th '^ VCra®e' Although
them to support a substantial population of Red-winged Blackbird^ S/Ze a'0ne enables
but rather dispersed prey for Peregrine Falcon. When burned (as rePresent suitable
spring of 1994) these areas also attract numerous shorebirds, MoumP WCrC in the
passerines such as American Robin, which otherwise cannot feed es' and
However, the conditions under which these sites may thus provide^01^ ^ <*ense rceds-
peregrines are irregular and short-term. Development of P/SAs 3 ^ ® dant PreY base for
additional indirect impacts in that the surrounding undeveloped ^ Wou'd have
consist of many narrow and at least partially isolated fragments (to'b"? 2E)> Would
42 and 20) whose suitability for peregrines would be reduced * r impacted by
TIs
The northern and southern sections of P/SA 7 (ranked Above Ave
have extensive frontage on Berrys Creek Canal and Berrys Creek ** ^ 73 acres of
contiguous with (and represent more than 10% of) the very large' reSp?CtiveIy» a^d are
associated with those two water bodies (which is probably the mo° t "l * °f Wetlands
District for waterbirds and other wildlife after the Sawmill Creek/K able Wetland in the
complex and possibly the Hartz Mountain mitigation area) Redu earny ^arsh^HMEC
hunting habitat could have a low adverse impact on Peregrine Fakorf ^ CXtCnt of tilis
P/SA 14 is the only upland development site rated as Above A
(150 acres), open aspect, location along the river and near the iS^'0^"810 its lar8e size
waterbird habitat, it is likely to be visited regularly by peregrines S "qua^ty
TI12 (widening the Belleville Turnpike) would require a total of 5 4
impact to MA 3-2 (Kearny Marsh, one of the higher-quality pere °f WetIand
after Sawmill Creek) and several nearby wetlands (3-3,3.4 3.5 fl£e habitats in the District
138) that form a large and important local wetland complex with K ?6'?8' 82» and
Creek WMA. Because the impact is peripheral and along an ahead? Y Marsh and Sawmill
however, it should be very low, especially if vegetation screening Urbed corridor,
reduce disturbance from the widened road, and if stormwater tre^0 be implemented to
reduce degradation of water quality by increased highway runoff W imPle^ented to
B-2 January 17, 1995
-------
peregrines in an area where they and their fleeing prey might be maneuvering in the vicinity
of heavy vehicle traffic. (In fact consideration might be given to utilizing this tract as a
development site in place of another tract that forms an important component of a larger
system, such as P/SA 7, 10, 12, or as.)
The TI26 corridor would also run along the entire western boundary of Kearny Marsh, and
although fragmentation would not occur, the corridor would introduce disturbance and
additional water and air pollution into a relatively high-quality habitat where peregrines are
known to occur. Any disturbance should be minimized by screening with trees and other
vegetation, and by treating the highway runoff in water-quality basins, thereby resulting in
overall impacts to peregrine habitat in Kearny Marsh that would probably be very low.
TI 29 (new rail line west of Meadowlands Parkway) would run along the eastern boundary
of MA 2-6 (Anderson Marsh, a riverfront tract of dedicated open space ranked as Above
Average peregrine habitat) and would cross MA 2-9 (another riverfront site ranked
Average), impacting 3.5 acres of wetland. As these two sites constitute the only significant
wetland habitat for peregrine on the east bank of the Hackensack River between the
Turnpike eastern spur and Secaucus High School, a very low impact to this species would be
probable.
TI 31 (Waterfront Corridor Transit Rail) would transect MA 27 (ranked Average) with a
100-foot-wide corridor, so fragmentation impacts that may diminish prey species will occur
in addition to the direct impacts. However, as this tract was ranked only Average as
peregrine habitat, impacts to Peregrine Falcon would probably be low. If the remainder of
the site were mitigated using techniques especially beneficial to peregrines (see Section 6.2),
impacts would probably be negligible.
TI 40 (widening the Northeast Corridor Line) would impact more than 13 acres of wetland,
including MAs 2-10 (Average) and 2-11 (Above Average). Both of these impacts are along
the periphery of the wetlands involved, therefore the impact to peregrines is expected to be
low.
TI 42 (West Shore Line Commuter Rail) would run along the eastern periphery of MAs 2C,
2D, and 2H, cross the southern end of 2H, run along much of the eastern periphery of MA
2E, cross the southern end of 2E, run along the southern periphery of wetland 4D (dedicated
open space), and twice cross the section of 4D designated as P/SA w. Wetland impact
would total 29 acres, a substantial amount. The direct and indirect impacts to MA 2-3 would
be added to the losses and fragmentation represented by the development of P/SAs 3 and 4.
In themselves, however, the habitat losses from this project would have a low impact on
Peregrine Falcon.
(o Jh mdc/ba/b»-rept7 .wpc)
January 17, 1995
B-3
-------
Appendix
H
-------
APPENDIX H
NOISE MEASUREMENTS
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
FEBRUARY 1992
-------
Appendix H
Noise Measurements
H.l INTRODUCTION
Noise is often and most simply defined as unwanted sound. The magnitude of air pressure
fluctuations produced by sound is referred to as the sound level and is measured in decibels
(dB). The decibel scale using a logarithmic function compresses the very large range of audible
pressures into a meaningful scale: 0 dB corresponds to the faintest audible sound; levels in
excess of 130 dB produce pain in humans. Because human hearing sensitivity varies with the
frequency of sound, a filter, called the A-weighting filter, which simulates this frequency
sensitivity in human hearing, is used in measuring and reporting environmental sound levels.
A-weighted sound levels are abbreviated as "dBA." Figure H-l shows typical sound pressure
levels of various sounds in dBA.
Since the decibel scale is logarithmic, changes in sound energy are not proportional. A 26
percent change in the energy level changes the sound level by just one decibel. The most
sensitive human ear would not detect this change, except in an acoustical laboratory. A
doubling of the energy level would result in a 3 dB increase, which would be barely perceptible
to most people. A tripling in energy level would result in a clearly noticeable change of 5 dB in
the sound level. A change of ten times in the energy level would result in a 10 dB change in the
sound level. For most people a 10 dB increase in sound level is preceived as a doubling of the
apparent loudness.
The noise descriptors used in this analysis are the energy equivalent sound level (L^,) and the
day-night energy equivalent sound level (Ldn). The L#q is a single value average of the energy
content of a time-varying sound level for any time period. Human perception of sound is such
that a total ambient sound level increase in the of 0 to 3 dBA would be perceived as
"negligible" noise impact, an increase of 5 dBA would be perceived as a "minor" noise impact, an
increase of 5 dBA to 10 dBA would be perceived as a "moderate" noise impact, and an increase
of 10 dBA or more would be perceived as a "significant" noise impact.
A problem occurs when assessing noise exposure over a 24-hour period with a single-valued
descriptor such as L,,,. Sound levels occurring at night generally produce greater annoyance
than do the same levels occurring during the day. It is generally agreed that community
perception of nighttime sound levels is 10 dBA higher than daytime levels. That is, a given level
of environmental noise during the day would appear to be approximately 10 dBA louder at
night, at least in terms of community annoyance. This is largely because nighttime
environmental ambient sound levels in most areas are approximately 10 dBA lower than
daytime sound levels.
To account for nighttime community reaction to sound, a day-night noise descriptor has been
defined using the energy equivalent sound level. This descriptor, referred to as the day-night
average sound level, (L^), applies a 10 dBA "penalty" to sound levels occurring between 10:00
pm and 7:00 am. Ldn accounts for increased community sensitivity to nighttime sound levels.
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
H-1
-------
Soma common, easily recognized sounds are listad below in t»rda* ot Increasing souna imensny levels in
decibels. The sound lavals shown for occupied rooms ara typical general activity levels only and do not
represent criiana lor aeaign.
Sublaettva
Decibels tdB) Examples Evaluations
if
C « 2.
S m C
s
2 ' r
I s 8-
•>c
a a _
5i°
la?
€ s s
O o> (p
U £ £
s
s
e
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Near jet engine
Threshold of pain
Threshold ol feeling - hard
rock band
Accelerating motorcycle at a lew leet away
I Note: 50 It. from motorcycle eauais noise at about
2000 It. Irom a 4-anging iet aircralt.i
Loud auto hom at 10 It away.
Noisy tactory
Noisy urban street
> Deafening
School cafeteria w/untreatad surfaces
Stenographic room
Near Ireeway auto traffic
;
\
Soft radio music in spartment
Average residence witnout stereo playing
Average whisper
Rustle ol leavea in wind
Human breathing
Threagold of audibility
Very loud
Loud
Modaratt
;
Paint
> Very faint
Source: Egan, M. David. Concepts In Architectural Accouatica.
McGraw-Hill Book Co.. New York, 1972
Figure H-l
A-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels
Associated with Common Sounds
Hackenaack Maadowlanda SAMP / EIS
COM
tnvlranmtntal *ngln*»rt, tdtntlttt,
pl»nn*rt 4 managtmtnt contullintt
-------
Section H
Noise Measurements
As a result, both the Leq and the Ldn have become widely accepted for use in environmental noise
regulations and criteria.
To put the Ldn in clearer perspective, figure H-2 contains a day-night average sound level scale
of Ldn showing corresponding values for various types of outdoor locations.
H.2 RELEVANT NOISE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
H.2.1 HMDC Regulations
NJAC 19:4-6.1 of the District zoning regulations sets forth the noise regulations in the District.
The regulations are expressed in terms of performance standards by category. Noise shall not
exceed the maximum sound levels specified for each performance category as shown below:
NOISE LEVEL RESTRICTIONS
Performance Maximum
Standard Permitted
Category Sound Level Where Measured
A 55 dBA On or beyond the boundaries of neighboring uses or
adjacent lot lines, whichever is more restrictive.
B 60 dBA On or beyond the boundaries of neighboring uses or
adjacent lot lines, whichever is more restrictive.
C 66 dBA On or beyond the district boundaries.
In any residential zone, residential specially-planned area, or residential planned unit
development, the A-weighted sound level shall not exceed 55 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m
to 9:00 p.m. and shall not exceed 45 dBA from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The levels specified in the
above table may be exceeded by 10 dBA for a single period, no longer than 15 minutes, in any
one day.
H.2.2 NTDEPE Regulations
New Jersey regulations require that noise levels generated by industrial, commercial, public
service, or community service facilities not exceed the standards set forth in the New Jersey
Noise Control Regulations under NJAC 7:29-1.2. These regulations state that sound from any
such facility and its related premises, property, or equipment used to provide governmental
services to the public including, but not limited to water and sewage facilities, when measured
at any residential property line, shall not exceed the following:
1. From 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.:
i. Continuous airborne sound which has a sound level in excess of 65 dBA; or
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
H-3
-------
L
-------
Section H
Noise Measurements
ii. Continuous airborne sound which has an octave band sound pressure level in decibels
which exceeds the values listed below in one or more octave bands.
Octave band Octave band sound
center frequency pressure level
(Hz)
MB)
31.5
96
63
82
125
74
250
67
500
63
1,000
60
2,000
57
4,000
55
8,000
53 or,
iii. Impulsive sound in air which has a peak sound pressure level in excess of 80 decibels.
2. From 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.:
i. Continuous airborne sound which has a sound level in excess of 50 dBA; or
ii. Continuous airborne sound which has an octave band sound pressure level in decibels
which exceeds the values listed below in one or more octave bands:
Octave band Octave band sound
center frequency pressure level
(Hz)
MB)
31.5
86
63
71
125
61
250
53
500
48
1,000
45
2,000
42
4,000
40
8,000
38 or,
iii. Impulsive sound in air which has a peak sound pressure level in excess of 80 decibels.
Similar, but less restrictive, limitations exist for sound measured at any commercial property
line. There are no regulations limiting noise levels as measured at industrial property lines.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
H-5
-------
Section H
Noise Measurements
H.2.3 Federal Guidelines and Standards
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been the lead federal
agency setting standards for interior and exterior sound levels for housing. HUD noise
standards are outlined in 24 CFR Part 51. This regulation establishes site acceptability standards
based on Ldn (day-night energy equivalent noise level) noise exposure levels (see table H-l).
These standards were developed for urban environments, and are useful as general guidelines in
planning for residential uses in the District.
The table below shows HUD site acceptability in terms of ranges of Ldn. "Acceptable" sites are
those where noise levels do not exceed an Ldn of 65 dB. Housing on acceptable sites does not
require noise attenuation other than that provided in customary building techniques in the
District.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVLEOPMENT
SITE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA*
Day-night energy equivalent level
(in decibels)
Acceptable Not exceeding 65 dB
Normally unacceptable Above 65 dB but not exceeding 75 dB
Unacceptable Above 75 dB
a Taken from 24 CFR Para. 51.103, Criteria and Standards
"Normally unacceptable" sites are those where the Ldn is above 65 dB but does not exceed 75 dB.
Housing on normally unacceptable sites requires some means of noise abatement, either at the
property line or in the building exterior construction, to assure that building interior noise levels
are acceptable. From a practical standpoint, this usually menas that buildings must be air
conditioned so that windows can be closed to reduce exterior sound transmission into interior
spaces.
"Unacceptable" sites are those where the Ldn is 75 dB or higher. The term "unacceptable" does
not mean that housing cannot be built on these sites, but rather, that more sophisticated building
sound attenuation is likely to be needed and that there must exist some benefits which outweigh
the disadvantages posed by high environmental noise levels. Housing on unacceptable sites
generally requires sound-attenuating double glazing and air conditioning.
fnvirnnmpntal Protection Agency
The EPA has gone the furthest among all federal agencies in studying the general impact of
enviornmental noise. Still, it has not promulgated specific regulations setting limits on general
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
H-6
-------
TABLE H-1
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NOISE STANDARDS FOR NEW HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
Activity
Category
A
(Exterior)
B
(Exterior)
C
(Exterior)
D
(Exterior)
Design
Noise
Level
(dBA)
U
60
75
57
70 67
72
Description of Activity Category
Tracts of land for which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and which serve an important
public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area
is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include
amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, open spaces, or historic
districts which are dedicated or recognized by appropriate local officials for
activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active
sports areas, and parks which are not included in Category A and residences,
motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
Developed lands, properties or activities not inclu-
ded in Categories A or B above.
For requirements on undeveloped lands see paragraphs
11a and c of Federal Aid Highway Program Manual Volume 7, Chapter 7,
Section 3.
E
(Interior)
55 52
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, Federal
Regulation 41(80) (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976).
{oiVvndcMrtaWvl .wpc]
-------
Section H
Noise Measurements
environmental noise levels. (It has promulgated noise limits for specific types of equipment
such as air compressors).
More important, EPA has unified usage of environmental noise descriptors among federal
agencies and has produced a compilation of environmental noise measurements in different
environmental settings. Also, it has issued day-night energy equivalent noise levels that
represent"... values that protect public health and welfare with a margin of safety" (see table
H-2).
To avoid the misuse of these levels, EPA states that:
On the basis of its interpretation of available scientific information, EPA has identified a range of
yearly day-night sound levels sufficient to protect public health and welfare from the effects of
environmental noise.
It is very important that these noise levels ... not be misconstrued. Smce the protective levels
were derived without concern for technical or economic feasibility, and contain a margin of
safety to insure their protective value, they must not be viewed as standards, criteria,
regulations, or goals. Rather, they should be viewed as levels below which there is no reason to
suspect that the general population will be at risk from any of the identified effects of noise.
For residential areas, EPA identifies an Ldn equal to or less than 55 dB as sufficient to protect
public health and welfare with a margin of-safety. This level is lower than the HUD
"acceptable" limit discussed previously.
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has promulgated standards that establish design
noise levels for abutting land uses and activities. These standards are shown in table H-2 and
can be used as a measure by which to evaluate ambient noise levels. For residential areas, an
of 67dBA is the standard.
(o: \ hmdceis \ appendh]
COM Camp Dresser & McKee
H-8
-------
TABLE H-2
YEARLY L, VALUES THAT PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH
AND vJfcLFARE WITH A MARGIN OF SAFETY
Effect
Level
Area
Hearing
Outdoor activity inter-
ference and annoyance
Indoor activity inter-
ference and annoyance
Leq(24) < dB
L, <55 dB
dn -
L (24) <55 dB
eq —
Ldn < dB
L (24) <45 dB
eq
All areas (at the ear)
Outdoors in residential
areas and farms and other
outdoor areas vhere people
spend widely varying
amounts of time and other
places in which quiet is a
basis for use.
Outdoor areas where people
spend limited amounts of
time, such as school
yards, playgrounds, etc.
Indoor residential areas
Other indoor areas with
human activities such as
schools, etc.
Sources U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(ds/1406)
-------
Appendix
-------
APPENDIX I
CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATIONS
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
GROSSMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
PHASE 1 -"STAGE 1A ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SENSITIVITY EVALUATION OF
THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NEW JERSEY." JUNE 1992
PHASE 2 -"HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
SENSITIVITY AND IMPACT EVALUATION." FEBRUARY 1995
Note: The information presented in this Appendix was used in the development of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, after work on the Appendix was
completed, modifications and improvements in the discussion of this subject were applied
during the preparation of the EIS. As a result, the presentation of policy, planning, and
regulatory issues contained herein may not be as current as the information In the EIS.
Please note, however, that the presentation of quantitative information regarding
environmental impacts (e.g., wetlands, water quality, air quality, transportation) contained
within the Appendix is current. If any differences exist between this Appendix and the
EIS, the discussion in the EIS supersedes the discussion in the Appendix.
-------
Stage IA Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation of the Hackensack
Meadowlands, New Jersey.
Part I:
Prehistoric Archaeological and Historic Settlement Patterns.
Part H:
Alternative Actions Screening Report: Cartographic Impact Evaluation of
HMDC Development Alternatives of Known and Potential Prehistoric and
Historic Resourses.
EPA Contract No. D102182QZ
Work Order No. 02-007
Prepared for: Michael S. Friedman, President.
EcolSciences, Inc.
Prepared by: Joel W. Grossman, PhD., Principal Investigator.
Grossman and Associates, Inc.
June 15,1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation
Table of Contents
PART I: Prehistoric Archaeological and Historic Settlement Patterns
I. Introduction 1
A. Scope and Purpose 1
B. Geographic and Environmental Setting 2
II. The Extent of Coverage and Findings of Previously Conducted Cultural
Resource Surveys In the HMDC Project Area 2
III. Prehistoric Resources in the Hackensack Meadowlands 9
IV. The Dynamic Environment: Post-Glaclal Succession
in the Hackensack Meadowlands 12
A. Environmental Change and the Archaeology of the
Hackensack Meadowlands 12
B. Evidence for Environmental Change 14
V. Historic Settlement, Land Use, and Archaeology in the
Hackensack Meadowlands 20
A. 17th Century Settlement and Land Use 21
B. 18th Century Settlement and Land Use 23
C. 19th Century Settlement and Land Use 25
D. Twentieth Century Settlement and Land Use 30
VI. Summary of Results..... 31
A. Prehistoric Resources 31
B. 17th Century Historic Resources 32
C. 18th Century Historic Resources 33
D. 19th and 20th Century Historic Resources 33
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation
il
PART II: Alternative Actions Screening Report: Cartographic Impact
Evaluation of HMDC Development Alternatives of known and
Potential Prehistoric and Historic Resources.
VII. Using the Scaled Historic Map Comparisons 34
A. The Composite Map Overlays: 34
B. The Summary Impact Evaluation Tables: 36
VIII. Scope and Purpose •••••••• 37
IX. Cartographic Sources and Limitations 38
A. Early Historic Map Sources 38
B. 18th Century Map Sources 39
C. 19th Century Cartographic Sources 40
X. Results - Cultural Resource Correlations and Rankings 42
CARTOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
PART I: Prehistoric Archaeological and
Historic Settlement Patterns
I. Introduction
A. Scope and Purpose
This study has been prepared as a Stage IA documentary and cartographic
planning tool aimed at identifying the location and distribution of both previously
identified cultural resources as well as potential zones of archaeological and historical
significance within the Hackensack Meadowlands. Conducted in accordance with
current state and federal guidelines and task 4B.14 in the Scope of Services, this
investigation provides coverage through time from the period of initial human
occupation in the region some 8,000 years before the present through to the 20th
century.
As part of a Special Area Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
(SAMP/EIS) being prepared by the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission (HMDC), this Stage 1A survey has been prepared as a two part
presentation and deliverable: Part I consists of a general text based sensitivity
evaluation of the historical and archaeological resource potential of the district which
focuses on the level of past coverage and results of previous Cultural Resource Survey
Evaluations, documentary treatments and institutional records for the study area. Part
II, the Alternatives Actions Screening Report, evaluates the specific proposed
development alternatives based on the of a scaled cartographic comparison of defined
development alternatives relative to location of potential and known prehistoric and
historic resources from available 17th, 18th, and 19th map sources for the region. The
scaled impact evaluation maps have been prepared and submitted as large format map
overlays reflecting the most current HMDC design alternatives.
The report is "programmatic" in nature, and geared to the regional planning and
management needs of the involved agencies. 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.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 2
A broader approach that addresses both changing environmental conditions, and
potential human habitats which existed prior to the tidal estuary and salt marsh
dominated landscape of today, has apparently not been employed for the entire
Hackensack Meadowlands District. 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, viewing it as a static environment in need of
reclamation and as inhospitable by "modern" living standards.
B. Geographic and Environmental Setting
The Hackensack Meadowlands District lies in the Piedmont Lowlands
physiographic province in northeast New Jersey. The Meadowlands include the
estuarine environment along the southern portion of the Hackensack River, lying
between the Palisades to the east, and a sandstone ridge to the west which separates
the Hackensack and Passaic River Valleys. The district is bounded on the south by
the convergence of these two rivers, and to the north by sandstone ridges which
constrict the Hackensack River Valley. With the exception of the igneous outcropping
of Snake (Laurel) Hill, the 60-90 foot high glacial deposits which form the Secaucus
Ridge, and areas of artificial landfilling, nearly all of the study area lies on poorly drained
expanses of marsh less than 10 feet above sea level. A more thorough discussion of
the Hackensack Meadowlands environment, as it pertains to the archaeological
potential of the area, will be provided in a later section of this report.
The study area presently encompasses all or portions of Kearny, Jersey City,
Secaucus, and North Bergen in Hudson County; and North Arlington, Lyndhurst,
Rutherford, East Rutherford, Carlstadt, Moonachie, South Hackensack, Little Ferry,
Ridgefield, and Teterboro in Bergen County. In addition to undeveloped marsh, the
district includes large areas of industrial complexes, suburban settlement, sanitary
landfill, and transportation facilities.
II. The Extent of Coverage and Findings of Previously Conducted
Cultural Resource Surveys in the HMDC Project Area
As indicated above, numerous cultural resource surveys have been conducted
within the boundaries of the HMDC project area, with varying levels of coverage and
investigation. This variation is manifest in the differences in scope between cultural
resource evaluations prepared for single-lot development and for those prepared for
segments of major transportation (rail and road) networks which pass through the
entire study area; and in differences in disturbance evident between the heavily
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 3
developed urban setting versus the relatively unaltered marshlands. Based upon these
previous investigations, numerous resources have been identified which are relevant
to this study and have been integrated into the correlation table and the
computer-generated planning maps included in Part II of this report. Several of the
more informative cultural resource surveys and their findings are outlined below. The
following discussion is presented in a general order of decreasing relevance to the
HMDC district; however, all of the surveys that are included contributed to the
evaluation of the potential archaeological, historic and architectural significance of the
broad area in which the district lies.
The cultural resource evaluation most pertinent to the current evaluation is
Research and Archaeological Management's (R.A.M.) "Cultural Resource
Reconnaissance" which was completed in 1989. This study catalogued numerous
previously identified cultural resources within the HMDC district, in addition to defining
several other potential historic sites through a windshield reconnaissance survey.
Recommendations were also provided on how and where prehistoric, historic, and
architectural resources may be locatecj. Furthermore, the study outlined several
themes related to the historic development of the Hackensack Meadowlands that
warranted further investigation.
Most of the resources included in the R.A.M. study, that were not identified in
previous cultural resource evaluations, were initially located by the New Jersey Sites
Inventory of Jersey City, and the Bergen County Historic Sites Survey of Little Ferry,
Lyndhurst, Moonachie, and Teterboro. In Jersey City, these sites included the early
20th century industrial complexes of the Public Service Gas and Electric Co. and
People's Gas and Light Co.; and the mid and late 19th century residences on Covert
St. (Nos. 34 and 36), Larch Ave. (Nos. 76-78, 80 and 91), and Lewis Avenue (Nos.
18-20a and 32) (R.A.M. 1989:26). In Little Ferry, there were about 15 residences
identified that were found to be in or on Ihe border of the HMDC district, including 5
houses along Riverside Avenue (Mehro^f Lane), and 4 along Washington Ave. (See
MapC, No. 10). Additionally, the survey located John D. Miesegoes Saloon at 45 North
Washington Ave., the 17th century Ferry, Landing and Trading House Site at the foot
of Riverside Ave, and the 19th century tjlay pits for brick making to the south of the
town. In Lyndhurst, the Bergen County {Historic Sites Survey recommended the ruins
of the 1916 Canadian Car and Foundry Co. for inclusion in the National Register (See
Map D), and identified the 1906 Kingsland Railroad Repair Shop, just southeast of the
intersection of Valley Brook Avenue and Orient Way, as a historic site. One early 20th
century residence at 10 Berger St. was included from Moonachie, and the ca. 1945
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 4
Teterboro Airport Tower and Aviation Hall of Fame and Museum, the 1930's Atlantic
Aircraft Factory, and the 1937 Bendix Corporation complex, were all identified as
historic structures in the survey of Teterboro (R.A.M. 1989:27).
As a result of a drive-through reconnaissance survey, the R.A.M. study also
located several historic sites which had not been previously identified. These included
some late 19th century structures in Jersey City, an early 20th century industrial
complex north of the intersection of the Newark and Belleville Turnpikes in Kearny, and
Armour and Company's early 20th century soap factory in North Bergen, which is now
part of the Shippers Terminal Co. at 2500 83rd St. Several historic sites were also
located in the vicinity of Secaucus. Among these were the late 19th and early 20th
century residences and/or commercial buildings on County Road north of the N. J.
Turnpike, on the Paterson Plank Road east of County Road, and north of the Paterson
Plank Road near Roosevelt Ave. and Cedar Lane. Also mentioned were the Jersey
City, Hoboken and Rutherford Electric Railway Co. car barn on Route 153 opposite 5th
St., and the radio transmitting building at 50 Radio Ave. Finally, in East Rutherford, a
ferry dock and an exposed portion of the Paterson Plank Road were identified on the
western shore of the Hackensack River, where the road meets the river (R.A.M.
1989:28).
Also in 1989, a cultural resources survey was conducted by Alterman, et al. for
the proposed widening of the New Jersey Turnpike, "Interchange 11 to Southern Mixing
Bowl", a significant portion of which overlaps with the HMDC project area. The study
focused on the prehistoric archaeological potential and the development history of the
Elizabeth, Newark and Hackensack Meadowlands.
Basing its evaluation of the Meadowlands' prehistory on the belief that the
prehistoric environment would have only allowed for short-term human occupation for
resource exploitation, the study did not recommend further testing due to the difficulty
entailed in locating these relatively small sites. The shortcomings of this interpretation
for the whole of the Meadowlands are made more clear in the following discussion of
"The Dynamic Environment."
The study also documented that the main village of the Hackensack Lenape
was reportedly located near the confluence of the Hackensack River with Overpeck
Creek. The Lenape's leader Oratam (d.1667; Chittick et al. 1980) was supposed to
have had his "castle" on Castle Hill, near the village, but neither site had been located
(Alterman, et al. 1989). The Dutch were also reported to have built a small trading post
(Fort Hackensack) near the confluence in 1656, although it too had not been located
(See Map A).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 5
More significantly, the cultural resource evaluation prepared for the New Jersey
Turnpike Widening Project also provided a thorough discussion of the development
history of the Elizabeth, Newark and Hackensack Meadowlands. The report included
a general historical overview of the areas, and a detailed account, using a variety of
archival sources, of historic land use patterns in the Meadowlands. Specifically, the
study outlined nineteenth and twentieth century drainage and land reclamation
activities. Due to the nature of the remains that would have resulted from such activities,
and due to more modern impacts, the study did not recommend any further field
investigation, except for the area between Interchanges 11 and 12. An archaeological
field investigation was conducted for this area, and no resources were identified. The
testing strategies included the evaluation of soil cores to determine the extent of
disturbance by modern activities, and standard archaeological testing (shovel test-pits
and excavation units) in areas that were thought to contain undisturbed soils (Alterman,
etal. 1989.VI-8).
Additionally, through coring, a geomorphological evaluation of a 65-acre portion
of the project area north of Interchange 12, in Lyndhurst, was performed at the request
of the Office of New Jersey Heritage. This tract, the site of a munitions plant owned by
the Canadian Car and Foundry Co. from 1916-17, was chosen for investigation
because it had relatively little fill over natural soil deposits, and it was bordered on the
west by an upland area (See Figure 1). Although no archaeological materials were
recovered from these borings, habitable surfaces were identified as little as six feet
below the marsh surface (Alterman, et al. 1989:VI-11).
Another major cultural resource evaluation was conducted in the HMDC project
area in 1978 for the Hudson County Sewerage Authority 201 Wastewater Facility Plan
- District 1 (Rutsch, et al. 1978). The study focused on the prehistory and history of
Hudson County, and did not include the Bergen County portion of the HMDC project
area. A total of 174 cultural resources were identified by the study and recorded on
individual inventory sheets, and on a base map. The sites that were relevant to the
HMDC study area were integrated into the computer-generated maps and the
correlation table that are part of this report. These include the 18th Century Douw's
Ferry Site on the Hackensack River and the early 19th century Douw's Ferry Road (now
Newark Ave.), the 18th century Schuyler's Road (now Belleville Pike), the Pennsylvania
Central Railroad Right-of-Way and Hudson River Terminal, the Erie Lackawanna
Railroad Corridor, and three early 20th Century Hackensack River Lift Bridges which
span the river between Jersey City and Kearny (See Maps B and C). In addition to
numerous historic sites spanning from early settlement to the 20th century, several
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 6
17th century Native American villages were identified outside of the HMDC project area,
along the west side of the lower Hudson River. These sites were described as fitting
a pattern of having streams and elevations of land above tidal marsh.
Also in 1978, a cultural resource evaluation was prepared by Elizabeth Righter
for a tract of land that lies within the HMDC study area, in North Bergen and Secaucus,
that was slated for development by Hartz Mountain Industries. The study provided little
new information on the aboriginal occupation of the area, but provided an in-depth
discussion of land use and reclamation activities for the Hackensack Meadowlands.
Specifically, the study identified the general location of several historic areas of landfill,
dikes, ditches and mills, including the Mill Creek grist mill (See Map C).
Five cultural resources, including two reported prehistoric sites and three early
20th century railroad structures were identified in a survey by Artemel, in 1979, as part
of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor Improvement Project. The railroad structures include
the Hackensack River Bridge (Portal Bridge) (1910), the Erie Lackawanna Railroad
Bridge (1910), and the Pennsylvania Railroad's North River Tunnel-West Portal (1910).
Artemel states that the Hackensack River Bridge, described as a "swing bridge", was
determined eligible for the National Register. There seems, however, to be some
ambiguity over the location of this bridge, in relation to others that have been Identified
in the area. Rutsch (1978: No.31) catalogued three early 20th century Hackensack
River lift bridges between Jersey City and Kearny, and the Office of New Jersey Heritage
map of historic sites identifies a Portal Bridge, lying to the south of the mapped location
of Artemel's Hackensack River Bridge, as eligible in 1978. Furthermore, the only bridge
in the area that was listed on the State Register was a Pennsylvania, New Jersey and
New York Railroad Company Portal Bridge, that was built in 1907 and not 1910. There
was a "Determination of Eligibility" in 1982 for this bridge, although it is noted that the
owner objected (ONJH 1989). Whether the Artemel bridge, one of Rutsch's 'lift'
bridges, the ONJH bridge, and the bridge on the state register are the same cannot
be determined at this time, and would have to be clarified through further investigation.
The general location of these railroad sites is shown on Map C, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and
the prehistoric sites identified by Artemel are depicted on Map A and are discussed
elsewhere in this report.
Another relevant study conducted in 1979 was the Stage IA Cultural Resources
Survey of the Proposed Bergen County Utilities Authority Composting and Incineration
Facilities, prepared by Gimigliano, et al. (1979). The project area was located south
of the confluence of Overpeck Creek and the Hackensack River, including a parcel just
north of Losen Slofe on the west shore of the Hackensack River, and another parcel
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 7
on the opposite shore. Although the study suggested that historic or prehistoric
archaeological remains were unlikely to be found in either parcel, several historic issues
were discussed which were relevant to this study. These included early European
settlement just to the north of the study area, historic land reclamation attempts, salt
hay harvesting, and the clay and brick industries associated with the nearby town of
Little Ferry (See Map C; Figure 8).
Archaeological testing was conducted in 1987 at the Outwater Family Cemetery
along Washington Avenue in Carlstadt by Deborah Fimbel for the New Jersey
Department of Transportation Bureau of Environmental Analysis (See Map C). The
study suggested that the cemetery, which lies within the HMDC project area, was not
eligible for the National Register under criterion a, bore; and that none of the resources
that were encountered in the portion of the parcel that was archaeologically investigated
were eligible for the National Register under criterion d. However, the area that was
archaeologically tested included only a portion of a walkway that led to the existing
headstones. However, given that the cemetery itself was not going to be impacted by
the immediate construction and was therefore not tested, the potential still exists that
the Outwater Family Cemetery may contain significant archaeological remains of
potential eligibility to the state and National Registers (Fimbel 1987).
Archaeological testing was also conducted at the proposed site of the Secaucus
Housing Project, in 1981 (A.S.C. 1981), on the east side of County Avenue near Lincoln
Jr. High School. Five one-meter test pits were excavated and no archaeological
evidence was recovered. The study also provided a discussion of the development
history of Secaucus, and particularly the 19th century construction of a poor house at
Snake Hill, and an 1870-1900 iron foundry at Sauer Island (A.S.C. 1981).
Willard Sloshberg (1975) also discussed the presumed limited potential for
finding archaeological remains in Secaucus, writing "environmental and archaeological
impact studies for Secaucus are about 100 years too late" (Sloshberg 1975). Although
he seemed to underestimate the potential for archaeological resources to have been
preserved under landfill or urban landscapes, or to have existed in what are presently
marsh environments, he did make note that the Old Paterson Plank Road, as well as
an abandoned cemetery near Secaucus Road and Electric Avenue, may still contain
important archaeological evidence of the relevance to the history of the area (Sloshberg
1975).
In 1982, a Stage 1A survey was conducted in Wood-Ridge, New Jersey by
Archaeological Survey Consultants, for the site of a proposed wastewater treatment
plant, to be located just south of Teterboro Airport and east of Route 17. Although no
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 8
historic or prehistoric resources were identified within the study area in the Stage 1A
survey, further sub-surface testing was recommended due to the historic development
of the area, and the potential presence of prehistoric remains, resulting in part from the
site's proximity to Berry's Creek (A.S.C. 1982). A Stage 1B investigation was later
conducted at the treatment plant site in 1989 by Richard Grubb and Associates. A total
of twenty-seven shovel test probes were excavated, and no cultural resources, "other
than modern trash", were reported as having been found (Grubb 1989).
In 1982, Susan Kardas and Edward Larrabee conducted a Cultural Resource
Reconnaissance of the Hackensack River Tidal Barrier Hudson County, New Jersey.
This study area was located due south of Laurel Hill, in the vicinity of the confluence of
the Hackensack River and Penhorn Creek, in the southernmost portion of the HMDC
district. Five shovel and hand-auger test units were excavated, along with two pollen
probes, near the mouth of Penhorn Creek and on the opposite shore of the Hackensack
River in Kearny. Although historic railways had passed through the area, the
investigators concluded that "no significant events, structures or features are known
to have existed within the study area, and that topographical and palynological study
indicates an extremely low probability that there was habitation of the study area for
the last 2,000 to 4,000 years" (Kardas and Larrabee 1982).
A Stage 1A cultural resources survey was also conducted in 1975 by Susan
Kardas and Edward Larrabee for the "Proposed US 1 and 9 Freeway" which now
extends along the eastern boundary of the HMDC study area. Although the report
suggested that no prehistoric or historic cultural resources lay within the proposed
corridor, several potential historic and prehistoric sites were identified, and subsurface
testing was recommended for two areas where the ground appeared to have been
undisturbed, in the northern portion of the corridor near Overpeck Creek, and in
another area east of the New Jersey Turnpike and south of US 46 (Kardas and Larrabee
1975:10).
The cultural resources that were identified by the study lie just to the north of
the HMDC district boundary, and include the "Indian Castle" mentioned above, the
"Achter Col" settlement, and the "Hackensack Fort of 1656" (Kardas and Larrabee
1975:4). Although no descriptions of the "Indian Castle" or "Oratam's Castle" exist,
according to the study, "the general appearance of palisaded strong-points in the area
was described by Van der Donck in 1656 as being one of heavy timbers, both vertical
and horizontal, forming a double-thick palisade, with room for up to 30 houses inside,
all on top of a steep hill near water, with difficult access from all other directions" (Kardas
and Larrabee 1975:5). Furthermore, the report suggests that a "consensus of sources"
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 9
place the castle "east of Overpeck Brook, probably on the ridge which projects
south-southwest from Palisades Park into Ridgefield, bounded on the east and south
by Wolf Creek, and on the west by the marshes adjacent to Overpeck Creek and
stretching west toward the Hackensack River" (Kardas and Larrabee 1975:5-6). This
location places the "castle" just outside of the HMDC study area (See Map A).
A cultural resource survey was performed in 1980 by Chittick, et al., for an 8.4
mile long, 500 foot corridor on Route 1 and 9 (Tonnelle Avenue) in Bergen and Hudson
Counties. Tonelle Avenue passes through the boroughs of Palisades Park, Ridgefield
and Fairview in Bergen County, and North Bergen and Jersey City in Hudson County,
along, or just outside of, the eastern boundary of the HMDC district. The study
provided a discussion of the historic and economic development of these boroughs
and the area adjacent to the historic Hackensack or Bergen Road, including the
"English Neighborhood". Additionally, several areas were identified, particularly in the
villages of Ridgefield, Fairview, and New Durham, which contain structures that may
be of historical or architectural significance.
Finally, Gimigliano, et al. prepared An Archaeological Survey for the
Erie-Lackawanna Improvements Project, which identified no cultural resources within
the vicinity of proposed railroad developments in either of two locations in Kearny and
Jersey City. The study did, however, provide summary histories of Jersey City and
Kearny, focusing on their growth as related to developments in transportation and
industry.
III. Prehistoric Resources in the Hackensack Meadowlands
Little is known about the prehistory of the Hackensack River drainage due to a
general lack of systematic survey and testing programs, and due to biases and long
standing assumptions concerning the presumed static nature of the area's
environment over the last 6,000 years. The archaeological potential, or possibility for
the identification of previously unrecognized historic and prehistoric sites within the
now inundated tidal marsh of the Meadowlands is suggested by three lines of evidence;
1) documentary and cartographic references to previously recorded archaeological
remains in the basin, 2) cartographic and ethno-historic references to contact period
Native American settlements and land transactions in the drainage, and 3) from the
reevaluation of the changing environmental setting of the Meadowlands habitat over
the last three thousand years based on the evidence from dated pollen and seed cores.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 10
The first line of documentary and cartographic evidence derives from earlier
accounts of Native American occupations on and around areas of high ground, such
as the Secaucus Ridge, and Laurel (formerly Snake) Hill to the south (Artemel 1979,
Rutsch 1978). 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 (Artemel 1979:30, Rutsch 1978:13, New Jersey Heritage 2). 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
indicated 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 (Berger
1989). Further up the drainage 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" (McMahon 1971, Kardas & Larrabee 1976, Berger
1989). 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.
Despite these documentary and ethno-historic references to the presence of
Native American populations and sites within the drainage, the archaeological potential
for finding previously unrecognized prehistoric and historic sites in the low-land has
been hampered by two long standing assumptions in the archaeological literature; 1)
involved the assertion that the Hackensack Meadowland represented a static
environment for at least the last several thousand years, and 2) If present, any
archaeological resources would have been restricted to areas of high ground adjacent
to the now inundated marsh zone.
The supposedly static nature of the marsh based habitat of the Meadowlands
has been repeated in the archaeological literature over the last 20 years concerning
the nature of post-glacial deposits in the basin. Following the general characterizations
of long term drainage, post-glacial such as the "open spruce woodland environment
of Wisconsin times gave way to deciduous forest consisting primarily of oak" (Berger
1989), few archaeologists even addressed evidence for micro environmental change
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 11
within the more limited time span of the last several thousand years. Instead most
archaeological treatments of the environmental history of the drainage assumed a static
model of limited or no environmental change whereby 2000 years ago conditions had
approached those of the present (Barlow 1971, Wolfe 1977).
Coupled with this static model of potential environmental change for the
Meadowlands was a related assumption that the 8 to 15 foot deep organic sediments
of Meadowlands marsh mat were not only deposited early-on following the glacial
retreat and "breakout" of Lake Hackensack, but also that any sites that may still be or
that once were present, are now deeply buried under as much as 30 feet of post-glacial
deposits (Wolfe 1977). Based on these two sets of assumptions, 1) the static nature
of post-glacial habitats, and 2) the presumed depth and antiquity of post-glacial organic
deposits, it has been assumed by a large number of archaeologists that the lower
elevation and now inundated marsh zones have little or no archaeological potential.
This characterization was recently stated as an explicit premise as part of the 1989 New
Jersey Turnpike Cultural Resource Assessment of specific impact areas in the
drainage. After first alluding to the wealth of potential food resources from fish, shellfish,
shore birds and water fowl within the Hackensack drainage, one group of authors
refereed to a number of recent archaeological studies to down-play the archaeological
potential of the marsh environments. As stated in the 1989 Turnpike study, "...the
habitation sites of the prehistoric populations exploiting these environments would not
have been in the low-lying marsh, but rather on high ground adjacent to the
meadowlands and on other elevated locations in the region (Kardas and Larrabee
1976, cited in Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. 1978:98; Williams et al. 1978:24;
Gimigliano et al. 1979:17, 21; Rutsch et al. 1985:16-17).
As is discussed in detail below, it is highly possible that both these assumptions,
and the previously defined projections of archaeological sensitivity for the Hackensack
Meadowlands may require serious reevaluation in light of recent developments and
insights in related disciplines concerned with Holocene marine transgression and
chronologically controlled pollen studies. Specifically, these new lines of evidence
suggest that instead of being ancient post-glacial formations developing 8 to 10
thousand years before the present, that the 8 to 15 foot thick organic sediments of the
Meadowlands may have in fact developed in a much shorter 2 to 3 thousand year
period. Secondly, based on the analysis of seed and pollen cores discussed in detail
below, the record now suggests that instead of being static, the precontact environment
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 12
of the Meadowlands marsh zone may have represented a constantly changing habitat
of developing animal and plant communities within the context of a formerly dry fresh
water and estuary land forms.
IV. The Dynamic Environment: Post-Glaciai Succession
in the Hackensack Meadowlands
A. Environmental Change and the Archaeology of the
Hackensack Meadowlands
The archaeological potential of the Meadowlands has for the last century been
heavily influenced by the view that this environment has been one of long standing
marsh habitats characterized by water logged sediments, high water tables, estuary
plant and animal communities, and only limited environmental change since shortly
after the rupture of Glacial Lake Hackensack some 8 to 10 thousand years before the
present. Assuming a subsequent continuity of environment since that time, the current
marsh habitat has been seen for at least much of the 18th and 19th century as an
impediment to, versus a context for human occupation, both in the recent past and for
the Prehistoric Period.
As this study will discuss, based upon previously conducted
paleo-environmental evaluations, the Meadowlands has not been a static environment
over the last 2,000 - 3,000 years. Instead, it has been a place of substantial and
continued environmental change. This view of a dynamic, rather than static,
environment has permitted a tentative reevaluation of the archaeological potential for
this area. What is presently marshlands and swamp was, it now appears, as recently
as one to two thousand years ago, may in fact have been forested dry land that was
crossed by fresh water streams. This fast-land habitat was amenable to human
occupation, and may be potentially preserved today at relatively shallow depths below
the current ground surface and high water mark of the now inundated Hackensack
Meadowlands.
Thus, in addition to using a map-based analysis to determine changing historic
land use and settlement patterns from the 17th century to the present, recently available
environmental data has been utilized to also project the location of potential zones of
prehistoric activity, and therefore current archaeological sensitivity, within the
Meadowlands. In order to project past environmental conditions, the environmental
analysis has, in turn, been based on the incorporation of relatively recent data and
insights from the fields of palynology and Holocene geomorphology, and through the
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 13
related study of marine transgression, or sea level rise, for this region in particular.
These multiple lines of evidence, from archaeology and from the parallel disciplines
concerned with the study of environmental change, have in the last decade resulted in
a significantly different characterization of the nature of the Meadowlands' environment
over the past several thousand years, which also corresponds with the established
period of human occupation in this region. Instead of being a static environment, dated
pollen cores have clearly demonstrated the presence of a continuous series of
changing environmental conditions characterized by different plant communities, tree
cover, animal species, and potential human habitats over, at least, the last two to three
thousand years before the present. Related studies in shoreline transgression, or the
rise and inland creep of Atlantic coastal waters, have suggested that what are now
brackish tidal marshes with near-surface water tables were formerly areas
characterized by fresh water streams cutting across valley bottoms of dry land.
Taken together, these multiple lines of evidence suggest strongly that, contrary
to conventional and even recent characterizations, the current environment of the
Meadowlands may in fact be a product of the relatively recent patterns of inland salt
water incursion and sea level rise. A total of five radiocarbon age determinations, of
what appear to be four palynological horizons (taken from samples at two locations),
show that the Hackensack Basin, after an initial rapid period of sedimentation until ca.
2,600 B.P., filled slowly by alluviation and by the accumulation of peat and bog organic
matter to a depth of 9 feet over the last two to 2.5 millennia (Carmichael 1980).
Furthermore, from the changing vertical sequence of plant communities within the post
glacial bog deposits it is apparent that former habitats which may have been amenable
to human occupation are not only relatively recent, but may be preserved at relatively
shallow depths as well.
These recent insights will continue to have a significant effect on our ability to
characterize and project the potential archaeological sensitivity of modern wetland and
marsh environments. Instead of simply repeating long standing "truisms" or
assumptions, that, if present, archaeological sites would be buried 30 feet below the
current marsh surface; it is now apparent, based on this recent data from dated pollen
and seed cores, that prehistoric archaeological remains, if they exist, may be buried
only a few feet below the elevation of the current marsh surface, and that 17th century
colonial occupations may still be found at 2 feet or less.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 14
B. Evidence for Environmental Change
Archaeologists and geologists have repeatedly addressed the ancient
geological history of the region in terms of the retreating Pleistocene Glacial formations,
characterized by the formation of the glacial moraine, and followed by the breaking of
Lake Hackensack to form the Hackensack River drainage some eight to ten thousand
years ago. Based on counts of varved clay, glacial lake Hackensack lasted as a
trapped body of water for at least a period of 2000 to 3000 years (Anteus 1928),
following the retreat of the Wisconsin ice sheet. Even with this long period of glacial
sediments in the former lake bed, the current chronology indicated a long hiatus before
the initial onset of tidal peat formation between 2000 and 3000 years B.P. (Carmichael
1980).
However, it is only in the last few decades that scientists have begun to address
the more recent, or Holocene, period of environmental and geological history with
sufficient chronological or temporal definition to be of relevance to archaeologists
seeking to address the history of human occupation in the area in the last six to eight
thousand years. Two themes, or areas of investigation, have emerged which have
proven to be of immediate pertinence to the understanding and reconstruction of the
relatively recent and changing Holocene environment of the New Jersey Meadowlands.
One theme involves the study of worldwide and regional trends in sea level rise.
Recent localized studies have depicted the changing rate of marine transgression
following the retreat melting and the subsequent reduction in size and extent of the
world's glaciers as a series of curves. Specifically, it has only most recently been
generally agreed upon that for this region, the sea has risen at a rate of 1 to 1.4 meters
(ca. 3 feet) per 1,000 years (Stuiver and Daddario 1963; Oldale 1986). In terms of the
New Jersey Meadowlands, these localized rates of marine transgression suggest the
water table in the area was 1.5-2 feet below present levels only 500 years ago, some
3 to 4 feet lower 1,000 years ago and 6 to 8 feet lower some 2,000 years ago; low
enough to have rendered much of the now inundated Meadowlands as dry land.
The second major area of recent research of relevance to the issue of
environmental change in the Meadowland has concerned the use of well-dated seed
and pollen cores to reconstruct the record of changing plant communities within and
beneath modern marsh and bog habitats over the last two to three thousand years.
The study of changing pollen spectra is not itself a new science and has since the last
century been used to provide somewhat generalized long-term chronologies of
changing forest composition on a regional and national basis (Gaudeau 1988).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 15
However, only in the last decade have pollen scientists focused on the more recent
period of the last several thousand years and begun to address the short-term and
dynamic environmental chronology of localized marsh habitats such as that of the New
Jersey Meadowlands. One of the first of these seminal studies of pollen-based
short-term environmental change was conducted by a palynologist in the early 1960's,
in the Hackensack Meadowlands. In 1963, Calvin Heusser of New York University
drilled three relatively shallow cores into the Hackensack Meadowlands at Secaucus,
East Rutherford, and Kearny, along the Hackensack River. The deepest core extended
to a depth of 3 meters, or some 9 feet below surface, and was sampled at 10 centimeter
intervals for pollen and seeds from different species of trees and plants (Heusser 1963).
In addition, Heusser collected a sample of peat for radiocarbon testing from the base
of the bog near to, but separate from, the Secaucus sample location which were pooled
to yield a single radiocarbon determination from the 3.3 meter base of the bog deposits
in this locality. This combined sample resulted in a radiocarbon determination of 2,025
300 B.P. suggesting that the ca. 9 feet of peat and bog deposits had accumulated in
just over 2,000 years, or roughly, only since the time of Christ. In the bottom third of
his core sample, Heusser identified high concentrations of alder pollen and sphagnum
moss, both of which nearly disappeared in the upper two meters of the column.
Although no intervening radiocarbon samples were recovered at the time, the presence
of pollen from the two plant types suggested that sometime prior to 1,500 years ago,
the Meadowlands was not a saline tidal marsh at all, but instead a well-drained
woodland of alder and oak with an underlying ground cover of sphagnum moss,
suggesting a moist environment. Heusser noted that cat tail pollen and seeds were
present in large numbers only in the upper few centimeters of the column, and that
ragweed, often taken as an indicator of colonial human land clearing and disturbance,
was found only in the upper 50 centimeters of the column. Together, these two
indicators suggested that the 17th century colonial surface, and any temporally related
archaeological remains, may be buried under a relatively shallow mantel of marsh
accumulation, and that the entire Meadowlands had undergone a profound
environmental transformation within the last 2,000 years. However, the recovery of one
radiocarbon age determination from the base of the column only provided data for the
earliest part of his pollen sequence but resulted in a gap in coverage and no
chronological control for the last millennium and a half of his vertical pollen sample
(Heusser 1963).
Nearly twenty years later, Dorothy Carmichael, also of New York University,
continued Heusser's (1963) line of investigation in 1980, with an even more refined
series of radiocarbon dated pollen and seed identifications. This recent work not only
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 16
helped fill in the gap identified in the earlier study, but also provided evidence that the
marshlands of the Hackensack Meadowlands may have evolved within an even shorter
time frame involving a period of hundreds rather than thousands of years. Carmichael
analyzed a single column to a depth of 4 meters (ca. 12 feet) to the clay base of the
peat marsh. The single vertical sample was compiled from two adjacent core locations
taken at a one meter interval which were then combined to provide an adequate sample
from the banks of the Hackensack, north of Route 3 (Figure 1). This study core was
sampled in 4 vertical sections for radiocarbon dating, which yielded a series of
determinations beginning with ca. 240 years B.P. at 1 meter beneath the surface, ca.
810 years before the present at 1.75 meters, ca. 2,060 years B.P. at 3 meters, and ca.
2,600 years B.P. at 4 meters, at the base of the marsh deposits which lay immediately
above the underlying clay formation. This vertical sequence of combined pollen and
seed data, taken within the framework of a tightly dated series of radiocarbon
determinations, provided (for the first time) a control sample for establishing the nature
and antiquity of environmental change within the Hackensack Meadowlands over the
past 2,500 years.
Like Heusser's (1963) earlier study, this new data showed that the deepest and
earliest deposits dated between 2 and 3 thousand years B.P., and reflected a habitat
that was initially dominated by alder trees. Carmichael's new core pollen data also
made it possible to characterize the changing habitat of the Meadowlands within the
subsequent 2,000 years as well. Following the fresh water environmental conditions
prior to 2,000 B.P., the pollen record shifted to a predominance of salt grasses
indicating a wetter and slightly more brackish environment which both Carmichael
(1980) and Heusser (1963) interpreted as representing the advent of a higher water
table, and by inference, the initial intrusion of salt water into the environment at about
the time of Christ. This salt grass habitat appeared to have continued, but with a
gradual reduction in the density of salt grass seeds and pollen spores up until some
300 years before the present, or the period of Dutch Colonial settlement period of the
17th century. About 800 years before the present (ca. 1,200 A.D.), a time period which
correlates with the latter phases of the Native American Woodland Period, the salt grass
dominated Meadowlands were significantly altered by the sudden introduction of cedar
trees which appeared to predominate for some 3 to 5 centuries, and then dwindle
beginning about 500 years before the present. As dated from other sources, the cedar
stands were observed to be dying out in the early 1800's (Vermeule 1897, 99). As
documented by Vermeule's early 20th century maps, the then-surviving cedar stands
were limited to a few scattered areas, surrounded by phragmites grass. This island,
or archipelago, pattern of isolated survival is consistent with ecological models from
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 17
other regions indicating the takeover of one species or plant community by another.
The pattern of isolated survival also suggested the former existence of a much more
extensive distribution of cedar within the Meadowlands than was apparent at the turn
of the century. Thus, this dated seed and pollen data clearly documented both the
relatively short duration of cedars, and their replacement in the evolving Hackensack
tidal marsh ecosystem by the expansion of other species over the last five centuries.
Finally, this dated sequence of changing pollen and seed spectra shows that only the
near-surface deposits limited to the upper 25 centimeters (ca. 10 inches) of the marsh
are characterized by the modern plant community dominated by phragmites,
chenopodes, and composite or ragweeds, indicative of disturbed, humanly altered
environments of the colonial era.
Taken together, these studies of dated cores show that the Hackensack
Meadowlands began to emerge as a salt marsh only some 1,500 to 1,800 years before
present, during the Woodland Period of Native American occupation, 4,000 years after
the recorded presence of Native American coastal populations in this region, beginning
about 6,000 years B.P. In addition, this material also reveals that as recent as 2,000
years before the present, the Hackensack Meadowlands consisted of a hardwood
forest environment with stands of oak and alder growing beside fresh water streams,
and that the remains of this environment may be found preserved at depths as shallow
as 6 to 8 feet below the present surface. Finally, this data also shows that the modern
phragmites dominated Meadowlands are in fact a recent environmental development
of less than 2 centuries. In sum, these multiple lines of evidence have documented
that the Meadowlands (over the last two thousand years) were characterized by a
changing environment that was suitable for human occupation and exploitation, traces
of which may be preserved in present nepr-surface deposits.
Since the detailed 1963 and 1980 investigations of the changing pollen and plant
species within the near surface, 10-12 feet thick, organic deposits studied by
Carmichael and Heusser, few systematic paleoenvironmental studies have been
available to provide comparable date sets in the same time range (spanning the last
2000 to 3000 years of human occupational history) for other areas in the Hackensack
basin. One recent exception involved the recovery and analysis of pollen data from
borings into and through the organic marsh deposits near the mouth of the Hackensack
estuary system.
In 1981 a cultural resources survey for a proposed tidal barrier across the
Hackensack River by Kardas and Larrabee (1982) resulted in the recovery of two pollen
cores in the lower drainage of the Meadowlands tidal marsh bordering Newark Bay.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation
Stage IA Report
Page 18
One was located to the south of Little Snake Hill (sample H-1), and the other to the
confluence of Penhorne Creek and the Hackensack River, (sample H-2, Figure 1). H-1
penetrated to a depth of 31 feet, down to the interface with the underlying gravel of
presumed glacial origin. The second core, H-2, recovered samples only to a depth of
14 feet, and was interpreted as being comparable to the upper half of the first column
sample.
Both pollen columns were analyzed by Dr. Leslie A. Sirkin (1981, in Kardas and
Larrabee, 1982) who concluded that the entire thickness of both cores represented the
Oak Zone of the regional pollen sequence, and appeared, based on comparisons with
other core samples dated elsewhere, to cover a time span of ca. 6000 years B.P. No
radiocarbon samples were collected or processed to provide an independent basis for
projecting the age and time span of the vertical pollen cores. However, based on his
identification of oak denominated "subzones", Dr. Sirkin concluded that the upper 5
meters or 15 feet accumulated within the last 2000 years and that the next lower
deposits between 5 and 8.5 meters (15 to 26 feet) had been deposited at a much slower
rate between 5000 and 2000 years ago, suggesting an increase in deposition rates
over the last several thousand years.
Based on the depth and apparent relative palynological uniformity of the
samples recovered, Kardas and Larrabee concluded that despite reference to
fluctuations in local sea level, this area of the Hackensack drainage had been
meadowlands for much of the past 5000 years (1982).
While this conclusion can not be debated in detail in this context, it is noteworthy
that these two pollen cores came from the south of the drainage near the confluence
with the Newark Bay. This area represents a zone of increased sedimentation and
deposition while may have attributed to the recorded depth of the identified oak zone.
What stands out is the depth and composition of these pollen columns relative
to those recorded upriver, north of Secaucus, by Heusser and Carmichael on the
western side of the Hackensack River. While both areas indicated a sudden
emergence of ragweed and chenopods as an indicator of Colonial era disturbance
near the surface, the more southern and deeper cores analyzed by Sirkin appeared to
lack the vertical diversity and change in pollen and seed species documented upriver
in the middle section of the Hackensack drainage.
These contrasts in the pollen and seed cores may suggest significant differences
in sedimentation between different sectors of the drainage, or may reflect different
patterns of change and localized fluctuations in environmental zones and plant
communities through time within the basin itself.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 19
Although the data pertain to earlier time periods of deeper pre-peat glacial
deposits, one additional recent study conducted in 1989 by Louis Berger for the New
Jersey Turnpike Authority, resulted in the sampling of deep cores for soil and pollen
data in the Lynhurst Region of the Meadowlands, in the NW corner of the district (Berger
1989). A total of 57 cores in an East-West transect, at 30 foot intervals were taken
along a landfilled roadway . Pollen samples were taken from three of the borings at
the west, center and east end of the transect, designated Borings 12, 31 and 57.
Samples were taken at two foot intervals immediately beneath the modern fill to a depth
of 88 feet below surface in Boring 12, 26 feet below surface on boring 31 and 24 feet
below surface on the easternmost Boring 57.
All samples were also taken from below the organic peat marsh deposits
beginning at 20 feet in Boring 12, in what was described as a gray-green sandy loam
deposits, which was in turn underlain by a series of gray-pink laminated silt deposits,
to a depth of 80 feet.
The uppermost sample from boring 31 was recovered at a depth of 15.5 feet
from a matrix of fine to medium gray sand (stratum 2). Below this, the core consisted
of 3 major silt and clay deposits, all described as various combinations of grayish silt
and varved clay to a depth of 28 feet below the surface.
The third boring, number 57, recovered it's uppermost sample from the lowest
level of peat at a depth between 15 to 16 feet, which in turn overlay a series of gray-pink
laminated silt and varved clays down to a depth of 24 feet below surface.
The uppermost sample, (strata 2 in boring 57) overlapped in depth and relative
stratigraphic position with the earlier nine foot depth near surface peat deposits studied
by Carmichael and Heusser. All of the remaining samples apparently came from
pre-Holocene Glacial clay and silt deposits which pre-dated deposition of the bog
deposits of the Meadowlands by thousands of years.
Two Radiocarbon determinations were returned as part of this investigation, one
sample, a charcoal sample from Strata 2 of boring 57, was recovered from the peat
below road fill at a depth of 11 to 12 feet below surface and yielded and age
determination of 880 90 years B.P. Although the absolute age determination was
stablished to as having derived from the near surface peat deposits, no data exist to
characterize it's absolute or relative depth within the peat relative to the depth ranges
of the controlled pollen cores of Carmichael and Heusser.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 20
The second Radiocarbon determination was taken from Strata 4 in boring 32 at
a depth of 18.3 to 22 feet below surface, from within a matrix of laminated gray-pink
silt. This sample was run as an accelerated date at the University of Arizona Physics
department, and yielded a determination of 2279 years B.P. Given the depth and
associated clay found below the Holocene peat deposits, the cultural relevance to
human occupational history in the region cannot be stablished based on available
information.
Nevertheless, despite the correction of absolute and relative sample depths of
the earlier studies, the preliminary results of the Turnpike Authority study and initial
boring evaluation by Grace S. Brush (n.d.), indicated that despite the small number of
pollen grains identified from each sample, the clear presence of the vertical trend which
suggest that the earlier deep, pre-bog silt and clay were characterized by the presence
of pine pollen followed by a more diversified repertoire of tree, shrub and grass pollen
in the upper deposits of the sequence.
The small number of identified pollen grains from the uppermost sample fraction
from each boring precluded the projection of general environmental trends through
time, comparable to the reconstructions made possible by the large sample size of
pollen recovered by Carmichael and Heusser from the shallower, near surface marsh
sediments. At the same time, the results point to the potential for differential recovery
and experimental results while may be expected from pollen and plant samples taken
from the most recent peat versus the more ancient sand and clay deposits below.
Although the brief discussion associated with the Brush study alluded to general
parallels with other regions in temperature and climate, indicated by warmer and wetter
conditions over the last 800 to 900 years B.P., the study contains little data for
comparison with the more recent Meadowlands bog sequences developed by
Carmichael and Heusser for the period covering ca. 2500 B.P. to the 17th. Century
A.D.
V. 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,
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 21
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 HMDC 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.
A. 17th 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. The first areas of settlement in the immediate vicinity of
the study area 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 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 HMDC study area (R.A.M. 1989:14).
Furthermore, Hammond's 1947 depiction of historic property lines in the Town and
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 22
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 (Gimigliano, et al. 1979:25). 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 (Kardas and
Larabee 1975:5). 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 Map A).
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 (R.A.M. 1989:14).
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.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 23
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 identify from documentary and
cartographic sources within the HMDC project boundaries.
B. 18th 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 thefn, by the shores of the Hackensack River.
This growth is represented by a continued series of land grants and subdivisions which
extended from the earlier lots near Penhorn Creek north to Cromakill Creek, along the
eastern edge of the district (See Map B; Hammond 1947). 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 build-
ing, 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" (Righter 1978:3).
In North Arlington, on the bluffs to the west of the Hackensack Meadowlands
and just outside of the HMDC project area, eighteenth century economic activity was
centered around Arent Schuyler's Copper Mine (See Map B, No.1). Schuyler's Mine,
which Is shown on Robert Erskine's Revolutionary War era map of the area (Figure 2),
was reported to have been discovered prior to 1719 "by a Negro slave on the Schuyler
plantation." (F.W.P. 1989:542). According to the legend, while plowing, the slave
"turned up an unusually heavy stone and took it to his master, a Dutch trader and Indian
agent of the Province. An assay showed it was 80 per cent pure copper." In return for
the slave's valuable find, his master supposedly offered to grant the slave whatever he
desired. Tobacco and a dressing gown, not freedom, were reported to have been his
requests (F.W.P. 1989:542).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC^Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 24
The first steam engine in America is believed to have been brought to North
Arlington from England in 1753, by Arent's descendant John Schuyler, who had
apparently inherited the mine (Rutsch, et al. 1978: No. 14). The steam-powered engine
was set up by a Joshua Hornblower for approximately $15,000, in order to pump water
out of the profitable mine. Under British rule, the copper that was mined could not be
processed in America and it was therefore shipped to Bristol, Great Britain, in its
unrefined state (F.W.P. 1989:542).
As of the writing of The WPA Guide to 1930's 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 (F.W.P.
1989:542).
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
(Mattson 1970:3). 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." (F.W.P. 1989:543). 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 (Righter 1978:4).
The early road network crossing and bordering the Hackensack Meadowlands
is shown on Robert Erskine's 1776 map of the area (See Figure 2). 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 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 (Chittick et al. 1980). 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 Map B). Another
unnamed road, presumably Schuyler's Road (now Belleville Tpke.), headed slightly
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 25
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 (1804: Rutsch,
et al. 1978:No.30), 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 Chattarn 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 Map 3; Artemel 1979; Rutsch, et al. 1978:
No. 137). 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)..." (Studley 1964:47-48).
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.
C. 19th Century Settlement and Land Use
As depicted on Map C, 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.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 26
In addition to the nineteenth century cultural resources identified in earlier
surveys, this investigation 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 Map C, Nos.4,13-15). In addition, although they have not been specifically
identified and located, Righter (1978:6) suggests that since the decade of the 1760's,
tidal-powered sawmills and grist mills have operated on tributaries in the vicinity of
Secaucus. However, the earliest cartographic evidence for mills in the Hackensack
Meadowlands is provided by Gordon's 1828 map of New Jersey, on which a mill and
mill pond are indicated along Kirkland's Creek (See Map C, No. 15 and Figure 5). The
name "Sawmill Creek" also appears on Gordon's 1828 map, although no mill is
indicated on this or later maps. Another mill and a series of embankments and ditches
was located by Righter (1978:7-11), along Mill Creek, to the west of Cromakill Creek
and north of Secaucus (See Map C, No.4). The mill seems to have been depicted on
an 1868 and an 1873 map, but not on maps prior to or after these dates. The location
of the mill was, in part, determined by the retrieval of a grinding stone from the creek
in 1970 (Righter 1978:10). Two other nineteenth century mills were indicated on
Hopkins' 1861 map of Bergen County, along Berry's Creek and one of its tributaries
(See Map C). Finally, on Robinson's 1902 Map of Bergen County, a "Mill Creek" is
depicted just south of Overpeck Creek in Ridgefield, in conjunction with a series of
ditches (See Figure 6). The same stream is also pictured on Hyde's 1886 map of
northern New Jersey, although it is unnamed and no mill is indicated (See Figure 8).
Some of the earliest nineteenth century residential settlement within the HMDC
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 Ave. (Also See Figure 8). The post-1753 Outwater
Family Cemetery, which was partially investigated in 1987 by Deborah Fimbel, and a
post-1829 (Sullivan 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 Ave. (See Map C; Hopkins 1861). 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'. However, at this level of investigation, the historic archaeological
potential of the area, due to the possible presence of early to mid-19th century structural
remains, has been graphically indicated by the application of a yellow zone bordering
these historic roadways (See Part II Map C). Evidence for later development in the
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 27
area is provided by Robinson's 1902 Map of Bergen County. It shows two hotels on
either side of the Paterson Plank Road where it meets the western shore of the
Hackensack River (See Figure 4). By 1913, several more structures had been built
adjacent to the hotels, including a Boat Club (Bromley 1913). During a reconnaissance
survey in 1988, R.A.M. (1989) located the remains of a ferry dock and the Paterson
Plank Road in this area.
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 study area. This included what are now
the townships of Ridgefield (English Neighborhood) and Fairview to the east, and
Carlstadt, East Rutherford (Boiling Springs), Ruiherford, Lyndhurst and North Arlington
to the west (Hopkins 1861; Hyde 1886). The town of Little Ferry, located on a ridge to
the north of the study area, also grew during this period, although much of the
development appears to have occurred just outside of the HMDC 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 (Gimigliano et al.
1979:32). 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 HMDC study area (See Figure 8).
These include the Mehrhoff Brothers' clay pits and brick yards to the south of Little
Ferry on the west shore of the Hackensack River (See Map C; Gimigliano et al.
1979:46), several residences in the vicinity which were inventoried during the 1980-1,
Bergen County Historic Sites Survey of Little Ferry (See MapC, No. 10; R.A.M. 1989:27),
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 (Gimigliano et al. 1979:
Figure 11, Pease 1876). 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 lay within the study area (See Figure 6).
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 (RAM 1989:15; Rutsch, et al. 1978: Nos.10, 15, 30).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 28
The Patersori 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 (Alterman 1989:14).
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 canai was extended
to the Hudson River. In the vicinity of the 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 (Anonymous 1827).
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" (Mattson 1970:3). 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 (Sullivan 1829). 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 (McDowell 187?), as many as six different rail lines crossed the
Hackensack Meadowlands, and soon freight yards were constructed in the marsh (See
Figure 7). By the end of the 19th century no new roads crossed the meadows,
however, the road networks of the growing cities bordering the study area began to
spread into the unoccupied marsh areas. Additionally, by 1896, a trolley line was
constructed along the Paterson Plank Road. (Colton 1896; RAM 1989:16).
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
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 29
(Rutsch et al. 1978:No.13). 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 (See Figure 9). Righter (1978:21) 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 (Righter 1978:22). The county buildings were
razed earlier in this century, and few surface remains are visible today (Rutsch, et al.
1978: No. 13). 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 Map A, No.3:
Gimigliano et al. 1979:37). 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 181.9,120 miles of drainage ditches and 7.5 miles of
dikes were built, resulting in 1,300 acres producing vegetables, flax and hemp
(Gimigliano, et al. 1979:38; Righter 1978:7). 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 (Gimigliano et al. 1979:39).
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
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 30
reportedly failed (Kardas and Larrabee 1982:22), 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 (Gimigliano et al. 1979:41-42).
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 (Vermeule 1896a, '96b, '97, '99). 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 (Righter 1978:15-21). Although
his plans were never directly implemented, they set the stage for the landfilling and
industrial development that occurred in the 20th century (Gimigliano et al. 1979:44).
D. 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 (Righter
1978:25).
The most notable of the road networks that impacted the area was the New
Jersey Turnpike, which stretches the length of the HMDC 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; ONJH1989), a
raised roadway which extends across the Hackensack and Passaic Rivers and into
Jersey City, cuts through the southeast corner of the HMDC district (R.A.M. 1989:26).
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
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 31
Meadowlands unsuitable for mosquitoes, and suitable for investment. By 1919, over
17,000 acres of marsh in the Hackensack Meadowlands had been drained 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 (Righter 1978:28). 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 (Righter 1978:23).
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 (Gimigliano et al. 1979:45), have now become islands of industrial
and suburban growth, transportation corridors, and extensive landfills (See Map D).
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 (R.A.M. 1989).
VI. Summary of Results
A. Prehistoric Resources.
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.
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 1 -1.4 meters per
millennium over the last two to three thousand years. This increase in shoreline high
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June. 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage 1A Report
Page 32
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.
In addition, the study of dated pollen cores in the peat of the Meadowlands has
stablished 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 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 2000 years B.P. This
evidence of coastal marine transgression combined 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.
In addition to the review of available primary and secondary documentary
sources, the treatment of potential historic archaeological sensitivity focused primarily
on documentary sources the evaluation of surviving 17th, 18th, and 19th century
cartographic coverage 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 each period local study area within the project limits.
Nevertheless, available historic map coverage has helped to define the nature, range
and locations of potential historic sites within both upland and lowland zones of the
Meadowlands.
B. 17th Century Historic Resources
Seventeenth century historic map coverage, in particular, was hampered by the
lack of high resolution depictions in general, and by the fact that initial European
settlements and contact period Native American villages appear to have been clustered
to the north of the project boundary, possible at the edge of the then current tidal fresh
water - salt water buffer zone, but this is only speculation. No specific 17th century
Native American occupations were identified within the HMDC project boundaries. In
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 33
addition, aside from generalized references to the economic exploitation of local
resources such as salt hay by the early Dutch settlers, no specific site localities of
Colonial economic activity during the Dutch period could be identified.
C. 18th Century Historic Resources
In contrast, 18th century cartographic coverage was both extensive and highly
detailed in depiction. However, despite this enhanced resolution and level of coverage,
18th century settlement activities within the HMDC project area appear to be relatively
limited both in number and range of activities represented. On the bluffs to the west,
economic activity was centered around Schuyler's Copper Mine (Part II, See Map B,
no. 2). The mine was connected to the river by a plank road known as the Belleville
Pike. At first, this plank road was used only to transship copper down to the river. Later
a ferry system, known as Douw's Ferry, was established near Schuyler's dock, followed
even later by a bridge known as the Hackensack River Bridge. Aside from these
establishments, 18th century activities were limited to the extension of a series of land
grants and subdivisions along the eastern edge of the district extending to the Cromakill
and Penhorne Creeks. However, the depiction of these early land grants suggests that
this now inundated area was both open for settlement and comprised of arable land
as late as the 18th century.
D. 19th and 20th Century Historic Resources.
As detailed on the third historic map, 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, clay mining operations, 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 legally mandated Cultural Resource
investigations, most notably along rail and highway corridors, the majority of these
localities are known only through secondary references with few being systematically
studied and/or recorded according to current State or Federal standards. In addition
to these referenced site localities, one insight from this investigation concerned the
previously unnoticed identification of a series of early 19th century mills which were
situated beside the upland headwaters of both major and minor tributaries of the
Hackensack River.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June. 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 34
The availability of a Civil War era historic map also documents the presence of
a series of mid-19th century structures or residences along the western side of what
is now Washington Avenue. Although no specific site or structure locations could be
established at this level of resolution, the possible historic sensitivity due to the potential
presence of early to mid 19th century structural remains has been graphically indicated
as a zone of potential archaeological sensitivity bordering these historic roadways on
the historic impact evaluation map (Part II, Map C).
PART II: Alternative Actions Screening Report: Cartographic Impact
Evaluation of HMDC Development Alternatives of Known and
Potential Prehistoric and Historic Resources.
VII. Using the Scaled Historic Map Comparisons
A. The Composite Map Overlays:
This cartographic impact analysis represents the second portion of a two part
submission for the Stage 1A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Hackensack
Meadowlands of New Jersey. The first segment of the Stage 1A Cultural Resource
Assessment entitled "Sensitivity Evaluation of Prehistoric Archaeological and Historic
Settlement Patterns for the Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey", consisted of a
first cut review and assessment of survey coverage of the region's known and
previously identified historic and archaeological resources together with a
characterization of the nature and range of variation of both established and potential
prehistoric and historic sites within the study area.
Based upon the initial Stage 1A overview of past survey coverage documenting
identified and potential resources for the study area, Part 2 of the Stage 1A submission
consists of a computer based series of scaled historic and modern map comparisons.
This series of maps has been compiled to provide a graphic rendition of the location
and environmental contexts of both known historic and prehistoric resources, and
areas of potential archaeological sensitivity relative to the scaled map plots of the seven
current Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC) development
alternative zones. As a planning tool, this scaled series of color coded overlay maps
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 35
has been configured to address two categories of information: 1) provide a synthesis
of known and projected areas of prehistoric and historic archaeological sensitivity from
the precontact period through the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries; and 2) to provide
(through the use of two color coded overlay maps of potential development
alternatives) a visual basis for comparing the relative cultural resource sensitivity of
each of the seven currently defined impact zones.
Each of the six scaled overlay maps has been plotted in color on translucent
Vellum and bound on either side of a clear plastic-backed project base map to permit
the comparison between the relative impacts from each of the seven Alternative Actions
against the ranges of identified and potential cultural resources from the different
periods and environmental zones. The portfolio has been designed to facilitate easy
visual comparisons by rendering the base map over a clear rigid lucite backing which
can either be placed on a light table or held up to the window or interior light source.
The first series of cultural resource planning maps consists of four scaled color
coded overlay sheets, arranged in chronological order as maps A through D, all
sequentially bound on the left side of the portfolio. As detailed below, the first three
archaeological and historic sensitivity maps combine a range of cartographic,
documentary, and environmental sources into color coded Autocad based composite
maps. In contrast, the fourth resource map, covering the 20th century, was based on
a commercially available USGS digital map file of modern road and settlement
conditions within the Hackensack drainage. This digital USGS data was then combined
with the HMDC and Camp, Dresser, and McKee (CDM) supplied data on the pre-1970
landfills and post-1970 sanitary landfills to form a graphic composite of current
conditions.
The seven Development Alternatives, or Alternative Actions, have been
combined as two sets of color coded overlays, and bound on the right margin of the
portfolio. The grouping of the first five development alternatives onto one map, with
the final two alternatives on the second, was determined on the grounds of visual clarity,
and the degree of overlap identified for each of the parcels within each of the
development options. Neither the indicated colors nor the graphic subdivision of the
alternatives is meant to represent any inherent ranking or priority system. Both
Development Alternative maps have identified each set of parcels with a unique color,
(i.e. green for all Upland Growth parcels, pink for all Redevelopment Areas, orange for
the three Highway Corridors, blue for all Dispersed Development, and purple for all
Growth Center parcels). Each parcel for each development alternative is identified by
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 36
a number-letter code. The number reflects the sequential numerical designation
defined by CDM for each development alternative, followed by a letter which identifies
each individual parcel (also defined by CDM).
The final overlay map (Map F) combines the two most recently defined
development alternatives, the No Action alternative (No. 6), and the Conservation
Management Alternative (No. 7), into a single composite overlay, again based on
convenience and visual clarity. These last two alternatives reuse the red-orange, and
green color codes initially applied in Map E.
B. The Summary Impact Evaluation Tables:
Finally, the third element of the map correlation portfolio consists of a series of
tabular "look up" tables highlighting the relative presence and/or absence of identified
and projected cultural resources relative to each of the defined development
alternatives with the individual parcels listed in alphabetical order by letter designation
code. The summary table has been divided into ten descriptive categories or attribute
fields. The first four fields are contextual and descriptive. In addition to the letter
identification of each parcel in field one, columns two through four itemize the acreage,
landfill status, and elevation zone for each parcel. The landfill status category identifies
the presence of either the pre-1970 landfill (PSL), or modern post-1970 sanitary land
fill (MSL) for each of the parcels. A blank space indicates the lack of any recorded
landfill data for any given parcel. However, given the extent of currently undocumented
landfill areas within the Meadowland's, the possibility exists that some parcels without
a PSL or MSL designation could indeed contain either solid or sanitary landfill
components. The fourth field or column, designated elevation zone, has been
distinguished based on current map data into two categories, designated "upland" and
"lowland". The upland category is all parcels above the water line as depicted on the
19th century Vermeule map, with lowland below. This distinction is not used as a
formal, or previously agreed upon, set of categories, but rather as a convenient
environmental reference aimed at identifying the physical context of any documented
cultural resources.
The primary focus of the look up table is summarized in columns five through
nine with the heading of prehistoric, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th century resource
categories. Based on the graphic overlay or correlations between identified resource
areas and currently defined development alternatives, the presence and identity of
prehistoric and historic resources has been distinguished with four distinct letter codes.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation
Stage IA Report
Page 37
Where defined development parcels overlay areas of projected prehistoric sensitivity
based on the environmental arguments presented in the Stage 1A text, the status of
the parcel is indicated with the letters PPS for potential prehistoric sensitivity.
Likewise historic resources were divided into four chronological periods each
recorded in a separate column or field in the table, and subdivided into two letter codes
which distinguish between areas of documented, or map-based historic sensitivity (i.e.
areas of early settlement, or industrial activity) versus known historic site localities, and
previously recorded or published historic localities such as docks, mills, or
transportation facilities. When known and identified, each is described by name or
category.
Finally, the tenth and last column gives the map letter reference, lists the
appropriate reference map by letter designation (A-F), and where appropriate, the
number designation of any specific identified resources or resource areas.
VIII. Scope and Purpose
The purpose of this scaled series of map comparisons is to provide a viable
planning tool which provides the flexibility to evaluate the various cultural resource data
sets relative to past and current environmental conditions, zones of fast land and
sanitary landfill, and modern road and residential patterns. As discussed in detail in
the Stage 1A report, the results of the environmental analysis of past sea level rise and
transgression and environmental conditions provided the basis for projecting areas of
potential prehistoric sensitivity. The pollen based reconstructions of environmental
change and related evidence suggest that over the last two to three thousand years
considerable areas of the Hackensack drainage, specifically areas adjacent to stream
courses and confluences, represented areas amenable to prehistoric and early historic
occupation. Accordingly these zones of former fast land adjacent to primary water
courses have been highlighted as ca. 500 foot wide bands in Map A. Taken together
the traditional cartographic and documentary sources, when combined with the new
lines of evidence from the disciplines of palynology and coastal geomorphology,
document the potential for finding surviving prehistoric and historic resources in both
upland and lowland areas of the drainage, as well as the potential for finding buried,
and now submerged, near surface archaeological resources from the historic and
prehistoric periods.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation
Stage IA Report
Page 38
These impact evaluation maps have been divided into three major data sets.
Maps A through C document known and potential cultural resource sensitivity areas
from the prehistoric through the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Map D represents a
compilation of 20th century road and transportation networks, zones of modern
development represented as USGS digital line graphs from air photo sources, and
areas of currently identifiable landfill. Based on information supplied by CDM, this
landfill data has been rendered as two subsets, 1) pre-1970 solid landfill areas, and 2)
post-1970 current sanitary landfill areas. This final map overlay thus represents the
most recent phase of urban industrial development, and landfill alteration. At the same
time, this rendition of contemporary conditions of landfill areas also serves as a planning
tool for the evaluation of recent and past impacts to areas of potential archaeological
and historical sensitivity.
The final data set of overlay maps divides the most current CDM and HMDC
design alternatives into two groups of color coded plots of numbered and lettered
development parcels. Map E shows the five initially identified alternatives: 1) Upland;
2) Redevelopment; 3) Highway Corridors; 4) Dispersed Development Areas; and 5)
Growth Centers depicting the absolute location and coverage of each parcel for each
of the five development scenarios. Each of the five alternatives is rendered as a discrete
color coded boundary line, and each parcel within each of the alternatives is
distinguished by a number and letter code, which in turn is cross referenced to the
impact look up table of identified cultural resources.
The final overlay consists of the color coded rendition of the last two HMDC
design alternatives defined as: 1) No Action; and 2) Conservation Management Areas.
This separation between the two sets of development actions was arbitrarily grouped
in order to reduce visual conflict resulting from the degree of overlap of the seven design
alternatives when rendered together.
IX. Cartographic Sources and Limitations
A. Early Historic Map Sources
As a prelude to using these historic sensitivity and modern impact maps as a
planning tool, it is pertinent to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the
cartographic and documentary sources used to compile these schematic map
depictions of the changing landscape through time. At the outset, it is important to
point out that for several of the periods depicted, no accurately scaled, high resolution,
baseline map information was available for the study area. It is also important to point
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 39
out that, with the exception of 19th and 20th century map depictions, most known
prehistoric and historic site locations were plotted based on secondary published
accounts from the Office of New Jersey Heritage and the New Jersey State Museum
records. Although a number of early 17th century map depictions exist with coverage
for large sections of the East Coast in general, none show sufficient area specific detail
or resolution to serve as, or be scaled as, base line planning maps for the Meadowlands
study area. Because of this lack of detailed map coverage for the 17th century and
the first half of the 18th century, the earliest available high resolution maps of the land
forms and drainage patterns was represented by Vermeule's 1887 map of the
Hackensack River basin. This map was selected as the base map because of its
depiction of primary and secondary waterways, the location and extent of fast land as
of the 19th century, and because of its detailed depiction of the location and extent of
known Cedar Swamps recorded in the 19th century. Because of these elements, the
1887 Vermeule map was selected as a project base map to depict the environmental
conditions prior to the advent of intensive urbanization and land filling in the 20th
century.
Accordingly, Vermeule's 1887 map served as a graphic back drop for the
depiction of both known and projected prehistoric resources, as well as for all identified
contact period 17th century historic resources. Where identified, each of these were
located on the map, based on published or archival descriptions. In no case are either
the identified prehistoric resources (shown in triangular symbols), or the historic
resources (in circles in Map A), meant to imply absolute, or coordinate specific,
locations given the current level of definition, ambiguities in the original accounts, and
the paucity of previous site specific survey and testing programs. These depictions
have been presented only as generalized approximations, or best guess projections,
of the general area. Specifically for the historic resources, indicated site locations have
been for the most part based on generalized secondary and often ambiguous accounts
for the 17th century, and with the understanding that contact period sites are even
more ambiguous and ill defined. Although most fall immediately outside the HMDC
boundaries, their precise location could vary by a factor of several thousand feet in any
direction. Accordingly, for the earlier period, later 18th, and 19th century site locations,
locational control should be viewed as only a best guess projection of location.
B. 18th Century Map Sources
The cartographic synthesis of know 18th century historic resources was
compiled based on the combination of the scaled rendition of Erskine's 1776 map of
known localities and landscape features (which was originally rendered for General
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 40
Washington), combined with the addition of identified 18th century sites from the New
Jersey Historic Sites Inventory files, Vermeule's 19th century depiction of 18th century
resources, and Rutsch's 1978 compilation of known historic site locations for the
southeastern portion of the district. In addition, Map A shows the depiction of 17th and
18th century land subdivisions which were compiled by Hammond from Winfield's
History of Land Titles, showing lot lines and property owners on land grants to the east
of what is now Penhorn Creek. Although predominantly inundated land today, this
zone of earlier historic land grants is significant because it indicates that this section of
the basin appears to have once constituted arable dry land within the past three
hundred years.
As indicated by the limited number of mapped historic resources depicted on
the 18th century Erskine map, the level of development and exploitation of the area
appears to have been relatively light in the 18th century compared to the subsequent
events of the 19th century. It is also pertinent to point out that Erskine's earlier depiction
appears to have been either selective in coverage or based on secondary sources
versus an actual field survey. Erskine's map illustrated with some detail 18th century
roads bordering the Meadowland's, the Belleville Pike crossing the Meadowland's to
Schuyler's copper mine, but few other features. In particular the Erskine map appears
to have overlooked large areas of Cedar Swamp throughout the basin. Erskine showed
only one large area of Cedar Swamp in the southwest portion of the district located on
either side of the historic wooden Plank Road. Vermeule's later topographic map of
the basin showed extensive areas of Cedar Swamp with the highest concentration
north of Secaucus, but with no Cedar Swamp depicted in the southwest section of the
district where Erskine had depicted his one stand of cedar. This significant discrepancy
suggests strongly that the earlier Erskine map was intended as a schematic depiction
of only these elements and features of the landscape which may have been of strategic
relevance to General Washington in the 18th century. In terms of environmental history,
this disparate map evidence suggests that the cedar stands were much more extensive
than they are today, and also that the available 18th century depiction may in fact be
of little or no utility for projecting the earlier extent of Cedar Swamps prior to the late
19th century depictions of Vermeule.
C. 19th Century Cartographic Sources
With the advent of the 19th century, the available map coverage became more
detailed, accurate, and easier to correlate with contemporary land forms. In contrast
to the earlier 17th and 18th century "site locations", both the availability of detailed 19th
century cartographic sources, and the ability to correlate identified historic sites with
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation
Stage IA Report
Page 41
modern road systems resulted in a much higher level of specificity in "pin pointing" the
probable locations of identified historic resources. As before, the baseline cartographic
data for the identification of roads, the Cedar Swamp, and fast land versus water line
demarcations, were again based on Vermeule's 1887 topographic map of the drainage.
In addition to a number of unnamed mine activity areas (depicted by crossed pick and
shovel symbols), and probable dock and commercial activity areas also shown by
Vermeule, a total of 15 discreet historic sites, either on or potentially eligible for the
State Register are depicted on the 19th century resource map. With few exceptions,
all of the indicated historic sites were derived from secondary sources, predominately
unpublished historic cultural resource surveys of the area (Gimigliano 1878, HM11978,
Rutsch 1978, Artemel 1979, N.J.DOT 1987, RAM 1989).
In addition, two important categories were identified and plotted with numbered
site codes from previously unreferenced historic map sources. The first of these
consisted of Gordon's 1828 map of New Jersey which indicated the location of two mill
sites along the western edge of the basin, one at the end of "Kingsland", or Kirkland
Creek, the other at the headwaters of Berry's Creek. Although no symbol for a water
wheel was depicted on the map, the designation of Saw Mill Creek on this and later
maps in the southwest section of the basin suggests the potential location of former
mill related facilities along the stream. The second major source of important and
previously unreported site information derived from Hopkins' 1861 map which showed
two historic mills, numbers 13 and 14 on Map C, one the same as, and one in addition
to Gordon's 1828 depiction, both on the headwaters of Berry's Creek.
In addition, the 1861 Hopkin's map showed the presence of a series of 19th
century structures or residences in the Moonachie area which suggests that although
not precisely located, any development activities projected for the areas bordering
Washington Avenue, Moonachie Avenue, and the Paterson Plank Road should be
evaluated on a parcel specific basis through map, deed, and appropriate archival
research aimed at identifying the nature and location of historic (specifically mid 19th
century Civil War era) structures either as standing buildings or as potential subsurface
historic archaeological resources. Although not previously addressed in this area, the
historic sensitivity of properties bordering the historic road system was previously
highlighted by preliminary Stage 1B testing activity in the vicinity of the Outwater
Cemetery by New Jersey Department of Transportation in 1987. No detailed work was
done pertaining to the cemetery itself, however its presence serves to underline the
historic fabric of 19th century settlement history which once existed in association with
this early roadway. The general sensitivity of these roadside tracts of historic structures
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 42
was highlighted as a stippled band for sections which may contain elements associated
with the 19th century settlement history. A similar band of potential 19th century
structures designated as No. 11 on Map C was indicated for a half mile stretch of road
southeast of Secaucus. Again, no attempt to pin point the precise locations the these
structures was attempted, given the current generalized scale and level of definition.
Any potential impacts to this area should also be accompanied by parcel specific map,
deed, and archival investigation.
X. Results - Cultural Resource Correlations and Rankings
Despite the limitations in the relative uniformity and level of coverage through
time for the available archaeological and historic data, the evidence was tabulated for
the entire data set to provide a ranked impact comparison based on the absolute
number of identified resources from each of the five defined time periods (prehistoric
through 20th century) relative to each of the seven defined development alternatives.
The data set has been summarized in Table II and in 3-D bar chart format (See Figure
10) with the following results:
1. As graphically summarized in the 3-D histogram, all alternatives shared the
presence of prehistoric, 18th, and 19th century resources. All alternatives, except
alternative 5, (Growth Centers) overlapped with potential 17th century resources.
2. The largest number of resources from all periods, were encountered within
the Conservation Management Alternative (No. 7). This final alternative was also
distinguished by the highest number (26) of identified 19th century resources.
3. With the exception of the above mentioned Conservation Management
Alternative (No. 7), all of the other scenarios contained between four and nine parcels
with potential Prehistoric resource areas. All except Alternative No. 5 (Growth Centers)
contained a uniform distribution of 17th and 18th century resources with an average
range of between one and two parcels per development scenario.
4. In contrast to the relatively ill-defined data and survey coverage for the early
periods, 19th century historic sensitivity showed the highest counts and range of
variation for resources, with a range of between four and twenty-six identified potential
resources per alternative.
5. Of the five defined chronological periods addressed, previously identified, or
recorded, 20th century cultural resources represented the smallest number and the
least sensitivity within the seven Action Alternatives. Consistent with the contemporary
focus of modern development and transportation systems, two of these were located
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation
Stage IA Report
Page 43
in the Upland Growth Alternatives and the Highway Corridors, each of which contains
two parcels with potential 20th century historic sensitivity. The third was represented
by a single parcel located in the Dispersed Development area.
6. In terms of the relative number of identified resources for each of the
alternatives, it is possible to rank the seven defined alternatives in terms of the number
of identified or potential resource as follows, from the least to the most archaeologically
and historically sensitive. In terms of potential impact areas and cultural resource
management issues the Redevelopment Areas alternative had the least number of
identified resources, followed by alternatives 5) Growth Centers, and 6) No Action
Alternatives. Within the mid-range of the series, three Action Alternatives (Dispersed
Development Area (No. 4), Highway Corridors (No. 3), and Upland Growth (No. 1) rank
about equal, and contain resources of all periods, including the presence of 20th
century resources.
In terms of the relative potential for Cultural Resource Management issues and
the need for additional site specific evaluations, the recently defined Conservation
Management Alternatives is distinguished by both the diversity and absolute number
of resources for all periods in general, and because it includes on the order of three
times the number of 19th century historic sites as any other alternative.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 44
CARTOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
In addition to the following listing, numerous other maps of the Hackensack
Meadowlands were viewed at the New Jersey Historical Society, the New Jersey
Division of the Newark Public Library, the Map Division of the New York Public
Library, and in the various cultural resource surveys which have been conducted in
various areas throughout the HMDC district. The maps which proved most valuable
to this study are indicated below. Undoubtedly there are cartographic sources that
were not viewed despite the efforts of the investigators. However, due to the
redundancy of many of the sources, it seems unlikely that significant cultural
resources would have been 'missed', although the possibility always remains that
structures and activity areas that at one time existed within the study area, were
simply never recorded on maps. The greatest limitation on the identification of
cultural resources through cartographic sources, is that due to the relative lackkof
development within the Hackensack Meadowlands during the historic period,
detailed depictions of major portions of the study area were seldom, if ever,
rendered. The kind of detail provided on localized road, tax and sewer maps is of
little use except on the borders of the district. However, in further Investigations
dealing with more specific areas of potential development, it is recommended that
emphasis be placed on visiting the local repositories, such as libraries, historical
societies, schools, and town halls, in an effort to locate new map sources, and
possibly previously unidentified resources.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Selected Map Sources
Anonymous
1827 Line of the Morris Canal New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey Historical
Society.
Beers, F.W.
1872 Atlas of New Jersey. F.W. Beers and Co., Philadelphia.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 45
Bromley, G.W.
1913 Atlas of Bergen County New Jersey Vol.11. On file at the New Jersey
Historical Society.
Colton, G.W. and C.B. and Co.
1896 Road Map of Bergen County New Jersey. On file at the Map Division
of the New York Public Library.
Corey, G.H.
1861 Map of the Counties of Bergen and Passaic, New Jersey. G.H. Corey,
Philadelphia.
Erskine, Robert
1776 Lower half of an original survey done for his Excellency General
Washington. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Geological Survey of New Jersey
1877 Clay District of Middlesex County Showing Location of Beds of Stoneware
Clay, Kaolin and Fire Clay. Surveyed and drawn by J.K. Barton, C.E. Map
on file, the Alexander Library, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New
Jersey.
Gordon, Thomas
1828 Map of New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey Division of the Newark
Public Library.
1836 Map of the Bergen Meadows with the Adjoining Country. (RAM 1989:20).
Hagstrom Co.
1943 Street and House Number Map of Hudson County New Jersey. On file at
the Map Division of the New York Public Library.
Hammond, C.S. and Co.
1927 New Map of Bergen County New Jersey. Compiled for the North Jersey
Title Insurance Company, Hackensack, N.J. On file at the Map Division of
the New York Public Library.
Hammond, D. Stanton
1660-1668fierge/i Town and Township. On file at the New Jersey Historical
Society.
Hills, J.
1780 Plan of Road from Elizabeth Town Point to Elizabeth Town Showing Rebel
Works Raised for its Defense. On file, Alexander Library, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 46
1781 A Map of the Part of the Province of Jersey. Original in the Library of
Congress. Photostat on file at the New Jersey State Archives, Trenton.
1873 Combined Atlas of New Jersey and the County of Hudson. Q.M.Hopkins,
Philadelphia.
Historic Conservation and Interpretation Inc.
1978 Cultural Resources Base Map. In Hudson County Sewerage Authority 201
Wastewater Facilities Planning - District I Volume I - Facility Report,
Appendix D Cultural Resources - Survey of Designated Corridors, by
Edward S. Rutsch, et al.
Hopkins, G. Morgan (compiler)
1854-1860 Topographical Map of the State of New Jersey. H.G. Bond,
Publisher. On file, Alexander Library, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,
New Jersey.
1861 Map of Bergen County New Jersey. On file at the Map Division of the
New York Public Library.
1909 Atlas of Hudson County New Jersey Vol.2. On file at the New Jersey
Historical Society.
Hughes, M. and J.
1867 Map From Palisades to Paterson, New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey
Historical Society.
Hyde, E.B.
1886 A map of northern New Jersey.
Interstate Map Co.
1910 Map of Hudson County New Jersey.
Lewis, S.
1776 A Plan of the Northern Part of New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey
Historical Society.
Lloyd, H.H. and Co.
1868 Forty Miles Around New York. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
McDowell, F.H.
187[?] Map Showing Lines Filed by... (Railroad Companies]... In Hudson Co.
N.J.. On file at the Map Division of the New York Public Library.
National Archives and Records Service, Cartographic Branch, Alexandria, Virginia
Record Group 23, LAMC, 853: East Jersey in America, 1650-1750
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report Page 47
Record Group 23, LAMC, 851: Chart of the Coast of New York / New Jersey,
ca. 1780
Record Group 77, CWMF, 159; Bergen Neck, Hudson County [Canals series],
1879
Record Group 77, CWMF, R62: Examination of New Jersey Flats, 1881
Record Group 77, R136: West Shore of Upper New York Bay, 1891
Record Group 77, R135: Hackensack River, 1891
Record Group 77, CWMF, R119: Hackensack River Harbor Lines, 1908-1917
(nos. 2-15)
Record Group 23, LAMC, 853: Geological Survey of New Jersey, Elizabeth
Sheet, 1912
Record Group 23, LAMC, 853: Geological Survey of New Jersey, Newark Sheet,
1914
Record Group 23, LAMC, 853: Geological Survey of New Jersey, Hackensack
Sheet, 1914
National Archives and Records Service, Cartographic Branch, Alexandria, Virginia,
Record Group 373
Pease, C.C.
Atlas of Bergen County, N.J.. In Gimigliano, et al. 1979.
Robinson, E. and Co.
1902 Map of Bergen County New Jersey.
Seller, John and William Fisher
1676-7 A Map of New Jersey in America. In Stokes 1915, Vol.1, Plate 11b.
Spielmann and Brush
1881 Sanitary and Topographical Map of Hudson Co., N.J.. Hoboken, N.J.:
Speilmann and Brush. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Sullivan, J.L.
1829 A Topographical Map to show... the relative location of the proposed
Rail Road from Paterson to the Hudson opposite the City of New York.
On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Turner, James
1747(?) Map No. II. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 48
United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (now U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service,
Rockville, Maryland)
T10: Map of a Part of the State of New Jersey from Elizabeth Town to Newark,
1:10,000, 1836
T17: Map of a Part of the State of New Jersey between Hackensack and
Bergen, no scale, no date [post-1836]
T100: Map of the State of New Jersey from Hackensack to Newark and
Elizabeth Town, 1:10,000, 1839
T1398: Hackensack and Passaic Rivers and Vicinity [three sheets], 1:10,000,
1871-1874
T3449: Passaic and Hackensack Rivers, Lower Part, 1:5,000,1914
T3490: Hackensack River, 1:5,000, 1914-1915
T3491: Hackensack River, 1:5,000,1915
T3492: Hackensack River, Overpeck Creek to Hackensack, 1:5,000,1915
1900 New Jersey-New York, Staten Island Quadrangle. Surveyed 1888-1889
and 1897. 1:62,500. Map on File, Cartographic Branch, National Archives,
Alexandria, Virginia.
1901 New Jersey, New Brunswick Quadrangle. Surveyed 1887, revised 1899.
1:62,500. Map on File, Cartographic Branch, National Archives, Alexandria.
A Map showing the Route of a Canal Connecting the Tidewaters of the Delaware,
with those of the Raritan. Laid Out Pursuant to Instructions from the Commis-
sioners Appointed by an Act of Legislature, Passed Feb. 13,1816.
U.S.G.S.
1981
Elizabeth Quadrangle. Reston, VA: U.S.G.S.
1981
Hackensack Quadrangle. Reston, VA: U.S.G.S.
1981
Jersey City Quadrangle. Reston, VA: U.S.G.S.
1981
Orange Quadrangle. Reston, VA: U.S.G.S.
1981
Weehawken Quadrangle. Reston, VA: U.S.G.S.
Vanderdonck, A.
1656 New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
1899 Jersey City Sheet. Geological Survey of New Jersey.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation
Stage IA Report
Page 49
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
Selected Secondary Sources
Alterman, Michael L., et al.
1989 New Jersey Turnpike Widening Project, Cultural Resources Investigation,
Interchange 11 to Southern Mixing Bowl. Prepared for the New Jersey
Turnpike Authority.
Anderson, Matthew G. and Jill Cremer
1990 Historic Preservation Fund Survey and Planning Grant Activities in
New Jersey. Trenton, NJ: Office of New Jersey Heritage.
Archaeological Survey Consultants, Inc.
1981 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Secaucus Housing Project,
Secaucus, Hudson County, New Jersey. Montclair, NJ: Archaeological
Survey Consultants.
1982 A Phase IA Archaeological Survey of the Proposed 201 Step 1 Facility
Plan for the Borough of Wood- Ridge, New Jersey. Montclair, NJ:
Archaeological Survey Consultants, Inc.
Artemel, Janice
1979 Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Northeast Corridor
New Jersey. Newton, NJ: Cultural Resource Management Services, Inc.
Prepared for DeLeuw, Cather/Parsons.
Barghoorn, E.S.
1953 Recent Changes in Sea Level along the New England Coast: New
Archaeological Evidence. Science Volume 117 No. 3048 pgs. 597-598,
May 29, 1953. Washington, D.C.
Bateman, Fred
1978 "The Marketable Surplus" in Northern Dairy Farming: New Evidence by
Size of Farm in 1860. Agricultural History 52:345-363.
Berger, Louis and Assoc.
1984 A Phase IA Cultural Resource Reconnaissance for the Veterans Nursing
Facility, Paramus, New Jersey. East Orange, NJ: Louis Berger and
Associates, Inc.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage 1A Report
Page 50
Bernabo, J.C., and Webb, T., Ill
1977 Changing Patterns in the Holocene Pollen Record of Northeastern North
America: A Mapped Summary. Quaternary Research (Academic Press,
New York) Volume 8 No. 1 pgs. 64-96, July 1977
Bloom, A.L. and Stuiver, M.
1963 Submergence of the Connecticut Coast. Science Volume 139 No. 3552
pgs. 332-334, January 25,1963. Washington, D.C.
Bodie, Debra C. and Patrick H. Garrow.
1983 Assessment-Level and Reconnaissance-Level Review of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Proposed Saddle River - Sprout Brook Flood
Control Project, Bergen County, New Jersey. Marietta, GA: Soil Systems,
Inc.
Boylan, James
1979 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commission's Newark Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge Storage Facility.
Report on file, Office of New Jersey Heritage, Trenton.
Braun, D.P.
1974 Explanatory Models for the Evolution of Coastal Adaptation in Prehistoric
New England. American Antiquity \/olume 39 No. 4 Pp. 582-596, October
1974. Washington, D.C.
Brooks, John
1957 A Reporter at Large: The Meadows, Parts I and II. The New Yorker,
March 9,1957, pp. 98-104, and March 16,1957, pp. 108-114. New York.
Brush, Grace S.
n.d. Paiynoiogical Analyses of Borings From the Lyndhurst Site of the New
Jersey Meadowiands. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.
Brydon, Norman F.
1974 The Passaic River: Past, Present, Future. Rutgers University Press, New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
Burnett, Louise Howes, Howard I. Durie, and Frederick W. Bogert
1966 Guide to the Documentary Collections of the Bergen County Historical
Society. Bergen County Historical Society, Hackensack, New Jersey.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 51
Carmichael, D.P.
1980 A Record of Environmental Change During Recent Millennia in the
Hackensack Tidal Marsh, New Jersey. Torrey Botanical Club Bulletin
Volume 107(4):514-524, Oct.-Dec. 1980. Lancaster, Pa.
Chester, Olga, ed.
1982 New Jersey's Archaeological Resources from the Paleo-lndian Period
to the Present: A Review of the Research Problems and Survey Priorities.
Trenton: Office of Cultural and Environmental Services, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection.
Chittick, William F., et al.
1980 Preliminary Cultural Assessment for Proposed Widening of Route 1
and 9/Tonnelle Avenue Bergen and Hudson Counties New Jersey.
Clayton, Woodford W.
1882 History of Bergen and Passaic Counties. Philadelphia: Everts and Peck.
Coad, Oral S.
1972 New Jersey in Travelers' Accounts, 1524-1971: A Descriptive
Bibliography. Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, New Jersey.
Cunningham, John T.
1951 Railroading in New Jersey. The Associated Railroads of New Jersey.
1959a Monumental Meadows: Few Realize the Importance of 30,000 Acres of
Wasteland Lying in Shadow of the World's Greatest Metropolis. Newark
Sunday News Magazine, February 8,1959, pp. 5, 22-25.
1959b Natural Wonderland: Progress Has Cost the Jersey Meadows Its White
Cedar Forest, but the Marshes Still Offer Assorted Game for Hunters, Many
Birds and Flowers for the Nature Lovers. Newark Sunday News Magazine,
March 1,1959, pp. 20-23.
Dally, Joseph W.
1873 Woodbridge and Vicinity: The Story of a New Jersey Township. Reprinted
1967. Hunterdon House, Madison, New Jersey.
DeLotto, Sister Doris
1973 An overview of the Hackensack Meadowlands from its Geological
Beginning to the Present. M.A. thesis, St. Louis University, St. Louis,
Missouri. Available at the New Jersey Historical Society, Newark, New
Jersey.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 52
Drummond, James 0.
1979 Transportation and the Shaping of the Physical Environment in an Urban
Place: Newark 1820-1900. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.
Dumont, E.
1979 Of Paradigms and Projectile Points: Two Perspectives on the Early
Archaic in the Northeast. Bulletin of the New York State Archaeological
Association 74:38-52.
Federal Writers Project
1989 The WPA Guide to 1930's New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Fimbel, Deborah
1987 Investigation of the Outwater Family Cemetery, Washington Avenue,
Borough of Carlstadt, Bergen County, Technical Environmental Study
Cultural Resource Investigation. Prepared for the New Jersey Department
of Transportation Bureau of Environmental Analysis.
Fittipaldi, Janet
1983 Subsurface Cultural Resource Survey of Proposed Electric and
Telephone Lines at Von Steuben House River Edge, Bergen County. New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres Program.
Gaudeau, Denise C.
1988 The Distribution of Late Quaternary Forest Regions in the Northeast:
Pollen Data, Physiography, and the Prehistoric Record. In Holocene Human
Ecology in Northeastern North America, edited by George P. Nicholas.
Plenum Press, New York and London. Pp. 215-253.
Gimigliano, Michael N. et al.
ca. 1979 An Archaeological Survey for the Erie-Lackawana Improvements
Project. Newton, NJ: Cultural Resource Management Services, Inc.
1979 A Stage IA Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Bergen County
Utilities Authority Composting and Incineration Facilities Bergen County,
New Jersey. Newton, NJ: Cultural Resource Management Services, Inc.
Prepared for Clinton Bogert Associates.
Goldman, Clifford A.
1975 Hackensack Meadowlands. M.A. thesis, Princeton University, Princeton,
New Jersey. Available at the New Jersey State Library, Trenton.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 53
Graham, John Patton
1982 Union County Historic Sites Inventory. Sponsored by the Union County
Cultural and Heritage Council and Office of Cultural and Environmental
Services, Trenton, New Jersey. On file, Office of New Jersey Heritage,
Trenton.
Green, Martha
1976 The Hackensack Water Company: A National Reputation for Water
Quality. Meadowlands USA, July 4, 1976, p.9.
Grubb, Richard
1989 Stage IB Cultural Resource Survey Wood-Ridge Wastewater Treatment
Plant Borough of Wood-Ridge, Bergen County, New Jersey. Somerset, NJ:
Richard Grubb and Assoc., Inc. Prepared for the Borough of Wood-Ridge
c/o Neglia Engineering Assoc.
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
1970 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission, Lyndhurst, New Jersey.
Harmon, Kathryn P. and John C.F. Tedrow, and the New Jersey Agricultural Experi-
ment Station
1969 A Phytopedologic Study of the Hackensack Meadowlands. Unpublished
report available at the New Jersey State Library, Trenton.
Harrison, W., and Lyons, C.J.
1963 Sea Level and Crustal Movements along the New England Acadian Shore
4,500-3,000 B.P. Journal of Geology 71:96-108. No. 1.
Harshberger, John W.
1900 An Ecological Study of the New Jersey Strand Flora. Proceedings of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 20:623-671.
1909 The vegetation of the Salt Marshes and of the Salt and Fresh Water Ponds
of Northern Coastal New Jersey. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia 61:373-400.
1916 The Origin and Vegetation of Salt Marsh Pools. American Philosophical
Society Proceedings 55:481-484.
Headlee, Thomas J., and the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station
1915 The Mosquitoes of New Jersey and Their Control. New Jersey Agricultural
Experiment Station, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 54
Heusser, Calvin J.
1963 Pollen Diagrams from Three Former Cedar Bogs in the Hackensack Tidal
Marsh, Northeastern New Jersey. Torrey Botanical Club, Bulletin Jan.-Feb.,
1963, 90(1): 16-28. Lancaster, Pa.
Howard, W. Keene
1971 Postglacial Submergence and Salt Marsh Evolution in New Hampshire.
Maritime Sediments Volume 7:64-68, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Hydrographic Data General Drafting, Inc.
n.d. The Hackensack Valley in 1776. Bergen County Historical Society, North
Hackensack, New Jersey.
Kalm, Peter, Johann Reinhold Foster, Edith Marie Linnbea Carlborg, and Adolph B.
Benson
1937 The America of 1750: Peter Kalm's Travels in North America. Wilson
Erickson, Inc., New York.
Kardas, Susan and Edward Larrabee
1975 Historic Survey of Proposed US Routes 1 and 9 Corridor in Hudson and
Bergen Counties, New Jersey Phase I.
1982 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of Hackensack River Tidal Barrier
Hudson County, New Jersey. Princeton, NJ: Historic Sites Research.
Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, NY
Kaye, C.A., and Barghoom, E.S.
1964 Late Quaternary Sea-Level Changes and Crustal Rise at Boston,
Massachusetts, with Notes on Autocompaction of Peat. Geological Society
of America Bulletin Feb., 1964,75:63-80, Burlington, Vermont.
Kellogg, Douglas C.
1988 Problems in the Use of Sea-Level Data for Archaeological Reconstructions.
In Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, edited by
George P. Nicholas. Plenum Press, New York and London. Pp. 81-94.
Koehfer, Francis C.
1940 Three Hundred Years: The Story of the Hackensack Valley, Its Settlement
and Growth. Lew Biebigheiser, Chester, New Jersey.
Kraft, John C.
1977 Late Quaternary Paleogeographic Changes in the Coastal Environments
of Delaware, Middle Atlantic Bight, Related to Archaeologic Settings. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences 288:35-69.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 55
Larrabee, Edward
1982 New Jersey's Cultural Resources: A.D. 1800-1865. In New Jersey's
Archaeological Resources from the Paleo-lndlan Period to the Present,
edited by Olga Chesler. Pp. 220-240. New Jersey Office of Environmental
Services, Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton.
Mattson, Chester
1970 The Hackensack Meadowlands - An Ecological Perspective. Philadelphia,
PA: Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.
McCormick, Jack & Associates, Inc.
1978 Full Environmental Statement for the Proposed Meadowlands Area at the
New Jersey Sports Complex, Borough of East Rutherford, County of
Bergen. Report prepared for the New Jersey Sports Exposition Authority,
by Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc.
McCormick, Richard P.
1981 New Jersey: From Colony to State, 1609-1789. New Jersey Historical
Society, Newark.
Meyer, Ernest L., and P. Witzel
1862 Topographical Map of Union County. On file, New Jersey State Archives,
Trenton.
Miller, Robert M.
1968 Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Structural Development.
B.A. thesis, University of Virginia, Available at the New Jersey State Library,
Trenton.
Morrison, Charles C., Jr.
1961 The Hackensack Meadows - A Metropolitan Frontier. M.A. thesis,
Columbia University, New York.
Mortenson, Ray
1983 Meadowland. Lustrum Press, New York.
Nelson William (editor)
1902 The New Jersey Coast in Thfee Centuries. Lewis Publishing Company,
|slew York.
Newark Evening News
1914 "Reclamation has Progressed Well: Work on Newark-Elizabeth Meadows
Already Showing Results of City's Efforts," Newark Evening News, May 19,
1914. Newark Public Library, Nqw Jersey Division, Clipping File
(Meadowlands).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation
Stage IA Report
Page 56
1940 "Tales of Kearny Forest: Interest in Tree Stumps Revived as Engineers
Uproot Them in Meadows," Newark Evening News, March 29,1940.
Newark Public Library, New Jersey Division, Clipping File (Meadowlands).
New Jersey Commission to Study Meadowland Development
1965 Final Report of the New Jersey Commission to Study Meadowland
Development.
New Jersey Turnpike Authority
1986 New Jersey Turnpike 1985-90 Widening, Technical Study Volume I:
Natural Resources.
1986 New Jersey Turnpike 1985-90 Widening, Technical Study Volume IV:
Cultural Resources.
Nicholas, George P. (editor)
1988 Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America. . Plenum Press,
New York and London, 1988.
Office of New Jersey Heritage
1989 New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places as of December 31,
1988. Trenton, N.J.: Office of New Jersey Heritage, Division of Parks and
Forestry, Department of Environmental Protection.
Oldale, R.N.
1985 Rapid Postglacial Shoreline Changes in the Western Gulf of Maine and the
Paleoindian Environment. American Antiquity Volume 50 No. 1 Pp. 145-150.
Jan., 1985. Washington, D.C.
1986 Late-Glacial and Postglacial Sea-Level History of New England: A Review
of Available Sea-Level Curves. Archaeology of Eastern North America Fall,
1986, 14:89-99. New York.
Research and Archaeological Management, Inc.
1989 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Hackensack Meadowlands District
Hudson and Bergen Counties, New Jersey. Lyndhurst, N.J.: R.A.M.
Prepared for the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
Comprehensive Master Plan Revision Program.
Righter, Elizabeth
ca.1978 Historical Background, Appendix XI. In Environmental Impact Statement
on a Multipurpose Development Proposed on a tract of land In North
Bergen and Secaucus, Hackensack Meadowlands District, Hudson
County, New Jersey. Secaucus, N.J.: Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc.
Grossman arid Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 57
Rutsch, Edward S. et al.
1978 Stage IA Cultural Resource Survey for the Hudson County Sewerage
Authority 201 Wastewater Facility Plan - District I Jersey City, North Bergen,
Secaucus, and Kearny. Filed at ONJH in two parts: Appendix D Cultural
Resources -- Survey of Designated Corridors; and Appendix C Cultural
Resources -- Social and Physical Context. Newton, NJ: Historic
Conservation and Interpretation, Inc. Prepared for Havens and Emerson,
Inc. and Hazen and Sawyer.
Salwen, Bert
1975 Postglacial Environments and Cultural Change in the Hudson River Basin.
Man in the Northeast Fall, 1975 Volume 10 Pp. 43-40. Institute for
Northeastern Anthropology, S.U.N.Y. at Albany, Albany, N.Y.
Schmid, J.A.
1987 Atlantic White Cedar in the Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey. In
Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands Symposium, edited by Aimlee D. Laderman,
pp. 315-322. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Scholl, D.W., Craighead, F.C., and Stuiver, M.
1969 Florida Submergence Curve Revised: Its Relation to Coastal
Sedimentation. Science Volume 163, No. 3867, Pp. 562-564. Feb. 7, 1969.
Washington, D.C.
Scully, R.W. and Arnold, R.W.
1981 Holocene Alluvial Stratigraphy in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin,
New York. Quaternary Research Academic Press. May, 1981, Volume 15
No. 3, Pp. 327-344. New York.
Shaw, William H.
1884 History of Essex and Hudson Counties, New Jersey. Philadelphia: Everts
and Peck.
Sloshberg, Willard
1975 "Archaeological survey of the area affected by the proposed new sewer
lines in the Town of Secaucus, New Jersey".
Stanford, Scott D.
1989 Glacial Lake Levels and Drainage in the Hackensack and Lower Hudson
Valleys, New Jersey and New York. In Abstracts with Programs - Geological
Society of America, Northeastern Section, 24th Annual Meeting 21 (2):68.
Stokes, I.N. Phelps
1915 The Iconography of Manhattan Island 1498-1909. Volume 1. New York:
Robert H. Dodd.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 58
Studley, Miriam V.
1964 Historic New Jersey Through Visitors' Eyes. Princeton, NJ: D. Van
Nostrand Company, Inc.
Stuiver M., and Daddario, H.J.
1963 Submergence of the New Jersey Coast. Science Volume 142 No. 3594,
Pp. 951 Nov. 15, 1963. Washington, D.C.
Thorbahn, Peter F., Cox, Deborah C.
1988 The Effect of Estuary Formation on Prehistoric Settlement in Southern
Rhode Island, in Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America,
edited by George P. Nicholas. Pp. 167-180. Plenum Press, New York and
London.
Van Valen, J.M.
1900 History of Bergen County, New Jersey. New York: New Jersey Publishing
and Engraving Co.
Van Winkle, Daniel, ed.
1924 History of the Municipalities of Hudson County, New Jersey, 1630-1923.
New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Co., Inc.
Vermeule, Cornelius C.
1896a Drainage of the Hackensack and Newark Tide Marshes. In Annual Report
of the New Jersey Geological Survey for 1896. MacCrellish and Quigley,
Trenton.
1896b Map of Hackensack Meadows to Illustrate Report on Drainage. In Annual
Report of the New Jersey Geological Survey for 1896. MacCrellish and
Quigley, Trenton.
1897 Drainage of the Hackensack and Newark Tide Marshes. In Annual Report
of the New Jersey Geological Survey for 1897. MacCrellish and Quigley,
Trenton.
1899 Report on Reclamation of Hackensack and Newark Meadows. In Annual
Report of the New Jersey Geological Survey for 1899. MacCrellish and
Quigley, Trenton.
Wall, John Patrick (editor)
1921 History of Middlesex County, New Jersey, 1664-1920. Lewis Publishing
Co., New York.
Warren, George M.
1911 Tidal Marshes and Their Reclamation. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation Stage IA Report
Page 59
Weiss, Harry B., and Grace M. Weiss
1965 Some Early Industries of New Jersey: Cedar Mining, Tar, Pitch,
Turpentine, Salt Hay. New Jersey Agricultural Survey, Trenton.
Westervelt, Frances A.
1923 History of Bergen County, New Jersey, 1630-1923. Lewis Publishing Co.,
New York.
Wetherbee, Jean
1980 A Look at White Ironstone. Wallace-Homestead Book Company, Des
Moines, Iowa.
Widmer, Kemble and Daniel G. Parrillo
1959 Pre-Pleistocene Topography of the Hackensack Meadows, New Jersey.
Geological Society of America, Bulletin 70(12):2.
Winfield, Charles Hardenburg
1872 History of the Land Titles in Hudson County, New Jersey, 1609-1871.
Wynkoop and Hallenbeck, New York.
Wing, William G.
1960 Jersey's Unsung Meadows: The Pungent, Neglected Wasteland within
Sight of Manhattan Contains a Wealth of Interest to Nature Lovers. New
York Herald Tribune, July 3,1960.
Wolk, Ruth
1970 The History of Woodbridge, New Jersey. Woodbridge, New Jersey.
Wyatt, Charles
1983 City of Elizabeth Cultural Resource Survey, Peterstown, New Point Road,
Keighry Head. Charles Wyatt Associates.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
FIGURE "1
Grossman and Associates, Inc.
June, 1992
-------
Figure 2. Detail from Robert Erskine's 1776 map of northern New Jersey showing
settlements, roads, and the location of Schuyler's copper mine between Cedar
Swamp and the Passaic River. Note the limited extent of the 18th. Century wooded
cedar swamp and narrow salt meadow along the Hackensack River together with
the lack of salt marsh along the eastern banks of the Hackensack and the Passaic
Rivers at this time.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
0
1
1.5 miles
Figure 3. Enlarged photo copy to of Thomas Gordon's 1828 map of New Jersey. Compare
the extent of the expanding marsh area to that shown in Erskine's earlier 18th.
Century map (Figure 2), and the identification of western tributaries to the
Hackensack, especially "Saw Mill Creek".
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
4. Detail from E.B. Hyde's 1886 map of northern New Jersey. Note depiction of extensive tidal marsh signature, historic
brick yards, and a toll house along the Hackensack River near Little Ferry, and a Half Way House at the intersection
of Washington and Paterson Plank Roads in Washington Grove.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
Figure 5. Enlarged portion of E.B. Hyde's 1886 map of northern New Jersey, showing the brick yards, hotels, houses, and the
expanding railway and road system. Note careful delineation of tidal marsh at this date.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
Figure 6. C.C. Vermeule's 1896 topographic map of the area showing the extensive rail
network. Note mapped depiction of late 19th. Century hydrographic details.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
Figure 7. Detail from Robinson's 1902 Map of Bergen County, showing historic brick yards and hotels along the Hackensack
River in the vicinity of Little Ferry and Ridgefield, and hotels in the vicinity of Carlstadt and Rutherford along the
Patterson Plank Road at the Hackensack River and at Berry's Creek to the West.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
Figure 8. Enlargement of a portion of Robinson's 1902 Map of Bergen County, showing the two hotels on the Paterson Plank
Road on the western side of the Hackensack River. By the time of Bromley's 1913 map, a Boat Club and new buildings
had been added.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
Figure 9. Enlargement of Snake Hill on Interstate Map Company's 1910 Map of Hudson County showing location of historic
County buildings.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
7. Conservation Management
6. No Action Alternative
5. Growth Centers
4. Dispersed Development
3. Highway Corridors
2. Redevelopment
1. Upland Growth
Prehistoric
17th.
Century
18th.
Century
19th.
Century
20th.
Century
Figure 10. Three dimensional histogram showing the relative number of identified resources by time period for each of the
seven currently defined Hackensack Meadowlands Development Action Alternatives.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
Table 1. Correlation Table of Identified and Potential Archaeological and Historical
Resource Areas within the Hackensack Meadowtands Development Zone
PSL = Pre-1970 Solid Landfill * UL = Upland PPS = Potential Prehistoric Sensitivity
MSL = Modern Sanitary Landfill LL = Lowland PHS = Potential Historic Sensitivity
; - ^ - Identified and Potential Resources Archaeological and
Potential Development Dev. Size Landfill Elevation- ' 17tti 18th 19th 20tl» Historical Resource i
Area (HMOC 10/17/81)» , Zone ID ^ (Acres) Status Zbtwfe ''^T* PreWkorfc->:!tsS>- Century Century^ t Century .Cenfagy?-v - Reference Map
1. UPLAND GROWTH
Bellman's Creek
A
31
PSL
LL
PPS
Arena
B
127
LL
PPS
PHS
A.C-5
Sportptex
C
14
a
PHS
PHS
A.C-5&8
UOP
0
36
PSL
a
PPS
DIKE
Red Roof Inn
E
29
LL
DIKE
A,C,D
Tony's Old Mill
F
7
a
PPS
MILL
PHS
A.C-4
Cromakll Creek
G
85
PSL
a
PPS
Standard Tool
H
79
PSL
LL.UL
MILL
C-15
BCCEast
J
6
LL
Enterprice Ave. South
K
38
PSL
LL
Walsh
L
64
PSL
LL
PHS
PHS
B.C
PR-2 00
M
79
PSL
LL
PPS
A
SCP
N
10
LL
PPS
A
Laurel H#
0
169
UL
Snake HHI
Snake Hill
A
Kearny (150)
P
27
PSL
LL
|KopperCoka
R
28
PSL
LL
Ferry?
Dock?
B-3.C
* Disclaimer Based on COM Base Maps. Pre-1970 Solid Landfill Data (known registered Landfills).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
v. -.
> V".
* ~
i' Identified' and PotentiafResources
Arcfaeofogicaf and
, " Potential Development
Dev.
Size
Landfill
Elevation
17th
18tlt
t9th
20th
Historical Resource
Area (HMDC '10/17/91)
Zone ID
(Acres)
Status
Zone
Prehistoric .....
Century:
Century
Century
Century
Reference Map
2. REDEVELOPMENT AREAS
UOP Site
A
86
PSL
LL
PPS
DIKE
A,C
Rutherford STP
B
36
LL
R.R.
C
Bellman's Creek
C
117
PSL
LL
PPS
A
North Bergen
D
31
PSL
LL
PPS
A
Wood Ave.
E
8
LL
Secaucusl -495
F
38
LL
PHS
Secaucus Bd.
G
26
PSL
LL
PPS
PHS
A.C
Casile Rd.
H
33
UL
PHS
A.C
Kearny West
I
153
PSL
LL
R.R.
C
Jersey City
J
82
LL
PHS
PHS
PHS
B.C
Little Ferry Waterfront
K
31
PSL
LL.UL
PHS
C
RKwviaw
N
10
LL
PHS
C
3. HIGHWAY CORRIDORS
TAZ 92 (south)
A
32
a
Sportplex
B
78
a
PPS
PHS
A.C
Arena
C
140
PSL
LL
PPS
PHS
C
Veterans Blvd.
D
22
PSL
a
PPS
R.R.
A.C
Berrys Creek Center
E
65
LL
PPS
East Ruth. B1.109
F
216
LL
R.R.
C
B1.219A (Rutherford)
G
72
LL
PPS
R.R.
A.C
Meadowtands Pkwy.
H
57
LL
R.R.
PHS
C
Plaza Center
I
177
UL
PHS
PHS
B,C
MM Creek
J
10
LL
Cromakai Creek
K**
93
PSL
a
PPS
County Ave
L
32
UL
PHS
A.C
Secaucus I - 495
M"
38
LL
PHS
PHS
PHS
C
Secaucus Pat Plank Rd.
N**
17
a
PHS
A.C
SU-2
0**
170
LL
PPS
PHS
PHS
R.R.
| A.C
•* Boundaries under redefinition
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
Potential Development
Ar&& (HMDC-10/17/91)
19th
Century
20th
Century
Historical Resource , „
Reference Map '
4. DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS
TAZ 92 (north)
A
81
LL
A
TAZ 92 (south)
B
32
IL
PHS
A,C
Sport pt ex
C
58
LL
A
Berrys Creek
D
65
LL
PPS
A
Rutherford B1.109
E
90
PSL
LL
PPS
R.R.
A
MM Crek
F
147
LL
PPS
A
SU-2
G
92
LL
PPS
PHS
R.R.
A,B,C
Laurel HD
H
169
UL
Snake Hill
Snake Hill I
A-1.C
PR-2
I
105
PSL
LL
PPS
A
Keamy West
J**
37
PSL
LL
KoppersCoke
K"
67
PSL
a
Ferry?
PHS
RR Lift Bridg
A.B.C-1
5. GROWTH CENTERS
Empire Blvd. Area
A"
351
PSL
a
PPS
PHS
A.C
Harmon Meadow Area
B"
227
PSL
LL
PPS
PHS
PHS
C
Benys Creek Area
C
193
PSL
a
PPS
R.R.
A,C
Secaucus Transfer Area
D
252
PSL
LL.UL
Snake Hil I
Snake Hill
A-1.C-7
«. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Tetertooro
A
23
LL
PHS
C
IR-4
B
234
PSL
LL
PPS
IR-3
C
147
a
IR-2
D
87
LL
PPS
Berrys Creek
E
172
PSL
LL
PPS
R.R.
C
PR-2
F
236
LL
R.R.
C
SU-2
G
95
LL
PPS
PHS
PHS
B
TC-3
H
22
LL
PPS
CO
1
(C
1
148
UL,LL
PPS
Snake Hill 1
C
SU-1
J
76
PSL
LL
SU-3
K
322
LL
PHS
C
RD Park
L
73
PSL
a
PPS
HC Secaucus
M
133
PSL
LL
PPS
PHS
C
** Boundaries under redefinition
Gmtsmsn and Astocli(m, Inc. Jum, <992
-------
j. . ~ Identified andPotemialflesourcesv Archaeological and
* 4,"1"* v. Ay v
Elevation "* / 17th 18th t9th 20th Historical Resource
Ai^(HMDC,tO/J7/9Ll^^y^ Zo"elP - - (Acres} . Statu* - -- Zone . Prehistoric -Century Century Century Century Reference Map
7. CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT
a
10
PSl
LL
PHS
C
aa
18
PSL
LL
PHS
R.R.
B, C
ab
9
PSL
LL
PHS
R.R.
B,C
ac
4
LL
PHS
PHS
R.R.
B, C
ad
33
PSL
LL
ae
38
PSL
U.
PHS
PHS
B.C
af north
15
PSL
LL
PHS
PHS
PHS
B.C
af south
79
PSL
LL
PHS
PHS
PHS
8, C
ag
38
PSL
LL
ah
7
UL
R.R.
C
al
13
PSL
LL
PHS
PHS
PHS
B.C
a|
26
PSL
UL.UL
PHS
C
ak
20
PSL
LL
R.R.
c
al
22
LL
am
5
LL
PHS
c
an
20
LL
PS. R.R.
c
ao
47
PSL
LL
R.R.
c
ap
41
. PSL
LL
PHS
c
aq
5
PHS
c
b
3
UL
c
9
UL
PHS
c
d
2
UL
PHS
PHS
B, C
e
14
LL
f
13
LL
PHS
c
g
3
LL
PHS
c
h
18
PSL
LL
PPS
PHS
c
i
24
PSL
LL
R.R.
c
i
48
LL
PPS
R.R.
c
k
19
LL
i
82
LL
PPS
m
50
LL
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
Grossmen and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
Table 2. Summary of identified Cultural Resources by time period for each of the
seven currently defined Hackensack Meadowlands Development Action Alternatives
Potential
Development Areas
Prehistoric
t7th.
Century
18th,
Century
19th. I 20th.
Century | Century
1. Upland Growth
8
1
3
9
2
2. Redevelopment
4
1
2
8
3. Highway Corridors
7
2
2
11
2
4. Dispersed Development
6
1
1
5
5
5. Growth Centers
4
1
4
6. No Action Alternative
8
1
1
6
7. Conservation Management
9
5
9
26
Grossman and Associates, Inc. June, 1992
-------
-------
'INDIAN SMHNO*
HACKENSACK MEADOWI AUKC
i«n rFMTtigy
IM OR UFAIt IMF Hun
HMDC Boundary (COM 1991)
Road* (Hammond 1947)
C*dar Swamp (Erakln* 1776)
17th and 18th century Lot
Division* from th* aorly (1SOO's)|
land potontt (Hammond 1947)
0 Ccppfr Mjni_.(N»iHSi:
:V«rmaul« 1807)
BfllHyill« PII19 Fornwr plank
rood known a* Schuyler**
road to th* rivar, (NJHSI:
1625.1)
@ »«"¥'¦ fyrv- Houm and
landing* (RuUch 1979:p. 200)
@ ynvrn (Hammond 1947)
d> Mnrflaw Sarin?' (Hammond 1947)
fWIMrtH A lyr
-------
hawnsack meadowlands
UP C. - IflTH JffMTUHY RFSftHPfiF*;
::: ttWeh&W'
¦¦ Olkm (VmimuI* 1687)
~~ Road* (VinrwuU 1807)
ES3 HMorle BMp. (Hopklnt 1861)
0R.», Uft tinto u-l-i. --p^ni mig (Mil |«M)
©itvdiiiiltittko
(Ruteeh 1S7l.'ir)
©Saaujm (RutMk 1178,'iy^WM uae)
^frrtiniir r
-------
hACKENSACK MEA1MWI AMp^
MAP D - 20TH CFMTUBV fFATl/ftFfT
FROM use. s * p,niM
HMDC Boundary (CDM 1991)
E3 Pre-1970 Solid Landfill
Aroai (COM 1991)
GSJ Currant Sanltory Landfill
Arsa* (COM 1991)
— Railroad* (USGS)
mmm Waterlina (USGS)
—— "Apparent Limits' of marshland
(USCS digital line graph)
-------
\^K
1
&
HACKENSACK MFADOWLANDS
DISTRICT COMMISSION
HAP S - DCYfl OPMFNT ZONES
¦¦ 1 Upland Growth
¦¦¦ I Redevelopment Area*
3 Highway Corridor*
¦¦ 4 Dispersed Development
¦ 5 Growth Centers
awimwfc
-------
<3?
7A
7B
C7
^37R
C7/s
7T
7U
7V
I
7AAQ
7V
7AA
7AB
Q7AC
i:
6G
te°
7ATH
61^7 ^
7AI
7AQ
HACKENSACtt UFADOWLANnS
niSTRirt r.QMuissiOM
MAP F - WO ApTIDM ALTEBNATIS/T
AREA AMP flflMSrPVATION
MAMAfifUfMT AREA
/SFrownAwv rynrr/WAWEHOUSfV
A No Action AlUrnotlvt
7 Conization Management
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity and Impact Evaluation
Volume I
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
CDM
Raritan Plaza 1, Raritan Center.
Edison, NJ. 08818.
Grossman and Associates, Inc.
201 East 16th Street, 6th. Floor
New York, NY 10003
January 27,1995.
-------
List of Contributors
Principal Investigator:
Joel W. Grossman, Ph.D. SOPA
Environmental Reconstruction
Joel W. Grossman.
Cartographic and Air Photo
Impact Analysis
Michael Gallagher
George Myers, Jr.
Victor M. Ortiz.
Nancy A. Stehling, M.S. SOPA.
Field Reconnaissance Team
Field Photography:
Joel W. Grossman.
George Myers, Jr.
Victor M. Ortiz
Nancy A. Stehling.
Joel W. Grossman
George Myers, Jr.
Victor M. Ortiz
Digital Cartography:
George Myers, Jr.
Data Base Management and
Desktop Publishing:
Victor M. Ortiz.
Report Editors:
Michael Gallagher.
Charmion Raymond.
Nancy A. Stehling.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Table of Contents
Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources and Areas of
Recommended Additional Investigation.
I. Project Scope and Goals.
II. Executive Summaty
A. Introduction
B. The Cultural Resource Sensitivity Evaluation Form
C. Project Findings
1. Preferred Development Alternatives (PDAs)......
2. Wetlands Mitigation/Creation Areas (WAs) 7
3. Transportation Improvement Corridors (TICs) 11
HI. Environmental Change within Hackensack Basin 12
A. Regional Patterns of Sea Level Rise 14
B. The Long Term Pollen Record of Environmental Change 14
C. The 19th Century Cartographic and Archival Evidence of
Environmental Change ; 17
D. Historic and Modern Evidence for Environmental Change .20
IV. Methods of Analysis T.TrTTr ^
A. Preferred Development Alternative Areas (PDA) ....24
B. Wetlands Areas (WA) 24
C. Transportation Improvement Corridors (TIC) 25
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
V. The Cartographic and Air Photo Sensitivity Evaluation .25
A. Cartographic and Air Photo Sources and Correlations 25
B. Cartographic and Air Photo Analysis Procedures 27
1. The Computer Scaled Map Overlay Series and Sensitivity Analysis 28
2. The Computer Based Resource Inventory and Impact History 29
3. Air Photo and Topographic Map Impact Analysis 29
4. Field Reconnaissance Procedures (PDAs) 29
5. Computerized Data Processing and Control 30
VI. Parcel-specific Findings and Recommendations 30
A. Archaeologically Sensitive Preferred Development Alternative (PDA) Areas 30
1. Hybrid Planning .Areas 31
2. Satellite Planning Areas 33
B. Archaeologically Sensitive Wetlands Areas (WA) 35
1. Thematic Scope and Findings 35
2. The Wetlands Areas Past and Present 35
3. The Cartographic Evidence 36
4. The Pollen Samples 37
5. The Computer Based Paleo-topographic Reconstruction .38
6. Recommendations and Relevant Issues of Human Ecology
and Environmental Change 39
C. Archaeologically Sensitive Transportation Improvement Corridors (TIC) 40
References.
Appendix I:
PDA's and WA's Selected for Further Work
Volume II.
Appendix II:
Sensitivity Evaluation Forms PDA's, WA's
Sensitivity Evaluation Table: TIC's
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources and Areas of
Recommended Additional Investigation.
I. Project Scope and Goals.
The following resource evaluation strategy has been performed as a task-specific level of
effort for an augmented, Phase 2, Stage IA Cultural Resource Survey (CRS) and expanded sen-
sitivity evaluation and recommendation study for the New Jersey Meadowlands. This set of
parcel-specific evaluations and recommendations was performed as part of the multi-agency
SAMP planning study under the jurisdiction of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, and the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission. The
specific goal of this expanded basin-wide archaeological and historical evaluation is to provide
an appropriate planning tool to finalize, if needed, a parcel-specific Stage LA cultural resource
sensitivity study of known and potential prehistoric and historic localities in accordance with
Federal Section 106 compliant procedures for each of the proposed development impact
categories within the Hackensack Meadowlands study area. This expanded field, map, and air
photo based study focused on the evaluation of the potential for impacts to possibly surviving
resources for three proposed development impact categories:
• 1) Preferred Development Alternative Areas (PDA) which consisted of 3
sub-categories: Hybrid Planning Areas (14 parcels), Satellite Areas (26 parcels) and
Planning Areas Retained as Satellite Areas (11 parcels) and which totaled 51 parcels
and approximately 1,700 acres (See Figure 2).
• 2) The analysis of potential impacts to Wetlands Areas (WA) which consisted of 2
sub-categories: Wetlands Mitigation Areas (62 parcels) and Wetlands Creation
Areas (2 parcels) and which totaled 64 parcels and approximately 4,000 acres (See
Figure 3).
• 3) The generic contextual analysis of potential impact areas from 35 proposed
Transportation Improvement Corridor (TIC) sections consisting of approximately
500 acres (See Figure 4).
While the parcel identifications supplied by CDM/HMDC included 51 individual PDAs
and 64 individual WAs, it became necessary, for the purposes of this Phase 2 archaeological sen-
sitivity study, to further subdivide several of the PDAs and WAs into smaller, discrete
topographically distinguished parcels for potential resource and impact analysis. Specifically,
when large PDA and WA parcels included non-adjacent areas identified by a single number or
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources Page 2
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
letter designation on the supplied tables, it was necessary to subdivide the parcel, using a rela-
tive locational qualifier (such as PDA 11 north and south, or PDA f east and west) in order to
refine areas of potential sensitivity for evaluation, or to establish the lack of resources present.
In many Wetlands Areas, the single parcel identification spanned both banks of a water course,
such as the Hackensack River, and it was necessary to subdivide the parcel for sensitivity evalua-
tion purposes. In such cases, the parcel was distinguished and evaluated as two discrete
sub-areas, such as WA 2-6-A West and WA 2-6-A East.
As a result, a total of 63 actual discrete PDAs were studied and evaluated in comparison to
the 51 initially defined by CDM, and a total of 77 discrete WAs were evaluated in comparison to
the 64 initially defined by CDM (See Appendix I). The tables supplied by CDM/HMDC for the
proposed development and wetlands areas contained single acreage calculations by identified
parcel. It was, therefore, necessary to calculate the acreage represented by the sub-areas of the
larger parcel using AutoCAD (See Appendix I and Appendix II).
In addition to evaluating the potential archaeological sensitivity of these currently
proposed development areas, wetlands mitigation/creation areas, and transportation improve-
ment corridor impact locations, this analysis, as mandated, has incorporated three independent
lines of contemporary site data to evaluate both current and past impacts to potential resources:
1) the results of on-site field inspections, 2) modern air photographic coverage, and 3) scaled
computerized correlations between modern and historic maps rendered as translucent overlays
to refine and delimit the potential archaeological sensitivity and need for additional documen-
tary and cartographic research (Stage IA), presence and/or absence testing (Stage IB), or site
boundary and integrity field surveys and testing (Stage II), if warranted.
Based on this evaluation process, each impact area was ranked for cultural resource sen-
sitivity and graded into one of three categories of potential Section 106 compliance action, or
effort:
1) areas where no further cultural resource survey (CRS) work is required;
2) areas where additional evaluation will be required to determine the need for
further CRS work (i.e. cases where the size or complexity of the specific location
requires subsequent subdividing for the purposes of this analysis); or
3) areas where additional CRS work will be required in the form of a Stage IB
presence or absence testing based on the evaluation procedures outlined above.
The evaluation of potential prehistoric sensitivity was based on the previously established
ecologically based framework for identifying archaeological sensitivity. This framework in-
volved the evaluation for potential archaeological resources based on both current and past
environmental conditions and patterns of change, including marine transgression, or sea level
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 3
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
rise, the radiocarbon dated pollen record, and map and air photo reconstruction of landfill and
land use history (Grossman 1992). As was the case for the 1992 documentary study, the iden-
tification of potentially sensitive historic remains stressed the computer scaled, GIS-based
correlation of historic maps and in particular the comparison between 1963 to 1992 air photo
coverage of the study area relative to modern, topographic, and landscape features as the basis
for projecting the location and potential for surviving historic structures including docks, dikes,
tide gates, rail facilities, residential structures, and industrial facilities.
n. Executive Summary
A. Introduction
The specific goal of this 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 accord-
ance with Federal Section 106 compliance procedures for each of the proposed development
impact categories within the Hackensack Meadowlands study area. For the purposes of this
Phase 2 Study, three categories of evaluation areas were identified within the 20,000 acre Hack-
ensack Meadowlands District. The first category, Preferred Development Alternative (PDA)
areas, 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 (WA), in-
cluded 64 identified (77 actual) parcels gnd approximately 4,000 acres, and finally the third
category, Transportation Improvement Corridor (TIC) areas included 35 actual areas of ap-
proximately 500 acres.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Army
Corps of Engineers (ACE) mandated purpose of this Phase 2 archaeological sensitivity evalua-
tion 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 the PDA, WA, and TIC
zones of prehistoric and historic concern within the Hackensack Meadowlands. While many of
the findings of this study may have relevance to issues of basin-wide significance in terms of
general patterns of environmental change and human occupation through time, given the fact
that the defined development parcels and/or corridors reflect only a widely dispersed fraction of
the total basin, the conclusions of this investigation must be strictly confined to only those par-
cels and areas specifically identified and evaluated in this scope of work. Accordingly, parcels
or transect study not specifically addressed as part of this study should be independently
evaluated relative to both current and past environmental conditions, patterns of changing
potential human adaptation and land use through time. The baseline assumptions and
Grossman and Associates, lac. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses ^a8c 4
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation _____
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.
Based on this explicitly defined set of assumptions, both the evaluation of recent 19th and
20th century impacts through map and air photo coverage, and the evaluation of potential past
archaeological sensitivity for each of the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) category
areas was undertaken using the comparisons of available data sets through time. Comparisons
between mid to late 20th century air photo and topographic coverage were used to establish the
degree of past impacts or change to each parcel as a basis for projecting the potential survival of
archaeological remains. In addition, instead of addressing the Meadowlands as a static and un-
changing environment dominated by vast zones of inundated salt grass, the evaluation of the
prehistoric archaeological potential was based upon the assumption that the basin has under-
gone radical and continuous environmental and ecological change during the period of potential
human occupation.
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 ditch-
ing infilling, road and rail construction, as well as dense industrial development. As a result
of this historic impact analysis, a concrete set of criteria and multiple lines of evidence were for-
mulated for identifying a relatively small number of development areas with possible prehistoric
and/or historic sensitivity, which at the same time demonstrated a potential for survival due to
the lack of any identified substantial impacts. This process has resulted in the identification of 8
PDAs that warrant additional archaeological evaluation, 2 WAs that warrant further ar-
chaeological assessment, and 26 TICs 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 in-
formation potential relative to the changing prehistoric and/or historic environmental and
human ecological record, and given the potential disturbance of these proposed wetlands par-
cels that may 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 H).
The analysis process used three major sources of information to evaluate and categorize
each of these study areas. The first involved the use of traditional field reconnaissance survey
procedures, which entailed visits to, surface inspections of, and photo documentation of the
PDA parcels. This analysis process was codified and computerized through the use of a parcel-
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 5
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
specific data entry form which was divided into four major categories of information. These
categories included basic locational and descriptive data on each parcel, the synthesis and
documentation of all identified known, or projected potential prehistoric or historic resources
for each parcel, the identification and itemization of all air photo and map based indications of
past impacts and disturbances to each parcel, a scaled locational map which served as the basis
for recording field observations of current 1994 conditions, as well as the location and orienta-
tion of any in-field photographic coverage. Each of these forms was then computerized into a
project 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 for the
WAs and TICs. Instead, it was proposed that they be evaluated remotely through the use of
scaled comparisons of mid 19th and 20th century map and air photo coverage for the basin.
B. The Cultural Resource Sensitivity Evaluation Form
The form utilized in this report was designed as a reference tool to present summary infor-
mation resulting from the review of potential archaeological and/or historical sensitivity relative
to past impacts and disturbances on a parcel-specific basis. Specifically, each study parcel was
evaluated and summarized in a two step process. The first step was aimed at defining the poten-
tial for containing either prehistoric or historic archaeological resources based upon published
sources and changes in environmental conditions based on historic and modem cartographic
analysis. The second step of each parcel-specific analysis focused on the map and airphoto iden-
tification of past impacts to the parcels and any potential cultural resources which may have
once existed, or were projected to possibly have existed within each.
The form was divided into five sections representing specific categories of information,
submitted for review in draft form, and modified to address comments from CDM, HMDC, the
USEPA, USACOE, and the NJDEP Office of Historic Preservation.
The first section on the top of the form contains the HMDC identification code for each
parcel (i.e. PDA 14) as well as general locational information, including county, municipality,
and acreage. This section also includes the final parcel specific recommendations relative to the
need for further work (as defined in the Scope of Work) which are presented in tabular form on
the right side of the page.
The second section of the form, titled I. LANDFORM, identifies current landform fea-
tures and landfill status based upon modern map sources, and identifies the presence and
relative extent of disturbance from landfill activities as depicted by modern coverage.
The third section, titled II. CULTURAL RESOURCES, lists the range of potential cultural
resources (both prehistoric and historic) identified for each study parcel. The base data for this
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 6
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation _____
section of the form was derived from the findings of the earlier 1992 study performed by our
firm, as well as previous cultural resource studies conducted in the region, the review of en-
vironmental features, historic cartographic sources, and a series of historic aerial photographs
from the 1930's to 1992. Individual potential historic and prehistoric resource categories were
assigned numeric codes for efficient data entry, and each listing includes the source of the infor-
mation, pertinent descriptive comments, the relative location of a resource within the study
parcel, and the extent of the parcel which may be sensitive. Finally, in the extreme right of the
cultural resource section there are columns of check boxes for the characterization of the extent
of disturbance (Destroyed, Partially Disturbed, Undisturbed, No Information) identified by the
field reconnaissance as existing field conditions. The categories for field conditions were
designed to provide information on the survivability of potential resources based upon the
visual reconnaissance of modern conditions at the individual parcels.
The fourth section of the form is titled III. DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS. This section identifies modern impacts and disturbances to the
study parcels as documented by the most recent 1992 aerial photograph and map coverage of
the Hackensack basin. As in the Cultural Resources section (II), specific categories were
numerically coded for efficient entry into a database, and each record contains a description of
the type of impact, the informational source of the data, the general location within, and extent
of the impact on, the study parcel.
As a summary device, once each parcel specific sensitivity and impact evaluation was com-
pleted, the status of each study parcel, corridor, or PDA, was summarized with one of three
check boxes in terms of its general level of disturbance (Impact); as none, partial, total.
The final section of the form, Provided on a separate page, consists of a map enlargement
of each PDA area and of selected WA areas. For the PDAs, the map page of the form includes
parcel identification, and the date of the site reconnaissance. This section also includes an in-
ventory of any photographs taken including arrows which depict the direction of the
photograph, and any descriptive notes recorded during the site visit. For the PDAs and WAs
selected for further work, we have also included a street map of the general area.
The forms are arranged in Volume II of the report in the order originally provided by
HMDC, except in cases where a single HMDC alpha-numeric designation represented a seg-
mented parcel (often segmented by a road, stream, or river course). If a parcel was segmented
on the maps provided by HMDC, our analysis added an additional identifier (usually N,S,E,or
W) to clarify which segment was under review (i.e. WA 2-6-e W).
The potential archaeological sensitivity for any given parcel identified in the resources
section of each study area was defined in terms of percent coverage within each parcel. By the
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 7
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
same token, each parcel was evaluated for cartographic and air photo indications of past distur-
bance, in terms of percent of identifiable disturbance within each parcel. The baseline goal of
this approach was to base any recommendations not on what was once there prior to being im-
pacted, but instead on only those portions of the study parcel which may have survived historic
or modern impacts. Where the potential for surviving resources was identified for any discrete
PDA areas, parcel-specific recommendations were made on a case by case basis. When refer-
ring .to the extent of potentially sensitive areas within each parcel, any percent estimates refer to
the extent of potential resources prior to being impacted by later alterations or disturbances.
Any subsequent estimates of past impacts refer to the extent of disturbance within the entire
parcel. Thus defined impacts affect the potential sensitivity of any given parcel only if they over-
lapped with the extent of identified potential resources. Accordingly, regardless of the
projected coverage, or extent, of any identified resources, if 100% of the study parcel could be
shown to be disturbed (other than by ditching), then everything within it was presumed to have
been disturbed and no further work was recommended.
C. Project Findings
1. Preferred Development Alternatives (PDAs)
The field reconnaissance and air photo based impact analysis resulted in the definition of
a significantly reduced sample set of potential archaeologically sensitive parcels, which had little
or no identifiable disturbance, and which therefore warrant additional investigation through
detailed parcel-specific sensitivity studies and/or presence and/or absence testing. Of the 63
total PDA parcels, only 8 were found to be prehistorically and/or historically sensitive, and
presently unimpacted by land alteration activities, dredging, stream channelization, extensive
ditching, or modern residential and industrial development. Of these 8 selected PDA parcels, 2
are recommended for Stage IB testing only (PDA ar and PDA f-East), and 6 have been recom-
mended for both detailed parcel-specific Stage IA sensitivity and Stage IB presence and/or
absence subsurface testing (See Table I).
2. Wetlands Mitigation/Creation Areas (WAs)
Out of the 77 WAs, the number of potentially undisturbed parcels which warranted fur-
ther parcel-specific archaeological evaluation was limited to 2, due to the potential presence of
a 19th century mill associated with parcel WA 2-Q, and the potential for surviving historic ele-
ments relating to the Paterson Plank Road, and the historic Paterson bridge contained within
parcel WA 2-U. In addition to the need for subsequent archaeological evaluation of these his-
toric parcels, a total of 5 WAs 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.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 8
and Areas of Rccommcnted Additional Investigation „
As detailed below, the recommendations concerning the need for pollen core studies util-
ized 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 loca-
tional 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 the 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 environ-
ment consisting of extensive areas of dry ground, fresh water streams, and mixed hardwood
forests during the Late Archaic and Woodland Periods of northeastern cultural history. In addi-
tion 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 select-
ing 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.
As originally proposed and as actualized in this study, the identified Wetlands Mitiga-
tion/Creation Areas were reviewed relative to the location of known or projected areas of
archaeological and prehistoric and historic sensitivity as defined in the original map based sen-
sitivity model (Grossman 1992). The first step served to factor out the wetlands parcels that
contained no known or potential archaeologically sensitive resources. Secondly, the sig-
nificance of all parcels with potential archaeological resources were then evaluated in terms of
identifiable impact comparisons, based on the presence or absence of landfills (either recog-
nized or "informal") within each wetlands mitigation parcel. The assumption was made that, if
landfill was present, the wetlands parcel was de-selected as a potentially sensitive sample be-
cause of demonstrable patterns of disturbance, and logistical problems of accessibility to the
underlying "historic and prehistoric" surface.
The premise that compression of archaeological deposits from heavy overburden or
landfill can cause negative impacts to artifacts and deposits has been well documented in the
preservation literature dealing with issues of site stabilization. It is equally true that preserva-
tion of archaeological resources through burial when appropriate is more and more becoming a
viable option to avoiding impacts in lieu of data recovery (Thome 1988,1989; Mathewson and
Gonzalez 1988). The issue is basically one of how much is too much. A thin veneer of chemi-
Grossmao and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
Page 9
cally and structurally appropriate fill materials can indeed provide a protective buffer to hide
and shield formally exposed archaeological deposits. However, it is also apparent that too
much, or too heavy, fill or surface pressure (from pedestrian or vehicular traffic or overburden)
can cause demonstrable impacts and changes in the condition and location of artifacts and ar-
chaeological features (ibid).
This assertion that areas of demonstrably deep landfill over former marsh or estuary wet-
land parcel areas would have caused impacts to the vertical stratigraphy and integrity of the
original sediments is based on the findings of a recently available series of field observations and
controlled testing programs by a number of Federal and State Agency programs, predominantly
under the aegis of the USACE and Federal Departments of Transportation (Garfinkel and
Lister 1989; Mathewson 1989; Nickens, 1989; R. Thome, 1988;1991). These controlled studies
have focused on the effects of various thicknesses of artificially applied landfill, on known ar-
chaeological resources and artifacts at varying depths within buried cultural deposits of known
chemical, soil, and compaction characteristics as a basis for recommending the advisability or
utility of using fill to protect fragile subsurface remains. The relevance of this comparative test
data is limited in terms of its applicability to the waterlogged marsh-mat and sediments of the
wetland areas of the Meadowlands because the majority of the test data was derived from sites
and soil matrices in dry upland, and relatively compacted soils. Nevertheless, the controlled test
results do provide a clear body of evidence that heavy surface weight can have a significant im-
pact on buried cultural remains to a considerable depth range of nearly of six feet below grade
(US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station ASPPNII-5; Figure 2; 1989).
The 1989 Army Engineers study evaluated the results of using controlled instrument
measurements of soil compaction and compression to measure the degree of disturbance of
various surface weights (a person, pickup truck, a crane) on known artifacts at known depths
within actual archaeological sites and artificially constructed sequences of buried stone,
ceramic, and organic artifacts. The results indicated that without a protective mat or fill cover-
ing or buffer, a human body could affect fragile artifacts down to a depth of ca. 18 inches, and a
pick-up truck or larger vehicle down to 70 inches, or nearly six feet, even within a fairly compact
site soil matrix or berm of landfill (Nickens, 1989).
This data from relatively compacted or consolidated diy upland site contexts is also
relevant to the evaluation of impacts from landfill over waterlogged marsh-mat or estuary sedi-
ments such as the Hackensack Meadowlands. A growing body of data suggests impacts would
be both more likely, and accelerated, for former marsh areas of water permeated sediments or
estuary environments (Mathewson in Thome 1989). Simply stated, the less structural stability
of the matrix and the greater its elasticity and viscosity, the greater the potential for causing im-
pacts from compression and/or actual lateral and vertical movement. It is also apparent that the
Grossman and Associates, lac. January, 1993
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 10
and Areas of Recommcnted Additional Investigation
thicker and heavier the landfill over a waterlogged marsh matrix, the greater the effects of com-
pression, compaction, and displacement from overburden (ibid).
Because of their greater fragility and lack of consolidation, the waterlogged sediments
under modern areas of landfill within the Meadowlands can be assumed to be as great as, if not
greater than, those recorded for dry land site environments. While it is apparent from the above
mentioned data, that heavy overburden or fill can compress or displace waterlogged sediments,
it is not currently possible to document at what weight level or thickness level that fill begins to
compress submerged and waterlogged sediment deposits such as those in the Meadowlands.
While controlled comparative data is not available for the Meadowlands or comparable
wetlands in the tri-state region, several case histories on file with the New York District of ACE
and New Jersey Transit have documented the extreme effects on mud and marsh deposits
caused by heavy landfill or overburden. One example derived from the initial turn of the cen-
tury field observations by Railroad engineers during the construction of the Northeast Corridor
across the Hackensack Meadowlands in 1906. The second example illustrating the potential for
extreme effects of deep landfill was documented the USACE in the 1980's in Edgewater, New
Jersey (USACE Personal Communication 1995). Both cases involved the generation and im-
pacts of severe "Mudwaves" which displace basal sediments in wetlands caused by the sudden
loading of deep and heavy landfill over marsh sediments. In the Edgewater case, a private
developer dumped ca. 10 feet of landfill on shoreline sediments along the Hudson River which
caused a "Blow out" or "Mudwave" of laterally and vertically displaced sediments to shoot out
into the main river channel over a ca. 5 acre area. In the earlier New Jersey Transit example,
the need to construct a firm rail bedding with heavy rock fill across the Meadowlands caused a
"Mudwave" or severe lateral displacement which impacted a ca. 150 foot wide zone, both
beneath and bordering the rock/boulder fill which formed the bed of the rail line.
Clearly, these historical accounts and case studies document that the deposition of heavy
landfill over a waterlogged sediment matrix not only holds the potential to compress and dis-
place the underlying matrix, but also as is suggested by these cases, can actually create a rapid
and significant, almost explosive, lateral displacement of the marsh sediments.
However, the data is at present only qualitative and suggestive. Clearly a mantle of shal-
low fill not only may be of limited impact, but can also act as a buffer to protect and stabilize the
underlying deposits. At the same time, heavy deep fill over a similar waterlogged sediment or
marsh base can clearly cause severe disturbance, soil and artifact displacement, and even mas-
sive soil or mud flows which, if documented, can be used as evidence of major impacts. For
these reasons, this study has taken the position that the presence of demonstrably heavy and
deep landfill over wetlands provides grounds for determining that an area has been heavily dis-
turbed either through displacement or compaction. Based on the current lack of controlled
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page u
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
data, situations involving the presence of thin caps of fill will have to be evaluated for relative
impacts on a case by case basis.
In all, only 11 WAs 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 pos-
sible 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-environ-
mental reconstruction map which documented the former presence of extensive upland, as well
as lowland or former "floodplain" zones, each of which would have provided a different pollen
sequence through time. Of the remaining 6 WAs which were not selected as preferred pollen
sample locations, 4 were excluded because of their proximity to previous testing localities
evaluated by Sirkin in Kardas and Larrabee (1982), Carmichael (1980), and Heusser (1963), to
avoid duplicate coverage for these already studied areas within the drainage. 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 WAs 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 mitiga-
tion element for the overall SAMP, this critical data on the changing environmental history,
marine transgression, and shift from a fresh water river drainage to a marsh filled saline habitat
will be lost, disturbed, or become inaccessible following any development. 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.
3. Transportation Improvement Corridors (TICs)
Finally, in contrast to the area-specific coverage and evaluation of the PDA and WAs, the
evaluation of the proposed TICs was approached differently due to the extent and diversity of
potential cultural resources for a significant number of the 35 TICs. 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 sen-
sitivity 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 TICs, in many cases, follow historic roads and transect historic settlement areas,
the status and potential survival of possible subsurface remains could not be assessed based on
remote map and air photo sources alone.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Table L Summary of Potentially Archaeologically Sensitive PDA Parcels
Potential Sensitivity
Past Impacts
Recommended Coverage
Specific Recommendations*
CDM Parcel ID
Development Category
Acreage
Prehistoric
Historic
None
Partial
Total
Total
Partial
1
2
3
4
5
PDAS
Hybrid Planning Area
31
X
X
X
X
X
PDA 11S
Hybrid Planning Area
51.7
X
X
X
X
X
PDA 14
Hybrid Planning Area
152
X
X
X
X
X
PDAc
Satellite Area
9.7
X
X
X
X
X
PDAq
Satellite Area
3.1
X
X
X
X
PDA ar
Satellite Area
14.9
X
X
X
X
PDA as
Satellite Area
81.5
X
X
X
X
X
PDAfE
Satellite Area
9.11
X
X
X
X
* 1 No Further Work
2 Sensitivity Evaluation
3 Presence/Absence Testing
4 Both (2 and 3)
5 Struct. Doc.
Grossman and Associates, lac. 1994
-------
Table IL Summary of Potentially Archaeologically Sensitive WA Parcels
Potential Sensitivity
Past Impacts
Recommended Coverage
Specific Recommendations *
CDM Parcel ID
Development Category
Acreage
Prehistoric
Historic
None
Partial
Total
Total
Partial
1
2
3
4
5
6
WA 2-6-* W
Wetland Mitigation
90.83
X
X
X
X
WA2-CE
Wetland Mitigation
3.8
X
X
X
X
X
WA2-Q
Wetland Mitigation
120.2
X
X
X
X
X
X
WA2-UW
Wetland Mitigation
35.83
X
X
X
X
WA3-l-a
Wetland Mitigation
120.3
X
X
X
X
WA33-A
Wetland Mitigation
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
Grossman and Associates, Inc. 1994
-------
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
16
Table ID. HMDC Transportation Improvements for Preferred Alternative:
Recommendations for Additional Archaeological Assessment.
Page 1
Sensitivity
Specific Recommendations *
Description
Project Area
(acres)
Prehistoric
Historic
Extend Sea View Ave, south to NE Corridor, 80 ft wide replacing Bergen
Line
5.8
X
Widen County Ave, from Secaucus Rd to County Ave/Rd, buffer existing
road by 18 ft on each side
7.4
Widen New County Rd, from County Ave/Rd to southern terminus, buffer
existing road by 22 ft on each side.
4.9
Realign ramps at Rt 3 and Meadowlands Parkway, as per plans
Widen Paterson Plank Rd, from E Spur NJ Tpk Bridge to West Side Ave,
buffer existing road by 22 ft on each side.
7.9
Widen and extend Bergen Ave, from District Boundary to Newark-Jersey
City Tpk, 66 ft wide.
4.9
Extend Meadowlands Parkway, north to Paterson Plank Rd, 100 ft wide
4.1
Connect/widen Paterson Plank Rd, from W spur NJ Tpk across river to
existing road, 100 ft wide.
5.3
New road (Bergen Arches Extension), along existing Bergen Line, from E
Spur NJ Tpk to Tonnelle Ave, 60 ft wide, as per plans (see # 28)
28.1
Widen Belleville Tpk, from Sellers Street (District boundary) to Newark-
Jersey City to Newark-Jersey City Tpk, buffer existing road by 40 ft each
side
28.4
X
Widen Castle Rd, from Meadowlands Parkway Extension to New County
Rd (entire length), buffer existing road by 5 ft on each side
6.7
Widen Redneck Ave from Moonachie Ave to Liberty St (entire length),
buffer existing road by 10 ft on each side.
8.1
X
* 1 No Further Work
2 Sensitivity Evaluation
3 Presence/Absence Testing
4 Both (2 and 3)
5 Struct Doc.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. 1994
-------
17
20
21
22
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Table HL HMDC Transportation Improvements for Preferred Alternative:
Recommendations for Additional Archaeological Assessment.
Page 2
Sensitivity
Specific Recommendations *
Description
Project Area
(acres)
Prehistoric
Historic
Construction of Park & Ride on approx 7 acres at Moonachie Ave/Railroad
St/Industrial Ave. No wetland fill allowed.
7.5
New ramp from W Spur NJ Tpk noithbouod at 18W to Rt 120, as per plans
9.4
New road cast of Brendan Byrne Arena (Rt 120), as per plans
10.6
Widen Patcrsoa Plank Rd, from Rt 17 to Washington Ave buffer existing
road by 15 ft on each side.
18.9
Widen Moonachie Ave, from Rt 17 to Washington Ave/Moonachie Rd,
buffer existing toad by t5 ft on each side.
14.2
Rt 17 South Extension, from Rt 3 to Rt 280 (along existing Kingsland
Line), 100 ft wide.
60.7
New rail line from Bergen Line, adjacent to widened NE corridor (see #
40) to NYS&W/West Shore rail (at Rt 3), 25 ft wide
5.1
E Spur NJ Tpk Interchange at Secaucos Transfer, as per plans
16.7
New rail line connecting Main Line to Bergen Line, west of Meadowlands
Parkway, 75 ft wide, as per tax map
6.9
Widen Main line from connection from Bergen Line (see # 29) to NE
Corridor, buffer existing rail by 50 ft on each side
14.8
Waterfront Corridor Transit Rail, along District boundary from 50th Street
to Vince Lombardi P&R (see # 38), 100 ft wide as per schematic
38.4
* 1 No Further Work
2 Sensitivity Evaluation
3 Presence/Absence Testing
4 Both (2 and 3)
5 Struct Doc.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. 1994
-------
Table III. HMDC Transportation Improvements for Preferred Alternative:
Recommendations for Additional Archaeological Assessment
Page 3
Sensitivity
Specific Recommendations *
Project#
Description
Project Area
(acres)
Prehistoric
Historic
1
2
3
4
5
Comments
32
Widen Newark -Jersey City Tpk, from District boundary to Belleville Tpk,
buffer existing road by IS ft on each side
20.7
X
No Data
33
Realign/grade separation of Secaucus Rd at NYS&W/West Shore rail and
post office access road, as per plans
4.2
X
X
X
34
Ramps at intersection of West Side Ave and Paterson Plank Rd, and
realignment of West Side Ave, as per plans
1.1
X
X
35
Widen Washington Ave, from Paterson Plank Rd to Moonachie Ave,
buffer existing road by 10 ft on each side
13.2
X
X
X
1
i
j
t
36
Widen Secaucus Rd, from E Spur NJ Tpk to new alignment at West Shore
rail (see # 33), buffer existing road by 5 ft on each side
4.3
X
X
X
37a
Widen Rt 3 bridge over Berry's Creek, buffer existing road by 25 ft on
each side
2.2
X
X
37b
Widen Rt 3, from Rt 20 to Berry's Creek bridge (see # 37a), buffer by 20 ft
on each side
18
X
No Data
38
Expansion of Vince Lombardi Park & Ride, appro* 10.7 acres, see map
10.7
X
No Data
39
Secaucus Transfer Station. Use remaining Land between Planning Area
"13", new Turnpike Interchange (see # 28), Penhorn Creek, widened Mail
Line (# 30), and widened NE Corridor (see # 40)
6.8
X
X
X
40
Widen NE Corridor line, from Hackensack River to Secaucus Rd, buffer
existing tracks by 80 ft on each side.
46.6
X
X
X
41
Widen County Rd from New County Rd/County Ave to Tonne He Ave,
buffer existing road by 25 ft on each side
11
X
X
X
42
West Shore Line Commuter Rail (between Vince Lombardi P&R--# 38)
and Meadowlands Sport Complex), 100 ft wide, as per plans.
53
X
X
* 1 No Further Work
2 Sensitivity Evaluation
3 Presence/Absence Testing
4 Both (2 and 3)
5 Struct. Doc.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. 1994
-------
figure 1. USGS Digital Line Graph (DLG) Base Map of Hackensack SAMP Study Area.
Grossman and Associate*, Inc. August 1994
-------
Figure 2. Project Base Map showing the location of all PDAs with their HMDC alpha-numeric designations, and PDAs with
potential archaeological sensitivity filled in gray.
Grossman and Associates, Inc.
-------
Figure 3. Project Base map showing the location of all Wetland Mitigation/Creation areas investigated, with the two parcels selected
for archaeological sensitivity cross-hatched. Areas recommended for pollen core sampling are indicated by the letter "P
in a circle.
Qrouman Md Awoclitet, Inc.
-------
Figure 4. Project Base Map showing location of all proposed Transportation Impact Corridors.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. August 1994
-------
CARISTAPT
wax*]
! hi'sir JipJ1nil*S2 '
" »Mi ' j1
Iffiiiil
m m
SNAKS
HILL ,
HUDSON 1 '1 " ;
CITY m-
BELLEVILLE
TURNPIKE
:;.';yi ii::':
'^LzL •
SNCLISH
LRIHK
A Scanned, and Digitized
Section of an Undated Map
by Bien oJ The Marshes of
Newark Bav and the Passaic
and Hackensack Rivers
miUSJI
msuBswmn
Figure 5a. Digitized and computer rendered version of the 1869 Cook/Bien map.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. August 1994
-------
6 ft
3ft
Oft
-3 ft
-6 ft
-9 ft
-12 ft
-15ft
-18ft
-27 ft
~ Depth of Marsh earth
Figure 5b. Scaled, color codee-map projection
lgh water shoreline elevations over the last 3,000
years. Given the rate of sea level rise of 1-1.5 meters/1,000 years, at ca. 2,000 B.P. the shore
was ca. 6-9 ft lower, and atca. 3,000 B.P. was ca. 9-12 ft. below the modern high water mark.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. August 1994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
Page 12
Accordingly, the evaluation of the TICs resulted in the identification of 2 corridors with
potential prehistoric sensitivity, 10 areas with potential historic sensitivity, and 14 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 sample of 35 Transportation Improvement Corridors it is recommended that with the
exception of 2 parcels, (TIC 34 and TIC 36), for which only a route-specific Stage IA sensitivity
study need be conducted, 26 cannot be precluded from having potential prehistoric or historic
sensitivity, and as such are being recommended for detailed, route-specific, Stage IA sensitivity
evaluations (See Table III).
ID. Environmental Change within Hackensack Basin
Given the strong historical and archaeological connections between patterns of human
settlement and land use relative to existing environmental, Iandform, drainage, and animal and
plant distribution patterns, the evaluation of the potential archaeological sensitivity of the
Hackensack Meadowlands, must also, by definition, be addressed in terms of patterns of change
in the basin's environment and ecology over time, both for the historic and prehistoric periods.
Given the spatial and topographic diversity of the currently defined study parcels (PDA, WAs,
TICs) being evaluated in this phase of the investigation, it is important that the issue of environ-
mental change be clearly factored into any current projection of archaeological sensitivity.
Accordingly, the premise of a dynamic versus a static environmental setting (and the underlying
assumption set for addressing the potential cultural sensitivity of the Meadowlands over time),
has formed the primary analytical framework for both this and earlier archaeological and his-
torical sensitivity evaluations of the Hackensack drainage (Grossman 1992).
At the same time, any evaluation of current conditions, potential archaeological sen-
sitivity, and recent developments, both man-made and natural in origin, must also be assessed as
the basis for establishing the potential and actual survival of any projected archaeological and or
historical resources. The question must be asked, have identified modern impacts been of suffi-
cient magnitude to affect recent environmental conditions as well as past conditions which may
have once supported human occupation or land use practices? In other words, any assessment
of survival, must also address both the current and past environmental conditions in establishing
the potential for surviving cultural resources.
Given the need to factor in the issue of environmental change into any model of cultural
sensitivity and survival, it is appropriate to reiterate the key points of understanding from a
range of disciplines to highlight the level, degree, and time frame of environmental change
within the basin as a prelude for projecting the definition of localities which may be identified as
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 13
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
potentially archaeologically sensitive today. Specifically, given the now predominant lowland
pattern of saline or brackish adapted habitats and plant species, and given the extent of modern
wetlands and marsh habitats today, any assessment must take a careful look at the available data
to project past conditions prior to being inundated by saline and brackish tidal waters, dredged,
diked, landfilled, and burned. The fact that the environment of the Hackensack Meadowlands
has changed over time is generally accepted over the long term time span of ca. 10,000 years.
Significant and major long term transformations in the ecology and flora of the basin is also well
established. However, the multi-disciplinary scientific understanding of the relatively shorter
term changes in the region's environment have only recently become apparent. These ecologi-
cal changes were sufficient to profoundly affect the potential human utilization of the basin over
the more recent period of prehistoric and historic occupation in the region (ca. 3000 B.P. to the
present), and must be firmly established and correlated through time as a basic framework for
properly evaluating the potential archaeological sensitivity and survival of any projected resour-
ces.
As will be outlined below, sufficient evidence exists to clearly argue that what may appear
as uninhabitable tidal marsh today, may have in fact formerly been areas of fresh water based,
dry land habitats which could have been occupied over the last several thousand years through
to the Colonial Period. In addition to long term trends of natural environmental change within
the basin, the available evidence also strongly indicates that these transformations continued
and may have accelerated in the more recent historic period due to man-made alterations and
impacts to the environment of the Meadowlands as well. Both of these patterns of natural and
man-made environmental change have affected the habitability and economic resource poten-
tial of vast portions of the basin-wide study area throughout the period of documented human
occupation in coastal New Jersey.
Two independent lines of evidence, the first palynological, the second, cartographic, sug-
gest strongly that the environment and ecology of the Meadowlands has undergone significant
change, both over at least 3,000 years of prehistoric human occupation in the region, and over
the more recent historic period, spanning the 19th and 20th centuries. The first line of
evidence, derived from the analysis of vertically controlled and radiocarbon dated pollen cores,
has been previously addressed, and will only be summarized in this context (Grossman 1992;
Heusser 1963; Carmichael 1980; Sirkin 1982). In essence, this data has provided evidence
(through the vertically quantified shifts in the depth and time range of different pollen fractions
from each test core) that the flora, and therefore the ecological composition of the
Meadowlands basin has undergone significant shifts over the last 3,000 years which indicate that
the current extent of the estuary salt marsh component of the drainage is relatively recent, that
the previously extensive, but historically diminishing cedar swamps were both relatively recent
and relatively short lived (ca. 500 years) in dominance, and that prior to the advent through in-
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
Page 14
vasion or colonization of the cedar swamps, the basin was characterized by a fresh water
adapted prehistoric mixed hardwood forest during the Early and Late Archaic periods of human
occupation in coastal New Jersey (Ibid). The cultural and historical implications of this
evidence of dynamic environmental change are of immediate relevance for the assessment of
both current and past patterns of archaeological sensitivity.
In terms of this cultural resource sensitivity and impact analysis of Proposed Development
Areas, Wetlands Mitigation/Creation Areas, and Transportation Improvements Corridors, it is
also apparent that any analysis of the potential archaeological and historical sensitivity must be
based on, and actively factor in, the dynamic aspect of continuous environmental change over
both the long and short term of human occupation in the region to develop a credible assess-
ment which reflects both current and past environmental conditions. What has often been
characterized as a static environment with little or no prehistoric cultural sensitivity, must now
be re-evaluated as a changing habitat which could have supported past human occupation in
zones that are now identifiable only as inundated marsh areas.
Only in the last few decades have scientists begun to address the more recent, or
Holocene, period of environmental and geomorphological history with sufficient chronological
or temporal definition to be of relevance to archaeologists seeking to address the history of
human occupation in the area over the last several thousand years. Two themes, or areas of in-
vestigation, have emerged which have proven to be of immediate pertinence to the
understanding and reconstruction of the relatively recent and changing Holocene environment
of the New Jersey Meadowlands.
A. Regional Patterns of Sea Level Rise
One theme involves the study of worldwide and regional trends in sea level rise. Recent
localized studies have depicted the changing rate of marine transgression following the retreat
melting and the subsequent reduction in size and extent of the world's glaciers as a series of cur-
ves. Specifically, it has only most recently been generally agreed upon that for this region, the
sea has risen at a rate of 1 to 1.5 meters (ca. 3 to 4.5 feet) per 1,000 years (Heusser 1963; Stuiver
and Daddario 1963; Bloom 1978; Oldale 1986). In terms of the New Jersey Meadowlands, these
localized rates of marine transgression suggest the average or mean high tide in the area was 1.5
to 2 feet below present levels only 500 years ago, some 3 to 4 feet lower 1,000 years ago, and 6 to
8 feet lower some 2,500 years ago, or in essence, low enough to have rendered much of the now
inundated Meadowlands as dry land over the last three millennia (Grossman 1992).
B. The Long Term Pollen Record of Environmental Change
The second major area of recent research of relevance to the issue of environmental
change in the Meadowlands has concerned the use of well-dated seed and pollen samples from
sediment cores to reconstruct the record of changing plant communities within and beneath
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources Page 15
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
modern marsh and bog habitats over the last 2,000 to 3,000 years. The study of the changing
pollen spectra is not itself a new science and has since the last century been used to provide
somewhat generalized long term chronologies of changing forest composition on a regional and
national basis (Gaudeau 1988). However, only recently have pollen scientists focused on the
more recent period of the last several thousand years and begun to address the short term
dynamic environmental chronology of localized marsh habitats such as that of the New Jersey
Meadowlands. In 1963, Calvin Heusser of New York University drilled three relatively shallow
cores into the Hackensack Meadowlands at Secaucus, East Rutherford, and Kearny, along the
Hackensack River. The deepest core extended to a depth of 3 meters, or some 9 feet below sur-
face, and was sampled at 10 centimeter intervals for pollen and seeds from different species of
trees and plants (Heusser 1963). In addition, Heusser collected a sample of peat for radiocar-
bon testing from the base of the bog near to, but separate from, the Secaucus sample location
which were pooled to yield a single radiocarbon determination from the 3.3 meter base of the
bog deposits in this locality. This combined sample resulted in a radiocarbon determination of
2,025 +/- 300 years B.P. suggesting that the ca. 9 feet of peat and bog deposits had accumu-
lated in just over 2,000 years, or roughly, only since the time of Christ (Heusser 1963). As
discussed below, more recent radiocarbon determinations have pushed the date of initial marsh
formation back to 2,600 B.P., or some 600 years earlier.
In the bottom third of his core sample, Heusser identified high concentrations of alder
pollen and sphagnum moss, both of which nearly disappeared in the upper two meters of the
column. The presence of pollen from the two plant types suggested that sometime prior to
1,500 years ago, the Meadowlands were not a saline tidal marsh at all, but instead a well-drained
woodland of alder and oak with an underlying ground cover of sphagnum moss, suggesting a
moist and fresh water environment. In addition, Heusser noted that cattail pollen and seeds
were present in large numbers only in the upper few centimeters of the column, and that rag-
weed, often taken as an indicator of Colonial Period land clearing and disturbance, was found
only in the upper 50 centimeters of the column. Together, these two indicators suggested that
the 17th century Colonial surface, and any temporally related archaeological remains, may be
buried under a relatively shallow mantel of marsh accumulation, and that the entire
Meadowlands had undergone a profound environmental transformation within the last 2,000
years (Heusser 1963).
Nearly twenty years later, in 1980, Dorothy Carmichael, also of New York University, con-
tinued Heusser's line of investigation with an even more refined series of radiocarbon dated
pollen and seed identifications. This recent work not only helped fill in the gap identified in the
earlier study, but also provided evidence that the marshlands of the Hackensack Meadowlands
may have evolved even more rapidly than previously assumed, with significant shifts evident in
units of several hundred versus thousands of years. Carmichael analyzed and radiocarbon dated
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses *age 16
and Areas of Recommcnted Additional Investigation
several core samples which yielded depth controlled age determinations ranging from 240 years
before the present (B.P.) at one meter beneath the surface, to ca. 2,600 years B.P. at a depth of
four meters below the surface which corresponded with the clay base of the peat marsh. This
vertical sequence of combined pollen and seed data, taken within the framework of a tightly
dated series of radiocarbon determinations, for the first time provided a control sample for es-
tablishing the nature and antiquity of environmental change within the Hackensack
Meadowlands over the past 2,500 years.
Like Heusser's earlier study, this new data showed that the deepest and earliest deposits
dated between 2,000 and 3,000 years B.P., and reflected a habitat that was initially dominated by
what appear to be fresh water adapted genera of alder trees (species not determined).
Carmichael's new pollen core data also made it possible to characterize the changing habitat of
the Meadowlands within the subsequent 2,000 years as well. Following the initial epoch of fresh
water environmental conditions prior to 2,000 B.P., the pollen record shifted to a predominance
of pollen from salt grasses indicating a wetter and slightly more brackish environment. Both
Carmichael (1980) and Heusser (1963) interpreted this new saline adapted grass type as repre-
senting the advent of a higher sea level, and by inference, the initial intrusion of salt water into
the environment at about 2,000 B.P. This salt grass habitat appeared to have continued, but
with a gradual reduction in the density of salt grass seeds and pollen spores up until some 300
years before the present, or the Dutch Colonial settlement period of the 17th century.
About 800 years before the present (ca. 1,200 AD.), a time period which correlates with
the latter phases of the Native American Woodland Period, the vertical pollen record indicates
that the salt grass dominated Meadowlands were significantly altered by the sudden introduc-
tion of cedar trees, which appeared to predominate for some 3 to 5 centuries, and then dwindle
beginning about 500 years before the present. As documented by Vermeule's late 19th century
maps, the then surviving cedar stands were limited to a few scattered areas, surrounded by
phragmites grass. This island, or archipelago pattern of isolated survival is consistent with
ecological models from other regions indicating the takeover of one species, or plant com-
munity by another. The pattern of isolated survival also suggested the former existence of a
much more extensive distribution of cedar within the Meadowlands than was apparent at the
turn of the century. This projected pattern of more extensive cedar stands appears to be con-
firmed by the relatively greater extent of cedar zones depicted on the earlier 1869 Cook/Bien
map. Finally, in addition to documenting the relatively short duration of cedar stands within the
basin, this dated sequence of changing pollen and seed ratios through time documented that the
modern plant community dominated by phragmites, chenopodes, and composite or ragweeds,
all species indicative of disturbed environments was encountered in the cores only in the near
surface historic period deposits, within the upper 25 centimeters (ca. 10 inches) of the marsh.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 17
and Areas of Rccommented Additional Investigation
Taken together, these studies of radiocarbon dated cores show that the Hackensack
Meadowlands began to emerge as a salt marsh some 1,500 to 1,800 years before the present,
during the Woodland Period of Native American occupation, and 4,000 years after the recorded
presence of Native American coastal populations in this region, which appear to have settled
the coastal area about 6,000 years B.P. In addition, this material also reveals that as recently as
2,000 years before the present, the Hackensack Meadowlands consisted of a hardwood forest
environment with stands of oak and alder growing beside fresh water streams, and that the
modern phragmites dominated Meadowlands are in fact a recent environmental development
which appears to date back in time to perhaps no longer than the Colonial Period of coastal en-
vironmental history. In sum, these multiple lines of environmental evidence, from local curves
of sea level rise and dated pollen core sequences, have documented that the Meadowlands (over
the last 3,000 years) were characterized by a changing environment that was previously suitable
for human occupation and exploitation, traces of which may be preserved in present near sur-
face deposits.
C. The 19th Century Cartographic and Archival Evidence of Environmental Change
This perspective of dynamic environmental change has been recently augmented by the
discovery of a mid 19th century landform and drainage map of the Hackensack Meadowlands,
dating to 1869. This map provided highly suggestive cartographic evidence that the extent of ex-
posed, or dry land forms, the extent and diversity of vegetation, and the relative and absolute
location of the primary tributaries, had shifted significantly in the late 19th century alone.
The primary evidence for gauging the degree of environmental change in the more recent
19th century period derives from the scaled comparison of the 1869 Cook/Bien map in com-
parison with the 1887 Vermuele depiction of the basin's topography and hydrology. Although
absolute distances may be subject to re-interpretation with further, area-specific cartographic
analysis, the overall picture is one suggesting order of magnitude shifts in vegetation patterns
and the course and location of the primary and secondary drainage channels.
When overlaid and graphically correlated in approximate scale to one another, the basin
wide topographic, landform, and drainage maps suggest environmental change in two major
categories of the Hackensack environment, one in the location and extent of primary and secon-
dary stream channels during the late 19th century due to altered drainage patterns from ditching
and rail berm construction, and the other concerning the nature and extent of the changing
landforms and plant types due to rising saline water levels, which together worked in tandem to
replace former freshwater habitats with emerging and expanding saline and estuary conditions.
This important 19th century environmental-based map was produced in 1869 as part of
Cook's Annual Report of the State Geologist on the Environment of Sedimentary Conditions of
the New Jersey Meadowlands (Cook 1869). George Cook had been appointed in 1864 to
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
Page 18
produce an accurate map of New Jersey. Surveyed by Edward Bowser, the resultant 1869 map
published by Julius Bien, represented the state's initial attempt to produce an accurately sur-
veyed map of this and other major drainages. Despite its current relevance to the issue of
environmental change, the map was decried as being too inaccurate, and, in turn, brought about
the appointment of Cornelius C. Vermuele in 1879 to rectify the situation. As a result,
Vermeule's subsequent map of 1887 was produced to provide a more accurate topographic,
drainage, and vegetation survey of the Hackensack drainage than the Cook and Bowser version
of two decades earlier (Thomas Flagg 1994, pers. comm.).
The locational detail and bathymetric data on sediment depths recorded on the 1869 map
reflected Cook's efforts to understand why 19th century reclamation efforts had failed in this
drainage while succeeding elsewhere (Ibid). His methodology, therefore, utilized the measure-
ment and description of the composition and color qualities of the differing sediments within
the Hackensack basin. Accordingly, his approach involved the recording of marsh sediment
depths at a large number of sample locations in the lower portion of the drainage, but with only
a small series of readings being recorded for the upper portion of the drainage, to the north of
the Secaucus plateau or ridge. In addition to recording the "depth of marsh-earth to bottom",
Cook's map registered and described, with different patterns, four categories of topography and
flora: 1) areas of high ground devoid of any vegetation indices; 2) extensive zones of cedar
swamp; 3) associated bands or zones of what was described as blue-gray mud which formed
corona or islands bordering the central areas of cedar; and 4), within the lower floodplain por-
tions of the drainage basin, the presence and extent of "Blue Mud" which was depicted as being
consistently associated with the primary channel of the Hackensack River, and areas of 19th
century tidal wetlands or saline marsh areas.
In addition to these apparently elevation-specific vegetation zones and the depiction of
primary and secondary tributaries, the central data of the map focused on the location of mud
type and sediment depth readings within the basin. These points appear to have been taken as
surveyed sample locations, which in addition to indicating the depth of "marsh-earth", also
served as cartographic datum points for the depiction of associated land forms, stream
tributaries, flora zones, and man-made features such as rail berms and roads. When evaluated
relative to later map renditions, and modern photo derived maps, this correlation seems to have
resulted in a high degree of accuracy for the southern, Newark Bay end of the drainage while at
the same time demonstrating a much less precise level of topographic and riparian drainage ac-
curacy for the northern, upstream portion of the basin above Moonachie. Given this
interpretation of the survey data, of sediment depth readings, it is not unreasonable to surmise
that the greater the density of survey and sample points, the greater the level of data control and
detail for the associated topographic features. This correlation between the density of survey
points and the accuracy of the map depictions both appears to vary from south to north within
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 19
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
the basin, and appears to correlate with the resultant levels of accuracy for different sections of
the mapped drainage. In other words, where dense numbers of marsh sediment depth readings
were taken and recorded, the localized topography appears to be fairly accurate, however,
where relatively few readings were recorded, the associated drainage and topographic patterns
were considerably less accurate.
Nevertheless and despite these limitations in the uniformity and accuracy of coverage, the
resultant depiction of the various plant communities present as of 1869 were clearly mapped
and depicted relative to currently recognizable landform and engineering structures such as
dike berms, drainage ditches, rail lines and 18th to 19th century roads. While cartographic in-
consistencies between different sub-areas of this 1869 map have been addressed in detail in the
past, the utility and significance of the detailed depictions of the extent of surviving cedar
swamps and associated coronas of tidal mud flats have been stressed in terms of their sig-
nificance to the evaluation of current wetlands and marsh composition and distribution patterns
(Anonymous 1973).
The central significance of this mid 19th century Civil War era map of the "sub-marsh"
topography and the ecology of the basin is reflected by the fact that it documents the extent of
cedar swamps as of this time period. Specifically, the careful depiction of different zones of
blue-black and black mud as coronas, or bands, surrounding the still extant cedar swamps as of
1869, strongly suggests the presence of historic period transition zones indicative of the shift
from predominantly fresh water to more saline tidal zones, within which the fresh water adapted
cedar could no longer survive. Not only do these bands, or isolines suggest the advent of in-
creasing saline water levels with the encroaching rise in saline tidal waters, but also the fact that
the transition zones of mud clearly suggest that the change may have, in fact, taken place over a
relatively short period during the first half of the 19th century.
The suggestion that this environmental transformation of the Meadowlands appears to
have taken place over a ca. 3,000 year period in general, and also appears to have possibly ac-
celerated in the historic period, is suggested by two additional lines of evidence. The first
consists of the relative depth of mud or marsh sediments in each zone, and the second involves
the historic late 19th and early 20th century botanical studies, which provide multiple lines of
evidence indicating that the effects of human efforts to "reclaim" the Meadowlands beginning in
the early 19th century appear to have accelerated the overall basin-wide process of environmen-
tal change. In addition, recorded field observations of the shifting location and diversity of
recorded fresh water species by the 20th century botanists and zoologists alone adds credence
that the now predominantly saline and brackish nature of the submerged portions of the
Meadowlands may have evolved as such only between the early to mid 20th century, or within a
significantly short time period of ca. 50 years.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
Page 20
The first line of evidence, derived from the 1869 map records and botanical field record-
ings, suggest that the relative depth of marsh mud varied consistently with each vegetation and
ground cover type. The readings were consistently shallow within the depicted areas of then
surviving cedar swamp, and deepest within the lowest, and presumably oldest borderline zones
closer to the modern channel and floodplain of the Hackensack basin. The marsh depth read-
ings within the depicted cedar swamp zone demonstrated consistently shallow readings of 6 to 7
feet. The adjacent "Peat and Blue" isolines, or coronas bordering the cedar swamps were consis-
tently deeper, and ranged between 5, 8, and 10 feet in depth. Finally, the third major sediment
zone, that of "Blue Mud", situated closest to the main channel showed depth readings of 10 to 16
feet, with the deepest depths being recorded as extending to between 14 and 24 feet bordering
the mid 19th century channel, presumably reflecting the filled in depressions of the former
meandering river channel in its gradual shift from east to west across the floodplain.
These "eco-niche" consistent depth readings, together with the topographic like patterns of
cascading elevation or water table zones, suggest that the differences in plant and mud composi-
tion reflect the time based processes and ecological stress and patterns of environmental
transition during the 19th century. The absolute contrasts in the then depicted cedar swamps,
125 years ago, indicate that the Meadowlands were undergoing change. The relative depth of
marsh sediments and the bare mud flats uncolonized by new plant species suggest that the tran-
sition was ongoing and relatively short lived, possibly taking place in time units of decades
versus centuries. The indicated rate of change further implies that extant conditions and recent-
ly recorded conditions may have little to do with man's previous use of this environment, and
that past conditions may have indeed been very different as recently as the Colonial Period.
This interpretation, in turn, strongly suggests that any attempt to project the cultural or ar-
chaeological sensitivity of the Meadowlands based on current conditions would be both risky
and unreliable.
D. Historic and Modern Evidence for Environmental Change
The historic cartographic and dated palynological evidence for long term change within
the Meadowlands is supported by several lines of traditional botanical field surveys and flora as-
sessments, which suggest that the encroaching sea water and rising tidal patterns were matched
by man-made changes that, together, document that the transformation of the Meadowlands
may have accelerated in the late 19th century with the major shift to a predominantly inundated
salt water, tidal environment throughout most of the study area during the last ca. 80 to 100
years. Based on field data collected in 1969, and the synthesis of a previously published botani-
cal survey of the basin in 1971 and 1972, William Sipple published The Past and Present Flora
and Vegetation of the Hackensack Meadows" as the basis for his Masters Thesis in Architecture
and Regional Planning from the University of Pennsylvania. The objective of this analysis was
to use locationally controlled plant inventories to reconstruct the timing and nature of the en-
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 21
and Areas of Rccommented Additional Investigation
vironmental shift from a mixed fresh water tidal zone, to a predominantly brackish saline habitat
in the 20th century. Sipple used five main published references ranging in date from the early
19th century through to initial 1949 and 1963 pollen work by Heusser as his primary source
materials (Torrey 1819; Britton 1889; Heusser 1949, 1963; and Harshberger and Burns 1919).
These sources provided Sipple with time specific or dated inventories, which when compared
through time, provided temporally specific units of comparison that documented the changing
range of variation and ratios of various fresh and salt water adapted plant varieties within the
Hackensack basin between 1819 and the decade of the 1960's. These comparisons, in turn, aug-
mented the long term patterns of environmental change documented by the radiocarbon dated
pollen records of Carmichael (1980), and at the same time provided independent lines of
evidence that changes in the plant and ecological makeup of the Meadowlands both continued
and may have even accelerated throughout the late 19th and 20th century.
Sipple's synthesis summarized the relative diversity and range of variation in identified
plant species for four periods of time, 1819, 1889, 1919, and the mid 20th century, which was
based on field observations and the emerging pollen record. This diachronic comparison of the
changing nature and distribution of identifiable plant species documented the appearance of
important changes in the relative presence and location of different fresh water versus saline
adapted vegetation. The consistent pattern of replacement of former fresh water varieties also
documented that a significant and major ecological transformation of the flora of the drainage
had taken place within a relatively short time span between the early 19th and mid 20th century.
When comparing the initial data set from the 1819 field surveys (Torrey 1819) to the later
inventories, Sipple concluded that the distribution of known species appeared too similar to,
and to have represented a continuum with, the earlier pollen core derived projections, which
showed that cedar appeared relatively late in the basin as a colonizer, and appeared to have es-
tablished itself as a primary colonizer for at least a 500 year period (Sipple 1972:14). He
supported this pollen based interpretation with earlier tree ring measurements by Gifford
(1895) which documented the presence of 6 foot thick trunks with 1,000 annual rings from
samples taken from bogs in southern New Jersey. Given the milder climatic conditions of
southern New Jersey relative to the Hackensack basin, and assuming a later arrival of cedar
from the south, Sipple concluded that the cedar swamps of the drainage were, as the later dated
pollen cores validated, only some 500 years old (Sipple 1972:14).
Sipple made several important conclusions based on this data. He established that when
compared to the later 1896 Vermeule depictions of Cedar swamp distribution patterns, not only
was the valley dominated by fresh water cedar trees for 500 years, but also that there was little
apparent change in its distribution between the beginning and end of the 19th century. Given
the extensive presence of freshwater cedars in the vicinity of Secaucus, "known to botanists as
the New Durham cedar swamp", Sipple suggested that: 1) little change had occurred between
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 22
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
1819 and 1896; and 2) the presence of fresh water swamp varieties (Sabatia dodecendra) indi-
cated that little, or no brackish or salt marsh was present in the area of the drainage as of the
first quarter of the 19th century (Ibid: 16).
This pattern of dominance by fresh water species continued to be manifested by the later
1889 botanical inventories. In addition to a diverse range of fresh water species, Sipple cited
Britton's reference to the fresh water plant, Zizania aquatica, as being, "...very abundant in the
Newark and Hackensack Marshes..." to argue that "much" fresh water marsh existed within the
drainage as of the last decade of the 19th century (Ibid: 18). He went on to say that, "No species
restricted to salt marshes was reported, so it is assumed that this type of marsh was little or non-
existent in the Hackensack Meadows, except perhaps in the southern part..." as of 1889
(Ibid: 19).
This apparent pattern of relative ecological stability dominated by the presence of fresh
water plant varieties, evident between the early and late 19th century data sets, came to an end
by the first quarter of the 20th century. Based on the inventories published by Harshberger and
Burns in 1919, two major changes appear to have been strongly underway, one, that the cedar
swamps were significantly and rapidly declining in extent, and two, the earlier diversity and wide
distribution of fresh water marsh species had all but disappeared, indicating the transformation
of the Meadowlands into a brackish saline tidal environment. Based on his 1919 data, Burns
suggested that typical salt marsh flora existed at the mouth of the river near Newark Bay, and
gradually changed upstream into brackish flora in the central part of the valley, with freshwater
marsh occurring only in the northern upriver portions of the drainage, and acid swamps still ex-
tant in the northern portions, but absent in the south.
Furthermore, Burns identified the presence of four fresh water plant types near
Moonachie, which suggested that this "northern" area was still dominated by cedar and other
freshwater types as late as 1919 (Sipple 1972:19). Salt marsh varieties were only encountered to
the south and down river of Sawmill Creek, which, in turn, suggested that as of 1919 the salt
marsh did not extend north of this confluence (Ibid:20). The situation had changed by the mid
20th century. In his 1949 study, Heusser reported the subsequent appearance of salt marsh
plants about a mile to the north of Secaucus, suggesting that salt water intrusion had expanded
upriver to Secaucus by 1949, and as far as Little Feriy by the decade of the 1970's (Sipple
1972:23).
Finally, Sipple's analysis of the changing environment of the Meadowlands ended with a
brief discussion of the potential causes for this change, both natural and man-made. Although
the rate of marine transgression, or rising sea levels was less controlled than today, Sipple ob-
served the role of encroaching sea level and tidal patterns as a possible cause for the demise of
the cedar swamps, and for the replacement of fresh water plants by salt or brackish adapted
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources Page 23
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
species. He also noted the effect that the construction of the Oradell Reservoir in the 1920's
had, which aided the intrusion of salt water into the drainage by all but cutting off the previous
flow of fresh water into the Hackensack River below the dam.
Sipple also stressed the role that historic period diking and ditching activities played in
changing the fresh to salt water ratios in the drainage, which both helped to spread Phragmites
and atrophied the distribution of cedar stands. He cited the historic ecological research of
Waksman in 1942 which used historic accounts to document that the construction of dikes both
impeded the influx of salt water into the system and, between 1869 and 1887, resulted in the
measured drop in elevation within portions of the Meadowlands by a factor of ca. 3.5 feet due to
the lowering of the water table.
Based on these historical and pollen based lines of evidence, it is clear that not only were
the Meadowlands undergoing a long and slow series of environmental changes over the last
3,000 years, but also that, based on the changes evidenced by the 19th and 20th century botani-
cal data, the rate of environmental change and the transition from a predominantly fresh water
environment to a brackish tidal estuary was only clearly evident in the record for the central and
northern portions of the drainage as late as the second to fourth decades of the 20th century.
The implications of this time based analysis of the changing environment of the Meadowlands
clearly establishes that any analysis of the human ecology and history of human exploitation of
this region must be approached from the perspective that this is a dynamic and significantly
changed environment, which, although inundated by salt marshes today, was not so, even as
recently as the historic post Colonial Period. Thus, instead of a static environment dominated
by tidal marshes, the drainage was only several hundred years in the past dominated by fresh
water plant species and mixed cedar and hardwood forests, which would have been amenable to,
and was, in all probability, intensively exploited by Native Americans over the last 3,000 years.
IV. Methods of Analysis
The methods used and level of investigation applied in this study varied considerably
depending on the nature and level of coverage presented by each of the three main develop-
ment categories. Each of the PDAs were individually evaluated through cartographic, air photo
and on-site field inspections. Because of problems of access, and "visibility" presented by the
Wetlands Areas, the analysis was restricted to only the application of remote air photo and map
evaluations. Finally, given the overlap in location between current Transportation Corridors
and the majority of the Transportation Improvement Corridors, and given the diversity of
potential prehistoric and historic sensitivity which characterized a majority of these corridors,
the analysis of this category was the most general in level of specificity, and as such, the most
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 24
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
open ended in terms of the nature of the ensuing cultural resource management recommenda-
tions.
A. Preferred Development Alternative Areas (PDA)
In addition to the map analysis to identify potential resources, this Phase 2 surface recon-
naissance and past impact assessment utilized on-site field reconnaissance, historic and modern
map sources, and comparative air photo coverage between the 1930's and 1992 to document
current and past conditions, as well as the presence of modern structures, industrial develop-
ment, landfill, or cut and fill grading activities which could have already partially impacted or
destroyed initially identified potential prehistoric and historic resources. This combined evalua-
tion of current conditions and past land use patterns has provided a more refined and detailed
level of definition than that provided by the original map based 1992 cultural resource study.
Once evaluated, the "surviving" areas of potential sensitivity were further defined and graphical-
ly delimited as sub-areas within each impact parcel, and which may warrant more focused
investigation.
B. Wetlands Areas (WA)
As detailed above, the PDAs were addressed as parcel-specific impact areas and, where
access permitted, individually surface inspected and evaluated for evidence of landscape altera-
tion which may have affected their initial, map based archaeological sensitivity. In contrast, the
evaluation of the 77 discrete wetlands mitigation/creation parcels, coupled with problems of ac-
cess and visibility, mandated that the issue of their potential sensitivity be approached both
thematically from the perspective of dynamic environmental change, and remotely through the
analysis of available past air photo and map coverage.
As originally proposed and as actualized in this study, the identified Wetlands Mitiga-
tion/Creation Areas were reviewed relative to the location of known or projected areas of
archaeological and prehistoric and historic sensitivity as defined in the origin map based sen-
sitivity model (Grossman 1992). The first step served to factor out the wetlands parcels that
contained no known or potential archaeologically sensitive resources. Secondly, if identified as
present, the significance of all parcels with potential cultural resources were then evaluated in
terms of identifiable impact comparisons and disturbances, based on the presence or absence of
landfills, either recognized or "informal" within each wetlands mitigation parcel. The assump-
tion was made that, if landfill was present, the wetlands parcel was de-selected as a potentially
sensitive sample because of demonstrable patterns of disturbance, and logistical problems of ac-
cessibility to the underlying "historic and prehistoric" surface. This two step process reduced the
overall sample of 77 discrete parcels down to 35, or less than 50% of the total sample. For the
remaining 35 parcels with potential prehistoric or historic resources and without previously
documented landfill, each proposed wetland area parcel was analyzed in detail. The 1992
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources Page 25
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
topographic and air photo coverage at 1 inch = 200 feet scale was used to determine the
presence or absence of modern disturbances for these 35 parcels, such as previously undocu-
mented landfill.
Finally, as detailed in the original proposal, the remaining, non-landfilled wetland parcels
were evaluated relative to past environmental conditions, based on computer assisted
topographic projections of salt water encroachments due to sea level rise, or marine transgres-
sion, and on the dated pollen vertical sequence of changing fresh to salt water plant
communities developed by Heusser (1963) and Carmichael (1980) within the basin for the last
3,000 years of the Meadowlands cultural history (See Figure 5b).
C. Transportation Improvement Corridors (TIC)
The 35 proposed Transportation Improvement Corridors were evaluated for potential
prehistoric and historic archaeological sensitivity based on the framework developed by the
1992 Grossman study. The ecologically based framework for identifying potential prehistoric
archaeological sensitivity and the map based computer correlations of historic and modern map
coverage rendered as a series of color coded overlays were utilized for evaluating the potential
historic archaeological sensitivity of the TICs.
Each TIC was evaluated relative to one of four general categories of potential ar-
chaeological sensitivity as determined by the 1992 composite archaeological sensitivity map: 1)
prehistoric; 2) historic; 3) prehistoric and historic; and 4) no identified cultural resources (no
data). Once identified and initially evaluated according to these four criteria, TIC-specific
recommendations regarding further work were formulated (See Table III).
V. The Cartographic and Air Photo Sensitivity Evaluation
A. Cartographic and Air Photo Sources and Correlations
One of the primary goals of this Phase 2 analysis was to refine the level of definition con-
cerning the archaeological and historical potential and/or National Register eligibility of the
broad range of cultural resources initially identified in the 1992 Grossman study. In addition to
the evaluation of potential cultural resources, this analysis focused on the identification and
definition of impacts, both modern and historic, to all categories of potential archaeological
resources. In conjunction with the parcel-specific site inspections conducted by the archaeologi-
cal field staffs this study utilized the time based comparison of available historic and topographic
coverage spanning the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as post-1930 air photo coverage of the
study area. Whereas the first basin-wide cultural resource assessment focused expressly on the
cultural and historical features documented by the 1887 Vermeule topographic map of the
Hackensack Meadowlands, Phase 2 of this multi-phased investigation utilized the broader
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 26
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
coverage provided by additional and recently acquired historic cartographic sources to identify a
broad range of both 19th and 20th century potential archaeological and historical features. The
comparative analysis of more recent, post-1930 air photo reconnaissance of the basin to identify
and delimit impacts and alterations to the landscape, in essence, permitted the remote evalua-
tion of otherwise inaccessible locations by utilizing standardized air photo analysis and
interpretation techniques.
In addition to the resources provided and made available by the repositories such as the
New Jersey State Museum, the New Jersey Archives, the New Jersey Office of Historic Preser-
vation, the Newark Museum and other unpublished sources, this study utilized three important
19th century sources to identify potential for "new" prehistoric and historic resources, beyond
those established for the initial 1992 survey, including new data from the map archives of the
New Jersey Tidelands Commission in Trenton. The map archives contain originals of many
19th century map series', coastal and basin-specific, and of these, three 19th century historic
map sources proved to be critically important for this investigation:
1) the 1839 U.S. Coast Survey (USCS).
2) the 1869 Cook/Bien topographic survey of the Meadowlands, and
3) the 1871 to 1874 U.S. Coast Survey map of the Hackensack basin.
Each of these sources was compared in detail to the initial findings which were based
mainly on the 1887 Vermeule topographic survey of the basin. Each of these 19th century sour-
ces provided important information as to the definition of the marsh versus the high ground in
the early to late 19th century, the advent of datable roads and railroads, as well as the ap-
pearance and disappearance of both residential and commercial structures. In addition, the
incorporation of the 1869 Cook/Bien topographic survey data of the Hackensack drainage
provided a critical "new" source of information concerning the paleo-topography of the "sub-
marsh" landscape, which proved to be very different from that of today. In addition, the
investigation of the environmental and land use categories defined in the 1839 and 1871 USCS
maps relative to the available 20th century map coverage, provided a nearly 75 year comparative
time line for evaluating the appearance of both new cultural features within, as well as altera-
tions to the Hackensack drainage.
Copies of several 20th century project based maps were also provided by the NJ Tidelands
Commission. In addition to the 1915 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS) map series,
important additional cartographic coverage for the Hackensack Meadowlands consisted of the
ca. 1913 to 1935 map series from the Bergen County Mosquito Extermination Commission. Al-
though this earlier map series, distinct from the 1941 "mosquito maps" previously referred to in
the 1992 study, provided somewhat uneven coverage with different scales for different time
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 27
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
periods, they nevertheless, provided critical information on the location and time frame of pre-
viously ill defined early 20th century land reclamation efforts including the tide gates, dikes,
levees, drainage ditches, and on the re-channelization of water courses, specifically that of
Moonachie Creek. In essence, these early 20th century maps documented the sequence of the
impacts to the Meadowlands basin by the Mosquito Control Commission between ca. 1913 and
the 1930's. In addition, the most recent of the 1962 to 1963 USC&GS maps were particularly
important because they documented historic and recent impacts and alterations to the
landscape which were specifically identified and graphically delimited, including areas of high
ground versus marsh, levees, tide gates, ditches, "spoil banks", roads, railroads, and contem-
porary structures, as well as the identification and dating of structural remains and previous
building locations.
In addition to the baseline definition of cultural resources, the major goal of this investiga-
tion was to identify recent and past impacts to potential cultural resources which would have
either destroyed, or significantly disturbed their integrity, research potential, and National
Register eligibility. Accordingly, this aspect of the investigation focused intensively on the com-
parative analysis of the available air photo coverage beginning with the 1930's series but all
inclusive coverage between 1963 and 1992, a ca. 30 year period. The most significant air photo
data sets consisted of the comparison provided between the 1963 and the 1992 air photo
coverage, for which complete basin wide coverage was available including contour elevations.
A 1968 overflight series provided important land use data, but contained no contour elevation
data. While the coverage available at a scale of 1 inch = 200 feet was only partial for both the
1985 air photo and topographic reconstruction series, a subsequent 1985 composite air photo of
the entire Meadowlands provided much additional information at a scale of 1 inch = 1,000 feet.
In comparison to the 1963 air photo coverage data (at a scale of 1 inch = 400 feet), the most
recent 1992 air photo overflight information (at a scale of 1 inch = 1,000 feet and 1 inch = 200
feet) was accompanied by a series of detailed stereographic pair rendered air photo documenta-
tion of modern topography with contour elevations, structures, parking areas, fence lines, tanks,
dikes, ditches, fill piles, roads, railroads, political boundaries and place names, as well as what
were identified as ruins and "foundations" (at a scale of 1 inch = 200 feet). When combined,
these multiple lines of cartographic and photographic evidence served to fill the significant gap
in the previously available documentation of demographic and environmental changes to the
drainage between the 19th and 20th century.
B. Cartographic and Air Photo Analysis Procedures
The primary cartographic source of historic sensitivity was compiled from manually
digitized renditions of the 1869 Cook/Bien map and 1887 through the 1899 Vermeule map
coverage. These digitized historic maps were individually traced and rendered as AutoCAD
files which could be overlaid to scale onto available modern computer map sources.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 28
and Areas of Recommentcd Additional Investigation
Modern evaluations of conditions of the study area were derived from three primary data
sets of already digitized or computerized map files, which, in turn, were provided by three in-
stitutional sources. The basic background reference, or baseline map was adopted from a
USGS digital line graph (DLG) available as a computer file, which provided a clear depiction of
modern transportation corridors, the extent of wetlands areas, but contained no topographic
data except the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain line. The second
source of map data dating from 1971 to 1986, consisted of digital computer files supplied by
CDM depicting modern lot lines and parcel boundaries, landfill, and other landform features.
These CDM project files were from the digitization of the Hackensack Meadowlands District
Official Zoning Map (proposed 1971, revised 1986), which has not, however, been accurately
geo-referenced.
Finally, a 15 minute, digital elevation model file containing the New Jersey Meadowlands
from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was obtained through Internet (Newark East 15').
This large, uncompressed 10 megabyte data file provided a dense series of elevation or XYZ
points at intervals of 167 feet throughout the project area, which served as an additional aid in
characterizing the modern environment of the Meadowlands, primarily through the use of com-
puter generated surface, or terrain modeling software processing. While not as
"ground-truthed" or accurate a data set as the FEMA computer map contour file, the availability
of this digitized elevation data, and the resultant computer elevation models derived from it,
proved helpful in terms of its utility for rendering general trends or patterns of topographic
variations in the vicinity of the basin.
1. The Computer Scaled Map Overlay Series and Sensitivity Analysis
Once the maps were acquired and digitized, the subsequent cartographic impact and
resource analysis followed four procedural steps. The first step involved the effort to correlate
project PDAs, WAs, and TICs with the often irregularly, or inaccurately scaled historic map
coverage. As part of this initial task, all layers of the previously generated 18th and 19th century
sensitivity map coverage were combined and enlarged into 9 detailed, 11 by 17 inch, project-
specific analysis maps, which were scaled and plotted on translucent medium as overlays, and
also plotted at 1 inch = 1,000 feet scale as overlays onto the 1992 air photo coverage. All avail-
able historical and environmental variations or potential resource areas were transferred as
color coded notations depicting historic roads, land use areas, and zones of environmentally
based potential prehistoric sensitivity projections. These renditions were then used as the
baseline data set for the subsequent analysis and comparison of historic to modern map
coverage of both identified resources and impacts for the period spanning 1887 to the present.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
Page 29
2. The Computer Based Resource Inventory and Impact History
The second major task in the remote resource and impact process involved the develop-
ment of an computerized catalogue or inventory of potential cultural resources which were
individually itemized for each PDA and WA parcel on the cultural resource assessment or sen-
sitivity evaluation forms, and divided into four sections (See Appendix I). This parcel-specific
data form defined the presence, location, and extent of previously documented prehistoric and
historic resources, as well as the presence of early 20th century historic features relating to the
history of land reclamation and mosquito control activities, based on the recently acquired ca.
1913 to 1935 Bergen County Mosquito Extermination Commission maps. [These features held
the potential for possible National Register evaluation because they pre-dated the minimum 50
year cut off period for potentially eligible historic or industrial archaeological, architectural or
engineering resources].
3. Air Photo and Topographic Map Impact Analysis
The third task in the evaluation process involved the remote air photo and map based
analysis of recent 20th century impacts for all PDA parcels, as well as those WA parcels with
potential archaeological resources. This third step in the process was both critical and detailed
in procedure. Analysis maps were physically scaled and overlaid onto each of the available 1963
to 1992 air photo series to identify areas of disturbance, industrial or residential development,
zones of past dredging activities, and the significant, previously unrecognized, areas of informal
landfill. An updated, digitized, map file was supplied by CDM/HMDC for the known areas of
"formal" landfill activities within the HMDC boundaries, and a 1992 rendition of all the
drainage configurations. These files were plotted as a 1 inch = 1,000 feet scale map overlay to
determine which PDA, WA, or TIC parcels were impacted, either partially or totally by recent
lanrifilling- Each of these impacts was quantified in terms of extent and level of disturbance,
and itemized on each sensitivity evaluation form as a dated series of impacts for each of the
study parcels investigated. This process of remote impact evaluation ultimately resulted in the
creation of a total of ca. 140 parcel-specific evaluation forms. Each form individually integrated
all potential or previously identified cultural resources and all identified historic and modern
impacts onto a single, parcel-specific, evaluation data sheet for computer entiy.
4. Field Reconnaissance Procedures (PDAs)
In tandem with the remote air photo and map analysis process, the fourth major task of
this investigation involved the use of traditional field survey and reconnaissance procedures, as
a basis for characterizing the most current conditions of each PDA study parcel, as well as for
identifying recent impacts which post dated, and therefore were not identifiable through the
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 30
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
available air photo and cartographic analysis alone. As was the case for several of the PDA par-
cels in particular, this field survey reconnaissance effort also proved to be an important source
of new information on the existence of potential cultural resources which were not initially ap-
parent from existing documentation, cartographic, or air photo coverage.
This aspect of the field reconnaissance was recorded in the field as Section IV of Page 1 of
the parcel-specific sensitivity evaluation form during each visit. Each reconnaissance area was
also depicted on a scaled, computer generated, location map based on the data file supplied by
CDM, and appears on Page 2 of the sensitivity evaluation form. This map also provided a
graphic basis for depicting observed features, as well as the location and orientation of parcel-
specific photographic documentation. In addition to the field notes section of the form for
describing and itemizing observed modern conditions and impacts, Page 2 also includes records
of all photographic documentation undertaken by the archaeological reconnaissance crew.
All PDA parcels were field inspected. Each field inspection was graphically and
photographically documented with black and white and color film coverage (logged by dated
roll and frame number), and are available as part of the project record on request. In addition
to this formal photo documentation, the field team was equipped with both a polaroid instant
camera, as well as a still video camera. Together, these tools provided immediate access to the
data for the analysis team both in the field and back in the laboratory, without delays caused by
standard photo laboratory processing time.
5. Computerized Data Processing and Control
The fifth step of the analysis process involved the database computerization and cross cor-
relation between each of the data fields on the evaluation form. In addition to the specific
recommendations provided by this study, the data control process itself, has created a detailed
database file pertaining to all PDAs and WAs of the study area. An additional database was
created containing parcel-specific maps for all PDAs and WAs from the AutoCAD files (CDM
and third party supplied), and digital road maps for all PDAs and specific WAs selected for fur-
ther work, which was combined into graphical database retrievable format in Microsoft Access
2.0.
VL Parcel-specific Findings and Recommendations
A. Archaeologically Sensitive Preferred Development Alternative (PDA) Areas
Out of the total of 63 discrete Preferred Development Alternative (PDA) parcels, and fol-
lowing the identification of potential archaeological sensitivity and subsequent impacts or
disturbance from historic maps, air photos, and site inspections, this analysis has resulted in the
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 31
and Areas of Rccommented Additional Investigation
identification of a significantly reduced number of PDAs (Hybrid Planning and Satellite Areas)
which warrant additional investigation relative to the original document based sensitivity
evaluation (Grossman 1992). Out of the total of 63 land units individually evaluated, only 8 or
12.6% have been recommended for additional archaeological and historical investigation. This
proportion also translates into a total of 87.4% of the PDAs for which no additional work is
being recommended (See Figure 2). Of the 8 areas recommended for follow up investigations,
3 pertain to Hybrid Planning Areas, and 5 belong to the Satellite Area group (See Appendix I).
1. Hybrid Planning Areas
Out of the total sample of 20 discrete Hybrid Planning Areas investigated, 3, identified as
PDA 5, PDA 11 South, and PDA 14, have been recommended for both a parcel-specific
detailed Stage LA sensitivity evaluation, as well as Stage IB presence and absence testing.
a. PDA 5
This 31 acre Hybrid Planning Area located in Carlstadt, Bergen County, derives its ar-
chaeological sensitivity from both its environmental setting, as well as from map based
indications of former 19th century occupations or activities within or adjacent to the parcel. The
prehistoric sensitivity of the parcel derives from the fact that it borders Botcher's (Boetche's,
Boss's) Creek, that it is situated adjacent to a stream confluence, and that there is a knoll, or
high ground, within the parcel adjacent to tidal marshlands. The historic sensitivity of the parcel
derives from the fact that it is transected by the historic Paterson Plank Road and located ad-
jacent to what appears to be the area of historic footings for a Paterson Plank Road bridge
(USC&GS 1915). Additional potential resources appear to include the possible presence of
19th century hotels (Ram 1989), and from the existence of ca. 1920 boat houses and other early
20th century commercial structures within the parcel (BCMEC 1921 to 1924).
Despite the extent of building and ditching within portions of PDA 5, none of the iden-
tified field, air photo, or cartographic impact indices suggested total or even near total
destruction from recent impacts. Accordingly, given the potential prehistoric and historic sen-
sitivity of the parcel from both the environmental indications and historic map evidence, we
recommend a combined detailed sensitivity study followed by an area-specific presence and ab-
sence investigation for the entire parcel (See Figure 6a through Figure 7b).
b. PDA 11 South
PDA 11 South consists of ca. 51 acres proposed for development in Secaucus, Hudson
County. The prehistoric archaeological sensitivity of the parcel derives from the fact that PDA
11 South is situated along both banks of Cromakill Creek, and that it contains upland or "dry
land" areas of potential prehistoric archaeological utility within its boundaries (Vermeule 1887).
The potential historic sensitivity of the parcel derives from the fact that the 18th and 19th cen-
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 32
and Areas of Rccommentcd Additional Investigation
tury Paterson Plank Road borders the southern boundary of the property. While historic im-
pacts from fill activities appear to have been extensive based on 1963 to 1992 air photo
coverage, the level of impact to the 300 foot wide zone bordering the Cromakill Creek appears
to have been limited in extent and depth, suggesting the potential presence of possible ar-
cheological remains in this zone. Accordingly, it is recommended that a detailed Stage LA.
sensitivity evaluation be conducted, focusing on the disturbance areas within the parcel as a
basis for defining a subsurface testing strategy within the identified undisturbed areas along 300
feet of the Cromakill Creek, and adjacent to Paterson Plank Road (See Figure 8a and Figure
8b).
c. PDA 14
PDA 14, known locally and historically as Snake Hill (Laurel Hill), covers 152 acres within
the municipality of Secaucus, Hudson County, all of which borders the east bank of the Hacken-
sack River north of its junction with Newark Bay. The prehistoric sensitivity of Snake Hill has
been established through historic accounts of Contact Period, Native American occupation on
or adjacent to the hill, as well as ill defined accounts of artifacts being recovered from unknown
localities within the overall parcel (HCI 1978, NJH #2). The historic sensitivity of Snake Hill
derives from the fact that it was repeatedly an encampment and lookout during the Revolution-
ary War era and selected as a location for public institutions from the Civil War era through to
the first decade of the 20th century. Beginning in 1863 it was the site of the area's first alms
house, in 1870 it was a penitentiary, and in 1873 it was an asylum for the insane (HCI 1978:# 13).
By 1910, the locality was used as a new alms house as well as a school (IM Company 1910), and
was subsequently partially used as a jail.
The impact analysis from both the historic 19th century map and air photo coverage docu-
ment that the majority of the Snake Hill PDA planning area was heavily disturbed, first as of
1915 by a trap rock quarries (USC&GS 1915), and then, after 1963, by extensive cut and fill
operations, including modern quarrying activities, ditching, and the construction of 1-95 and
other roads within the parcel (Air Photo 1963:5). Although the post 1930 air photo and map
evidence clearly document the extent and totality of these earth moving impacts, and that the
western shoreline zone of Snake Hill along the east bank of the Hackensack River has been
heavily disturbed, the possibility exists that sections of the mid 19th century historic "alms
house-penitentiary-asylum" complex may have survived as intact surface or subsurface ar-
chaeological remains within portions of PDA 14.
Accordingly, given the historic time depth and significance of this parcel as a focus of early
public institutions within Hudson County, New Jersey, it is thereby recommended that any
proposed development activities be preceded by a detailed GIS-based map/photo sensitivity
study, followed by a sufficiently broad based, subsurface investigation to establish the survival,
integrity, and research potential of any extant historic remains. The sensitivity evaluation
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Pgge 33
and Areas of Rccommented Additional Investigation
should also incorporate the industrial archaeological assessment of extant, shoreline wooden
structures which suggest possible dock or landing areas as well (See Figure 11a through Figure
14).
2. Satellite Planning Areas
Out of a subtotal of 32 Satellite Planning Areas, a total of 5 have been identified as war-
ranting additional archaeological assessment and investigation. These highlighted potentially
sensitive Satellite Areas include PDA c, PDA f-East, PDA q, PDA ar, and PDA as (See Figure
2).
a. PDA c
This 9.7 acre parcel within the municipal boundaries of Carlstadt, Bergen County, contains
both potential prehistoric and historic sensitivity deriving from its topographic context (upland
area and a knoll), and from early and mid 19th century map evidence indicating the presence of
pre Civil War era houses and/or structures, as well as a late 18th through early 19th century
cemeteiy in the vicinity of the parcel along the west side of Washington Avenue (Hopkins
1861). Based on the analysis of the 1963 through 1992 air photo coverage, this specific parcel
appears to be one of the least altered or impacted of the identified PDAs within the entire study
area. No grading or landfill activities were identified, and the location of an existing
"farmhouse" appears to correspond with the map based location of a ca. 1839 structure
(USC&GS 1839, Hopkins 1861).
In addition, the parcel is currently under cultivation as an agricultural plot, which appears
to reflect the continued land use history extending back in time to at least the first half of the
19th century, if not earlier. Accordingly, it is recommended that this parcel be subjected to an
intensive historic map and documentary sensitivity evaluation, in conjunction with a parcel-wide
subsurface testing program throughout its extent for the presence and/or absence of both
prehistoric and historic remains (See Figure 9a and Figure 9b).
b. PDA f-East
Evaluated as a sub-unit of PDA f, which together totals 13 acres, the archaeological sen-
sitivity of this 9 acre sub-unit is restricted to the potential presence of prehistoric remains within
ca. 40% of the parcel. While all of the parcel appears to have been drained through ditching,
and some 25% to 40% has been impacted by both pre 1970 solid landfill and informal dumping
activities, the ca. 40% of the parcel bordering Berry's Creek may hold the potential for contain-
ing undisturbed prehistoric remains. Accordingly, while no sensitivity evaluation appears
warranted, it is recommended that grid or transect based subsurface tests be conducted on both
sides of the Berry's Creek tributary within the 400 foot portion of the parcel to establish the
presence and/or absence of prehistoric remains (See Figure 10a and Figure 10b).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
Page 34
c. PDA q
This small 3.1 acre parcel within Carlstadt, Bergen County, while having no apparent
prehistoric sensitivity, was flagged for historic sensitivity for two reasons. The first derives from
the evaluation of 1921 to 1924 Bergen County Mosquito Extermination Commission maps of
the area, which indicated that the area consisted of farmland and meadows not affected by the
tide. In addition to the presence of Route 20, the map coverage indicated that the parcel either
contained, was adjacent to, or was associated with, an historic hotel fronting on the Paterson
Plank Road somewhere in the vicinity (BCMEC1921 to 1924).
The second reason for its selection as having potential historic sensitivity derives from the
1994 field inspection, which showed the presence of a pond with grassy areas surrounding it, the
presence of what appear to be cut, or footer stones, and large wooden planks exposed on the
surface, on the southeastern side of the pond. Based on historic map and air photo coverage,
the possibility exists that the pond may be of relatively recent construction due to the fact that it
was not visually identifiable in the 1930 through 1985 air photo series coverage. However, the
presence of carefully cut stone blocks or footer stones may suggest the possible former existence
of some historic structure.
Given these conflicting indications concerning the land use history and the time depth of
the modern pond, it is recommended that a joint Stage IA sensitivity and Stage IB presence and
absence program be initiated to clarify the historic sensitivity and nature of the indicated struc-
tural elements within the parcel. Based on the results of the field inspection, it is also
recommended that the sensitivity investigation cover the entire parcel. However, unless sub-
sequent documentary research indicates otherwise, the recommended subsurface testing should
focus only on the southern and southeastern end of the parcel (See Figure 15a through Figure
16b).
d. PDA ar
This parcel consists of a 14.9 acre zone of mixed upland and tidal marsh with sections
abutting a stream, and includes a knoll within the municipality of Moonachie, Bergen County.
The potential archaeological sensitivity of this parcel has been identified as being restricted to
only the possible presence of prehistoric remains, due to the diversified land forms and its
proximity to a fresh water stream. Despite the intensity of subsequent development of the par-
cel to the west of the proposed Satellite Area, and the existence of extensive ditching and filling
operations of over 50 to 60% of the parcel, the possibility exists that surviving Pre Contact Na-
tive American remains may be encountered in areas of high ground within 300 feet bordering
Losen Slofe Creek. We recommend a parcel-specific Stage IB presence and absence testing
program for the possible presence of prehistoric cultural resources (See Figure 17a and Figure
17b).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
Page 35
e. PDA as
This large 81.5 acre parcel is situated along the banks of Penhorn Creek within the
municipality of Jersey City, Hudson County. The potential prehistoric sensitivity of this parcel
is based on its proximity to an estuary as initially indicated in the 1992 Grossman study for
HMDC. The potential historic sensitivity of the parcel derives from the cartographic evidence
of 17th and 18th century lot subdivisions depicted on the 1947 Hammond map of this area. In
addition, the 1887 Vermeule map shows the presence of two historic roads crossing the north-
ern half of the parcel, which may suggest historic occupation and activity areas. While 75% to
100% of the parcel appears to have been ditched at various periods, with cut and fill activities
indicated for ca. 30% of the parcel, its location adjacent to the eastern bank of Penhorn Creek
suggests the need for a parcel-specific detailed Stage IA archeological sensitivity and possibly a
Stage IB presence and/or absence subsurface testing program (See Figure 18a and Figure 18b).
B. Archaeologically Sensitive Wetlands Areas (WA)
1. Thematic Scope and Findings
As discussed above, for the Wetlands Area parcels, the initial review or cut, which was
based on the presence or absence of potential cultural resources, as well as previously recorded
landfill, reduced the overall sample from 77 to 35 parcels. For this balance of 35 units with
potential prehistoric and historic cultural resources, and without previously documented
landfill, each proposed wetlands area parcel was analyzed in detail using the 1992 topographic
and air photo coverage at 1 inch = 200 feet scale, to determine the presence or absence of
modern disturbance, such as previously undocumented landfill (See Appendix II).
The parcel-specific evaluation resulted in the identification of 2 specific parcels which
were recommended for additional Stage IA or Stage IB level of investigation based on either
previously identified potential prehistoric or historic sensitivity. In addition to parcel WA 2-Q
which was highlighted as being both historically and prehistorically sensitive due to the possible
presence of a ca. 1840 mill, the parcel, WA 2-U West, was earmarked for further sensitivity
analysis correlated with the former location of the historic Paterson Plank Road and possible
original bridge crossing which may have survived as subsurface, or submerged wooden elements
along the shore (See Appendix II).
2. The Wetlands Areas Past and Present
Although not formally part of the official Scope of Work, the goal of addressing the sur-
vival of potential archaeological sensitivity required that their context be evaluated both in
terms of contemporary and past environmental conditions. In order to accomplish this, it re-
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 36
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
quired an effort be made to reconstruct the past or paleo-environmental context of the basin
before it became inundated and filled with saline marsh sediments.
Through the integrated analysis of these current and past indices of environmental chan-
ges, the remaining sample of 35 non-landfill wetlands mitigation parcels containing prehistoric
and historic cultural resources were evaluated for their possible utility as ecological study areas.
Specifically, those parcels showing the highest potential for addressing outstanding issues of en-
vironmental change were selected based on their utility for shedding light on changing patterns
of, and human adaption within, the drainage over the last 3 millennia. This approach used the
two independent lines of projected sea level rise and dated changes in the pollen record to serve
as overlays, or vertical time and depth scales, relative to both the elevation of the encroaching
sea level or tidal fluctuation, and the changing environmental conditions within the computer
generated 3-D elevation or mesh model developed from the sediment depth data provided by
the 1869 Cook/Bien map (See Figure 5a and Figure 5b).
3. The Cartographic Evidence
This reconstruction was made possible through the computer analysis and scaled GIS
comparison of the USGS 1869 Cook/Bien map of the Hackensack drainage. As discussed
above, this important map of marsh depths, found preserved in the files of the New Jersey
Tidelands Commission, contained what appears to represent the only available cartographic
evidence for projecting the pre-marsh topographic configuration of the basin over the last
several thousand years.
The Civil War era Cook/Bien map, was originally intended to help clarify problems of 19th
century Meadowlands reclamation through large numbers of triangulated depth soundings,
which established the placement and thickness of marsh sediments throughout the drainage.
When translated into modern coordinates, these negative depth values provided the basis for
the computer generation of a 3-D topographic and perspective model of the original pre-marsh
topography consisting of clay and sand glacial substrates, prior to the basin being filled in by the
accumulation of saline, estuary marsh sediments beginning ca. 2,000 to 3,000 years before
present (See Figure 5a and Figure 5b). This computer generated 2-D contour plot and 3-D
elevation model reconstruction of the pre-marsh topography was then combined with the avail-
able regional data on the rising sea level, or marine transgression rates (ca. 1 to 1.5 meters per
1,000 years), to project the encroaching shoreline which inundated the drainage with the forma-
tion of the tidal marsh habitats, and that first appears in the vertical marsh pollen record about
2,500 B.P. (Heusser 1963; Stuiver and Daddario 1963; Carmichael 1980).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
Page 37
4. The Pollen Samples
This environmental reconstruction was only possible because of the availability of
radiocarbon determinations from vertically controlled pollen samples taken from the marsh
sediments, and identified as to fresh versus salt water adapted species by palynologists begin-
ning in the 1960's (Heusser 1963, Carmichael 1980, Sirkin 1982, Brush n.d). This cumulative
palynological research involving dated and depth controlled pollen samples has unequivocally
documented that the Meadowlands have undergone, and are continuing to undergo, significant
and often radical environmental change (Grossman 1992). Most importantly, these dated pol-
len samples from different depths in the marsh indicated that, as recently as 2,600 years ago, the
central and upper portions of the Hackensack basin consisted of a fresh water environment
dominated by alder and pine trees and other fresh water terrestrial species, which would not
have survived in saline tidal conditions (Carmichael 1980, Brush 1992, pers. comm.).
A related investigation based on dated pollen cores further down river, at the base of
Snake Hill, documented that the lower reaches of the Hackensack River, near its outlet into
Newark Bay and the confluence with the Passaic River, was continuously tidal, saline, and oc-
cupied by salt grasses over the last 5,000 years (Sirkin in Kardas & Larrabee 1982). However in
the middle reaches of the basin near Secaucus, rather than a tidal salt marsh, the basin consisted
of a fresh water riverine environment until as recently as 2,000 years before the present with no
tidal or saline plants identifiable. The transformation of the central portion of the Hackensack
drainage into a tidal, salt water habitat dominated by salt grasses only began to emerge in the
pollen record in the first century B.C. Before that, it was a well watered valley with low ridges
sloping to the floodplain bordering the fresh water Hackensack River channel.
The dated pollen record provided two other insights concerning the relatively rapid pat-
terns of environmental change. The first involved the age and duration of the cedar forests
within the basin. The second involved the fact that the existing sediment and marsh fill "wet-
lands" conditions and salt meadows of the Meadowlands today, was only evident in the pollen
sequence beginning several hundred years ago (Carmichael 1980). The stratified pollen se-
quence clearly documented that the modern plant species, phragmites, chenopodes, and
ragweeds characteristic of the Meadowlands wetlands habitat today, and of disturbed human en-
vironments in general, do not appear in the vertical record prior to the last 10 inches before the
surface, which was restricted in time to the post Colonial Period of the 18th and 19th century
(Ibid).
The issue of the antiquity of the cedar is interesting because there is a public perception
that the cedar visible as dying and submerged stumps today, somehow represents the pristine or
natural conditions of the drainage prior to European settlement While partially true, and while
it is clear that extensive groves of cedar were still extant as of the 17th and 18th century, their
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 38
and Areas of Recommcnted Additional Investigation
antiquity and migration into the region was a relatively recent and short lived event. Prior to the
advent of the 12th century, the Hackensack basin appears to have been devoid of any cedar
groves at all.
Aside from the issues of long term environmental planning and restoration in general, this
pollen reconstruction through time proved of immeasurable archaeological significance because
it provided chronologically and vertically controlled evidence that conflicted head on with long
held assumptions in archaeology about the limited sensitivity of the basin given its current wet-
lands and salt marsh conditions. In essence, and as detailed above, the basin was, as recently as
2,000 years ago, dominated by fresh water streams, mixed hardwood and pine forests, fresh
water floodplains, and extensive ridges and plateaus with dry levels, which clearly reflects a
prehistoric environment amenable to human occupation and exploitation.
5. The Computer Based Paleo-topographic Reconstruction
Alone, this data and the resulting time based model of environmental change was relevant
to issues of human ecology and environmental change, but, until recently, could not be in-
tegrated or related to any historic landscape reconstruction because of the lack of any reliable
data concerning the pre-marsh or "sub-marsh" topography prior to the transformation of the
drainage into an inundated saline tidal wetlands. This gap in available historic topographic data
was finally bridged as part of this project's computer analysis of the 1869 Cook/Bien map, which
was a detailed record of the depth of marsh sediments throughout the southern and central por-
tions of the drainage on both sides of the Hackensack River. As such, this data constituted the
first available evidence for projecting and reconstructing the topography of the basin beneath,
or before the formation of the ca. 6 to 24 foot deep marsh sediments. This river channel
reconstruction of the paleo-topography was assisted through the use of computer based map-
ping software which interpolated the depth readings as topographic elevations of the pre-marsh
environment (See Figures 5a and 5b).
This prehistoric topographic reconstruction was graphically rendered in plan as 2-D and 3-
D perspective elevation models, together with depth and rate projections of marine
transgressions or sea level rise, to correlate specific topographic contour lines with specific past
levels of rising shoreline over time. Based on the generally accepted "average" curve of sea level
rise for this portion of the Eastern United States, which suggests an average intrusion rate of 1
to 2 mm per year, or ca. 3 feet per 1,000 years, and the approximate correlation of 6 to 24 foot
marsh depth readings recorded on the 1869 Cook/Bien map, it was now possible to depict and
characterize the changing environment of the Hackensack drainage as evolving land forms and
habitats over the last 3,000 years (Oldale 1986).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 39
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
As depicted in the color coded, computer generated subsurface topography model (See
Figure 5a and Figure 5b), when these rates of sea level rise are applied to the documented
depth of marsh sediments, the resultant pre-marsh contour map can be interpolated as depicting
the relative elevation of sea level, or the high water line, for various periods within the last 3,000
years. For example, given the fact that the earliest radiocarbon determination for the base of
the marsh has been established at ca. 3 to 4.5 feet per 1,000 years, it becomes apparent that the
original shoreline at this time period was located some 9 to 12 feet below the current, or modern
high water line. As depicted by the depth-coded computer reconstruction, this significantly
lower high water line would have been associated with a radically different topographic and
landscape configuration for the basin, dominated by extensive areas of what was then dry land
above the 9 to 12 foot tidal line.
The resultant computer generated topographic reconstruction graphically illustrates that
the drainage was a radically different environment 2,000 to 3,000 years ago. Instead of vast wet-
lands interrupted by intrusions of small areas of high ground, the drainage was formerly
dominated in area by dry high ground, through which the Hackensack River drained, and
bounded by a restricted floodplain above Sawmill Creek, extending in width to 1/2 and 1 mile on
either side of the river channel. The west side of the valley was dominated by broad sloping
ridges covered by mixed hardwood forests, with fresh water adopted plants, interrupted by fresh
water tributaries. To the east, what became Snake Hill, was formerly (ca. 2,000 B.C.) a con-
tinuous ridge connected to Secaucus and high flat plateau of Hoboken. At the mouth of the
river opening to Newark bay, this pattern is replicated through the manifestation of what was
formerly a smaller, ca. 1 to 2 mile wide bay, bounded by floodplain or tidal marsh lands on the
sides, but distinguished by the former presence of extensive zones of high ground and dry land
to the west, extending some 2 miles inland of the Newark Bay. Thus, in contrast to the
predominance of inundated wetlands today within the basin, during the Archaic and Woodland
Periods of Native American cultural history covering the time frame of 2,000 to 3,000 years
before the present, the drainage was dominated by areas of high arable ground transected by
fresh water streams which flowed into the floodplain and channel of the Hackensack River
below.
6. Recommendations and Relevant Issues of Human Ecology and Environmental Change
The implication of this reconstruction is of immediate relevance for any effort to
reconstruct the potential archaeological or human ecological sensitivity of the modern wetlands
zones. Basically, instead of assuming that all wetlands areas were always marsh habitats, this
computer projection of the 1869 Cook/Bien field data permitted the scaled graphic evaluation
of each parcel, vis a vis current landfill conditions, accessibility, and industrial impacts relative
to past environmental conditions. Furthermore, this approach provided a second level basis for
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Mcadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 40
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
selecting a subset of the remaining 35 non-landfilled wetlands area parcels which held the
greatest potential for reconstructing the past environmental conditions and patterns of human
adaptation beneath the swamps today.
In this context, it is critical to distinguish that as initially proposed, this thematic approach
is not being used to form the basis for detailed archaeological investigations or excavations
within these now submerged and inundated wetlands area parcels. Instead, based on the
demonstrated significance of the core based and radiocarbon dated pollen samples, the recom-
mendation for selected additional sampling of selected Wetlands Mitigation/Creation parcels
will be based on their potential environmental and human ecological significance relative to the
limited state of knowledge concerning past environmental conditions and change within the
drainage. Thus, while selected study parcels are not being earmarked for the potential presence
of archaeological sites per se, it is recommended that a selected subset of these parcels require
paleo-environmental investigation and characterization prior to any mitigation or alteration im-
pacts to the marsh sediments. Based on this characterization of the prehistoric and
environmental significance of former dry land areas beneath the modern marshes, and based on
the pre selection of parcels not covered by landfill, this recommendation for environmental
studies provides the basis for highlighting a discrete number of specific parcels that would war-
rant or provide potential high integrity stratigraphic and pollen records for environmental
reconstruction. 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.
C. Archaeologically Sensitive Transportation Improvement Corridors (TIC)
The 35 proposed Transportation Improvement Corridors (See Figure 4) were evaluated
for potential prehistoric and historic archaeological sensitivity based on the framework
developed by the 1992 Grossman study. The ecologically based framework for identifying
potential prehistoric archaeological sensitivity and the map based computer correlations of his-
toric and modern map coverage rendered as a series of color coded overlays were utilized for
evaluating the potential historic archaeological sensitivity of the TICs.
Each TIC was evaluated relative to one of four general categories of potential ar-
chaeological sensitivity as determined by the 1992 composite archaeological sensitivity map: 1)
prehistoric; 2) historic; 3) prehistoric and historic; and 4) no identified cultural resources (no
data). Once identified and initially evaluated according to these four criteria, TIC specific
recommendations regarding further work were formulated (See Figure 4 and Table III).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 41
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
In contrast to the area specific coverage and evaluation of the PDA and Wetlands Mitiga-
tion/Creation parcels, the evaluation of the proposed Transportation Improvement Corridors
was approached differently due to the fact that many of the proposed impact corridors overlap
historic ones, and because of the extent and diversity of potential cultural resources for a sig-
nificant number of the 35 TICs. For these reasons, 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. While it was pos-
sible to preclude several areas of potential archaeological sensitivity within the transportation
corridors due to the lack of known or projected prehistoric or historic resources, given the fact
that the proposed TICs 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 TICs resulted in the identification in 2 localities for
potential prehistoric sensitivity, 10 areas because of potential historic sensitivity, and 14 which
suggested the potential for both prehistoric and historic sensitivity. These projections of poten-
tial archaeological sensitivity were based on either their proximity to known resources, or
because they were located close to or crossed previous stream courses which have been high-
lighted for their potential prehistoric sensitivity (Grossman 1992). As a result, out of the total
sample of 35 Transportation Improvement Corridors, it is herein recommended that, with the
exception of 2 parcels (TIC 34 and TIC 36) for which only a route specific Stage IA sensitivity
study be conducted, 20 cannot be precluded from having potential prehistoric or historic sen-
sitivity. As such, these 20 TIC parcels are, therefore, recommended for detailed, route specific,
Stage IA sensitivity evaluations (See Table III).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
Paeei
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Map References
ADR, Inc.
1992 Air Photo Series # 1-33; Stereo Rendered Contour Series # 1-33. State of New
Jersey Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission. Scale 1" = 200'
1992 Composite Air Photo. State of New Jersey. Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission. Scale 1" = 1000'
1985 Air Photo Series # 1-33; Stereo Rendered Contour Series # 1-33. State of New
Jersey Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commissioa Scale 1" = 200'
1985 Composite Air Photo. State of New Jersey. Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission. Scale 1" = 1000'
Anonymous
1827 Line of the Morris Canal New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Beers, F.W.
1872 Atlas of New Jersey. F.W. Beers and Co., Philadelphia.
Bergen County Mosquito Extermination Commission (BCMEC).
ca. 1913 Map of Riser District Including Wolf Swamp and Wood-Ridge Meadows
Scale 1" - 400'.
1921-1924 Map of Little Ferry Carlstadt Meadow Showing Tide Gates and Dikes.
Scale 1" = 500'. John P. Peterson, Superintendent
1924 Map of North Arlington Meadows, Bergen County, NJ. Showing Important Drainage
System Installed 1924.11D.
1924a Map of Carlstadt Little Ferry Meadow Showing Location of New Moonachie Tide. Gates
and Botcher's Creek Tide Gate, Installed 1924.9-D.
1934 Map of Riser Ditch Wood-Ridge Moonachie Hasbrouck Heights. E-l. Scale 1" - 400'.
John P Peterson, Superintendent.
1934a Tidal Marshes, Bergen County, NJ. E-3.1" -1800'. John P Peterson, Superintendent
1934b Drainage Ditches, Overpeck Meadow. 10D. Scale 1" -1800'. John P Peterson,
Superintendent.
1935 Section No. 3, Tidal Marshes, Bergen County, NJ. 17D. Scale 1M - 600'.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
find Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
Pageii
1941 Maps 1-12 of Hackensack River and Overpeck Creek Salt Water Marshland.
Scale 1" - 2000'. Federal Works Agency. WPA.
Bromley, G.W.
1913 Atlas of Bergen County New Jersey Vol.II. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Colton, G.W. and C.B. and Co.
1896 Road Map of Bergen County New Jersey. On file at the Map Division of the
New York Public Library.
Cook, George.
ca. 1869 Map of the Marshes on Newark Bay and the Passaic & Hackensack Rivers.
Annual Report of the State Geologist. Edward Bowser, Surveyor. Scale 2" = 1 mile.
Trenton, NJ. Julius Bien, Lithographer.
Corey, G.H.
1861 Map of the Counties of Bergen and Passaic, New Jersey. G.H. Corey, Philadelphia.
Erskine, Robert
1776 Lower half of an original survey done for his Excellency General Washington. On file
at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Fairchild Aerial Surveys
1963 Air Photo Series with Stereo Rendered Contours # 1-18, Hackensack Meadows,
New Jersey. U.S. Army Engineer District, NY Corps of Engineers, NY, NY.
Geological Survey of New Jersey
1877 Clay District of Middlesex County Showing Location of Beds of Stoneware Clay,
Kaolin and Fire Clay. Surveyed and drawn by J.K. Barton, C.E. Map on file, the
Alexander Library, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Gordon, Thomas
1828 Map of New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey Division of the Newark Public Library.
1836 Map of the Bergen Meadows with the Adjoining Country. (RAM 1989:20).
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission Map Archive.
1968 Air Photos Series (partial) Sheets BER-68-56; 58; 59; 60;62; 102. HMDC,
Lyndhurst, NJ
Hagstrom Co.
1943 Street and House Number Map of Hudson County New Jersey. On file at the Map
Division of the New York Public Library.
Hammond, C.S. and Co.
1927 New Map of Bergen County New Jersey. Compiled for the North Jersey Title Insurance
Company, Hackensack, N.J. On file at the Map Division of the New York Public
Library.
Grossman and Asssociatcs, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources References
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation Pee**-;;;
Hammond, D. Stanton
1947 Bergen Town and Township, 1660-1668.. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Hills, J.
1780 Plan of Road from Elizabeth Town Point to Elizabeth Town Showing Rebel Works Raised
for its Defense. On file, Alexander Library, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,
New Jersey.
1781 A Map of the Part of the Province of Jersey. Original in the Library of Congress.
Photostat on file at the New Jersey State Archives, Trenton.
1873 Combined Atlas of New Jersey and the County of Hudson. G.M. Hopkins, Philadelphia.
Historic Conservation and Interpretation Inc.
1978 Cultural Resources Base Map. In Hudson County Sewerage Authority 201 Wastewater
Facilities Planning - District I. Volume I - Facility Report, Appendix D Cultural
Resources - Survey of Designated Corridors, by Edward S. Rutsch, et al.
Hopkins, G. Morgan (compiler)
1854-1860 Topographical Map of the State of New Jersey. H.G. Bond, Publisher. On file,
Alexander Library, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
1861 Map of Bergen County New Jersey. On file at the Map Division of the New York
Public Library.
1909 Atlas of Hudson County New Jersey Vol.2. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Hughes, M. and J.
1867 Map From Palisades to Paterson, New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey Historical
Society.
Hyde, E.B.
1886^4 map of northern New Jersey.
Interstate Map Co.
1910 Map of Hudson County New Jersey.
Lewis, S.
1776 A Plan of the Northern Part of New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Lloyd, H.H. and Co.
1868 Forty Miles Around New York. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
McDowell, F.H.
187[?] Map Showing Lines Filed by... [Railroad Companies]... in Hudson Co. NJ.. On file
at the Map Division of the New York Public Library.
National Archives and Records Service, Cartographic Branch, Alexandria, Virginia
Record Group 23, LAMC, 853: East Jersey in America, 1650-1750
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources References
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation Page iv
Record Group 23, LAMC, 851: Chart of the Coast of New York I New Jersey, ca. 1780
Record Group 77, CWMF, 159: Bergen Neck, Hudson County [Canals series], 1879
Record Group 77, CWMF, R62: Examination of New Jersey Flats, 1881
Record Group 77, R136: West Shore of Upper New York Bay, 1891
Record Group 77, R135: Hackensack River, 1891
Record Group 77, CWMF, R119: Hackensack River Harbor Lines, 1908-1917 (nos. 2-15)
Record Group 23, LAMC, 853: Geological Survey of New Jersey, Elizabeth Sheet, 1912
Record Group 23, LAMC, 853: Geological Survey of New Jersey, Newark Sheet, 1914
Record Group 23, LAMC, 853: Geological Survey of New Jersey, Hackensack Sheet, 1914
National Archives and Records Service, Cartographic Branch, Alexandria, Virginia, Record
Group 373.
New Jersey State Department of Conservation & Economic Development. State
Planning Bureau.
1959 Elevations Above 10'in the Hackensack Meadowlands. Prepared for Meadowlands
Regional Development Agency.
1960 Geologic Formation of the Hackensack Meadowlands (Generalized). Scale 1" = 600'.
Prepared for Meadowlands Regional Development Agency.
New Jersey Tidelands Commission Map Archive.
ca. 1930 Air Photo Series (partial) NJ Tidelands Commission. Trenton, NJ.
Pease, C.C.
1876 Atlas of Bergen County, NJ. C.C. Pease. Reading, PA (in Gimigliano, et al. 1979).
Robinson, E. and Co.
1902 Map of Bergen County New Jersey.
Seller, John and William Fisher
1676-7 A Map of New Jersey in America. In Stokes 1915, Vol.1, Plate lib.
Spielmann and Brush
1881 Sanitary and Topographical Map of Hudson Co., NJ.. Hoboken, N J.: Speilmann
and Brush. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Sullivan, J.L.
1829 A Topographical Map to show... the relative location of the proposed Rail Road from
Paterson to the Hudson opposite the City of New York. On file at the New Jersey
Historical Society.
Turner, James
1747(?) Map No. II. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources References
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation Page v
United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (now U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service,
Rockville, Maryland)
1900 New Jersey-New York, Staten Island Quadrangle. Surveyed 1888-1889 and 1897.
1:62,500. Map on File, Cartographic Branch, National Archives, Alexandria,
Virginia.
1901 New Jersey, New Brunswick Quadrangle. Surveyed 1887, revised 1899.1:62,500.
Map on File, Cartographic Branch, National Archives, Alexandria.
1914 Passaic and Hackensack Rivers, Lower Part. 1:5,000 # T-3449
1914/1915 Hackensack River, 1:5,000. # T-3492
1915 Hackensack River, New Jersey. 1:5,000. # T-3491.
1962 Hackensack River, New Jersey Maps 1-5, Scale 1" = 800' (1:9,600). NAD 1927.
# T-12305-12309.
1963 North Arlington Landfill Map, #T-1230.
A Map showing the Route of a Canal Connecting the Tidewaters of the Delaware, with those of
the Raritan. Laid Out Pursuant to Instructions from the Commissioners Appointed by an Act of
Legislature, Passed Feb. 13,1816.
United States Coast Survey (USCS).
1836 Map of a Part of the State of New Jersey from Elizabeth Town to Newark, Scale
1:10,000. #T-10
nd Map of Part of the State of New Jersey Between Hackensack and Bergen (no scale).
# T-17, post 1836.
1839 From Hackensack to Newark and Elizabethtown, New Jersey. Scale 1" -10,000*.
# T-100. H. R. Hassler, Superintendent; J. A. Jenkins, Surveyor.
1811-191 ^English Creek. Reg. # 1398c. Hackensack and Passaic Rivers and Vicinity. Reg.
# 1398a. Scale 1" -10,000'. F. H. Gerdes, Surveyor. Carlile P. Patterson,
Superintendent.
U.S.G.S.
1981 Elizabeth Quadrangle. Reston, VA: U.S.G.S.
1981 Hackensack Quadrangle. Reston, VA: U.S.G.S.
1981 Jersey City Quadrangle. Reston, VA: U.S.G.S.
1981 Orange Quadrangle. Reston, VA: U.S.G.S.
1981 Weehawken Quadrangle. Reston, VA: U.S.G.S.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
References
Page vi
Vanderdonck, A.
1656 New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
1899 Jersey City Sheet. Geological Survey of New Jersey.
Vermeule, Cornelius C
1887-99 Geological Survey of New Jersey Series: Hackensack, Jersey City and Newark Sheets.
CC Vermeule, Topographer, John Smock, State Geologist
Grossman and Asssoaates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
Page vu
Documentary References
Alterman, Michael L., et al
1989 New Jersey Turnpike Widening Project, Cultural Resources Investigation, Interchange 11
to Southern Mixing Bowl Prepared for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.
Anderson, Matthew G. and Jill Cremer
r
1990 Historic Preservation Fund Survey and Planning Grant Activities ui New Jersey.
Trenton, NJ. Office of New Jersey Heritage.
Anonymous
1973 An Historical Consideration of Tidal Flow in the Hackensack Meadowlands
Prepared for the HMDC. July, 1973
Archaeological Survey Consultants, Inc.
1981 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Secaucus Housing Project, Secaucus,
Hudson County, New Jersey Montclair, NJ Archaeological Survey Consultants.
1982 A Phase LA Archaeological Survey of the Proposed 201 Step 1 Facility
Plan for the Borough of Wood- Ridge, New Jersey Montclair, NJ:
Archaeological Survey Consultants, Inc.
Artemel, Janice
1979 Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Northeast Corridor New Jersey.
Newton, NJ Cultural Resource Management Services, Inc. Prepared for
DeLeuw, Cather/Parsons
Barghoorn, E S
1953 Recent Changes m Sea Level along the New England Coast* New Archaeological
Evidence Science Volume 117 No 3048 pgs. 597-598, May 29,1953 Washington,
DC.
Bateman, Fred
1978 "The Marketable Surplus" m Northern Dairy Fanning: New Evidence by Size of Farm
m 1860. Agricultural History 52.345-363.
Berger, Louis and Assoc.
1984 A Phase IA Cultural Resource Reconnaissance for the Veterans Nursing Facility,
Paramus, New Jersey. East Orange, NJ: Louis Berger and Associates, Inc.
Bernabo, J.C, and Webb, T, EI
1977 Changing Patterns m the Holocene Pollen Record of Northeastern North America: A
Mapped Summary. Quaternary Research (Academic Press, New York) Volume 8
No. 1 pgs 64-96, July 1977
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
Page viii
Bloom, Arthur L.
1978 Geomorphology. A Systematic Analysis of Late Cenozioc Landforms. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bloom, A.L. and Stuiver, M.
1963 Submergence of the Connecticut Coast. Science Volume 139 No. 3552 pgs. 332-334,
January 25,1963. Washington, D.C.
Bodie, Debra C. and Patrick H. Garrow
1983 Assessment-Level and Reconnaissance-Level Review of the U. SArmy Corps of
Engineers Proposed Saddle River - Sprout Brook Flood Control Project, Bergen
County, New Jersey. Marietta, GA: Soil Systems, Inc.
Boylan, James
1979 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission's
Newark Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge Storage Facility. Report on file, Office of
New Jersey Heritage, Trenton.
Braun, D.P.
1974 Explanatory Models for the Evolution of Coastal Adaptation in Prehistoric New
England. American Antiquity Volume 39 No. 4 Pp. 582-596, October 1974.
Washington, D.C.
Britton, Nathaniel Lord.
1889 Catalogue of Plants Found in New Jersey. NJ Geological Survey, Final Report State
Geologist 642 p. (in Sipple 1972).
Britton, Nathaniel Lord and Hon. Addison Brown
1913 An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada. Volumes I-IH,
Reprinted 1970. Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY.
Brooks, John
1957 A Reporter at Large: The Meadows, Parts I and II. The New Yorker,
March 9,1957, pp. 98-104, and March 16,1957, pp. 108-114. New York.
Brush, Grace S.
n.d. Palynological Analyses of Borings From the Lyndhurst Site of the New Jersey
Meadowlands. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by
the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.
Brydon, Norman F.
1974 The Passaic River: Past, Present, Future. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
New Jersey.
Burnett, Louise Howes, Howard I. Durie, and Frederick W. Bogert
1966 Guide to the Documentary Collections of the Bergen County Historical Society. Bergen
County Historical Society, Hackensack, New Jersey.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
Pageix
Carmichael, D.P.
1980 A Record of Environmental Change During Recent Millennia in the Hackensack Tidal
Marsh, New Jersey. Torrey Botanical Club Bulletin
Volume 107(4):514-524, Oct.-Dec. 1980. Lancaster, Pa.
Chesler, Olga, ed.
1982 New Jersey's Archaeological Resources from the Paleo-Indian Period
to the Present: A Review of the Research Problems and Survey Priorities. Trenton:
Office of Cultural and Environmental Services, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.
Chittick, William F., et al.
1980 Preliminary Cultural Assessment for Proposed Widening of Route 1
and 9/Tonnelle Avenue Bergen and Hudson Counties New Jersey.
Clayton, Woodford W.
1882 History of Bergen and Passaic Counties. Philadelphia: Everts and Peck.
Coad, Oral S.
1972 New Jersey in Travelers'Accounts, 1524-1971: A Descriptive Bibliography. Scarecrow
Press, Metuchen, New Jersey.
Cunningham, John T.
1951 Railroading in New Jersey. The Associated Railroads of New Jersey.
1959a Monumental Meadows: Few Realize the Importance of 30,000 Acres of Wasteland
Lying in Shadow of the World's Greatest Metropolis. Newark Sunday News
Magazine, February 8,1959, pp. 5,22-25.
1959b Natural Wonderland: Progress Has Cost the Jersey Meadows Its White Cedar Forest,
but the Marshes Still Offer Assorted Game for Hunters, Many Birds and Flowers
for the Nature Lovers. Newark Sunday News Magazine, March 1,1959, pp. 20-23.
Dally, Joseph W.
1873 Woodbridge and Vicinity: The Story of a New Jersey Township. Reprinted 1967.
Hunterdon House, Madison, New Jersey.
DeLotto, Sister Doris
1973 An overview of the Hackensack Meadowlands from its Geological Beginning to the
Present. MA thesis, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri. Available at the New
Jersey Historical Society, Newark, New Jersey.
Drummond, James O.
1979 Transportation and the Shaping of the Physical Environment in an Urban Place: Newark
1820-1900. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources References
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation Page x
Dumont, E.
1979 Of Paradigms and Projectile Points: Two Perspectives on the Early Archaic in the
Northeast, Bulletin of the New York State Archaeological Association 74:38-52.
Flagg, Thomas
1994 Personal Communication
Federal Writers Project
1989 The WPA Guide to 1930's New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Fimbel, Deborah
1987 Investigation of the Outwater Family Cemetery, Washington Avenue, Borough of
Carlstadt, Bergen County, Technical Environmental Study Cultural Resource
Investigation. Prepared for the New Jersey Department of Transportation Bureau of
Environmental Analysis.
Fittipaldi, Janet
1983 Subsurface Cultural Resource Survey of Proposed Electric and
Telephone Lines at Von Steuben House River Edge, Bergen County. New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres Program.
Garfinkel, Alan P. and Bobby L. Lister
1983 Effects of High Embankment Cosntruction on Archaeological Materials. Transportation
Laboratory, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento.
Gaudeau, Denise C.
1988 The Distribution of Late Quaternary Forest Regions in the Northeast:
Pollen Data, Physiography, and the Prehistoric Record. In Holocene Human
Ecology in Northeastern North America, edited by George P. Nicholas. Plenum
Press, New York and London, i-p. 215-253.
Gifford, J.
1895 A Preliminary Report on the Forest Conditions of South Jersey. N. J. Geol. Survey,
Annual Report of the State Geologist, 41 p. (in Sipple 1972).
Gimigliano, Michael N. et al.
ca.1979An Archaeological Survey for the Erie-Lackawana Improvements Project. Newton,
NJ: Cultural Resource Management Services, Inc.
1979 A Stage IA Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Bergen County Utilities Authority
Composting and Incineration Facilities Bergen County, New Jersey. Newton, NJ:
Cultural Resource Management Services, Inc. Prepared for Clinton Bogert
Associates.
Goldman, Clifford A.
1975 Hackensack Meadowlands. M.A. thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.
Available at the New Jersey State Library, Trenton.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
Pagexi
Graham, John Patton
1982 Union County Historic Sites Inventory. Sponsored by the Union County Cultural and
Heritage Council and Office of Cultural and Environmental Services, Trenton, New
Jersey. On file, Office of New Jersey Heritage, Trenton.
Green, Martha
1976 The Hackensack Water Company: A National Reputation for Water Quality.
Meadowlands USA, July 4,1976, p.9.
Grossman, Joel W.
1992 Stage LA Archaeological and Historical Sensitivity Evaluation of the Hackensack
Meadowlands, New Jersey. Perpared for the hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission.
Grubb, Richard
1989 Stage IB Cultural Resource Survey Wood-Ridge Wastewater Treatment Plant Borough of
Wood-Ridge, Bergen County, New Jersey. Somerset, NJ: Richard Grubb and Assoc.,
Inc. Prepared for the Borough of Wood-Ridge c/o Neglia Engineering Assoc.
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
1970 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission,
Lyndhurst, New Jersey.
Harlow, William M.
1957 Trees of the EZastern and Central United States and Canada. Dover Publications, Inc.
New York, NY.
Harmon, Kathryn P. and John C.F. Tedrow, and the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion
1969 A Phytopedologic Study of the Hackensack Meadowlands. Unpublished report available
at the New Jersey State Library, Trenton.
Harrison, W., and Lyons, CJ.
1963 Sea Level and Crustal Movements along the New England Acadian Shore 4,500-3,000
B.P. Journal of Geology 71:96-108. No. 1.
Harshberger, John W.
1900 An Ecological Study of the New Jersey Strand Flora. Proceeding of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 20:623-671.
1909 The vegetation of the Salt Marshes and of the Salt and Fresh Water Ponds of Northern
Coastal New Jersey. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
61:373-400.
1916 The Origin and Vegetation of Salt Marsh Pools. American Philosophical Society
Proceedings 55:481-484.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
Pagexii
Harshberger, J.W. and V.G. Burns.
1919 The Vegetation of the Hackensack Marsh: A typical American Fen. Wagner Institute
of Science 9:1-35 (in Sipple 1972).
Headlee, Thomas J., and the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station
1915 The Mosquitoes of New Jersey and Their Control New Jersey Agricultural Experiment
Station, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Heusser, Calvin J.
1949 History of an Estuarine Bog at Secaucus New Jersey. Bulletin of Torrey Botannical
Club 76:385-406 (in Sipple 1972).
1963 Pollen Diagrams from Three Former Cedar Bogs in the Hackensack Tidal Marsh,
Northeastern New Jersey. Torrey Botanical Club, Bulletin Jan.-Feb., 1963,
90(1): 16-28. Lancaster, Pa.
Howard, W. Keene
1971 Postglacial Submergence and Salt Marsh Evolution in New Hampshire. Maritime
Sediments Volume 7:64-68, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Hydrographic Data General Drafting, Inc.
n.d. The Hackensack Valley in 1776. Bergen County Historical Society, North Hackensack,
New Jersey.
Kalm, Peter, Johann Reinhold Foster, Edith Marie Linnbea Carlborg, and Adolph B. Benson
1937 The America of1750: Peter Kalm's Travels in North America. Wilson Erickson, Inc.,
New York.
Kardas, Susan and Edward Larrabee
1975 Historic Survey of Proposed US Routes 1 and 9 Corridor in Hudson and Bergen Counties,
New Jersey Phase /.
1982 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of Hackensack River Tidal Barrier Hudson County,
New Jersey. Princeton, NJ: Historic Sites Research. Prepared for U.S. Army
Engineer District, NY
Kaye, C.A., and Barghoorn, E.S.
1964 Late Quaternary Sea-Level Changes and Crustal Rise at Boston, Massachusetts, with
Notes on Autocompaction of Peat. Geological Society of America Bulletin Feb.,
1964,75:63-80, Burlington, Vermont.
Kellogg, Douglas C.
1988 Problems in the Use of Sea-Level Data for Archaeological Reconstructions. In
Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, edited by George P.
Nicholas. Plenum Press, New York and London. Pp. 81-94.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
Pagcxiii
Koehler, Francis C.
1940 Three Hundred Years: The Story of the Hackensack Valley, Its Settlement and Growth.
Lew Biebigheiser, Chester, New Jersey.
Kraft, John C.
1977 Late Quaternary Paleogeographic Changes in the Coastal Environments
of Delaware, Middle Atlantic Bight, Related to Archaeologic Settings. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences 288:35-69.
Larrabee, Edward
1982 New Jersey's Cultural Resources: A.D. 1800-1865. In New Jersey's Archaeological
Resources from the Paleo-Indian Period to the Present, edited by Olga Chesler. Pp.
220-240. New Jersey Office of Environmental Services, Department of
Environmental Protection, Trenton.
Mathewson, Christopher C.
1988 Protection and Preservation of Archaeological Sites through Burial: A Multidiciplinary
Problem. Paer presented at the 1988 Society for Applied Anthropology Meeting.
Paper on file at the Center for Engineering Geosciences, Texas A & M University.
Mathewson, Christopher C. (editor)
1989 Interdiciplinary Workshop on the Physical- Chemical-Biological Processes Affecting
Archaeological Sites. Contract Reoprt EL-89-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg.
Mathewson, Christopher C. and Tania Gonzalez
1988 Protection and Preservation of Archaeological Sites through Burial. In, Engineering
Geology of Ancient Works, Monuments, and Historical Sites: Preservation and
Protection edited by Paul G. Marinos and George C. Koukis, pp. 519-526. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Mattson, Chester
1970 The Hackensack Meadowlands - An Ecological Perspective. Philadelphia, PA: Center
for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.
McCormick, Jack & Associates, Inc.
1978 Full Environmental Statement for the Proposed Meadowlands Area at the New Jersey
Sports Complex, Borough of East Rutherford, County of Bergen. Report prepared for
the New Jersey Sports Exposition Authority, by Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc.
McCormick, Richard P.
1981 New Jersey: From Colony to State, 1609-1789. New Jersey Historical Society, Newark.
Meyer, Ernest L., and P. Witzel
1862 Topographical Map of Union County. On file, New Jersey State Archives, Trenton.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
Pagcxiv
Miller, Robert M.
1968 Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Structural Development.
B.A. thesis, University of Virginia. Available at the New Jersey State Library,
Trenton.
Morrison, Charles C., Jr.
1961 The Hackensack Meadows - A Metropolitan Frontier. M.A. thesis, Columbia
University, New York.
Mortenson, Ray
1983 Meadowland Lustrum Press, New York.
Nelson William (editor)
1902 The New Jersey Coast in Three Centuries. Lewis Publishing Company, New York.
Newark Evening News
1914 "Reclamation has Progressed Well: Work on Newark-Elizabeth Meadows Already
Showing Results of City's Efforts," Newark Evening News, May 19,1914. Newark
Public Library, New Jersey Division, Clipping File (Meadowlands).
1940 Tales of Kearny Forest: Interest in Tree Stumps Revived as Engineers Uproot Them
in Meadows," Newark Evening News, March 29,1940. Newark Public Library, New
Jersey Division, Clipping File (Meadowlands).
New Jersey Commission to Study Meadowland Development
1965 Final Report of the New Jersey Commission to Study Meadowland Development.
New Jersey Turnpike Authority
1986 New Jersey Turnpike 1985-90 Widening, Technical Study Volume I:
Natural Resources.
1986 New Jersey Turnpike 1985-90 Widening, Technical Study Volume IV: Cultural Resources.
Nicholas, George P. (editor)
1988 Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America.. Plenum Press, New York
and London, 1988.
Nickens, Paul R. (editor)
1989Laboratory Experiments to Study the Effects of Compaction and Pressure on Ar-
tifacts in Archaeological Sites. In, Archaeological Sites Protection and Preservation Notebook:
Technical Notes Technical Report ASPPN n-5, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Ex-
periment Station, Vicksburg.
Office of New Jersey Heritage
1989 New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places as of December 31,1988. Trenton,
N J.: Office of New Jersey Heritage, Division of Parks and Forestry, Department of
Environmental Protection.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
Page xv
Oldale, R.N.
1985 Rapid Postglacial Shoreline Changes in the Western Gulf of Maine and the
Paleoindian Environment. American Antiquity Volume 50 No. 1 Pp. 145-150. Jan.,
1985. Washington, D.C.
1986 Late-Glacial and Postglacial Sea-Level History of New England: A Review of
Available Sea-Level Curves. Archaeology of Eastern North America Fall, 1986,
14:89-99. New York.
Research and Archaeological Management, Inc.
1989 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Hackensack Meadowlands District Hudson and
Bergen Counties, New Jersey. Lyndhurst, NJ.: RAM. Prepared for the Hackensack
Meadowlands Development Commission Comprehensive Master Plan Revision
Program.
Righter, Elizabeth
ca. 1978 Historical Background, Appendix XI. In Environmental Impact Statement on a
Multipurpose Development Proposed on a tract of land in North Bergen and Secaucus,
Hackensack Meadowlands District, Hudson County, New Jersey. Secaucus, N J.:
Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc.
Rutsch, Edward S. et al.
1978 Stage IA Cultural Resource Survey for the Hudson County Sewerage Authority 201
Wastewater Facility Plan - District I Jersey City, North Bergen, Secaucus, and Kearny.
Filed at ONJH in two parts: Appendix D Cultural Resources - Survey of
Designated Corridors; and Appendix C Cultural Resources - Social and Physical
Context. Newton, NJ: Historic Conservation and Interpretation, Inc. Prepared for
Havens and Emerson, Inc. and Hazen and Sawyer.
Salwen, Bert
1975 Postglacial Environments and Cultural Change in the Hudson River Basin. Man in the
Northeast Fall, 1975 Volume 10 Pp. 43-40. Institute for Northeastern Anthropology,
S.U.N.Y. at Albany, Albany, N.Y.
Schmid, J.A
1987 Atlantic White Cedar in the Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey, la Atlantic White
Cedar Wetlands Symposium, edited by Aimlee D. Laderman, pp. 315-322. Westview
Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Scholl, D.W., Craighead, F.C., and Stuiver, M.
1969 Florida Submergence Curve Revised: Its Relation to Coastal Sedimentation. Science
Volume 163, No. 3867, Pp. 562-564. Feb. 7,1969. Washington, D.C.
Scully, R.W. and Arnold, R.W.
1981 Holocene Alluvial Stratigraphy in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin,
New York. Quaternary Research Academic Press. May, 1981, Volume 15 No. 3, Pp.
327-344. New York.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
Page xvi
Shaw, William H.
1884 History of Essex and Hudson Counties, New Jersey. Philadelphia: Everts and Peck.
Sipple, William S.
1971-72 The Past and the Present Flora and Vegetation of the Hackensack Meadows
Bartonia No. 41:4-56.
Sirkin,L.
1982 In Kardas and Larrabee Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of Hackensack River Tidal
Barrier Hudson County, New Jersey. Princeton, NJ: Historic Sites Research.
Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, NY
Sloshberg, Willard
1975 "Archaeological survey of the area affected by the proposed new sewer lines in the
Town of Secaucus, New Jersey".
Snyder, John P.
1973 The Mapping of New Jersey: The Men and the Art. Rutgers University Press, New
Brunswick NJ.
Stanford, Scott D.
1989 Glacial Lake Levels and Drainage in the Hackensack and Lower Hudson Valleys, New
Jersey and New York. In Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America,
Northeastern Section, 24th Annual Meeting 21(2):68.
Stokes, I.N. Phelps
1915 The Iconography of Manhattan Island 1498-1909. Volume 1. New York: Robert H.
Dodd.
Studley, Miriam V.
1964 Historic New Jersey Through Visitors' Eyes. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company,
Inc.
Stuiver M., and Daddario, H J.
1963 Submergence of the New Jersey Coast. Science Volume 142 No. 3594, Pp. 951 Nov.
15,1963. Washington, D.C.
Thorbahn, Peter F., Cox, Deborah C.
1988 The Effect of Estuaiy Formation on Prehistoric Settlement in Southern Rhode Island,
in Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, edited by George P.
Nicholas. Pp. 167-180. Plenum Press, New York and London.
Thome, Robert M.
1989 Intentional Site Burial' A Technique to Protect against Natural and Mechanical Loss.
Archaeological Assistance Program Technical Brief No. 5, U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources References
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation Page xvii
1991 Site Stabilization Information Sources. Archaeological Assistance Program Technical
Brief No. 12, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Torrey, J. C. et al.
1819 A Catalogue of Plants Growing Spontaneously within thirty miles of the City of New
York. Websters & Skinners, N.Y. 100 p. (in Sipple 1972)
Van Valen, J.M.
1900 History of Bergen County, New Jersey. New York: New Jersey Publishing and Engraving
Co.
Van Winkle, Daniel, ed.
1924 History of the Municipalities of Hudson County, New Jersey, 1630-1923. New York:
Lewis Historical Publishing Co., Inc.
Vermeule, Cornelius C.
1896a Drainage of the Hackensack and Newark Tide Marshes. \n Annual Report of the New
Jersey Geological Survey for 1896. MacCrellish and Quigley, Trentoa
1896b Map of Hackensack Meadows to Illustrate Report on Drainage, la Annual Report of
the New Jersey Geological Survey for 1896. MacCrellish and Quigley, Trenton.
1897 Drainage of the Hackensack and Newark Tide Marshes. In Annual Report of the New
Jersey Geological Survey for 1897. MacCrellish and Quigley, Trenton.
1899 Report on Reclamation of Hackensack and Newark Meadows. In Annual Report of the
New Jersey Geological Survey for 1899. MacCrellish and Quigley, Trenton.
Waksman, S. A.
1942 The Peats of New Jersey and their Utilization. Part 1. Bulletin 55A, Geological
Service, NJ Department of Conservation and Development (in Sipple 1972).
Wall, John Patrick (editor)
1921 History of Middlesex County, New Jersey, 1664-1920. Lewis Publishing Co., New York.
Warren, George M.
1911 Tidal Marshes and Their Reclamation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
Weiss, Harry B., and Grace M. Weiss
1965 Some Early Industries of New Jersey: Cedar Mining, Tar, Pitch,
Turpentine, Salt Hay. New Jersey Agricultural Survey, Trenton.
Westervelt, Frances A.
1923 History of Bergen County, New Jersey, 1630-1923. Lewis Publishing Co., New York.
Wetherbee, Jean
1980 A Look at White Ironstone. Wallace-Homestead Book Company, Des Moines, Iowa.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation
References
PaRexviii
Widmer, Kemble and Daniel G. Parrillo
1959 Pre-Pleistocene Topography of the Hackensack Meadows, New Jersey. Geological
Society of America, Bulletin 70(12):2.
Winfield, Charles Hardenburg
1872 History of the Land Titles in Hudson County, New Jersey, 1609-1871. Wynkoop and
Hallenbeck, New York.
Wing, William G.
1960 Jersey's Unsung Meadows: The Pungent, Neglected Wasteland within Sight of
Manhattan Contains a Wealth of Interest to Nature Lovers. New York Herald
Tribune, July 3,1960.
Wolk, Ruth
1970 The History of Woodbridge, New Jersey. Woodbridge, New Jersey.
Wyatt, Charles
1983 City of Elizabeth Cultural Resource Survey, Peterstown, New Point Road, Keighry Head.
Charles Wyatt Associates.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Figure 6a. General view of PDA 5 looking southwest showing the boat launching ramp of Sky
Harbor Marina.
Figure 6b. Detail of an abandoned barge along the Hackensack River frontage of the Sky
Harbor Marina within PDA 5.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 7a. View looking northeast showing abandoned historic structures along Cedar Creek
Figure 7b. View looking north-northeast showing the meadowlands near Moonachie Creek
within PDA 5.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 8a. View looking northeast across the southern portion of PDA 11 showing the
presence of extensive fill, recommended for archaeological testing due to
Cromakill Creek.
Figure 8b. View from the same direction showing the partially landfilled PDA 11 parcel.
Grossman and Associates, Inc.July 1994
-------
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 9b. View looking east along the southwest corner of PDA c showing a riprap wall and
landfill to the east of, but not on, the parcel.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 10a. View looking west across the north side of PDA f-East showing modern landfill
activities.
Figure 10b. View looking north across PDA f-East, showing the exposed partially disturbed
and partially landfilled zone recommended for archaeological evaluation along
Berry's Creek.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 11a. View looking east across the Hackensack River at the base of Snake Hill within
PDA 14.
Figure lib. View looking southwest within PDA 14 (Snake Hill) showing deep rock quarry
activities within the zone of former 19th century asylum and school structures.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 12. View looking northwest along the Hackensack River bordering Snake Hill within
PDA 14.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 13. View looking southeast at a surviving smoke stack and structural remains of the post
1932 Secaucus Hospital for Contagious Diseases within PDA 14.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 14. View looking southwest along the east bank of the Hackensack River showing
shoreline areas of possible prehistoric and historic sensitivity.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 15a. View looking northeast across PDA q showing survey crew members standing next
to cut stone elements, with an ill defined pond in the background.
Figure 15b. Close up view of the shoreline of the pond within PDA q.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 16a. General view of PDA q showing the reconnaissance team standing next to exposed
cut stone blocks or footers.
Figure 16b. Detail of a rectangular cut stone footer suggesting the possible historic sensitivity
of PDA q.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 17a. View looking northeast across PDA ar showing partially disturbed and landfilled
sections at the end of Capitol Street.
Figure 17b. View looking across PDA ar showing the zone of possible archaeological sensitivity
along the western bank of Losen Slofe Creek bordering the parcel.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 18a. View looking southwest along Secaucus Road from the northwest corner of
PDA as showing the area of potential archaeological sensitivity due to the
presence of both Penhorn Creek and historic land use evidence.
Figure 18b. View looking east along the disturbed western boundary of parcel PDA as near
Penhorn Creek.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 19a. General view of the 18th and 19th century Outwater Cemetery illustrating the
potential historic sensitivity of the Washington Avenue corridor.
- L
wj
k^fTOMAS FRANSEN OUDEVVATER V;J|
"R WFWAIRANIF AB'T 1662 ' 1
¦
w
,r;.
¦V ;B.N*EWALBAN!E AB'T. I662
D.M.7.1753. BD.HERE
MrYNTJE JANSEN BRESTEDE. his wife i
DJCH. CH.FEB.2f.1666 # , j
~ " " ¦ n /*«ir
*•4*
-)S.
Figure 19b. Detail of a modern commemorative tombstone within Outwater Cemetery showing
mid 18th century use of the cemetery.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Figure 20a View of 3 partially stabilized 18th century shale tombstones from the era of the
American Revolution within Outwater Cemetei7.
Figure 20b. Detail of inscribed 1770 tombstone within Outwater Cemetery confirming the clear
potential presence of 18th century remains within the area and along the
Washington Avenue corridor.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
APPENDIX I
PDAs and WAs Selected
for Further Work
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 5 Development Category:
County; Bergen
Municipality; Carlstadt, E. Rutherford
Size; 31 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Hybrid Planning Area
Local Designation; Driving range, marina
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
¦—- 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
^0ta' jJLj 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Partial I—I 4 Both (2 and 3):
Locatlon 5 Struct Doc.:
~
~
~
~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: X Upland: | X | Confluence: | X | River/Stream Bank: X Knoll: [ X | Other, confluence at S end
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: X No Data: j | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric I Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partia!ly disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
5
Date/Period
ca. 1839
Source
uses 1839
Comments
Paterson Plank Rd. bridge
Location
W-central
Eitent (*/•)
n/a
D P U N R
~~~~m
3
ca. 1839
USCS 1839
Paterson Plank Rd.
W-central
10%
~~~Em
4
19th. C
RAM 1989
hotels along Paterson Plank Rd. at bridge
E side of P.P. Rd
n/a
~ ~~ECU
10
ca. 1915
USC AGS 1915
docks on river E & W of bridge
S along Hackensack R.
10%
1 II II II X 11 2 J
10
ca. 1915
USC AGS 1915
old bridge abutments?
W-central
n/a
~ ~~SEE
4
ca 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
5 boat houses E of Patereson Plank Rd
E-central
10%
~ ~~~~
4
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
3 to 5 other structures E of Paterson Plank Rd.
E-central
10%
~scorn
4
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
3 structures W of Paterson Plank Rd. near Cedar Creek
SW corner
10%
~ ~~~~CO
7
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
"new tide gate"- single box at "Botcher's Creek"
E border
n/a
~ ~~00
8
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
dike partway along Hackensack R. to "Botcher's Creek"
SE owner
20%
1 II llxll II 2 1
2
prehistoric
G ft A 1992
Cedar Creek/Hackensack R. confluence
SW corner
10%
~~~~~
5
ca. 1935
BCMEC 1935
Paterson Plank Rd. bridge
W central
n/a
1 X II II II 11 2 |
See Next Page for Disturbances
Impact None: | | Partial: fx] Total: i~H|
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by.
NAS/VO
Date: 6/17/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Pared ID: PDA 5 (Cant)
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
8
ditched marsh
use AGS 1915
ditched W to "Boss's Creek", E to Cedar Creek
all
90%
8
diked & ditched marsh
BCMEC 1921-1924
diked & ditched to "Botcher's Creek", E of Paterson Plank Rd.
E
30%
1
road construction
BCMEC 1921-1924
"Boatliouse Rd" E of Paterson Plank Rd.
E
10%
9
bridge removed post 1935
BCMEC 1941:4
Paterson Plank Rd. bridge down
W-central
n/a
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:4
ditched E to "Boetches Creek", W to Cedar Creek
all
100%
9
marina complex
USC & GS 1962:4
docks cm E side of Paterson Plank Rd. on Hackensack River.
E
10%
3
structures
USC AGS 1962:4
six structures in association w/marina
E
30%
4
cut/fill in progress
airphoto 1963:8
SE 9.5'- 10'elev
SE
10%
9
Transco pipeline on fill
airphoto 1963:8
runs E-W through N half
n/a
10%
9
Transco substation? facility
airphoto 1963:8
fenced off on W side of Paterson Plank Rd.
W
10%
3
structures
airphoto 1963:8
3 structures on W at Cedar Creek
W
10%
9
marina complex
airphoto 1963:8
E side-structures/parking
E
30 %
1
1-9S construction
airphoto 1968:58
N of parcel
N
n/a
4
cut/fill in progress
airphoto 1968:58
E portion of parcel
E
10%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1968:58
E&W
n/a
30%
9
driving range
airphoto 1992:15
with one struct re central & W portion
W & central
20%
9
Sky Harbor Marina
airphoto 1992:15
6 associated structures/parking lots
E
40%
I
Paterson Plank Rd. rerouted
airphoto 1992:15
1-95 overpass loop t\ £. E of original route
N
n/a
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
forcd *D § Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality Carlstadt/E.Rutherford County Bergen
BWRoll 4 Frames 27-37 Color Roll 4,7 Frames 25-36
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Brick basement of house is filled with water. Eastern portion of parcel is marsh/swamp. Large fill pile at west. Tall marsh grass.
Restaurant has a collection of larger nautical artifacts on the grounds (life boats, binnacles, etc.) Foroer Patterson Plank Rd. in parcel.
Grossman A Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 5 Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: Carlstadt/E.Rutherford County: Bergen
BW Roll: 4 Frames 27-37 Color Roll: 4,7 Frames 25-36
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID:
County;
Municipality:
Size: 51.7 (acres)
PDA 11 S Development Category:
Hybrid Planning Area
Hudson
Secaucus
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation: Adjacent to Ilarz mountain
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
Total fx]
Partial
Location
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | | Upland:
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: M
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
X Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: | | Other: along east side
odera Sanitary: | | Infoimal Dumping: (^] No Data: [~^] Notes: 80% landfill - west
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
19th C
Source
G & A 1992
Vermeule 1887
Comments
both banks Cromakill Creek
Location
N, NE corner
Paterson Plank Rd.
S border
Extent (*/•)
60%
n/a
~
~
~
B
~
D P U N R
~ ~~~~
~ ~~~~
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
4
Description
fill in progress
Source
USC & GS 1962:4
Comments
Location
"area being filled'
W
Extent (*/•)
80 %
9
transmission line
USC & GS 1962:4
above ground with access road, adjacent to Cromakill Creek
E
20%
4
fill in progress
airphoto 1963:7
crossed by dirt roads, 2.6'- 4 4' elev
W
90%
9
transmission line
air photo 1963:7
fill adjacent to corridor
E
10%
4
fill
airphoto 1968:59
spotty vegetation
all
100%
4
fill
air photo 1985
spotty vegetation
all
100%
4
fill changes
airphoto 1992:22
"pile" at SW comer, 4.1-11.6' elev
all
90%
1
road construction
air photo 1992:22
west border
W
10%
3
structure
air photo 1992:22
structure on Paterson Plank Rd with parking
SE
n/a
9
transmision line
air photo 1992:22
above ground 2nd corridor
E
n/a
7
industrial complex
air photo 1992:22
large complexes to W & S
W, S
n/a
Impact
None: | | Partial:
X
Total: 1 i
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994 | Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 6,'22/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 11 South Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Secaucus County Hudson
BW Roll 7 Frames 8-10 Color Roll 7 Frames 8-10
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Fenced in area on south half appears dry, filled and/or graded? Chain link fence along east border separating it from industrial b'Hgs
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 11 South Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7 Frames 8-10 Color Roll: 7 Frames 8-10
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 14 Development Category: Hybrid Planning Area
County; Hudson
Municipality. Secaucus
Size: 152 (acres) GAI Field Map: 4
Local Designation: Snake Hill (Laurel Hill)
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work: I 1
1—. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 1
^ota' LJ 3 Presence/Absence Testing: | |
Partial ® 4 Both (2 and 3): [T]
Ix)Cation IRtnrtDoc- ~
L LANDFORM
Resource
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: [ X [ Upland: [ X [ Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X [ Knoll: | X | Other volcanic intrusion
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: I I Modem Sanitary: I I Informal Dumping: I I No Data: I I Notes: quarried
(Source: CDM J994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
D P
U N R
1
prehistoric
HCI1978 NJH2
reported site and stray finds
not known
n/a
1 II 1
~ ~~~~
4
1863 almshouse
HCI1978 #13
Hudson Co central area
highground-central
n/a
|x || |
~~ra
4
1870 penitentiary
HCI 1978 #13
Hudson Co. W central
highground-W central
n/a
~~~
1 II II 4 |
4
1873 asylum
HCI 1978 #13
insane asylum NE central
highground-NE central
n/a
!ZO
1 SI II 4 !
A
by 1910 new almsh
IMCO 1910
Hudson Co. NW central
highground-NW central
n/a
sa
~ ~CD
A
by 1910 school
IMCO 1910
SG of almshouse: E omtral
highground-E central
n/a
1 X 11 1
~~m
6
"Mounclair RR"
USCS 1871-1874
RR being built 1871
SW boundary
n/a
1 II 1
sam
A
ca. 1874 structures
USCS1871-1874
6 structures in vicinity of almshouse
central
n/a
1X II I
1 II II 4 |
9
ca. 1874 farmland?
USCS 1871-1874
shows cultivated? fields
E portion
n/a
1X II I
~~m
9
ca. 1915 Hudson C
USC A GS 1915
numerous scattered buildings
center
n/a
En
~ ~D3
4
1932 Secaucus hosp
USC &GS 1962:3
hospital for contagious diseases
SE central
n/a
1 X II I
~~m
4
pre-1950 structures
RiRhter 1978
includes 2 churches, fire station, storage, cair.ps
nfa
n/a
IX II I
~~m
9
ca. 1915 docks
USC AGS 1915
docks/landings along Hackensack R.
W
n/a
~ca
~~GD
See Next Page for Disturbances
I Impact None: | | Partial: |x ] Total:
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 14 (Cont)
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
3
structure? in marsh
air photo 1963:5
elev 19.1'
N
>10 %
4
pond? wet area
airphoto 1963:5
5.8' elev
SE comer
>10%
9
quarry operation
air photo 1968:62
with associated docks & structures
S & central
50%
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 1968:62
roads & structures along river
NW
10%
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 1968:62
roads/structures between County Road and 1-95
SE
10%
1
road construction on fill
air photo 1968:62
across ditched marsh to river landing
N
10%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1968:62
N-S & E-W ditches
N
20%
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 1985:27
scattered "piles" 10'- 25' elev
N
50%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1985:27
average elev in marsh 4.3'-10'
N
n/a
3
structures
airphoto 1985:27
scattered amid "piles"
N central
20%
3
structures/complex?
air photo 1985:27
two large, 3 small within triple fence
SE
10%
9
quarry operation
air photo 1985:27
Snake Hill remnant 177.6' elev along 1-95
SW
20%
9
foundation?
air photo 1985:27
at river edge-possible penitentiary?
W central
n/a
9
foundations?
airphoto 1985:27
possible remains of 20th. C buildings
central
n/a
0
no additional changes
air photo 1992:26
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 14 Date Visited 5/24/94 Municipality Secaucus County Hudson
BWRoll 8 Frames 2,23-36 Color Roll 8 Frames 3,23-36
or fillfd to the present level. Jagged slopes and rockfall. Salt marsh in the extreme northen part of parcel. Some former waterside landings.
Phimtwy of contagious disease hospital standing, no other discernable patterns of bldg. footprints. Informal dumping and/or debris.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 14 Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
BW Roll: 8 Frames 2,23-36 Color Roil: 8 Frames 3,23-36
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 40
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
selecting a subset of the remaining 35 non-landfilled wetlands area parcels which held the
greatest potential for reconstructing the past environmental conditions and patterns of human
adaptation beneath the swamps today.
In this context, it is critical to distinguish that as initially proposed, this thematic approach
is not being used to form the basis for detailed archaeological investigations or excavations
within these now submerged and inundated wetlands area parcels. Instead, based on the
demonstrated significance of the core based and radiocarbon dated pollen samples, the recom-
mendation for selected additional sampling of selected Wetlands Mitigation/Creation parcels
will be based on their potential environmental and human ecological significance relative to the
limited state of knowledge concerning past environmental conditions and change within the
drainage. Thus, while selected study parcels are not being earmarked for the potential presence
of archaeological sites per se, it is recommended that a selected subset of these parcels require
paleo-environmental investigation and characterization prior to any mitigation or alteration im-
pacts to the marsh sediments. Based on this characterization of the prehistoric and
environmental significance of former dry land areas beneath the modern marshes, and based on
the pre selection of parcels not covered by landfill, this recommendation for environmental
studies provides the basis for highlighting a discrete number of specific parcels that would war-
rant or provide potential high integrity stratigraphic and pollen records for environmental
reconstruction. 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.
C. Archaeologically Sensitive Transportation Improvement Corridors (TIC)
The 35 proposed Transportation Improvement Corridors (See Figure 4) were evaluated
for potential prehistoric and historic archaeological sensitivity based on the framework
developed by the 1992 Grossman study. The ecologically based framework for identifying
potential prehistoric archaeological sensitivity and the map based computer correlations of his-
toric and modern map coverage rendered as a series of color coded overlays were utilized for
evaluating the potential historic archaeological sensitivity of the TTCs.
Each TIC was evaluated relative to one of four general categories of potential ar-
chaeological sensitivity as determined by the 1992 composite archaeological sensitivity map: 1)
prehistoric; 2) historic; 3) prehistoric and historic; and 4) no identified cultural resources (no
data). Once identified and initially evaluated according to these four criteria, TIC specific
recommendations regarding further work were formulated (See Figure 4 and Table III).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resourses Page 41
and Areas of Recommented Additional Investigation
In contrast to the area specific coverage and evaluation of the PDA and Wetlands Mitiga-
tion/Creation parcels, the evaluation of the proposed Transportation Improvement Corridors
was approached differently due to the fact that many of the proposed impact corridors overlap
historic ones, and because of the extent and diversity of potential cultural resources for a sig-
nificant number of the 35 TICs. For these reasons, 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. While it was pos-
sible to preclude several areas of potential archaeological sensitivity within the transportation
corridors due to the lack of known or projected prehistoric or historic resources, given the fact
that the proposed TICs 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 TICs resulted in the identification in 2 localities for
potential prehistoric sensitivity, 10 areas because of potential historic sensitivity, and 14 which
suggested the potential for both prehistoric and historic sensitivity. These projections of poten-
tial archaeological sensitivity were based on either their proximity to known resources, or
because they were located close to or crossed previous stream courses which have been high-
lighted for their potential prehistoric sensitivity (Grossman 1992). As a result, out of the total
sample of 35 Transportation Improvement Corridors, it is herein recommended that, with the
exception of 2 parcels (TIC 34 and TIC 36) for which only a route specific Stage IA sensitivity
study be conducted, 20 cannot be precluded from having potential prehistoric or historic sen-
sitivity. As such, these 20 TIC parcels are, therefore, recommended for detailed, route specific,
Stage IA sensitivity evaluations (See Table III).
Grossman and Associates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources References
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation Pagei
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Map References
ADR, Inc.
1992 Air Photo Series # 1-33; Stereo Rendered Contour Series # 1-33. State of New
Jersey Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission. Scale 1" = 200'
1992 Composite Air Photo. State of New Jersey. Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission. Scale 1" = 1000'
1985 Air Photo Series # 1-33; Stereo Rendered Contour Series # 1-33. State of New
Jersey Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission. Scale 1" = 200'
1985 Composite Air Photo. State of New Jersey. Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission. Scale 1" = 1000'
Anonymous
1827 Line of the Morris Canal New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Beers, F.W.
1872 Atlas of New Jersey. F.W. Beers and Co., Philadelphia.
Bergen County Mosquito Extermination Commission (BCMEC).
ca. 1913 Map of Riser District Including Wolf Swamp and Wood-Ridge Meadows
Scale 1" ¦ 400'.
1921-1924 Map of Little Ferry Carlstadt Meadow Showing Tide Gates and Dikes.
Scale 1" = 500'. John P. Peterson, Superintendent
1924 Map of North Arlington Meadows, Bergen County, NJ. Showing Important Drainage
System Installed 1924. 11D.
1924a Map of Carlstadt Little Ferry Meadow Showing Location of New Moonachie Tide. Gates
and Botcher's Creek Tide Gate, Installed 1924. 9-D.
1934 Map of Riser Ditch Wood-Ridge Moonachie Hasbrouck Heights. E-l. Scale 1" - 400'.
John P Peterson, Superintendent.
1934a Tidal Marshes, Bergen County, NJ. E-3.1" -1800'. John P Peterson, Superintendent
1934b Drainage Ditches, Overpeck Meadow. 10D. Scale 1M -1800'. John P Peterson,
Superintendent
1935 Section No. 3, Tidal Marshes, Bergen County, NJ. 17D. Scale 1" - 600'.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Identified Cultural Resources References
and Areas of Recommended Additional Investigation Papc ii
1941 Maps 1-12 of Hackensack River and Overpeck Creek Salt Water Marshland.
Scale 1" - 2000'. Federal Works Agency. WPA.
Bromley, G.W.
1913 Atlas of Bergen County New Jersey Vol.II. On file at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Colton, G.W. and C.B. and Co.
1896 Road Map of Bergen County New Jersey. On file at the Map Division of the
New York Public Library.
Cook, George.
ca. 1869 Map of the Marshes on Newark Bay and the Passaic & Hackensack Rivers.
Annual Report of the State Geologist. Edward Bowser, Surveyor. Scale 2" = 1 mil*
Trenton, NJ. Julius Bien, Lithographer.
Corey, G.H.
1861 Map of the Counties of Bergen and Passaic, New Jersey. G.H. Corey, Philadelphia.
Erskine, Robert
1776 Lower half of an original survey done for his Excellency General Washington. On file
at the New Jersey Historical Society.
Fairchild Aerial Surveys
1963 Air Photo Series with Stereo Rendered Contours # 1-18, Hackensack Meadows,
New Jersey. U.S. Army Engineer District, NY Corps of Engineers, NY, NY.
Geological Survey of New Jersey
1877 Clay District of Middlesex County Showing Location of Beds of Stoneware Clay,
Kaolin and Fire Clay. Surveyed and drawn by J.KL Barton, C.E. Map on file, the
Alexander Library, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Gordon, Thomas
1828 Map of New Jersey. On file at the New Jersey Division of the Newark Public Library.
1836 Map of the Bergen Meadows with the Adjoining Country. (RAM 1989:20).
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission Map Archivie.
1968 Air Photos Series (partial) Sheets BER-68-56; 58; 59; 60;62; 102. HMDC,
Lyndhurst, NJ
Hagstrom Co.
1943 Street and House Number Map of Hudson County New Jersey. On file at the Map
Division of the New York Public library.
Hammond, C.S. and Co.
1927 New Map of Bergen County New Jersey. Compiled for the North Jersey Title Insurance
Company, Hackensack, N J. On file at the Map Division of the New York Public
Library.
Grossman and Asssociates, Inc. January, 1995
-------
Hackeasack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDAc Development Category:
County. Bergen
Municipality. Caristadt
Size: 9.7 (acres) GAI Field Map;
Satellite Area
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
0
Total
Partial
Location
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
~
E
~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: ( | Upland: [ X [ Confluence: QJ River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: [ X | Other fast land
i Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: | ] Infonnal Dumping: [ | No Data: [x] Notes: plowed fields
(Source: CDM 1994 daU)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
ca. 1839
ca. 1861
Source
airphoto 1963:11
Comments
fast land, knoll
Location
SG comer
USCS 1839
Washington Ave houses
E boundary
Hopkins 1861
Washington Ave houses
E boundary
Extent (*/•)
10%
n/a
n/a
D P U N
~~~[
~~cue
R
IE
IE
IE
in DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 C0f«*fncticn 2 R R- Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distort. Description
3 structure
Source
airphoto 1963:11
structure on kno'l
Comments Location
SE comer
Extent (•/.)
10%
9 plowed fields
air photo 1963:11
rest of parcel
n/a
90%
9 plowed fields/structure
airphoto 1968:S6
fields and structure
all
100%
9 plowed fields/structure
airphoto 1992:9
fields and structure
aU
100%
Impact None: [x] Partial: I I Total: Cj
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by. NAS/GJM/MG Date: 6/13M
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID c Date Visited 5/16/94 Municipality Carlstadt County Bergen
BWRoli 1 Frames 20-25 Color Roll 1 Frames 9-14
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Rip-rap lined drainagetrench in SW comer and south boundaty. Rubble and debris at the west boundary.
No major distuitance.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackcnsack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID: c Date Visited: 5/16/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County: Bergen
BWRoll: 1 Fnunei 20-25 Color Roll: 1 Frames 9-14
Street Name*:
-------
Hackensack Meadowtands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA f E Development Category:
County: Bergen
Municipality: Carlstadt
Size: 9.11 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Satellite Area
Local Designation: east of large warehouse and access Rd.
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
I—- 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
U 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
Partial
Location
a
5 Struct Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh:
Upland: [^j Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: Knoll: Qj] Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | X | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: _X No Data: [ ] Notes: landfill - SE corner, site clearing in progress
(Source: CDM 1994 daU)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G&A 1992
Comment!
Berry's Creek/Eight Day swamp
Location
E section
Extent (V.)
40%
D P U
~ EC
JL
~
~
E
~
~
N
R
m
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (*/•)
8 ditched/drained? marsh BCMEC map post 1913 'ditch and fast land* all 100 %
8
ditched/drained? marsh
airphoto 1963:12
ditched
all
100%
4
fill changes
airphoto 198S
disturbed
SE, NW
40%
8
ditched/channelized marsh
airphoto 198S
channel/ditch in east half
n/a
40%
8
ditched/drained/channelized
airphoto 1992:3
E-W drainage ditches, 1 N-S
central
50%
4
fill changes
airphoto 1992:3
•pile of dirt" 1.7 elev.
NW section
25%
Impact None: I I Partial: fx"! Total: 1 j Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID f East Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality Carlsladt County Bergen
BW Roll 6 Franw-s 1-10 Color Roll 6 Frames 4-9
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
West side has bulldteer/dump truck piles with plastic sheeting (retention barrier) and informal dumping.
Hitachi backhoc on parcel - west center, grading/filling in progress.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Ilackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: f East Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County: Bergen
BWRoll: 6 Frames 1-10 Color Roll: 6 Frames 4-9
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA q Development Category
County: Bergen
Municipality: Carlrtadt
Size: 3.1 (acres) GAI Field Map.
Local Designation;
Satellite Area
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
E
~
Total
Partial
Location
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
~
~
~
E
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | X | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | ) Other fast land W border
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: [ | Modern Sanitary.) | Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | X | Notes: non-tidal marsh (BCMEC 1921:4)
(Souroe.COM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Urulistuibed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
D P
U N R
9
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
"farmland"
adjacent
n/a
~EE
10
ca 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
"meadow not affected by tide"
adjacent
n/a
~ ~C
~DlIS
10
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
"Leive's woods"
adjacent
n/a
~nc
DEB
4
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
"hold" corner of Patcson Plank Rd and Rt 20
in vicinity of parcel
n/a
II X II 4 1
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
I Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
8
Desert ptio*
ditched/drained/filled? marsh
Source
air photo ca. 1930:97
Com meats
dense vegetation-ionner cedar swamp (Vermeule 1887)
Location
E
Extent (•/•)
90 %
8
ditched/drained/filled? marsh
BCMEC map 1941
former cedar swamp (Vermeule 1887)
E
90%
4
filled marsh
USC ft GS map 1962:1
"high ground"
all
100%
4
filled marsh, chained?
air photo 1963:8
spotty vegetation to north & east
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1968:56
spotty vegetation
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1985
trees/dense vegetation
all
100%
4
pond
airphoto 1992:9
pond surrounded by vegetation
center
40%
Impact None: Q Partial:
Total:
rq
Grossman and Associates. Inc. July 1994
Prepared by. NAS/GJM Date: 6/2/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID g Date Visited 5/16/94 Municipality Carlstadt County Bergen
BWRoll 1 Frames 1-19 Color Roll 1 Frames 1-8
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Cut stone footers? on grass southeast of pond, and @ 5' square with concrete.
Three (3) outcrops with waterwom edges.
Cntssmn A Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackcnsack Mcadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: q Date Visited: 5/16/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County: Bergen
BWRoU: 1 Frames 1-19 Color Roll: 1 Frames 1-8
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA ar Development Category:
County: Bergen
Municipality: Moonachie
Size: 14.9 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Satellite Area
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
,—. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
LJ 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Partial
Location
~
0
~
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: [x] Upland: [x] Confluence: Q River/Stream Bank: [Tj Knoll:
Landfill Statui Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modern Sanitary. I I Informal Dumping: | | No Data: X
(Source: CDM 1994 daU)
Other
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Notes: some possible All
D CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G & A 1992
Comments
along banks of Losen Slofe
Location
all
Extent (%)
100%
D P U N
R
lE
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
'1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Di*tart>.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
9
high ground and marsh
uses 1839
high ground to W - marsh to E
all
100%
8
10* ditches
BCMEC 1921-1924
installed by state 1915 - 1916
N half
50%
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:5
rest of E border marsh
N half
50%
9
property fenceline
BCMEC 1941:5
Kresge property fence - W border
Shalf
n/a
1
road construction
USC & GS 1962.2
along high ground - W border
S half
10%
8
diked marsh
airphoto 1963:11
E border (Losen Slofe) 7.0' - 7.8' elev
N half
50%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:11
E border (Losen Slofe) 0-2.0' eiev
Shalf
50 %
9
Transco gas pipeline
air photo 1963:11
along 1962 road? high ground
Shalf
10 %
8
diked and/or ditched
air photo 1968:56
vegetation
ail
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1985
vegetation
s
50 %
7
industrial complex
air photo 1985
adjacent and approx. half of N half
NW
25 "o
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1992:5
along E border (Losen Slofe"
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaiuation Form
Parcel ID ar Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Moonachie County Bergen
BWRoil 6 Frames 25-28 Color Roll 6 Frames 25-28
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes: Access from commercial/industrial complex's streets to west Full ditch in northern half, heavy equipment disturbance/tracks on both sides.
Test well heads, vegetation covered piles - fill?, marshy areas.
Commercial/industrial complexes to south and west
Grossman ft Associates, Inc.
-------
llackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: ar Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Moonachie County: Bergen
BW Roll: 6 Frames 25-28 Color Roll: 6 Frames 25-28
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
COM Parcel ID: PDA as Development Category.
County: Hudson
Municipality: Jersey City
Size: 81.5 (acres) GA1 Field Map:
Satellite Area
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
m
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
~
~
~
n
r
L LANDFORM
Knoll: | | Other.
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank:
l status Pre-1970 Solid: (X | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: | X ] No Data: | | Notes: landfill - east corner
(Sowck CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric I Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gale, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Paitially disturbed
U-Undisturbed
N-No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
Source
Oft A1992
Comments
banks of Penhorn Creek
Location
W-central
Extent (%)
60%
9
17-18 th. C
Hammond 1947
lot divisions
all
100%
3
18-19thC
Venneute 1887
two roads across N half
N
20%
D P U N R
~mans
~ ~~ECS
~ ~~ECS
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
I Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
8
Description
ditched marsh
Source
DSC ft OS 1962:4
Comments
E-W ditches, extensive to S
Location
all
Extent (*/.)
100%
4
fill in progress
air photo 1963:4
6.(f- 18.2'elev riles of fill
NE
25%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:4
large ditch E-W in approx center
central
10%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:4
E-W ditches, meand-r scar 1.2' - 3.0" elev
all
50%
9
transmission line ft towers
air photo 1963:4
along E boundary
E
10%
4
art/fill changes
airphoto 1968:59
heavily disturbed, Penhom Creek ft NE quadrant
WftNE
60%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1968:59
extensively ditched S third
S
30%
1
road construction
air photo 1968:59
E border-S third
E
10%
1
road construction
air photo 1985
road along E border to Secaucus Rd.
E
10%
4
cut/fill
airphoto 1985
heavily disturbed NE quadrant
NE
30%
7
industrial complex
air photo 1985
large structures/parking lots
E&SW
n/a
4
cut/flll changes
airphoto 1992:27
NE: 2. T-13.1* elev, NW: 2 4 - 4.4' elev
NE&NW
25 %
8
ditched
airphoto 1992:27
E-W ditches, scattered ponds, dense vegetation
n/a
75 %
9
double transmission line routes
airphoto 1992:27
substation also on east boundary
E
10%
Impact None: | 1 Partial: j X1 Total: 1 |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date 6/15/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
S3 Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Jersey City County Hudson
BWRpU 7 Frame? 25-26,32-33 Color Roll 7 Frames 25-26,32-33
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
East - vegetation covered bulldozer/dump truck piles of fill.
South is open marshland with piles of fill.
Grossman A Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Mcadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: a* Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Jersey City
BW Roll: 7 Frames 25-26,32-33 Color Roll: 7 Frames 25-26,32-33
County: Hudson
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadow-lands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-6-a W Development Category. Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
County: Bergen
Recommended Study Coverage j n„ further Woric:
Municipality: E. Rutherford, Lyndhurst
Total
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
R
Partial
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
~
~
Size: 90.8 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Location
4 Both (2 and 3):
Local Designation:
Pollen Core
X
S Struct Doc.:
u
L LANDFORM
Resource
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: Q Confluence: [x] River/Stream Bank [x] Knoll: Q Other
Landflll Stalui Pre-1970 Solid ] X | Modem Sanitary: [ | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | | Notes: 10%N-central
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source Comments
G St, A 1992 W bank Hackensack R/Benys creek
Location
center
Extent (*/•)
40%
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroycd
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P U N
~SDC
R
]ED
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 1992:20
scattered ponds 0-3.1' elev
S
60%
4
nil changes
AirPhoto 1992:20
scattered piles adjacent to 1-95,4.3-11.2' elev
N&W
20%
2
RR on embankment
Air Photo 1992 (mosaic)
ConRail corridor 10,-30* elev
N&E
20%
4
landfill operation
Air Photo 1992 (mosaic)
out parcel in N half
N
n/a
j Impact Wane (~~1 Partial: fxl Total: /f
Oionniao and Asaoatia, lac. My 1994
j Prepaid by. NAS Date 7/6/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 24-» (nest) Date Visited Municipality County
BW Roll Fiames Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes:
Grossman ft Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 2-6-* (wes Date Visited: Municipality: County:
BWRoU: Francs Color Roll: Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Pared ID: WA2-C E Development Category.
Wetland Mitigation
County;
Municipality:
Size 3.8 (acres)
Local Designatkm:
Bergen
Ridgefield
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
Partial
Location
Pollen Core
1 No Further Work; J^]
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: |
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.: j
L LANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: j | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: | | Other
Laadlill Status Pre-1970 Solid j | Modem Sanitary. { | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source; CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric I Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
E>= Destroyed
Impartially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Rcsowte
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
19th. C
Source Comments
G& A 1992 E bonk of Hackensack River
Location
H
Venneule 1887
dike-E bank of Hackensack River
N-central
Extent (%)
70%
20%
D P U N R
~~~~~CD
~~~sm
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERLAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (•/•)
8 dike/embankment Air Photo 1992:5 between RR and river 10*-19.4' elev N half - 10%
4
cut/fill changes
Air Photo 1992:5
filled mat ;h 3^-4.3' elev
N half
30%
4
ditched marsh
Air Photo 1992:5
ditches/dense vegetation 0.7-3.8" elev
S half
60%
Impact None: ~ Partial: I I Total: flT| Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS
Date: 7/7/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 2-c (cast) Date Visited Municipality County
BW Roll Frames Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Gntnm&Amcbkg.Iac.
-------
Ilackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 2-c (east) Date Visited: Municipality: County:
BW Roll: Frames Color Roll: Frames
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-Q Development Category:
County: Hudson
Municipality: Secaucus
Size: 120 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage i Further Work:
Total jxl 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial 1 [ 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core [x] 5 Stnict. Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Laadform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: | ] Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: | | Other:
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | X | Modem Sanitary: | | Infonnal Dumping | | No Data: | | Notes: 5%toNW
(Source: COM 1994 d«U)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
11 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
ca. 1840
Source
G&A1992
Veimeule 1887
Comments
both banks of Mill Creek/Hackensack River
ca. 1840*5 mill in vicinity
Location
n/a
n/a
Extent (%)
95%
n/a
B
S
D P U N R
~ ~~00
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
1
Description
I-9S construction
Source
AirPhoto 1992:16
Comments
on embankment east boundary
Location
E border
Extent (*/•)
10%
8
ditched
AirPhoto 1992:16
N-S ditch on W boundary
W border
10%
8
ditched marsh
Air Photo 1992:19
inc tributary of Mill Creek
n/a
80%
4
fill piles
AirPhoto 1992:19
avoids fenced in fill to N
toN
n/a
impact Nooe Q fartkt jx] Totak' f~|.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July ] 994
Prepared by:
NAS
Drier 7/S/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 2-q Date Visited Municipality County
BWRolI Frampc Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes:
Grossman A Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 2-q Date Visited: Municipality: County:
BW Roll: Frames Color Roll: Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-UW Development Category:
County: Bergen
Municipality: E. Rutherford, Caristadt
Size: 3S.8 (acres) GAI Fidd Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
Partial
Location East Central Area
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work: |
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: _]
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3): [x]
5 Struct Doc.: ~H
LLANDFORM
Laadform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | X | River/Stream Bank [ X [ Knoll: | [ Otlier: Blackmans/Cedar/Bashers Creeks
Landfill Statu Pre-1970 Solid | [ Modern Sanitary: [ 1 Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Paitially disturbed
U=Undistuibed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (•/•) D P U N R
2 prehistoric G&A1992 Cedar Cr/Hackensack R.; Daslies Creek/I lack en sack R center, NE 60% 1 11 X || II 11 4 {
3 19th. C Vermeule 1887 Pateraon Plank Rd, old route E central 10% I 11x11 II II 4 |
111 DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cul/CH Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtarh. Description Soarce Comment* Location Extent (*/.)
9 shoreline modification AirPhoto 1992:15 parcel from waterline to 0* contour N A central 25%
9
pipeline corridor
AirPhoto 1992:15
on embankment 8.9* elev
Wborder
>10%
8
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 1992:14
dense vegetation 3.1-3.6' elev
Shaif
60%
1
Route 3 construction
AirPhoto 1992:14
remnant Blackman's creek 3.6' elev
S border
>10%
Impact None: 1 I Partial: 1x1 Total: I j Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 2-u (west) Date Visited Municipality County
BW RoH Frames Color Roll' Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Onxraf A Amodakt, Inc.
-------
Hackcnsack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel 10: 2-u (west) Date Visited: Municipality: County:
BW Roll: Francs Color Roll: Frames
Street Namm:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
]
CDM Parcel ID: WA 3-1-a Development Category:
County. Hudson
Municipality; Secaucus
Size: 120 (acres) GAI Field Map'.
Local Designation:
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage , No Further Work:
Total ~ 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial 1 1 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location _ 4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core IY I 5 Struct. Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landfona Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: ) | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | X [ Knoll: | | Other former cedar swamp NE quadrant, 30%
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modern Sanitary: | 1 Informal Dumping | | No Data: [ X [ Notes: fill to W
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period
2 prehistoric
Source Comments
G &, A 1992 both banks of Penhom Creek
Location
W
Eitent (*/•)
40%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
B
U N
~mtzom
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity [
Distort*.
8
Description
ditched marsh
RR corridor
Source
AirPhoto 1992:27
Air Photo 1992:27
Comments
2 large ditches N-S, dense vegetation
Location
all
ConRail on embankment
S border
Extent (%)
100%
n/a
Impart None: Q Partial: [g Total: Pj
Grossman and Associates, be. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date:
7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel IP 3-1-a Date Visited Municipality County
BW Roll Frames Color Roll Frames
Notes:
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Jlacfcensack Mcadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
'"• 3-1-a Date Visited: Municipality: County:
BW Roll: Franca Color Roll: Frames
Streal Namaa:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 33-A Development Category;
County; Bergen/Hudson
Municipality: Ridgefteld, N Bergen
Size; 13.4 (acres) GAI Field Map;
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
Partial
Location
Pollen Core
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X ( Upland; | ( Confluence: | } River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: | j Other patches of dense vegetation
i Mrffiii Statu Pre-1970 Solid | j Modem Sanitary. | [ Informal Dumping [ J No Data: [ Xj Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994
-------
llackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID: 33-a Date Visited:
BW Roll: Frames
Municipality:
Color Roll: Frames
County:
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 33-a Date Visited Municipality County
BWRoil Fram^< Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes:
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity and Impact Evaluation
Volume II
Appendix II
Sensitivity Evaluation Forms: PDA's, WA's.
Sensitivity Evaluation Table: TIC's
Prepared for:
CDM
Raritan Plaza 1, Raritan Center.
Edison, NJ. 08818,
Prepared by:
Grossman and Associates, Inc.
201 East 16th Street, 6th. Floor
New York, NY 10003
January 27,1995.
-------
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
SENsrnviTy evaluation forms
PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE!
HYBRID PLANNING AREAS.
Grossman and Associates, lac
-------
Figure 1. Project Base Map showing the location of all PDAs with their HMDC alpha-numeric designations, and PDAs with
potential archaeological sensitivity filled in gray.
Orouman and Associate*, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 1 Development Category.
County; Bergen
Municipality. Carlstadt, E Rutherford
Size: 40 (acres) GA1 Field Map:
Local Designation:
Hybrid Planning Area
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
^ota* — 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Partial I—I 4 Both (2 and 3):
Location 5 Struct Doc.:
E
~
~
~
~
LLANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: X Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | [ Knoll: | j Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: [x] Modern Sanitary: | | Infonnal Dumping: [ X J No Data: | | Notes: Pre-1970 Landfill SE comer
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
r
D CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric I Known, 2 Environmental/other
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/¦)
D P
U N
R
6
19th. C
Vermeule 1887
railroad-W
Wboundary
n/a
~ ~[
II x
1 1 1
7
ca. 1941
BCMEC 1941:4
tidegate at NE corner
NE
10%
~ EC
II
hi
3
19th. C
Vermeule 1887
Paterson Plank Road
E-W
@10%
~ CM
II
hi
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
5
suburban streets/blocks
BCMEC 1941:4
N of Paterson Plank Rd.
NW corner
20%
I
dirt roads
BCMEC 1941:4
N-S from Paterson Plank Rd. to Broad St ; N border
N
10%
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:4
S of Paterson PU nk Rd.
S
30%
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:4
w/24' culverts N of Paterson Plank Rd.
NE
40%
9
garbage dump
BCMEC 1941:4
adjacent across dirt road/ditch to N
N
n/a
4
fill?
USC AGS 1962:1
1941 ditched marsh ik w "high ground"
NE
40%
4
fill?
USC AGS 1962:1
1941 ditched marsh now "high ground"
S
40%
5
suburban streets/blocks
airphoto 1963:12
N of Paterson Plank Rd.
NW corner
20%
7
industrial development
air photo 1963:12
structures/parking lots/roads
NE
30%
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 1963:12
includes ditched areas N of structures
NE
10%
7
industrial development
air photo 1963:9
S of Paterson Plank Rd.
S
40%
1
rood construction
air photo 1985
Route 17 clover leaf/ramp
sw
20%
7
industrial development
airphoto 1983
structures/parking/roads
all
80%
7
industrial development
air photo 1992:3
dense vegetation NE of structures
all
80%
Impact
None: [ J Partial: [ | Total: | X |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS
Date: 6/16/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID I Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality Carlstadt/E.Rutherford County Bergen
BW Roll Frames Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Mixed Industrial/Suburban Modes
Warehouses/Office Buildings/Parking Lots/ RR tracks and spur lines
Few scattered open spaces within blocks
Grossman A Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 1 Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: Cartstadt/E. Rutherford County: Bergen
BW Roll Frames Color Roll Frames Video Disk Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 2 Development Category;
County;
Municipality;
Size: 7 . (acres)
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hybrid Planning Area
Secaucus
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation; Pistol A Rifle Assoc. firing range
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' N° Further Work;
j 2 Sensitivity Evaluation;
^ota' LJ 3 Prcscnce/Absencc Testing;
4 Both (2 and 3);
5 Struct Doc.;
E
~
Partial
Location
~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: X_ Upland: Confluence: | X | River/Stream Bank: _X_ Knoll: [^] Other
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid:
(Souroe: CDM 1994 data)
Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: No Data: | [ Notes: 90% landfill
r
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
1 Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
Source
Comments
Location
all
Extent (%)
100%
U N
4
ca. 1840 HMI1978
not known
n/a
n/a 1 ! 1 j [
zism
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
jl Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Diltarb.
8
Description
ditched marsh
Source
USC A GS 1962:4
Comment*
WAS portions of parcel
Location
WAS
Extent (*/•)
50%
3
structures
USC A GS 1962:4
near Mil! Creek on higher? ground
NE
40%
1
road construction
USC A GS 1962:4
through marsh from SW
sw
10%
9
dock & breakwater
USC A GS 1962:4
on Hackensack K-vei at NE comer
NE
n/a
9
docks
USC AGS 1962:4
W bonk Mill Creek on E boundary
E
n/a
4
fill in progress
airphoto 1963:8
W - 4.5*- 9.2* elev, SE I i 2* elev
WASE
50%
1
road construction
air photo 1963:8
1962 road now goes to W bank of Mill Creek
E
20%
3
additional structures
air photo 1963:8
both sides of road NE quadrant
NE
30%
9
firing range
air photo 1968:58
fenced enclosure
NW
25%
1
rood construction
air photo 1968:58
to and around firing range
n/a
10 %
9
docks, dry dock-marina
air photo 1968:58
recreation vans, boats
N, NE, E
65%
3
three structures
air photo 1992:16
firing range
NV//S
30%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1992:16
53 - 516 elev throughout
n/a
100%
9
docks and breakwater
air photo 1992:16
on Hackensack River to N & ME
N A NE
n/a
9
docks and slip
airphoto 1992:16
west bank Mill creek E boundary
E
10%
T -. - a
JDMNKX
None: [J Partial: [J Total: [x|
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/V0 Dtte:
6/16/94 1
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID 2 Date Visited 5/23/94 Miinicipalitv Secaucus County Hudson
BWRoll 7 Frames 16-17 Color Roll 7 Frames 16-17
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
building appears on earlier air photos.
Grossman A Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 2 Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7 Frames 16-17 Color Roll: 7 Frames 16-17
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 3 Development Category: Hybrid Planning Area
County: Bergen
Municipality: Carlstadt
Size: 166 (acres) GAI Field Map: 2
Local Designation:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 N° Further Work. 1 X j
.—. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 j
^0ta' LJ 3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 |
Partial LJ 4 Both (2 and 3): [ !
100811011 5 Struct. Doc.: ~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: j X | Upland: QJ Confluence: | X | River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: | | Other confluence at SW comer
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: | | No Data: [xj Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G4A1992
Comments
Moonachie creek
Location
SW comer
Extent (*/•)
10%
D
SI
U
N R
~ CD
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ca. 1915-1916 ditches
BCMEC 1921-1924
extensive N-S ft E-W ditching
all
70%
8
ca. 1921 dike through center
BCMEC 1921-1924
E-W through parcel between lobes
central
10%
8
ca. 1921 ditch through center
BCMEC 1921-1924
E-W through parcel between lobes
central
10%
4
cut/fill changes by 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
Moonachie creek-rechanneled
S
n/a
9
"high meadow"
BCMEC 1921-1924
high meadow drained by tidal streams
E
10%
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1924 a
extensively ditched except extreme E
all
100%
8
proposed 1924 new dike
BCMEC 1924 a
to run N-S through center
n/a
n/a
9
levee built
BCMEC 1941:5
at Hackensack River-E boundary
E
10%
8
ditched/diked marsh
BCMEC 1941:5
all of parcel except extreme E
all
90%
4
cut/fill changes
USC ftGS 1962:2
ditches w1 "spoil banks"
n/a
20%
8
ditched marsh
USC ft GS 1962:2
"area drained by levees ft tide gates"
all
100%
8
levee along Hackensack River
USC ft GS 19622
levee costructed on W bank of river
E
20%
4
Transco pipeline-fill
airphoto 1963:11
cuts through E lobe on 3'-7.8' fill
E
10%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:11
whole parcel except pipeline
all
90%
8
diked/ditched marsh
air photo 1992:10
whole parcel
all
100%
Impact
None: 1 1 Partial: | 1 Total: X |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM
Date: 6/16/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 3 Pate Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Carlstadt County Bergen
BWRoll 6 Frames 20,21,23 Color Roll 6 Frames 20-22
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Large open marshlands
Access limited to modern roads to north.
Informal dumping noted at north, off road and parallel to ditch.
Grossman ft Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 3 Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County: Bergen
BW Roll 6 Frames 20,21,23 Color Roll 6 Frames 20-22 Video Disk Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 4 Development Category:
Hybrid Planning Area
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
s
County: Bergen
Recommended Study Coverage
1 No Further Work:
Municipality: Caristadt
Total
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Size: 124 (acres) GAI Field Map
2
Partial
H
Local Designation:
Location
~
L LANDFORM
Resource
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | j Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: | [ Other creek at E comer
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | X | Modem Sanitary | | Informal Dumping: [ | No Data: | | Notes: HMDC says no fill when tested
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G&A1992
Comments
Moonachie creek W bank
Location
NE
Extent (%) D P U N
10% ~~[~~~
R
m
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
9
ca. 1916 double gate A sluice way built
BCMEC 1921-1924
on Moonackie creek in N portion
N
10%
9
ca. 1924 double gate A sluice way removed
BCMEC 1921-1924
"removed 1924" from N portion
N
10%
4
ca. 1924 Moonackie Creek rechanneled
BCMEC 1921-1924
new channel Iran former gate to NW
NW
10%
8
ca. 1915-1916 ditched marsh
BCMEC 1921-1924
E-W ditches entire east half
E
40%
9
"Love's Woods*
BCMEC 1921-1924
"Meadow not affected by tide"
W
40%
8
1920 ditch installed
BCMEC 1921-1924
N-S ditch through Leive's Woods
W
40%
8
ditched maid)
BCMEC 1924a
extensively E-W ditched
E
60%
"" 8
ditched "woods"
BCMEC 1924a
N-S ditches through "woods*
N&W
40%
8
proposed ditch
BCMEC 1924a
N-S through center
center
10%
8
ditched/drained marsh
BCMEC 1941:5
extensively ditched A diked
all
100%
4
ditched marsh
USC A GS 1962:2
large ditches w/"spoil banks"
n/a
20%
8
ditched/drained marsh
USC A GS 1962:2
"this area drained by levees A tide gates"
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:8
ditched marsh:-1.(7- +2.0" elev
all
100%
8
ditched/drained? marsh
air photo 1992:9
possible drained? 0.4'- 1.7 elev
all
100%
Impact None: j j Partial: ( | Total: X
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 6/16/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 4 Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality Caristadt County Bergen
BW Roll 5,6 Frames 1-4,18-19 Color Roll 5,6 Frames 1-5,18-19
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Access from north end of Meadow St behind industrial complexes.
Access from southeast at corner of parcel behind industrial complexes.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 4 Date Visited: - 5/20/94 Municipality: Caiistadt County: Bergen
BW Roll 5,6 Frames 1-4,18-19 Color Roll 5,6 Frames 1-5,18-19 Video Disk Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID:
PDA 5 Development Category:
Hybrid Planning Area
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
~
~
~
fxl
County:
Bergen
Recommended Study Coverage
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
Municipality:
Carlstadt, E. Rutherford
Total
E
Size: 31 (acres) GAI Field Map:
2
Partial
~
Local Designation:
Driving range, marina
Location
5 Struct Doc.:
~
L LANDFORM
Resource
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | X | Confluence: | X | River/Stream Bank:
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid:} | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: X No Data: | [ Notes:
(Source CDM 1994 data)
X Knoll: | X | Other confluence at S end
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=PartiaIly disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
D P
u
N R
5
ca. 1839
uses 1839
Paterson Plank Rd. bridge
W-central
n/a
[*]~
1
II a 1
3
ca. 1839
USCS 1839
Paterson Plank Rd.
W-central
10%
1 II 1
1
X || 2 |
4
19th. C
RAM 1989
hotels along Paterson Plank Rd. at bridge
EsideofPP.Rd.
n/a
1 II 1
1
XILiJ
10
ca. 1915
USC AGS 1915
docks on river E & W of bridge
S along Hackensack R.
10%
1 II 1
1
X || 2 |
10
ca. 1915
USC AGS 1915
old bridge abutments?
W-central
n/a
1 II 1
1
X || 2 |
4
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
5 boat houses E of Patereson Plank Rd.
E-central
10%
1 II x |
1
II 4 |
4
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
3 to 5 other structures E of Paterson Plank Rd.
E-central
10%
1 It * |
1
II 4 |
4
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
3 structures W of Paterson Plank Rd. near Cedar Creek
SW comer
10%
~ ~
x I
II 2 1
7
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
"new tide gate"- single box at "Botcher's Creek"
E border
n/a
1 II 1
1
X || 2 |
8
ca 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
dike partway along Hackensack R. to "Botcher's Creek"
SE comer
20%
1 II 1
x 1
men
2
prehistoric
G&A1992
Cedar Creek/Hackensack R. confluence
SW comer
10%
1 II X 1
II 4 |
5
ca. 1935
BCMEC 1935
Paterson Plank Rd. bridge
W central
n/a
[ZO
H
- II 2 |
*.
See Next Page for Disturbances
Impact None: {^] Partial: X
Total:
ED
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/VO Date: 6/17/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 5 (Cont)
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Comdor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh
USC &GS 1915
ditched W to "Boss's Creek", E to Cedar Creek
all
90%
8
diked & ditched marsh
BCMEC 1921-1924
diked & ditched to "Botcher's Creek", E of Paterson Plank Rd.
E
30%
1
road construction
BCMEC 1921-1924
"Boathouse Rd" E of Paterson Plank Rd.
E
10%
9
bridge removed post 1935
BCMEC 1941:4
Paterson Plank Rd. bridge down
W-central
n/a
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:4
ditched E to "Boetches Creek", W to Cedar Creek
all
100%
9
marina complex
USC AGS 1962:4
docks on E side of Paterson Plank Rd. on Hackensack River.
E
10%
3
structures
USC & GS 1962:4
six structures in association w/marina
E
30%
4
cut/fill in progress
airphoto 1963:8
SE 9.5- 10" elev
SE
10%
9
Transco pipeline on fill
air photo 1963:8
runs E-W through N half
n/a
10%
9
Transco substation? facility
airphoto 1963:8
fenced off on W side of Paterson Plank Rd.
W
10%
3
structures
airphoto 1963:8
3 structures on W at Cedar Creek
W
10%
9
marina complex
airphoto 1963:8
E side-structures/parking
E
30 %
1
I-9S construction
air photo 1968:58
N of parcel
N
n/a
4
cut/fill in pi ogress
air photo 1968:58
E portion of parcel
E
10%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1968:58
E & W
n/a
30%
9
driving range
airphoto 1992:15
with one structure central & W portion
W & central
20%
9
Sty Harbor Marina
airphoto 1992:15
6 associated structures/parking lots
E
40%
1
Paterson Plank Rd. rerouted
airphoto 1992:15
1-95 overpass loop N & E of original route
N
n/a
Gramum and Anociata, lac. July 1994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 5 Pate Visited 5/20/94 Municipality Carlstadt/E.Rutherford County Bergen
BW RdII 4 Frames 27-37 Color Roll 4,7 Frames 25-36
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes:
House, driving range, marina, restaurant (W-E). Abandoned structures (1 house and 1 garage) at west. Gas line in parcel?
Brick fcwen«ent of house is filled with water. Eastern portion of parcel is marsh/swamp. Large fill pile at west Tall marsh grass.
Restaurant has a collection of larger nautical artifacts on the grounds (life boats, binnacles, etc.) Fomer Patterson Plank Rd in parcel.
Grossman A Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 5 Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: Carlstadt/E.Rulherford County: Bergen
BW Roll: 4 Frames 27-37 Color Roll: 4,7 Frames 25-36
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 6 Development Category:
County; Bergen
Municipality; E. Rutherford
Size: 12 (acres) GAI Field Map:
I lybrid Planning Area
Local Designation: Brandon Byrne parking lot
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Furiher Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
3 Struct Doc.:
E
~
~
~
~
[
LLANDPORM
Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: [ | Other, cedar swamp NW
Landform Tidal Marsh:
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid; I X I Modem Sanitary. I I Informal Dumping: I I No Data: I I Notes: S 60% landfill
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric ¦ Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undistuibed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
ca. 1941
Source
Gft A 1992
BCMEC 1941:3
Comments
tributary to Hackensack River
Location
S portion
tide gate at ditch at old Rt 3
near SW comer
Extent (*/•)
10%
n/a
D P U N R
~En am
~~~Ed]
IU DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1935
large E-W ditch across parcel
central
20%
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:3
large E-W ditches, 1 parallel to Rt 3
all
100%
3
structure
USC ft GS 1962:3
structure/parking on "high ground"
NW corner
25%
8
ditched/channelized? marsh
USC ft GS 1962:3
to NE, S rest of parcel
all
75%
4
(ill in progress
air photo 1963:8
6-1' elev to N; 20.5' elev in center
all
80%
I
road construction/widening
air photo 1963:8
Rt. 20 widening; new E-W Rt 3 interchange
W border
10%
3
structure
air photo 1963:8
large structure with parking
NWcomer
10%
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 1968:58
heavily disturbed-most of parcel
n/a
10%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1968:58
ditched marsh; ditch may be S of parcel
S
20%
3
structure
airphoto 1968:58
structure within cut/fill zone
NW
10%
9
parking area
air photo 1985
no structure, no ditch
all
100%
9
parking lot
airphoto 1992:14
graded?, fenced in, 9.0" elev
all
100%
•
Impact
None: [ j Partial: [ _"]
Total: IT]
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 6/20/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 6 Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality E.Rutherford County Bergen
BWRoll 4 Frames 24-26 Color Roll 4 Frames 22-24
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Already impacted.
Grossman St Associates, Inc.
-------
Parcel ID:
BW Roll
Street Names:
Date Visited:
Frames 24-26
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
5/20/94 Municipality: E.Rutherford County:
Color Roll 4 Frames 22-24
Video Disk
Bergen
Frames
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 7 E Development Category;
Hybrid Planning Area
County:
Municipality:
Size: S.6
Bergen
E. Rutherford
(acres)
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation: Former Peter Pan Motel
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total |
Partial |
Location
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landform Tjdal Marsh: | | Upland: [ ( Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | | Other undefined; cedar swamp NW
Landfill Statu Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: | | No Data* | X | Notes:
(Source: COM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric I Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D^Destroyed
P=Partialiy disturbed
U=Undisturtoed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
D P
~c=
U N
~nr~;
R
n
UI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex g Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1934a
N-S ditches
all
100%
1
road construction
BCMEC 1941:3
new E-W Route 3 under construction
N
n/a
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:3
large E-W ditch across parcel
central
20%
3
structures
airphoto 1963:8
2 large structures w/parking
NE & W
50%
4
filled/drained? marsh
airphoto 1963:8
open area
central
50%
1
road construction
airphoto 1985
W&Sborders
WftS
10%
3
additional structure
airphoto 1985
NE corner W of large structure
NE
10%
9
structure removed
airphoto 1992:14
fence remaining-open at Route 3
W
25%
9
"ruins"
air photo 1992:14
larger structure remaining
NE comer
25%
4
cut/Till charges
air photo 1992:14
"piles" in central area 6.1- 9.5* eler
central
50%
4
industrial complex
airphoto 1992:14
to W- structures, to S-parking
n/a
n/a
Impact None: Partial: [ | Total: X
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/20/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 7 East Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality E.Rutherford County Bergen
BW Roll 4,6 Frames 20-23,14-17 Color Roll 4,6 Frames 18-21,14-17
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Grassy area with patches of marsh vegetation.
Road crews already working on Rt. 3, north boundary - transportation improvement?
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 7E Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: E.Rutherford County: Bergen
BW Roll 4,6 Frames 20-23,14-17 Color Roll 4,6 Frames 18-21,14-17 Video Disk Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 7 N Development Category: Hybrid Planning Area
County: Bergen
Municipality: E. Rutherford
Size 46.8 (acres) GAI Field Map: 3
Local Designation: Across from Gianfs Stadium
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
To*8' j—j 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Partial LJ 4 Both (2 and 3):
Location 5 Struct Doc.:
LLANPFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: [ [ Knoll: [ [ Other N border cedar swamp
I j»dfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modern Sanitary: [ | Informal Dumping: | | No Data: [ Xj Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 daU)
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent ("/•) D P U N R
2 prehistoric G A A 1992 along E bank of Berry's Creek W portion 10% I 11 X ][ ll 11 1 I
MI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Con meats
Location
Extent (*/.)
8
diked marsh
BCMEC 1935
W along Berry's Creek; S along canal
WAS
10%
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1935
ditched to Berry's Creek in W
W
25%
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1935
ditched to Fish Creek in E
E
10%
1
road construction
BCMEC 1941:3
new Rt 3 under construction to N
N
10%
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:3
most of parcel
n/a
80%
9
"dead wood area"
BCMEC 1941:3
possible area of former cedar swamp (Venneule 1887)
N-central
10%
8
ditched marsh
USC &GS 1962:3
high ground to N of parcel
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:9
more N-S A E-W ditches -0.5-3.5' elev
all
100%
1
road construction
airphoto 1985
along N boundary
N
10%
1
road construction
airphoto 1985
Rt 3 overpass ramp
E
n/a
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 1985
Fish Creek on E, ditched to N
E
10%
4
filled? marsh
air photo 1992:14
W 8.8*; S 0.0*; N 9.4\ E 13.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 7 Worth Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality E.Rutherford County Bergen
BWRoll 4 Frames 17-19 Color Roll 4 Frames 15-17
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Access to parcel from the north.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 7N Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: E.Rutherford County: Bergen
BWRoll 4 Frames 17-19 Color Roll 4 Frames 15-17 Video Disk Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 7 S Development Category: Hybrid Planning Area
County: Bergen
Municipality: E. Rutherford
Size: 62.4 (acres) GAI Field Map: 3
Local Designation: old Rutherford/Bergen Municipal landfill
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work: j ^ 1
l—. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 1
— 3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 1
•—I 4 Both (2 and 3): O
5 Struct. Doc.: I 1
Total
Partial
Location
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: Upland | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: | | Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | X | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | | Notes: through center, 50% west
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
U CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
ca. 1832
Source Comments
G& A 1992 along E bank of Berry's Creek
Location
Whalf
Righter 1978
Paterson RRto NY Erie & Western
N border
Extent (%)
60 V.
n/a
HI
~ [
PUN
~ ~~
USD
R
m
m
111 DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Eitent (*/•)
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:3
extensively ditched to Berry's Creek
all
100%
9
culvert under RR
BCMEC 1941:3
8\6'x80' culvert
NW comer
n/a
8
ditched marsh
USC AGS 1962:3
scattered ponds
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:9
3.2-4.6'elev
all
100%
1
road construction
airphoto 1983
through center N-S on fill
central
10%
4
fill in progress
airphoto 198S
E-W at center and N-S along road
n/a
25%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1985
rest of parcel
n/a
65%
4
fill changes
air photo 1992:13
to 14.0* W of road; to 15.0* E of road
E&W
20%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1992:13
along E side of N-S road
E half
20%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1992:13
scattered dense vegetation
n/a
60%
Impact None: Q Partial: Q Total: fx]
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date:
6/20/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 7 South Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality E.Rutherford County Bergen
BWRoll 4 Fram<>c 8-14 Color Roll 4 Frames 7-12
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Access road paved for 300', then dirt from north boundary through west half to center of the parcel for landfill operations.
Marsh along RR east boundary.
Informal dumping/scattered debris over west half, north and center.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel 10: 7S Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: E.Rutherford County: Bergen
BWRoll 4 Frames 8-14 Color Roll 4 Frames 7-12 Video Disk Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID:
County:
Municipality;
Size: IS (acres)
PDA 9 Development Category: Hybrid Planning Area
E. Rutherford
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation: Panasonic/Howmedica
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
I—. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
^ota' LJ 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Paltial LJ 4 Both (2 and 3):
Locatk,n 5 Struct. Doc :
~
~
~
~
ILANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | ) Knoll: | [ Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | X | Modem Sanitary. [ [ Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | | Notes: 90% landfill
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
ca. 1836?
Source
G&A 1992
Comments
W bank of Berry's Creek
Location
E border
Righter 1978
Peterson RR.to NY Erie A Western
E border
Extent (*/•)
10%
n/a
D P U N R
stzoam
~~~~~
UI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1935
N A W bonders; E-W to Berry's Creek
all
100 %
9
Rutherford dump A disposal plant
BCMEC 1935
to NW along RR tracks, @1000
NW
n/a
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:3
N-S A E-W ditches to Berry's Creek/canal
all
90%
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:3
"3"x 2' dike between ditches"
E border
10%
8
ditched marsh
USC &GS 1962:1
ditched to Berry's creek
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:9
wide, angled ditches to creek/canal
W&S
20%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:9
smaller ditches, 0.9"-5.2' elev
all
100%
1
road construction
air photo 1985
RL 3 underpass/side road
S border
10%
1
road construction
airphoto 1985
road in between industrial complexes
N border
10%
3
structure
air photo 1985
large building w/parking lots E A W
central
60%
4
fill changes
air photo 1985
vegetation on E A W borders
E&W
30%
9
pond
air photo 1992:7
wet elev 3.5', pond with vegetation
W border
20%
4
fill changes
airphoto 1992:7
4.2- 11.9 elevation around building
n/a
20%
3
structure
air photo 1992:7
large building w/parking lots
central
60%
Impact None: Partial: 1 1 Total: 1X1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 6/21/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parol BP 2 Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality E.Rutherford County Bergen
BW Roll 4 Frames 15-16 Color Roll 4 Frames 13-14
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Panasonic and Howmcdica warehouse with parking lots.
Already developed parcel.
Grossman A Associates, Inc.
-------
igggs - - ¦ y(' .
¦ fs: :-y::x x;-;x- :->¦ •:•:•• >>: -x-xx^>> >:
/ :v •?; % :¥: <0 :SjO?
fx- • »• :«• >:-• :<•: *:• :<¦: >:• :y s
>•. •• •• :• :< . > ft :* . j
:•>: x- . x-; X » -x- :•>: x-
•: • •: :• •: :: *
x-- >x x :.y v.; v.; >x •
JW x :3: :¥ •>: x:>>-':>x «• *< % S s x
¦ Mm: >•: • »- Xy x-: x- x? x :•£ • ft; x j
v ':» :¥' x # VS'. Sf: W :*?
: "x- >?vM !•:¦: x -x-*»: x >:•:: x: s.j .-
• x xNfVW - x: -x x W •$> X:/-:,
: h> zfi
x :Xi>: X >/X-/X-
-• ¦ v.8sg3g ' ¦/ Jf
«¦ • • > • • " • .ft jt Si
.{Memorial Field
X-jf- -f4^ ('¦•• ¦• V 1;-' '(¦/vK'TWtf °X"
X/. -fe jy j.'J" ,i|-x: x >>;::
' "# "jx- x-: ->c-" :¦>: x<-' x" >:•" ¦«• vk >:•; -SSBk; :<
": V '&" ft- x: x x; W : x:
" x" "x * x- ¦¦:¦:¦" :<¦: :-x-: x-: <•:¦" ••>:" »• "x • x-: : f,
; .-•/•> w«'« •?< :-x x: «• "X xi:x>,
: SX % x- x x x-- i$: >¥ x: >¥ xj - >:
:« » •>: » •>:• x-r« x x x-.-x-
•. /x X;: -S: >S X-?x £ x :?•: >¥":% ft-- :% x ^
¦ a' X-' x ¦ x-: <-:• x- «• x: x- x x-
A >-:• Sf •?: -X • •>:• x-: ft-: -X x: -X • x- x- X- :X:
x* <¦: ¦:<•:• •» :x x- x >:•: ->:• *X:> x-" x-: x- •;
*Ovek<.'^
WWW!.
SyO: 9' x; :v: .x . x;:' x; x" y % x:;.;/
:x: x: x- x: x- x: x- :x: ;x >>: %%: >>¦ x< --yiT^
x:-x:;;x:~"•>:'Af'S k:":%"fif*'•>:*X-' •>:/•>:•
' x :-rSt;: '«¦' >x x-
' >!> 'X:''/«
x' X:
WV x- x" x: x- v3Si:"
7V*iii'x:' x< "X"
Madisrn
V:'
v.
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 9 Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: E.Rutherford County: Bergen
BWRoll 4 Frames 15-16 Color Roll 4 Frames 13-14 Video Disk Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meatlowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID:
County;
Municipality.
Size: 65
PDA 10 N Development Category.
I lybrid Planning Area
Hudson
Secaucus
(acres)
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | | Other cedar swamp E 1/3 (Vermeule 1887)
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: [ | Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 10 Worth Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Secaucus County Hudson
BWRoll Frames Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Motes' Large open marshland to west
Large open meadow/grassland to south and east
Tree lined ditch along south border.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 11N Development Category: Hybrid Planning Area
County: Hudson
Municipality: Sccaucus
Size: 30.4 (acres) GAI Field Map: 7
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
E
~
~
L LANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: [ | Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | X | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: | | Ho Data: | | Notes: 95% landfill
(Source: CDM 1994 d>U)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway. 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N-No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G&A1992
Comments
W bank of Cromakill Creek
Location
NE corner
Extent (%) D
10% fx"
u
N R
zim
UI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
4
fill in pi ogress
USC&GS 1962:4
"area being filled" S halt NW quadrant
. S, NW
60%
8
ditched marsh
USC &GS 1962:4
ditched along 1-95 and NE quadrant
W, NE
40%
4
fill in progress
air photo 1963:7
5.C- 7.7 dev. S half, NW quadrant
S, NW
60%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:7
1.6 - 3.3' elev W border, NE quadrant
W, NE
40%
4
fill in progress
airphoto 1968:59
heavily disturbed area
S, NW
60%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1968:59
scattered ponds NE quadrant
NE
30%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1968:59
large ditch adjacent to 1-95
W border
10%
4
fill changes
air photo 1985
NE quadrant filled
NE
30%
1
road construction
air photo 1985
along S boundary
S
10%
3
structure
airphoto 1985
structure with parking area
SW comer
10%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1985
complexes to E and S
E.S
n/a
3
structures
airphoto 1992:22
4 small buildings with parking lot
SW comer
20%
9
parking lot
airphoto 1992:22
graded parking lot 8.4' elev
SE comer
20%
1
road construction
airphoto 199222
roads in SW quadrant and W border
W.SW
10%
4
fill changes
airphoto 1992:16
4.8-9.7 elev rest of parcel
N, central
50%
9
pond
airphoto 1992:22
adjacent to NE, N of industrial complex
NE
n/a
7
industrial complex
air photo \99222
adjacent to E
E
n/a
1
1 Impact
None: [_J Partial: [ j Total: / X |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by.
NAS
Date: 602194 1
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 11 Worth Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Secaucus County Hudson
BWRoll 7 FranvK 14-15 Color Roll 7 Frames 14-15
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Open marshland with industrial development to the east and south.
Parcel is noticeably higher, 5-T, above surrounding grade - filled?
Access from industrial complex streets to the south.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
c
_o
(0
3
<0
>
Ui
£
>
c
0)
CO
15
3
o
(ft
¦o
c
ra
S
O
¦a
ro
0)
o
«
tfl
C
a>
JC
0
ra
1
3
3
s
a>
W
£
9-
o
'E
3
s
m
in
4>
E
E
o
DC
O
o
to
kO
I «
I 5
a>
« 2
O 2
o —
r o
at QS
" 1
a. cQ
(/>
a>
e
«
Z
I
<0
\ ¦ V
Kdro-C^
MW*
/v »*1 *¦? ' '
V^a.A/ - : -
,< £ "/< N. 1 • \
/ v
ilt
t ¦
M?KH
d»c %ss& - 12
VY'?« gpi
^ AVy
*^'4/ "..' >' •¦' '*'••• V^: /. "• •• *P i: S
K . v r ~
v,:> ;«,<
aA^XV-,-' ^
\. ^ ** V
V J v
\ <
\
• '
V*x )
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 11 S Development Category:
County:
Municipality:
Size: S1.7 (acres)
Hybrid Planning Area
Secaucus
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation: Adjacent to Harz mountain
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
a
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation;
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: X_ Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: [ X | Knoll: | | Other, along east side
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: [ X 1 Modem Sanitary: Qj| Informal Dumping: [^] No Data: | | Notes: 80% landfill - west
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
D CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resoarcc
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
19th C
Source Comments
G & A 1992 both banks Cromakill Creek
Location
N, NE corner
Verroeule 1887
Paterson Plank Rd.
S border
Eitent (%)
60%
n/a
][
~
~
~
a
~
D P U N
~ ~~[
~ I
R
~
~
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distarb.
4
Description
fill in progress
Soarce
use AGS 1962:4
Comments
'area being filled*
Impact None: j^j Partial: >T| Total: I 1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Location
W
Prepared by:
NAS
Extent (•/.)
80%
9
transmission line
USC AGS 1962:4
above ground with access road, adjacent to Cromakill Creek
E
20%
4
fill in progress
air photo 1963:7
crossed by dirt roads, 2.6'- 4.4' elev
W
90%
9
transmission line
airphoto 1963:7
fill adjacent to corridor
E
10%
4
fill
airphoto 1968:39
spotty vegetation
all
100%
4
fill
airphoto 198S
spotty vegetation
all
100%
4
fill changes
airphoto 1992.22
"pile" at SW comer, 4.1- 11.6' elev
all
90%
I
road construction
airphoto 1992:22
west border
W
10%
3
structure
air photo 199222
structure on Paterson Plank Rd. with perking
SE
n/a
9
transmision line
air photo 1992:22
above ground 2nd corridor
E
n/a
7
industrial complex
air photo 1992:22
large complexes to W & S
W,S
n/a
Date:
6/22/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 11 South Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Secaucus County Hudson
BWRoll 7 8-10 Color Roll 7 Frames 8-10
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Fenced in area on half appears dry, filled and/or graded? Chain link fence along east border separating it from industrial bldgs.
Grossman & Associates. lac.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID: 11 South Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7 Frame* 8-10 Color Roll: 7 Frames 8-10
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 12 Development Category: Hybrid Planning Area
County: Hudson
Municipality: North Bergen
Size 50 (acres) GA1 Field Map: 7
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: 1 X |
— 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 1
= 3 Presence/Absence Testing: | I
PMtial — 4 Both (2 and 3): | |
L0Catkm S Struct. Doc.: ~
LLANDFORM
Resource
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: j | River/Stream Bank: | j Knoll: j | Other, cedar swamp 90%
Landfill Statin Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: ( 1 No Data: 1 X I Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 daU)
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (*/•) D P U N R
10 19th.C Artemel 1979 RRtunnelN&E NearNEcomer n/a I II II IpTim
6 19th. C Vermeulc 1887 present day Arotrak line S boundary n/a I II II II X 11 I |
9 17-18th. C Hammond 1947 lot divisions _all 100% | 11 || || X ] I 1 I
111 DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AMP MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distarb.
8
Description
ditched marsh
Source
use AGS 1962:4
Comments
RR corridors to S ft E
Location
all
Extent (*/•)
100%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:7
0.8*- 1.3' elev (also on 1963:4)
all
90%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1963:7
piles of fill to 17.4' elev to N
N
10%
6
railroad construction
air photo 1963:7
on 101- 20" of fill S border
S
n/a
1
road construction
airphoto 1968:59
clover leaf I-95/Rt 3, N border
N
10%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1968:59
large ditch parallel to clover leaf
all
90%
8
diked marsh
airphoto 1985:22
diked parallel to N border 10'-14.T elev
N
10%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1985:22
0.81-1.9* elev
all
90%
9
transmission lines
airphoto 1985:23
adjacent to E border
E
n/a
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1992:28
spotty vegetation
all
100%
9
transmission lines
airphoto 1992:28
transmission line towers (2)
SE corner
n/a
Impact None: [ | Partial: jxf] Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/22/94
===== ¦
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel IP 12 Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality N. Bergen County Hudson
BW Roll 7 Fiames 21-22 Color Roll 7 Frames 21-22
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notcj. Access nearly impossible. Viewed from high ground to east Appears to be large open marshland.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 12 Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: N.Bergen County: Hudson
BW Roll 7 Frames 21-22 Color Roll 7 Frames 21-22 Video Disk Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 13 N Development Category Hybrid Planning Area
County;
Municipality:
Size; 27.9 (acres) GAI Field Map;
Local Designation" Command Web Offset Printing
Secaucus
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
~
~
Total
Partial
Location
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
3
~
~
~
~
L LANDFORM
Laadform Tidal Marsh: | j Upland: | X | Confluence: [^] River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | | Other
Landfill Statu Pre-1970 Solid: | ) Modem Sanitary. [^] Infonnal Dumping: [IT] No Data: | | Notes:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
(Source; CDM 1994 daU)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destrpyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Rtmra
6
Date/Period
19th. C
ca-1874
ca. 1915
Source
Venneute 1887
Comments
Boonton Branch RR
Location
W boundary
USCS 1871-1874
possible farm/house 'Secaucus Island*
near/on SW coiner
Extent (%)
n/a
n/a
D P
~ [
U N
JLxJL
USG AGS 1915
round house in SW, N of County Rd.
SW quadrant
~ 53 CDC
io% i imi ir
R
m
m
m
ID DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distarik
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
2
NY Transfer Yards
USG AGS 1915
high ground
all
100 %
1
New County Road
use AGS 1962:3
runs E-W through S half
S
10%
2
spur line-Erie Railroad
USC AGS 1962:3
runs N-S through E half
E
10%
9
highground
USC AGS 1962.3
to 1-95 corridor-S boundary
all
80%
7
Industrial complexes
airphoto 1963:5
2 large complexes-central, SW
SW comer, cent
50%
9
re-use of ca. 1915 RR roundhouse
airphoto 1963:5
now warehouse/parking complex
SW quadrant
10%
9
remains of 2nd roundhouse
air photo 1963:5
near/on E border between spurlines
E
10%
4
fill in progress
airphoto 1963:5
piles 9.1' at County Rd. to 20.2' at center
n/a
20%
1
road construction
air photo 1963:5
in progress around complexes
n/a
10%
7
additional complex
air photo 1968:62
large warehouse/parking in center
control
10%
7
addition to complexes
airphoto 1968:62
extensions/additions to all
n/a
n/a
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1968:62
NE and NW areas
NE, NW
20%
9
"ruins A dirt piles"
airphoto 199226
NE roundhouse in ruins
NEAE
40%
7
industrial complexes
air photo 1992:26
5+ complexes; SW roundhouse replaced
WAS
60%
Impact None: Q3 Partial: 1 | Total:
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date:
6/23/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 13 Worth
BW Roll 9 Frames 6-7
Date Visited 5/24/94 Mnniripalitv Secaucus
Color Roll 9 Frames 6-7
County Hudson
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes.
Warehouses and roads, parting lots and trailer storage.
Access from Castle Road through west central half of the parcel.
RR tracks at the west boundary and through eastern portion of parcel.
Grossnm & Associates, Ik.
-------
.. v - :>; .......... -.V V >;
:\ .- ¦ v.- -.v •»' v.-.- v.: •«•• •>• • v*v.
/-.: "•:>••- >>: >>•'• ?x>x- ^Vf
•:? g: :?: 0. fig ® :$
:*: ? W x-:>* :% »:
ww wt
) 4
i &3o
">•H %" ¦ '"'• •: $j 'VJS V«' -f; > {& '^V S?: ¦ YX\v
, ^ v s"'"V> >\ ''-I-'
V < \'v » V? V \
:•: ••:•:•¦ •:¦:•'>:•:xov&£ -S;'SOS'** A:..:x, 1 .*..
* - «-v- - v \ •
<; •>:> x- >¥ :*:' :¥ v-x• :>>'>>' x< "ft- >/. '<•> •'¦?:*$>' % ":>:V.v
¦: •-;•:•• -x'>x -x-" X;. :« x«" -X" X- '«•" x% -x- -X -x £ ;.
x- • v: >:¦: x x- x *5> ¥:>:•: *:• >x =5¥ >x x- ':•¦ >:¦' : > r -
yvx•:•:• >x";¦:•• >x <•:• :« >x •:•:• x-x-x- x;:
;-x ;X: x::.;x: :s S4^¥ £ :>• % x: -V..
' x- x-X-X-:- -X- X " ' X\ "<<• 'X*>"vX :-X »"» 'v 'X- ;-i •_•
-?:¦ x:: <£ • >> :x: >x :X: -:v - :x- >x xx X;- <<:%.•
: ->:• x • x-: -x- :-x :•:• ft- •:¦: ;•£ x-: •:¦:• ::x •: :¦ V
X- X-: -x " x-: •:•:•¦ x x- x; >:•: •:•:¦¦ xx •:<• : :<¦ ¦:¦: ¦ x. ;X; x*.
' v' , ? - - \
• •• - « X ••• :> >• v 1
• :-x • • ;•: * :•>: •:•:•• :<•: " X-' >x x- -x * x -x-" w 5;? «•" :-.x • x]
X-: • 4 k :$•: .a %. : ;s"¦¦
*>:-< p
. x .• < -
¦ : • xx:. :
^ V % •:& ¥> S: "S;
K »/«' »•" '«•'»: '•»'• »' x< ¦>:¦'1 x-: «¦ .-
Laurel Hill
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 13N Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
BW Roll 9 Frames Color Roll 9 Frames Video Disk Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 13 SE Development Category:
County:
Municipality:
Size: 10.2 (acres)
Hybrid Planning Area
Secaucns
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation: Tracks adjacent to RR tracks
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
| 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
^ota' LJ 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
Partial
Location
~
5 Struct. Doc.:
D
~
~
~
L LANDFORM
Laodfonn Tidal Marsh: [x] Upland: Q Confluence: Q River/Stream Bank: Q Knoll: Q Other
Landfill Statas Pre-1970 Solid: | j Modem Sanitary: j 1 Informal Dumping: I 1 No Data: I X I Notes:
(Source: CDM1994 d«U)
Resource
Speciflc
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric
Historic
1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbcd
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
6
19th. C
Vermeule 1887
Penn. RR (Amtrak) on embankment
N boundary
n/a
2
prehistoric
O & A 1992
W bank Penhom Creek
all
100%
3
19th. C
Vermeule 1887
present day "New County Rd."
E boundary
n/a
D P U N
~~sn
R
m
~Edom
~~~SE
in DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Com meats
Location
Exteat (*/•)
9
marsh
USC &. GS1962:3
from RR yards on W to County Rd. on E
E
90%
9
open area
USC&GS 1962: 3
adjacent to N RR boundary to marsh
N&W
10%
3
structures
airphoto 1963:7
possible sidings (4) along N border E side
N
10%
4
fill in progress
airphoto 1963:7
2.1'- 5.r-9.0*elev
S
70%
2
RR corridor upgrade
airphoto 1963:7
sidings/yards
N&W
20 %
3
structure
airphoto 1968:59
additional structure in N half
N
10%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1968:59
especially noted in SW comer
S half
40%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1968:59
ditched to Penhom Creek drainage
N half
30%
2
RR corridor upgrades
air photo 1968:59
sidings/yards
N&W
20%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1985:27
1 7-7.3'elev
S&E
60%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1985:27
N-S ditch along "New Country* Rd.
E
10%
0
no change
•
airphoto 1992:26
Impact
None: f J Partial; [ j
Total: jx)
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Preparedly:
NAS
Date: (film
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel IP 13 SE Date Visited Municipality County
BW Roll 9 Frames 9-10 Color Roll 9 Frames 9-10
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Entire parcel is truck assembly, piggyback container loading area - transhipping point?
AMTRAK corridor and R.O.W. on embankment is north boundary.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Parcel ID: 13 SE
BW Roll 9 Frames 9-10
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Date Visited: Municipality: County:
Color Roll 9 Frames 9-10
Video Disk
Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA !3 SW Development Category: Hybrid Planning Area
County: Hudson
Municipality: Secaacus
Size: 14.7 (acres) GAI Field Map: 8
Local Designation: open area/phragmites
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: 1 X j
.—. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: | 1
^°
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 13 SW Date Visited 5/24/94 Municipality Secaucus rnnntv Hudson
BWRoll 9 Frames 8 Color Roll 9 Frames 8
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
RR maintenancc/service'area w/ trucks and equipment to west
RR trade/ right-of-way to east.
Grossman A Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 13 SW Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
BW Roll: 9 Frames 8 Color Roll: 9 Frames 8
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
13
CDM Parcel ID:
County:
Municipality;
Size: 152 (acres)
PDA 14 Development Category: Hybrid Planning Area
Hudson
Secaucus
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation: Snake Hill (Laurel Hill)
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
¦—| 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
LJ 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Paitial lAl 4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc,
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: [ X | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: | X | Other: volcanic intrusion
L«ndfiU Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary. [ I Informal Dumping: I I No Data: | 1 Notes: quarried
(Source. CDM 1994 diU) — 1 1 1
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Hi Stone 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
~
~
~
a
~
Resource
Date/Period
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
D P U
N R
1
prehistoric
HCI1978 NJH2
reported site and stray finds
not known
n/a
dOd
1 X || 4 |
4
1863 almshouse
HCI1978 *13
Hudson Co. central area
highground-central
n/a
scutz
1 II 4 1
4
1870 penitentiary
HCI 1978 #13
Hudson Co. W central
highground-W central
n/a
LxJI ll_
1 !1 4 )
4
1873 asylum
HCI 1978 #13
insane asylum NE central
highground-NE central
n/a
anc
1 11 4 |
4
by 1910 new almsh
IMCOI910
Hudson Co. NW central
highground-NW central
n/a
®az
~cu
4
by 1910 school
IMCO 1910
SE of almshouse: E central
highground-E central
n/a
son:
1 ||4|
6
"Mounclair RR"
USCS 1871-1874
RR being built 1871
SW boundary
n/a
~ ~~l
1 II 4 |
4
ca. 1874 structures
USCS 1871-1874
6 structures in vicinity of almshouse
central
n/a
DlOC
~en
9
ca. 1874 farmland?
USCS 1871-1874
shows cultivated? fields
E portion
n/a
~lO(Z
1 II 4 |
9
ca. 1915 Hudson C
USC&GS 1915
numerous scattered buildings
center
n/a
sac
1 IM
4
1932 Secaucus hosp
USC ft. GS 1962:3
hospital for contagious diseases
SE central
n/a
DlOC
1 II 4 |
4
pre-1950 structures
Righter 1978
includes 2 churches, fire station, storage, camps
n/a
n/a
EOZ
1 II 4 |
9
ca.1915 docks
USC&GS 1915
docks/landings along Hackensack R
W
n/a
~ Sd
1 IM
See Next Page for Disturbances
Impact None: |~] Partial: fxj Total:
Grossman and Associates, Inc. My 1994
Prepared by: NAS/VO Dte: 6/23/94 |
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: FDA 14 (ConL)
UI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (•/.)
3
structure? in marsh
airphoto 1963:5
elev 19.1*
N
>10%
4
pond? wet area
air photo 1963:5
5.8* elev
SE comer
>10%
9
quarry operation
air photo 1968:62
with associated docks & structures
S & central
50%
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 1968:62
roads A structures along river
NW
10%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1968:62
roads/structures between County Road and 1-95
SE
10%
1
road construction on fill
air photo 1968:62
across ditched marsh to river landing
N
10%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1968:62
N-S&E-W ditches
N
20%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1985:27
scattered "piles" 10"- 25' elev
N
50%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1985:27
average elev in marsh 4.3'-101
N
n/a
3
structures
airphoto 1985:27
scattered amid "piles"
N central
20%
3
structures/complex?
airphoto 1985:27
two large, 3 small within triple fence
SE
10%
9
quarry operation
air photo 1985:27
Snake Hill remnant 177.6' elev along 1-95
SW
20%
9
foundation?
airphoto 1985:27
at river edge-possible penitentiary?
W central
n/a
9
foundations?
airphoto 1985:27
possible remains of 20th. C buildings
central
n/a
0
no additional changes
air photo 1992:26
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 14 Date Visited 5/24/94 Municipality Secaucus fYinntv Hudson
BWRoll 8 Frames 2,23-36 Color Roll 8 Frames 3,23-36
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
or filled to the present level. Jagged slopes and rockfall. Salt marsh in the extreme northen part of parcel. Some former waterside landings.
Chimney stack of contagious disease hospital standing, no other discernable patterns of bldg. footprints. Informal dumping and/or debris.
Grossman A Associates, lac.
-------
Pared ID: 14
BW Roll: 8
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
2,23-36 Color Roll: 8 Frames 3,23-36
gtTQn Mflmes.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA 15 Development Category Hybrid Planning Area
County: Hudson
Municipality: Jersey City
Size: 11 (acres) GAI Field Map: 9
Local Designation:
L LANPFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | ) Upland: | X) Confluence: [ | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | | Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary | | Informal Dumping: [ | No Data: J X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
H CULTURAL RESOURCES ~
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (*/•) D P U N R
6 19th. C Vermeule 1887 Erie Lackawanna RR(Conrail) N border n/a 1 11 11 X ll 11 1 I
6 19th. C Vermeule 1887 NY Susquehanna & W RR (Conrail) E of center 10% 1 || lf"xll I f~I~l
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
a
Recommended Study Coverage
1 No Further Work:
Total 1 |
Partial [ 1
Location
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
H
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
~
~
~
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Paitially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
9
high ground
USC & GS 1962:5
between railroads
all
100 y.
2
railroad corridor
air photo 1963:4
Conrail N-S just E of center
E
10%
1
urban streets
airphoto 1963:4
W & S borders; 3 through parcel N-S
n/a
10%
7
industrial complexes
air photo 1963:4
warehouses, trailers, parking, roads
all
80%
2
railroad corridor
air photo 1968:60
Conrail
E
10%
1
urban streets
air photo 1968:60
W & S borders; 3 through parcel N-S
n/a
10%
7
industrial complexes
air photo 1968:60
warehouses, trailers, parking, roads
all
80%
0
no change
air photo 1992:32
Impact None: [^j Partial: | | Total: X
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/23/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 15 Date Visited S/2S/94 Municipality Jersey City County Hudson
BWRoil 8 Frames 3-7 Color Roll 8 Frames 4-7
Locatioa Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Some of the houses appear to be late 19th early 20th century.
Suburban streets, trucking and warehouse complexes.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
i
c
o
'5
ctJ
3
(0
>
Ui
£
¦>
<0
c
fl>
(f)
75
i-
3
*->
3
o
(0
T>
C
J2
5
o
"O
(0
V
O
(0
to
c
0)
o
ro
X
c
8
3
I
£
c
3
O
o
M
«
E
e
w
Q
O
¦g
>
>N
,t=
o
>»
2
Q.
O
c
3
s
I
in
C!
m
•o
0)
"5?
>
*
o
M
0)
E
2
Li.
CO
O
a:
o
O
IO
Q -
0)
a
a.
o
OS
S
CO
(A
«J
z
**
1
(0
'.V.I.N.I MfJIJ!
'
K&e
:» ; $gQ& , *
gsgg^o '-¦•¦
S^rsJv v
f*; arfe grgre >/ ••>
mm &
.v>..«.», •*
(DOOM
,'/ I vv' »»> f>
/ / /
/ / Y
A -v ' I &
>jjj V Hv' ;7
/,
/ /
' -5' • / /?
%«V»V'-Ys S> '
/¦><*> / , - sr
III® IS &&
#§§§§»!«
»?«8o K ' V *•- » /
* v I , 1
V ' » &
VV^A^'/i'
•/> .V" •": •¦ '•.•.¦¦.¦•• •'•: v
-------
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
SENSITIVITY EVALUATION FORMS
PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE:
SATELLITE AREAS.
Grossman and Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID:
County;
Municipality:
Size: 3
PDA a Development Category:
Satellite Area
Bergen
Little Feny
(acres)
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation: Old clay pit
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
~ 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Partial I—I 4 Both (2 and 3):
Location 5 Struct Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh
Upland: | | Confluence: | [ River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | [ Other fast land-cedar swamp S comer
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | X j Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: f ] No Data: [ | Notes: filled clay pit
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge,
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
~
~
~
~
Resource
Date/Period
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
D P
U N
R
2
prehistoric
G&A 1992
proximity to Hackensack River
E section
60%
1 X II I
I II
1 1 1
3
ca. 1861
Hopkins 1861
roadways to N, NE
N section
10%
~ CI]
1 II
1 1 1
9
ca. 1861
Hopkins 1861
clay pit/brick works
most of parcel
90%
~~~
1 II
1 1 1
9
ca. 1915
USC&GS 1915
clay pit/Mehrhof Brick Co.
most of parcel
90%
so
1 II
1 1 1
Disturb.
4
Description
large pond
Source
Comments
flooded former clay pit
Location
center
Extent (•/.)
90%
4
filled/drained?
air photo 1968:56
filled former pond
center
90%
5
fill changes
airphoto 1985
filled w/vegetation
all
100%
7
fill changes
air photo 1985
filled, fenced
all
100%
Impact None: Q Partial: | [
Total:
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date. 6/9/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID a Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Little Ferty County Bergen
BWRoll 6 Frames 30-31 Color Roll 6 Frames 30-31
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Ground cover approx.-l/2 gravel, 1/2 scattered vegetation-
Recent sub-division to the east, access from the east. Nearby cryogenic factory to south.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: a Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Little Ferry County: Bergen
BW Roll 6 Frames 30-31 Color Roll 6 Frames 30-31 Video Disk Frames
Street Names:
KASZHi
It®
/sCCNt-v Z&
outh Ridge
in •: - 'tsti'' :..rf\
•••• m . y-. -x
E? o o
• fTf Tv or
~ "SsssSsSSSh kP i
wgyQgsvQgw
.. ,'AV \
.-<¥.• ••• • ¦•¦• v --..v.'-.
l¦:*¦ :>•; :j: :>• •:¦: •:>•:•«• ¦:•: •>: •:¦: •»••>>
\ ;x:..>x >¦< Sx:*¦;
A •- >*'••'
';®\So
iiMgiisa®
>X .¦.v.w.-.iv. 3: :^;-A*.
te ^ *;*;
»«:;S
,\ >¦' : ^
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDAb Development Category.
County; Bergen
Municipality: Moonachie
Size: 2 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Satellite Area
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Local Designation: Warehouse
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
1 No Further Work:
s
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
u
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
I. J
4 Both (2 and 3):
1. .1
5 Struct Doc.:
u
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: [ [ Upland: | X | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | | Other fast land
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: | X | No Data: | | Notes:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=PartiaIIy disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
D P U
CZOCZ
N
R
~
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
NONE
Impact None: | [ Partial: X_ Total: I 1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM
Date:
6/9/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID b Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Moonachie County Bergen
BW Roll 6 Frames 29 Color Roll 6 Frames 29
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes* Open meadow/grassland between houses/warehouses/parking lots to the north and east.
Commercial/industrial development to west and south.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
V
jS:x:.:v.
'V I
RFRTDI f\TX1
rjm s&a
/ ¦¦ V '
/* , .w,.
f , v « y i©Bs
^x;.;.^x;v;vv
yC V. -.V .•¦•. -.V
ooei
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: b Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Moonachie County: Bergen
BW Roll 6 Frames 29 Color Roll 6 Frames 29 Video Disk Frames
Street Names:
-------
L
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDAc Development Category;
County;
Municipality:
Size: 9.7 (acres)
Satellite Area
Carlstadt
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Total
Partial
Location
m
~
~
zi
~
s
~
L LANDFORM
Other, fast land
Landform Tidal Marsh: [ | Upland: | X | Confluence: River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll.
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | ) Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: | | No Data: X Notes: plowed fields
(Source. CDM 1994 dHa)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
ca. 1839
ca. 1861
Source
airphoto 1963:11
Comments
fast land, knoll
Location
SE corner
USCS 1839
Washington Ave houses
E boundary
Hopkins 1861
Washington Ave houses
E boundary
Extent (•/•)
10%
n/a
n/a
D P U N
~~ma
~~mc
R
GH
m
~~Ham
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description
Source
Comments Location
Extent (*/•)
3 structure
airphoto 1963:11
structure on knoll
SE corner
10%
9 plowed fields
air photo 1963:11
rest of parcel
n/a
90%
9 plowed fields/structure
air photo 1968:56
fields and structure
all
100%
9 plowed fields/structure
airphoto 1992:9
fields and structure
all
100%
Impact None: jx] Partial: Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM/MG Date; 6/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivitv Evaluation Form
Pared ID c Date Visited 5/16/94 Municipality Caristadt County Bergen
BWRoli 1 Frames 20-23 Color Roll 1 Frames 9-14
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Rip-rap lined drainagetrench in S W comer and south boundary. Rubble and debris at the west boundary.
No major disturbance.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Pared ID: c
BW Roll: 1 Frames 20-25
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Date Visited: 5/16/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County: Bergen
Color Roll: 1 Frames 9-14
Street Names:
ligHJNAl
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: FDAe Development Category
County:
Municipality:
Size: 12.4 (i
Satellite Area
Caristadt
GAI Field Map
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total ~
Partial | 1
Location
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Laadfbrm Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: [ | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X ) Knoll: | | Other, cedar swamp-N & E
[.»wn state* Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: [ J Informal Dumping: | x ] No Data: j ] Notes: well heads, curbed
(Scarce: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Histmc 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resoarce
2
Date/Period
Source Com meats
GAA1992 Berry'screek/EightDay swamp
Location
SAW
Extent (%)
60%
D P
U N R
zom
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 RoadCond^»i^«n 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtnrfc.
Description
Sonne
use AGS 1962:1
Comments
Location
all
Extent (%)
100%
4
pit/mining activity
airphoto 1963:12
1 J t K mm , i .mm j
quarry pit - 33 ft. etar, major disturbance
all
100%
4
active filling
air photo 1985
piles of fill, no pond, trails
all
100%
4
filled & graded
airphoto 1992
no pond, vegetation
all
100%
1
graved road, curbed
airphoto 1992
curbed road into central area of parcel
central
n/a
9
test weO beads
airphoto 1992
both sides of gravel road
central
n/a
4
informal? (tamping
airphoto 1992
piles of debris/rubble
central
n/a
Impact None: Partial: | | Total: 1XI
Grossman and Associates, be. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 6/10/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID e Date Visited 5/16/94 Municipality Carlstadt Crnintv Bergen
BW Roll 2,3 Fran** 32-36,18 Color Roll 2 Frames 13-20
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes- Cuibcd gravel road into parcel from eastside. Test well heads along road
Piles of debris and rubble all over, informal damping
Industrial complexes to south and east
Grossman JkAmxutet, lac.
-------
g
o
LL
C
o
V
ra
3
ra
>
LU
£
>
'55
c
0)
s
2
3
o
w
¦o
c
(0
o
TJ
10
a>
o
(TJ
(A
C
tt)
.*
o
(0
z
O J?
s
tfi
¦c
CD
o
i
a
e
3
S
co
eg
Q -
d>
s
(a
a.
0
oc
1
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA fE Development Category
County: Bergen
Municipality: Caristadt
Size: 9.11 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Satellite Area
Local Designation: east of large warehouse and access Rd.
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommeaded Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
~
m
~
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank X Knoll: | | Other.
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | X | Modem Sanitary: | j Informal Dumping: [3T| No Data: | | Notes: landfill - SE comer, site clearing in progress
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source Comments
G& A 1992 Berry's Creek/Eight Day swamp
Location
E section
Extent (•/.) D P U
40% i inni
N
R
CE
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
8
Description
ditched/drained? marsh
Source
BCMEC map post 1913
Comments
"ditch and fast land"
Location
all
Extent (%)
100%
8
ditched/drained? marsh
air photo 1963:12
ditched
all
100%
4
fill changes
air photo 198S
disturbed
SE, NW
40%
8
ditched/channelized march
air photo 198S
channel/ditch in east half
n/a
40%
8
ditched/dminrrt/channelized
air photo 1992:3
E-W drainage ditches, 1N-S
central
50%
4
fill changes
air photo 1992:3
"pile of dirt" 7.7 elev.
NW section
25%
Imped None: Q Partial: [x] Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 6/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID f Eaat Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality Carlstadt County Bergen
BW Roll 6 Fftimftg l-io Color Roll 6 Frames 4-9
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
West side has b"tiAYyf-rAhimp truck piles with plastic sheeting (retention barrier) and informal dumping.
Hitachi backhoe on parcel - west center, grading/filling in progress.
Grossman A Associates. Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: f East Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County: Bergen
BW Roll: 6 Frames 1-10 Color Roll: 6 Frames 4-9
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Bogen
CDM Parcel ID: PDAfW Development Categoy:
County;
Municipality:
Size: 3.64 (acres) GAI Fidd Map:
Satellite Area
Caristadt
Local Designation west of large warehouse and access Rd.
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Street Doc.:
~
~
LLANDFORM
Laadibm Tidal Marsh: [ | Upland: [ | Confluence: | | Riva/StreamBank: | [ Knoll: [ [ Other, undefined
Statu Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: | J Informal Dumping: [X | No Data: [ ~) Notes: site clearing in process
(SoarccrCDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=PartialIy disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N-No Information
Resource
3
Date/Peried
19thC
Soarce Comment*
Venneule 1887 19th C Road N-S through center
Location
center
Eitent (*/•)
10%
D P
Ed
U N R
zom
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
I Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distarfa.
Description
Source
Coau
¦eats
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh
use AGS 1962:1
E - W ditches across parcel
all
100%
8
ditched/drained? marsh
airphoto 1963:12:
vegetation
all
100%
4
fill flllWgM
airphoto 198S:
disturbed area/fill
SE comer
30%
8
ditched/drained? marsh
airphoto 1985:
vegetation
n/a
70%
4
fill changes
airphoto 1992:3:
"pile of dirt" 15.T elevation
NW comer
30%
8
channelized
airphoto 1992:3:
across southern portion
S
20%
9
dense vegetation
air photo 1992:3:
between {ill/channel
n/a
50%
impact None: (Z Partial: 1 I Total: IX1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 6/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID f West Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality Caristadt County Bergen
BWRoll 6 Frames 11-12 Color Roll 6 Frames 10-11
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Ditch with tall marsh vegetation along south boundary of parcel-
Informal dumping, i.e. forklift platforms, (wooden pallets), tires, debris along south boundaiy.
Grossman £ Aaocutat, lac.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID: f West Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County: Bergen
BW Roil: 6 Frames 11-12 Color Roll: 6 Frames 10-11
Street Names:
V V \ x-
- ¦ — ¦ N. \ • sSw
\\
\\ - i i * m :. \\
\\ ' \\
\\ 1 v
\Al \
% /
¦¦>-- * ' - TO. -.. • ' - '*¦- A *
- -wc>V-> ^ - Vvf« V<\ ***¦»<•¦*'»<•-
x\: / >
•:v^.V
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA h Development Category:
County: Bergen
Municipality: Carlstadt
Sue: 10.2 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Satellite Area
Local Designation; Techtron Print (across st.) 75 Broad St.
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
a
~
~
~
~
LLANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: X Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: X Knoll: | | Other Eight Day swamp
Landfill Status Prc-1970 Solid: IxJ Modem Sanitary: i I Informal Dumping: IXI No Data: I I Notes: 70 % of parcel to west, (100% 1994)
(Some: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric
Historic
1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period Source
Comments Location
Extent (%) D
P
U N R
2
prehistoric G&A1992
proximity to Berry's Creek SE comer
20% I X ||
S
19th. C Venneule 1887
dike/ditch system to W & N W boundary
10% Ixll
]~~~~
3
19th. C Venneule 1887
Paterson Plank Road
S boundary
20 % [ I
X
itznm
7
ca. 1941 BCMEC 1841:4
NW corner-tide gate
NW corner
10% II
inmm
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
1
road construction?
USC&GS 1962:1
on "highground" W border
W boundary
10%
4
fill changes
airphoto 1963:9:
"pile of fill" 9.5' elev-W
W boundary
20%
3
structures
air photo 1985
at least 3 structures along Paterson Plank Road
S boundary
20%
8
ditched/channelized
air photo 1985
along W portion of parcel
n/a
30%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1992:8:
1963 Oil pile 9.5' elev, now 7X-S.9
W boundary
20%
8
ditched/channelized
air photo 1992:8:
N-S ditch near west boundary
n/a
10%
3
structures/parking lot
airphoto 1992:8:
3 structures/parking lot along Paterson Plank Road
S boundary
20%
Impact None: Q Partial. [~| Total: [x
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 6/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID h Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality Carlstadt County Bergen
BWRoU 5 Frames 31-32 Color Roll 5 Frames 31-36
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Full ditch with tgll marsh vegetation along southern valley.
Industrial complex in NW - part of PDA 1.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Parcel ID:
BW Roll:
h
5
Hackensack Meadow lands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County:
Frames 31-32 Color Roll: 5 Frames 31-36
Bergen
Street Names:
Jr / \
ffl / I \
M / A \
?#/ 7[ \ i
mi \ V
V \ -^-<1
^ /\ 1 : .
vRk. / / / \ v
^%/ / \'-
7/ / N. . N
£/ r\ mem ¦ \ mm*
yXV •¦¦¦ ¦¦: •¦¦ ¦ / ••:¦'-•-••-: ' ~ /
/# / /
/ /?%«>!-, « - : + - ¦**¦<- •— ¦> • •«."- .y Jr-<>r-^Vw -.': '•¦ •"• */ v-.,-'.*'/¦•*.*> * -^xs •• -5* -. f." -•.'¦»•• »ir v.v
1 // ,/ \
aUXv / / -X. % / \
/ \\/ V ¦'>
7A '.r* • \
;#N\ 7\ V
//> \X j
/y >tr ^^iea^s^Basr // \\
A^-
>&\h i ~4?i i$?p. I p *kH~M
A
'¦'-r-^y-;;-^
ip
x:
V':'.'¦>-.>-•"• V-
- «
jk
J
W-i - '
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDAi/j NW Development Category. Satellite Area
County: Bogen
Municipality: E. Rutherford
Size: 56.8 (acres) GAI Field Map: 2
Local Designation: Superfund Site (west of Murray Hill Pkway)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
LJ 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
pwtild I—I 4 Both (2 and 3):
L00"**" 5 Street Doc.:
L LANDFORM
LuHtform Tidal Marsh: | X [ Upland: X_ Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: | | Other
immJfm Ktmtn* Pre-1970 Solid: [ X j Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: J_ J No Data: [ j Notes: landfill at center
(Soared CDM 1994data)
D CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Date/Period
Source
Conmeats
Location
Extent (%)
D
P U N R
2
prehistoric
Gat A 1992
W bank of Berry's Creek
E boundary
20%
1*11
zoom
6
19th C
Venneule 1887
NJ ft NY RR - west boundary
W boundary
n/a
1 II
ZHZOCD
7
ca. 1941
BCMEC 1941:3
tide gate culvert at Ackerman's Creek & RR
W boundary
n/a
1 II
zoiam
1 m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
|l RoadCw<*nictMU 2RJL Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distarb.
Description
Sonne
Coaunents
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC map 1941:3
extensively ditched N &. S of Ackerman's Creek
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
USC AGS 1962:1
extensively ditched N & S of Ackerman's Creek
all
100%
4
fill - several locations
airphoto 1963:9
N: 4.6' - 11.3* dev. SW: 16.21 elev
W
30%
3
structures/complex
airphoto 1963:9
NW comer
NW
10%
8
ditched
airphoto 1985
Ackerman's Creek ditched E-W
across pared
30%
1
road construction
airphoto 1985
N-S road through center
across parcel
20%
3
structures/foundations
air photo 1992:8
NW quadrant
NWftW
40%
4
fill changes
airphoto 1992:8
additional fill since 1963 entry, dense vegetation
EftNE
40%
' Impact None: Partial: | [ Total: 1X |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 6/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID ij-ii NW Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality E.Rutherford County Bergen
BW Roll 5 Frames 23-29 Color Roll 5,6 Frames 24-29,1-3
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes' Superfiind Site according to HMDC staff member-
Open marshland most of the parcel; fall ditch running E-W across parcel, some fill? in piles?
NW comer has concrete and asphalt footprints, row of low-rise commercial bldgs., RR spun, parking areas. Former RR ri/iinge?
Grossman ftAaotisto, Inc.
-------
c
g
a
o
>
W
M
c
v
en
s
U
M
"O
e
«
%
o
¦a
2
2
o
s
e
Je
u
cs
E
a
NO
£#^
Xv\
r» . .' :•...-« , :"5 ». ',A50r >C'. f.V
& ^1
¦ V -.v <. -,v ;
;p§III
G?&?«Sfri8S
iyW$r'fw&
rv >¦&&&
fcvftWrt'
ivgsj!
Mp
Tt
i^jSW
. 7 .-.f;'
. Nfr£;'~¥A4i>vW
|v\
8/;\
* \\
N
*«%&«
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDAi^SE Development Category:
County. Bergen
Municipality: E. Rutherford
Size: 22.9 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Satellite Area
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: X Knoll: | | Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: ( | Informal Dumping: | X No Data: [ | Notes: recent fill
(Source: CDM 1994 date)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G & A 1992
Comments
Location
W bank of Berry's Creek
all
Extent (%)
100%
B
~
~
~
P U N R
zd dm
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (*/•)
8 ditched marsh BCMEC map 1941:3 vegetation all 100%
4
fill -in progress?
airphoto 1963:9
ditched marsh being filled 2.0" to 3.3' elev
all
100%
8
ditched msrsh/iill
airphoto 198S
possibly drained-vegetation
n/a
90%
1
road construction
air photo 198S
southern boundary (Manor Hill Road?)
S
10%
4
fill changes
air photo 1992:8
additional fill - 3.0"-8.6' elev
all
100%
Impact None: Q Partial: | | Total: | X |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 6/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivitv Evaluation Form
Parcel ID iiSE Pate Visited 5/20/94 Municipality E.Rutherford County Bergen
BWRoU 5 Frames 20-22,30 Color Roll 5 Frames 21-23,30
Location Drawing Nortb is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Access from roads associated with warehouses from south to west.
Informal dumping noted.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
o
fa
e
o
ct
>
W
t
:>
V,
e
(A
T3
C
.MHJ,
*
©
"O
txs
a
8
u
•g
y
w
£
• M
-a
a
•o
'3
t
§
CD
C!
«n
1
o
rn
r*f
s
I s
u
©
O
U
rs
I
a
w
C/l
3
:=> *¦>
a
¦s
£
ft
£
so
-------
Landftna Tidal Marsh: | | Upland; Confluence: | | Rivo/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: [ ) Other undefined
IjmHbi Statu Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: | 1 Informal Dumping: | 1 No Data: | X | Noter
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Pw*iA»if 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroycd
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturtoed
N=No Information
Resoarce
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%) D P U N R
~~~~~
in DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R-R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dtouti
Dcscriptioa
Soarce
Caauneats
Location
Extent (%)
9
no known activity
airphoto 1963:11
marsh with vegetation - O.SP -1-5" elev
all
100%
1
road construction - N-S
airphoto 1985
N & S boundaries
N&S
20%
4
fill -in progress
airphoto 1985
appears highly disturbed
n/a
80%
1
road construction W ft. S
airphoto 1992:10
road construction at borders
W&S
10%
8
ditched to south
airphoto 1992:10
ditched across south St. around fill area
S 1/2
20%
4
fill changes
airphoto 1992:10
disturbed - 0.4" -15.4* elev
n/a
70%
Impact None: Partial: [^) Total: 1XI
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 6/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel IP k Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Caristadt rmmty Bergen
BWRoll 6 Framrs 22,24 Color Roll 6 Frames 23-24
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Informal dumping around pond Concrete barricade off SW corner of parcel on access road to informal dumping to east
Rest of pared open marshland with vegetation.
Grossman A Astocutes, lac.
-------
!
b
c
o
s
>
W
w
B
£
2
3
u
n
"O
it
o
T3
«
2
w
«
B
J*
w
«
pa
£
*£>
i
I
ci
1
I
I
o
• •
a
1
Si
0k
£
«
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel H>.
County.
Municipality:
Size: 1.7 (i
PDA o Development Category:
Satellite Area
Bergen
Carlstadt
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: 1 X |
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: i 1
3 Presence/Absence Testing: [__J
4 Both (2 and 3): Q
5 Struct. Doc.: 1 1
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: [ X | Upland: | X | Confluence: | ] River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: [ | Other fast land
Landfill Status Pie-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: j X | No Data: | ) Notes: superficial fill
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
D CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
field visit 1994
Comments
proximity to wetland to south
Location
S portion
Extent (*/•)
n/a
SLJ
U N
nn
R
cn
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtwk.
DcscriptiM
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC map 1941:4
right angle ditch -point of W boundary
W
10%
4
fill in progress
airphoto 1963:11
piles of fill - 4-2'-9.5* dev
all
100%
4
filled/drained/ditched?
air photo 1968:56
ditched to west; dense vegetation
all
100%
4
fill in progress
airphoto 1992:9
additional fill - 8.4'-29.0' elev
all
100%
1
road construction
field visit 1994
ramp off Washington Ave to E side of parcel at Veterans Blvd
E
10%
7
industrial complex
field visit 1994
parcel is in middle of developed commercial properties
n/a
n/a
Impact None: J^] Partial: Total: ~x]
Grossman and Associates, be. July 1994
Prepared by: NASA3JM Date: S/16/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID o Date Visited 5/16/94 Municipality Carlstadt County Bergen
BWM 2 Frames 1-5 Color Roll 1 Frames 25-31
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes:
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: o Date Visited: 5/16/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County: Bergen
BW Roll: 2 Frames 1-5 Color Roll: 1 Frames 25-31
Street Names:
-------
Hackcnsack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel H>. PDAp Development Category: Satellite Area
County; Bergen
Municipality: Carlstadt
Size: 10.2 (acres) GAI Field Map: 2
Local Designation:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work: I X j
.— 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: | 1
j— 3 Presence/Absence Testing: | |
Partial I—I 4 Both (2 and 3): I i
Locatiaa 5 Struct Doc.: ~
LLANDFORM
Laadform Tidal Marsh: [ X | Upland: | X | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | | Other, fast land east
Landfill Statu Pre-1970 Solid: | j Modem Sanitary. | | Infonnal Dumping: [x] No Data: | J Notes: disturbed near Route 20
(Source: CDM1994 data)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Enviromnental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Metoarce
Date/Period
Soarce
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
D P U N
R
2
prehistoric
G&A1992
Berry's/Peach Island creeks
W side
25%
~sac
1 1 1
4
ca. 1839
USCS1839
Washington Ave (Rt 20) houses
E boundary
n/a
i n n n x
1 1 1
8
19th C
Venneule 1887
dike/ditch system
toS&W
n/a
~~~~~
111
ID DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Conridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex g Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtarfc.
Description
Sauce
Comments
Location
Eitent (*/.)
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC map 1941
W
60%
8
ditched marsh
UGC&GS map 1962:1
high ground at Rt 20 only
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:8
W
60%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1963:8
high ground/structures at Rt 20
E
40%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1968:56
W
60%
9
cleared/burned?
airphoto 1968:56
high ground at Rt 20, no structures
E
40%
8
ditched marsh/cleared?
airphoto 1992
all
100%
Impact None: Partial: Total: IX |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 5/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel CD £ Date Visited 5/16/94 Municipality Carlstadt County Bergen
BWRoll 2 Frames 6-20 Color Roll 1/2 Frames 32-37,1-5
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes: High ground at Rt 20 only, cut down to west from Rt. 20. Bulldozed pile adjacent, bulldozer activity/modern grading.
West central area low, wet, phragmites, ditch parallel to ditch at west boundary.
Fill to west of ditch along west boundary, treeline in NW comer.
GrossmaaAAfiaodate^lDc.
-------
o
fa
c
_o
'¦C
eg
3
"5
>
w
£
M
e
&
2
3
(A
¦o
c
S3
1
o
"O
s
2
u
u
SS
Cfl
a
J£
w
«
n
s
I
«n
1
I
*
Q
a. fN
e 3
i
b- m
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
DM Parcel ID: FDA x N Development Category:
wounty:
Municipality:
Size:
Satellite Area
Lyndhurst
22.9 (acres)
Local Designation:
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total 1 )
Partial | |
Location
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X [ Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: X Knoll: Other.
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modern Sanitary: [ | lnfonnal Dumping: X No Data: [ 1 Notes:
(Source: CDM1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G & A 1992
Comments
W bank Berry's Creek
Location
east portion
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Extent (%)
50%
D
mi
x i;
~
a
~
U N
R
en
~
L
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Docriptha Source CmmkmU Location Extent (*/•)
8 ditched marsh BCMEC 1941:2 E-W ditches toN; N-S ditches to S all 100%
8
ditched marsh
USC AGS 1962:3
additional ditches
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:9
large E-W ditch at center (boro boundary) and along creek on W
all
100%
9
drive-in nwvie theater
airphoto 1963:9
forms N/NE boundary
n/a
n/a
1
road construction
airphoto 198S
W & S boundaries of N portion
W&S
10%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 198S
dense vegetation
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1992:13
dense vegetation
all
100%
Impact None: Partial: 1 | Total:
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by. NAS Date. 6/14/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID i North Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality Lyndhurst County Bergen
BW Roll 4 Frames 5-7 Color Roll 4 Frames 5-6
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Central area Parting lots for bldg. complexes.
Open marshland to the south.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
o
u.
e
o
«
>
w
t
>
V
73
3
u
V)
¦a
*
o
¦o
o
«
VI
e
wi
u
« «
© a
€
©
Z
H "*
2 =
% 2,
£ £
(2 »
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel Q>. PDA x S Development Category:
County:
Municipality:
Size: 21.2 (acres)
Satellite Area
Lyndhurst
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Wort::
Total
Partial
Location
LLANDFORM
Laadfbna Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: River/Stream Bank: X_ Knoll: | | Other
Statu Pre-1970 Solid: | ( Modem Sanitary. Informal Dumping: X_ No Data: | | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
U CULTURAL RESOURCES
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
m
~
~
~
~
Rwonre Date/Period Soarce Comments Location Extent (%) D P U N R
2 prehistoric G&A 1992 W bank Berry's Creek NE corner, east edge 20% 1 X 11 11 II II1!
7 ca 1941 BCMEC 1941:2 tide gate 5* x 3' to SE of southeast corner off SE corner n/a I II II i I X 11 1 I
ID DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtarfa.
Description
Soarce
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 19412
whole parcel
all
100%
8
ditched manh
USC AGS 1962:3
whole parcel
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:9
large ditch along creek on east portion
all
100%
1
road construction
airphoto 1985
Chubb Ave. forms W boundary
n/a
n/a
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1985
whole parcel
all
100%
4
fill in progress
air photo 1992:
piles21.<>', 17.8*, 19.8* in center
central
10%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1992:
around & between fill piles
n/a
90%
Impact None: []^j Partial: I I Total: IX fl Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/14/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID Pate Visited 5/20/94 Municipality Lyndhurst County Bergen
BWRoll 4 Frames 2-4 Color Roll 4 Frames 2-4
1 Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
South - central area heavily disturbed by heavy equipment-
North area is marshland with vegetation.
Grossman A Associates, lac.
-------
a
o
to
c
'5
«
9
«
>
w
£
t/1
e
a
3
u
W)
¦o
e
«
#
o
"O
s
s
o
s
c
Je
u
e«
n
£
a
3
u
T
(S
s
1
M
• •
a
1 J !
d. co Cn
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDAy Development Category:
County: Bergen
Municipality: Lyndhurat
Size: 4 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Satellite Area
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
KecmuMaded Study Coverage 1 No Further Woric:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Botti (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Laadfonn Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: [ | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: X Knoll: | | Other cedar swamp
Landfill Statas Pre-1970 Solid: [x] Modem Sanitary Q Informal Dumping. [>Tj No Data: \~) Notes: 6Gts-7Vs landfill (100%)
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Coauneais
Location
Extent (*/•)
B
0
~
~
D P U N
~ ~~~
R
~
D1 DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 RJL Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distnrb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
4
dump
BCMEC 19412
ditched around dump periphery
all
100%
4
fill in progress
USC &GS 1962:3
"area being filled"
all
100%
4
fill changes
airphoto 1963:9
fill piles 17.91- 21.4' elev
all
100%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1985
highly disturbed between large structures
all
100%
1
road construction
air photo 1985
Valley Brook Ave. N boundary
n/a
n/a
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1992:13
fill at 17.8* elev. S central
all
100%
Impact None: Q Partial: | | Total: ~X~|
Grossman and Associates, Lac. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 6/14/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID y Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality Lyndhurst County Bergen
BWRoll 6 Framey 13 Color Roll 6 Frames 12-13
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Parcel elevation appears higher than surrounding grade of warehouse complexes to east and west - filled?
Scattered small trees, dense ground cover.
Grossman A Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: y Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: Lyndhurst County: Bergen
BWRoll: 6 Frames 13 Color Roll: 6 Frames 12-13
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Bergen
CDM Parcel ID: PDAq Development Category:
County:
Municipality:
Size: 3.1 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Satellite Area
Caiistadf
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Laadform Tidal March: | X | Upland: | X | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: [ | Knoll: | | Other fast land W bolder
Laadfill Status Pr©-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary. [ | Informal Dumping: ( | No Data: [xj Notes: non-tidal marsh (BCMEC 1921:4)
(Sooroe: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
~
~
~
E
~
Date/Period
Sonne
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
D
P U N R
9
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
"farmland"
adjacent
n/a
1 II
J! ILxJIaI
10
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
"meadow not affected by tide"
adjacent
n/a
1 II
II II X II 4 1
10
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
"Leive's woods"
adjacent
n/a
1 II
znmm
4
ca. 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
"hotel" corner of Paterson Plank Rd and Rt 20
in vicinity of parcel
n/a
1 II
II II x || 4 |
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtui
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched/drained/filled? marsh
air photo ca. 1930:97
dense vegetation-former cedar swamp (Venneule 1887)
E
90%
8
ditched/drained/filled? marsh
BCMEC map 1941
former cedar swamp (Venneule 1887)
E
90%
4
filled marsh
USC ft. GS map 1962:1
"high ground"
all
100%
4
filled marsh, drained?
airphoto 1963:8
spotty vegetation to north St. east
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1968:56
spotty vegetation
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 198S
trees/dense vegetation
all
100%
4
pond
airphoto 1992:9
pond surrounded by vegetation
center
40%
Impact None: Q3 Partial: 1X | Total: I 1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 6/2/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID fl Date Visited 5/16/94 Mimicinalitv Carlstadt Conntv Bergen
BW Roll 1 Frames 1-19 Color Roll 1 Frames 1-8
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Cnt stone footers? on grass southeast of pond, and @ 5' square with concrete.
Three (3) outcrops with waterworn edges.
GtotsmnA Associates, Ioc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID: q Date Visited: 5/16/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County: Bergen
BWRoll: 1 Ftuks 1-19 Color Roll: 1 Fnuaes 1-8
n i »* -
street Names.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
-OM Parcel H>. PDA vN Development Category
County; Hudson
Municipality. North Bergen
Size: 8.76 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation: East of West Side Ave
Satellite Area
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
1 No Further Work:
fx]
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
U
3 Presence/Absence Testing
U
4 Both (2 and 3):
1 1
5 Struct. Doc.:
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: j X | Upland: ) | Confluence: j | River/Stream Bank: j | Knoll: | | Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: [xT] Modem Sanitary. | ] Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | | Notes: @10% NW corner
(Souroe: CDM 1994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID v North Dale Visited 5/23/94 Municipality N. Bergen County Hudson
BWRoll 7 Frame? 2 Color Roll 7 Frames 2
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes: Marshland along trades.
Piles of fill in northern section.
Heavy equipment tracks.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: v North Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: N. Bergen County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7 Frames 2 Color Roll: 7 Frames 2
Street Names:
— V
\
\
/
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: PDAvS Development Category:
County:
Municipality:
Size: 21.5 (acres) GAIFieldMap:
Satellite Area
North Bergen
Local Designation: West of West Side Ave
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
1 No Further Work: fx]
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 1
3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 ]
4 Both (2 and 3): ~
5 Strud Doc.: 1 1
L LANDFORM
Laadform Tidal Marsh: X Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll. | | Other
Landfill Statu Pre-1970 Solid: | X | Modern Sanitary: j~] Informal Dumping: [ ] No Data: | | Notes: 70% to east
(Sonne: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Rnautt Date/Period
NONE
Sown
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•) D P U N R
~~~~~
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distarb.
Detcriptioa
Soarce
Com meats
Location
Extent (%)
7
North Bergen Armour Soap Worics
use &GS 1962:4
chimney &. tank adjacent to N
n/a
n/a
6
Transmission and pipeline routes
USC AGS 1962:4
define the W boundary
n/a
n/a
4
fill
air photo 1963:10
piles of fill 2.5-15.0" elev
W
50%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:10
marsh with vegetation
E
50%
4
fill in progress
air photo 19X5
heavy disturbance -piles, trails
n/a
70%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1985
ditched along N & S borders
NAS
30%
4
cut/Gil changes
air photo 1992:16
W half elev 2.5,-10T; ditched NAS
W
50%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1992:16.17
ditched N ft S; vegetation
n/a
50%
Impact None: Partial: I I Total: fx"
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 6/14/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID v South Date Visited Municipality County
BWRoll 7 Frames 3-4 Color Roll 7 Frames 3-4
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Open marshland with informal dumping and large construction debris.
Large warehouses-south and west
Gnmm A Arncim, he,
-------
Hackensacfc Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ED: v South Date Visited:
BW Roll: 7 Frames 3-4
Municipality:
Color Roll: 7 Frames 34
County:
Street Names:
^ \
^ \
. -VV'-'V. '. :'r ¦--•¦•¦••¦
/
/ Dofi
S /
/ 'mm^-i-
SS&S&S? x3
f--
t ^ *"><- rA>.V~ j'l'VJ4:';^"
t?-r :?.v*-. ~:?» j :->;^v-;;wi •<;,*>.--.'i>
¦•"* ' L~ o "- •- '-^ r- -
:x-<;}&t}-: o&iU-ti
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA w E Development Category.
County Bergen
Municipality: E. Rutherford
Size: 32.8 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Satellite Area
Local Designation: extreme south across road-warehouse
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work. ] X [
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: i 1
3 Presence/Absence Testing: | |
4 Both (2 and 3): 1 [
5 Struct Doc.: [ ]
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
LLANDFORM
Laadfom Tidal Marsh: JC_ Upland | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: | | Other.
Landfill Statu* Pre-1970 Solid: ( X | Modern Sanitary. | | Informal Dumping: [ ] No Data: I | Notes: west bank Berry's Creek
(Source: CDM 1994 date) —
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
nCULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Reaouxe
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G&A1992
Comments
W bank Berry's Creek
Location
E and S portions
Extent (%) D P
60% fx! I
U N R
DDE
U
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 RJL Corridor Upgiades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distartt.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC map 1941:3
entire parcel ditched
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
USC & GS 1962:1
part of/adjacent to Walden swamp
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:9:
possible fill? 2.V-4S elev
all
100%
8
ditched/drained? marsh
airphoto 198S
open, with vegetation
all
100%
7
industrial complex
air photo 1985
developed along entire W boundary
n/a
n/a
1
road construction
air photo 1992:8
Murray Hill Pkway cuts through S portion
S
10%
4
fill
airphoto 1992:7
Probable fill 2.4,-8.3f elev
all
100%
8
ditched
airphoto 1992:7
along Murray Hill Pkway
S
20%
Impact None: Q Partial: Q Total.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/14/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivitv Evaluation Form
Parcel IP wEMt Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality E.Rutherford County Bergen
BWRoJJ 5 Frames 5-12 Color Roll 5 Frames 6-13
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Heavy marhinrry working in the southwest section - bulldozer activity in progress and area already impacted.
Transportation corridor improvement? Pitched marsh and tall phragmites to the north and east.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID: w East Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: E.Ruthcrford County: Bergen
BW Roll: S Frames 5-12 Color Roll: 5 Frames 6-13
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Mcadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: FDAwN Development Category.
County: Bogea
Municipality: E. Rutherford
Size: 3.91 (acres) GA1 Field Map:
Satellite Aiea
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
.—. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
I"0*"! — 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Partial I—I 4 Both (2 and 3):
Locatica 5 Struct Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Laadfom Tidal Marsh: X Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: | | Other
Landfill Statu Pre-1970 Solid: ( X [ Modem Sanitary. ( [ Informal Dumping: [ j No Data: f~] Notes: eastern portion
(Sown: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Ftdiistflric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Paitially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
6
Date/Period
19th. C
Source Comments
Venneule 1887 railroad along west border of parcel
Location
W boundary
Extent (%)
n/a
D P
~ ~~S
a
~
~
~
~
U N
R
ED
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Diitwh.
Description
Soarce
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh
BCMECmap 1941:3
extensively ditched
all
100 %
8
ditched marsh
USC AGS 1962:1
extensively ditched
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:9
ditched N-S at center and W
center & W
20%
4
possible fill?
airphoto 1963:9
2.8"-9.5' elev noted
n/a
80%
8
ditched/drained? marsh
airphoto 1985
vegetation
all
100%
7
industrial development
airphoto 198S
developed to N, S & E
n/a
n/a
2
rail spar construction
air photo 1992:7
spur to S off ConRail on W
S
10%
1
road construction
airphoto 1992:7
Whelan Rd. cul-de-sac in comer
NE corner
10%
Impact None: Partial: _X^ Total: I 1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/14/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity F.valuation Form
Parcel ID w North Date Visited 5/20/94 Municipality E.Rutherford Cmmtv Bergen
rw Roll 5 Frames 18-19 Color Roll 5 Frames 17-18
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Most of pared open marshland.
Indnstrial complexes to north and cart; Whelm McaM»«CiCO«i it falOfld off
QnmtmAAmocklm,lae.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: w North Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: E.Rutherford County: Bergen
BW Roll: 5 Frames 18-19 Color Roll: 5 Frames 17-18
Street Names:
(17) /
/ *
/. V
r f A
.morUI Field //
f XT //
/\ / \/ X
\ /
\ V
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID PDAwS Development Category.
County: Bergen
Municipality; E. Rutherford
Size: 2.96 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation;
Satellite Area
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Weak:
.—. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
*^ota' I—I 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
Partial
Location
~
S Struct Doc.:
m
~
~
~
~
L LANDFORM
Laadform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: I | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
Impartially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
6
Date/Period
19th. C
Source
Venneule 1887
Comments
railroad along west border of parcel
Location
W boundary
Extent (*/•)
n/a
LJl
p u
~c
N R
1HCD
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Cony lex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC mapl941:3
whole parcel
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
USC AGS 1962:1
whole parcel
all
100%
8
channelized? marsh
air photo 1963:9
channelized tributary of Berry's Creek
central
50%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1985
to W along railroad corridor
W
20%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1985
developed to N, S & E
n/a
n/a
1
rood construction
air photo 1992:7
Murray Hill Partway
E
10%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1992:7
0.6' elev
all
90%
Impact None: Q Partial, ~x] Total: I 1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
rreparea oyr
NAS
Date: 6/14/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID w South Dale Visited 5/20/94 Munlcipalitv E.Rutherford County Bergen
BW Roll 5 Ftamfts 13-17 Color Roll 5 Frames 14-16,19-20
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Most of the parcel open marshland with tall vegetation.
Industrial complex to south - Penn Bottle and Supply Co.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: w South Date Visited: 5/20/94 Municipality: E.Rutherford County: Bergen
BW Roll: 5 Frames 13-17 Color Roll: 5 Frames 14-16,19-20
Street Names:
-'&¦ i'-'r ?*V«
L-
/
X //
X / /
v •
\
- -,!-o.
SilS§®»$g
-------
CDM Parcel ID. PDAaa Development Category
County. Hudson
Municipality: North Bergen
Size: 13.2 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Satellite Area
Local Designation: West Side Ave.
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
m
~
~
~
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: X Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: [ | Knoll: | | Other.
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: I X I Modem Sanitary: I I Informal Dumping: I 1 No Data: I I Notes: >10% SW corner
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
3
Date/Period
18th. C
19th. C
Source
Hammond 1947
Venneule 1887
Comments
north-south roadway
Location
not known
railroad on east boundary
n/a
Extent (%)
n/a
n/a
D P
~ d
~c
U N R
]®[T]
SD0
[
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Eitent (*/•)
8
ditched marsh ft tributary
USC AGS 1962:4
E-W ditches, ditched tributary of Paunpeck Creek
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:7
2.5-4.5'elev
N
50%
4
fill
airphoto 1963:7
piles of fill 5.2-7.01 elev
S
60%
8
ditchcd/draincd? marsh
airphoto 198S
vegetation
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1992:16
ponds scattered on parcel
all
100%
4
fill
airphoto 1992:16
additional piles of (ill, S.7- 91'clev
S
50%
Impact None: Q Partial: Q] Total: 1X1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 6/15/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID u Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality N. Bergen County Hudson
BWRoll 7 Frames 5 Color Roll 7 Frames 5
Trees rooting a few small places. Mostly marshland habitat.
Grossman 4 Associates, Inc.
-------
Parcel ID: u
BW Roll: 7
Street Names:
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: N. Bergen County:
Frames 5 Color Roll: 7 Frames 5
Hudson
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA ab Development Category;
County: Hudson
Municipality: North Bergen
Size: 7.5 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Satellite Area
Local Designation: between transmission line and railroad
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
~
~
Total
Partial
Location
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: X Upland: X Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: [ | Knoll: | | Other
Landfill Statu Pre-1970 Solid: _X_ Modem Sanitary: | [ Informal Dumping: | | No Data: I I Notes: probable fill, 10% west side
(Source: CDM 1994 d«t»)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testi:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=PartialIy disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
3
Date/Period
18th-C
19th. C
Source
Hammond 1947
Vameule 1887
Comments
N-S roadway
Location
not known
railroad on E boundary
n/a
Extent (*/•)
n/a
n/a
~
~
~
~
D P U N R
~~~~ODD
~~mam
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh k. tributary
use AGS 1962:4
E-W ditches, ditched tributary of Cromakill in S half
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:7
3.5-3.7 elev
all
100%
4
fill
airphoto 1963:7
piles of fill 7.0* elev
S
20%
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 1985
heavily disturbed
all
100%
3
structures
airphoto 1985
structure w/parking area
S
20%
4
fill
airphoto 1992:16
piles of fill to 7.3' elev
N
50%
4
fill
airphoto 1992:17
N-S fill adjacent to RR, 9.3'-10.(T elev
S
50%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1992:17
parcel within parking areas for 2 structures to W
S
50%
Impact None: Q Partial, j^] Total: IX |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/15/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID >b Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality N.Bergen County Hudson
BW Roll 7 Frames 6 Color Roll 7 Frames 6
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Trees rooting aHew small places. Mostly marshland habitat.
Much the same as PDA aa to north.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: ab Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: N. Bergen County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7 Frames 6 Color Roll: 7 Frames 6
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA ac Development Category: Satellite Area
County: Hudson
Municipality: North Bergen
Size: 4.4 (acres) GAI Field Map: 7
Local Designation: between transmisioci line and railroad
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: X |
I—| 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: |
^ota® LJ 3 Presence/Absence Testing: |
Partial '—I 4 Both (2 and 3): |
LocaUon 5 Struct Doc.: |
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland; | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | [ Knoll: [ [ Other undefined
tjiWII States Pre-1970 Solid: | ] Modem Sanitary: [~ | Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | X j Notes:
(Sowce: CDM 1994 data)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Date/Period
Soorce
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
D P
U N R
9
17-18th. C
Hammond 1947
lot divisions
all
100%
1 II
3
18th. C
Hammond 1947
N-S roadway
not known
n/a
1 II
lazim
6
19th.C
Venneule 1887
railroad on E boundary
n/a
n/a
1 II
IGlOQII
ffl DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtarb.
Descriptfcn
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh Sc. tributary
USC AGS 1962:4
E-W ditched tributary of Crrxnakill
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:7
4.2" elev
all
100%
4
fill in progress
air photo 1985.23
filled marsh-disturbed N & S
all
100%
8
ditched/drained? marsh
air photo 1992:22
ditched with vegetation
N
50%
7
industrial complex
air photo 1992:22
adjacent structure/fenceline
S
50%
Impact None: [^j Partial: [Tj Total: IX1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/15/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel IP ac Pate Visited 5/23/94 Municipality N. Bergen County Hudson
BWRoU 7 Frames 7 Color Roll 7 Frames 7
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Grossman A Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: ac Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: N. Bergen County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7 Frames 7 Color Roil: 7 Frames 7
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: [xj Confluence: [^] River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: Other, fast land
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: | | Infonnal Dumping: | X | No Data: | | Notes:
Specific
Recommendations
(Source: CDM 1994 dtfa)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period Sowxe Comments Location Extent (*/•) D P U N R
6 19th C Vermeule 1887 Boonton Branch railroad S boundary "/a ~~~~DUD
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS 1
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distort.
Description
Sonne
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
9
NY Transfer Yards
USC&GS 1915
part of yards - spurs and sidings
all
100%
9
railroad yards
USC AGS 1962:3
on high ground
all
100%
2
RR corridor upgrades
airphoto 1963:5
multiple rail spurs, 8.5'-18.5' elev
all
100%
9
transmission line corridor
air photo 1963:5
above-ground line at N
N boundary
n/a
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 1968:62
abandoned rail spurs
all
100%
9
trmsmiskn line camdar
airphoto 1985:27
through center, tower at east end
central
20%
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 198527
one rail spur, 8.T-10.0" elev
all
100%
4
fill
airphoto 1992:26
additional fill - pile at 13.7 elev
NW comer
10%
Impact None: Q Partial: Total: IXI
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/15/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID ah Date Visited 5/24/94 Municipality Secaucus County Hudson
BW Roll 9 Frames Color Roll 9 Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Anows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes: Current RR trade is southwest boundary - service/access road in R.O.W. on parcel.
Old rail lines into roundhouse once through parcel-today under high power transmission lines, one tower
Castle Rd. is the northeast boundary.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: ah Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
BW Roll: 9 Frames Color Roll: 9 Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Pared ID:
County:
Municipality.
Size: 5 (i
PDA am Development Category
Satellite Area
Hudson
Kearny
')
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation: Along Belleville Pike
Recommended Study Coverage
Total | |
Partial | |
Location
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
1 No Further Woric:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Ludfoni Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: | X | Other very small knoll
T jmWII statu Pre-1970 Solid: | X J Modem Sanitary [ j Informal Dumping: | | No Data: f ] Notes: adjacent SE comer
(Some: COM I994drta)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
B=Dcstroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
s
~
~
~
~
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (%) D P U N R
3 19th C Venneule 1887 Belleville Pike - S boundary S n/a I 11 II 11 X 11 1 1
6 19th C Venneule 1887 Railroad at E boundary E n/a I II ll llxll 1 I
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
I Road Construction 2 R-R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
9
Description
Source
use AGS 1962:3
CoBaeiti
highground - W, 75% marsh E - 25%
Location
all
Extent (%)
100%
8
ditched/drained? marsh
airphoto 1963:2
1.3-5.4'elev
E
25%
1
dirt roads
airphoto 1963:2
N-S dirt roads, vegetation
W
75%
3
structure
airphoto 1968:102
adjacent or on west border
n/a
n/a
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1985
disturbed areas and vegetation
all
100%
8
ditched
airphoto 1992:31
ditched N-S along high ground line
central
20%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1992:31
3.C- 5.4' elev
all
100%
Impact None: Q Partial: [[31 Total: IX1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by NAS Date: 6/15/94
-------
Harlcensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID am Date Visited 5/24/94 Municipality Kearny County Hudson
BW Roll 8 Frames 14-15 Color Roll 8 Frames 14-15
Location Drawing North is up toward lop of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Access from east along road parallel to AMTRAK. leading to active factory/warehouse. Other complex to south of RR through underpass.
No extant structures along Belleville Pike, west boundary.
Grossman ft. Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: am Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Kearny County: Hudson
BW Roll: 8 Frames 14-15 Color Roll: 8 Frames 14-15
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDAar Development Category.
County: Bergen
Municipality: Moonachie
Size: 14.9 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Satellite Area
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' Fur,her Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
I—I 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Partial
Location
E
~
~
a
~
~
L LANDFORM
Other:
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | X | Confluence: [ [ River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll:
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: [ | No Data: X Notes: some possible fill
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G & A 1992
Comments
along banks of Losen Slofe
Location
all
Extent (•/•)
100%
D P U N
R
T~
in DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R..R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
9
high ground and marsh
USCS 1839
high ground to W - marsh to E
all
100 %
8
10" ditches
BCMEC 1921-1924
installed bv state 1915 - 1916
N half
50 %
8
ditched marsh
BCMEC 1941:5
rest of E border marsh
N half
50 %
9
property fenceline
BCMEC 1941:5
Kresge property fence - W border
S half
n/a
1
road construction
USC &GS 1962:2
along high ground - W border
S half
10 %
8
diked marsh
air photo 1963:11
E border (Losen Slofe) 7.0' - 7.8' elev
N half
50%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1963:11
E border (Losen Slofe) 0'-2.0' elev
S half
50%
9
Transco gas pipeline
airphoto 1963:11
along 1962 road? high ground
S half
10%
8
diked and/or ditched
air photo 1968:56
vegetation
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1985
vegetation
S
50 %
7
industrial complex
air photo 1985
adjacent and approx. half of N half
NW
25%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1992:5
along E border (Losen Slofe) 0'- 3.2' elev
E
60%
7
industrial complex
air photo 1992:5
roads, structures, parking areas
W & NW
40%
Impact None: Q] Partial: _X
Total:
~
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date
6/15/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID ar Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Moonachie County Bergen
BWRoll 6 Frames 2S-28 Color Roll 6 Frames 25-28
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Test well heads, vegetation covered piles - fill?, marshy areas.
Commercial/industrial complexes to south and west
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: ar Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Moonachie County: Bergen
BW Roll: 6 Frames 25-28 Color Roll: 6 Frames 25-2S
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA as Development Category: Satellite Area
County; Hudson
Municipality: Jersey City
Size 81.5 (acres) GAI Field Map: 8
Local Designation:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage * No Further Work: 1 I
.—| 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: [ 1
— 3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 |
Partiri l^-l 4 Both (2 and 3): fx]
Locatlon 5 Struct Doc.: | |
LLANDFORM
Laadform Tidal Marsh: X Upland: Confluence: | [ River/Stream Bank: X Knoll: [ | Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid' j X j Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: | X | No Data: j | Notes: landfill - east comer
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Q CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Date/Period
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%) D P U N
2
prehistoric G&A1992
banks of Penhom Creek W-central
60% 1 H X || || || 4 |
9
17-18th. C Hammond 1947
lot divisions
all
100% I II
II II X || 4 |
3
18-19th C Venmeule 1887
two roads across N half N
20% | ||
]DE0
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
8
Description
ditched marsh
Source
USC &GS 1962:4
Comments
E-W ditches, extensive to S
Location
all
Extent (*/•)
100%
4
fill in progress
airphoto 1963:4
6.0"- 18.2' elev piles of fill
NE
25%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:4
large ditch E-W in approx center
central
10%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:4
E-W ditches, meander scar 1.2' - 3.0" elev
all
50%
9
transmission line & towers
air photo 1963:4
along E boundary
E
10%
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 1968:59
heavily disturbed, Penhom Creek & NE quadrant
W&NE
60%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1968:59
extensively ditched S third
S
30%
1
road construction
air photo 1968:59
Eborder-S third
E
10%
1
road construction
airphoto 1985
road along E border to Secaucus Rd.
E
10%
4
cut/fill
airphoto 1985
heavily disturbed NE quadrant
NE
30%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1985
large structures/parking lots
E&SW
n/a
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1992:27
NE: 2.1'- 13.1'elev, NW: 2.4-4.4'elev
NE & NW
25%
8
ditched
air photo 1992:27
E-W ditches, scattered ponds, dense vegetation
n/a
75%
9
double transmission line routes
air photo 1992:27
substation also on east boundary
E
10%
Impact None: | 1 Partial: _X_ Total: 1 1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date. 6/15/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID as Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Jersey City County Hudson
BWRoll 7 Frames 25-26,32-33 Color Roll 7 Frames 25-26,32-33
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
East - vegetation'covered bulldozer/dump truck piles of fill-
South is open marshland with piles of fill.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: as Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Jersey City
BW Roll: 7 Frames 25-26,32-33 Color Roll: 7 Frames 25-26,32-33
County: Hudson
Street Names:
ire
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA at Development Category:
County: Bergen
Municipality: Carlstadt
Size: 1.7 (acres)
Satellite Area
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
2 Sensitivity Evaluation
3 Presence/Absence Testing
4 Both (.2 and 31:
5 Struct Doc :
I. LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: |^xj Upland: [ | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: T xj Knoll: j j Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: [ ] Informal Dumping: [ x] No Data: i ~! Notes: debns/fill
(Source: CDM I9<>4 data) - - — ^
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric ' Known, 2 Knvironmenlal/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate. 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
r>=Desti\i\ed
P=PiirtialK disturbed
l'=lTndisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
ca 1941
ca 1941
Source
(i &. A 1992
DCMKC 1941:4
BCMI'C 1941:4
Comments
Hem's Crock, Fight Day s\v:uiip
Location
all
tide gate to NF
Nl: of parcel
dike to N and Nl-
N & NF of parcel
Eitent (*/•)
100%
n/a
n/a
D
P
X
N
R
J_
1
| 111 DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
I Roud Construction 2 RR Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban lVvelopmenl i< Ihidergromid Utilities 7 Industrial Complex S Dike or Ditch *5 Other Acunrs
Disturb.
X
Description
diked marsh
Source
use A OS 1962:1
diked uuirsli
air photo l'(o3 12
9 pond/quarry pit
1 roud construction
2 tail spur
3 foundation
cut/till cluinyes
Comments
Location
dike N it NF of parcel
tva
ditched along Item's Creek also. 3 5' elev
all
air photo 1963:12
air [>liolo 1 *><**>
air photo 14>'>2 3
air photo 1992 3
to N of ptircel
n a
(.•rand/Stark Ave to SF
SF comer
rail spur otVGrand/St;irk Ave is N bomuLuy
N
140' \ 1 (HV foundation
central
airphoto 1W23
0'- 8" elev rest of parcel
Extent (%)
aa
liV°,
n :1
10 "j
10%
40%
50%
fui|Mct None j | I'aitinl | | Total J X J
Iiiossiuau and Associates. hie Julv l',l>4
IV-paied In NAS JWii 1 \i!c o ltv°4
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID at Date Visited 5/16/94 Municipality Carlstadt County Bergen
BWRoU 3 Frames 19-27 Color Roll 3 Frames 11-37
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
3-5' modem fill/fill-in-progress dump truck piles. Only wetland is adjacent to the creek.
Industrial development to the northeast, east and south.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: at Date Visited: 5/16/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County: Bergen
BW Roll: 3 Frames 19-27 Color Roll: 3 Frames 11-37
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDAav Development Category: Satellite Area
County; Bergen
Municipality; Caristadt
Size; 5.3 (acres) GAI Field Map; 2
Local Designation; across Stark Rd From Thumann's Warehouse
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: I X |
. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: | \
^ota^ L=J 3 Presence/Absence Testing: | |
Partial I—I 4 Both (2 and 3): | |
Ucatim 5 Struct. Doc.: ~
L LANDFORM
Laadform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: X Knoll: | | Other south edge
Landfill Statm Pre-1970 Solid: [ ~| Modern Sanitary [ | Informal Dumping: X No Data: ( | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (%) D P U N R
NONE I II II II II I
in DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R- Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
8
Description
ditched and diked marsh
Source
BCMEC 1941:4
Comments
Location
dike system toN
all
Extent (•/•)
100%
8
ditched swamp/marsh
USC &G5 1962:1
"swamp" to NW; "marsh" rest
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
air photo 1963:12
2.2" elev
all
100%
4
cut/fill changes
air photo 198S
heavily disturbed center, ditched periphery
n/a
90%
I
road construction
airphoto 1985
Stark RdN boundary
N
10
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1985
adjacent across ditch to E
n/a
n/a
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1992:8
0*- 9.2' elev, scattered ponds & vegetation
all
100%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1992:8
ditched across A around parcel
all
100%
Impact None: Partial: [^] Total: 1X |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/JWG Date: 6/16/94
-------
Parcel ID av
BWRoll 3 Frames 1-11
Hackcnsack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Date Visited 5/16/94 Municipality Carlstadt County Bergen
Color Roll 2 Frames 21-36
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes: Fill and riprap along north boundary of parcel parallel to Starke Rd. Informal dumping scattered throught interior.
Phragmitcs in lower wet area; small diameter hardwood trees.
Underground gas pipeline marker. New ditch/tidegatc to east of the parcel.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ED: av Date Visited: 5/16/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County: Bergen
BW Roll: 3 Frames 1-11 Color Roll: 2 Frames 21-36
Street Names:
ppyi
\
1
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: PDA aw Development Category:
County:
Municipality:
Size: 18.5 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Satellite Area
Secaucus
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: I X 1
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: | 1
3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 1
4 Both (2 and 3): | 1
5 Struct. Doc.: | j
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh:
Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: | | Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: X Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: [ | No Data: ( | Notes: all fill
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
6
Date/Period
19th. C
Source
Vermeule 1887
Comments
Railroad
Location
Wboundary
Extent (•/.) D P U N
_D/2 ~~~!
R
m
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
9
high ground/marsh
USC & GS 1962:3
high ground adjacent to RR, rest marsh
all
100%
4
fill
airphoto 1963:4
W border area 17.4' elev
W
25%
4
fill in progress
air photo 1963:4
E&SE
E&SE
25%
8
diked marsh
air photo 1963:4
Penhom Creek diked to N
S
10%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1963:4
structures/roads/parking lots
SE
40%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1968:59
heavily disturbed & ditched N of fill
W, E & SW
60%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1968:59
additional structures/roads
SE
40%
1
road construction
airphoto 198528
Penhom Ave. forms NE central boundary
NE
20%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1985:28
all along Penhom Creek
n/a
40%
7
industrial complex
air photo 1985:28
now "ruins & piles" complex
SE
40%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1992:27
21.7 elev, 9.0' S; 11 4-NE
n/a
60%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1992:27
structures/roads/parking
NE & SE
40%
Impact None: Q Partial: Total: l~x]
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date. 6/16/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID aw Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Secaucus County Hudson
BWRoll 7 Frames 27-31 Color Roil 7 Frames 27-31
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Parcel the periphery of large land-filling episode, and marginally a part of marshland on top of fill has extended into it
¦Sn«rti section - open gr»gcianrf ruins of frame houses, small trees. North out parcel: new warehouse complex.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: aw Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7 Frames 27-31 Color Roll: 7 Frames 27-31
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: PDA bb Development Category:
County:
Municipality.
Size: 11.4 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Satellite Area
North Bergen
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: X Upland: | | Confluence: River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: [^] Other
ImiWII SWh« Pre-1970 Solid: | X | Modem Sanitary. ( ] Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | | Notes: SE comer 30% landfill
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
a
~
~
~
~
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (*/•) D P U N R
2 prehistoric G & A 1992 banks of Bellman's Creek n/a 80 I 1 1 X 11 11 1 1 1 1
6 19th. C Vermeule 1887 NY S & W railroad NE border n/a I 11 11 I fx"! HI
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distarb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
diked marsh
USC &GS 1962:2
"levee" E-W from RR then S through W half of parcel
all
100%
8
diked marsh
airphoto 1963:1
4.8"- 5.2' elev east of dike
all
100%
8
diked marsh
air photo 1968:56
levee still visible W half & N
N&E
80%
4
fill in progress?
air photo 1968:56
appears disturbed SW
SW corner
20%
4
filled? marsh
airphoto 1985
no levee visible
all
100%
4
cut/fill changes
airphoto 1992:11
4.4' elev east 2/3
E
70%
8
ditched marsh
airphoto 1992:11
ditched W 1/3,0.5'-2.7 elev
W
30%
9
fenceline
air photo 1992:11
industrial complex fence to S
S
n/a
Impact None: [^j Partial: 1 1 Total: 1X1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/16/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID bb Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality N.Bergen County Hudson
BWRoll 7 Frames 1 Color Roll 7 Frames 1
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Large warehouse complex to south beyond fenceline.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Haekensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: bb Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: N. Bergen County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7 Frames 1 Color Roll: 7 Frames 1
Street Names:
mi w
SfpSfPf
-------
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
SENSITIVITY EVALUATION FORMS
PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE:
PLANNING AREAS RETAINED AS SATELLITE.
Grniimin »oH AwocittM, Inc.
-------
I
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: FDA ae/af Development Category: Planning Retained as Satellite
County:
Municipality:
Size: 60.8 (acnes) GAI Field Map:
Hudson
North Bergen
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
B
B
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: | j Confluence: | j River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | [ Other: undefined, cedar swamp - North central
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | X j Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | | Notes: south half landfill (Vermeule 1887)
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
9
Date/Period
17-18th C
Source
Hammond 1947
Comments
lot divisions
Location
all
Extent (•/•)
100%
D P U N R
~ ~~EE
3
19th C
Vermeule 1887
present day Secaucus Road
extreme S boundary
n/a
~~~Em
4
1871 -1874
USCS 1874
3 possible structures on Rd.
on road at S boundary
n/a
~ ~~CUCT]
6
19th C
Vermeule 1887
present day Amtrak
N boundary
n/a
1 I! IIX || 111!
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/¦)
7
structures/trailer storage
air photo 1963:4
fill/dense vegetation in spots
all
100%
7
structures/trailer storage
air photo 1968:59
fill/piles of fill/trails
all
100%
7
structures/ruins/trailer storage
air photo 198528
spotty dense vegetation/debris piles
all
100%
7
demolished industrial structures
airphoto 1992
piles of construction debris
all
100%
Impact None: Q Partial: Q Total: IX1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: KlAS/VO Date: 6/9/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel fD n/rf Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality N.Bergen County Hudson
BWRoll 7 Frames 23-24 Color Roll 7 Frames 23-24
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Open with vegetation central and south sections of parcel.
Warehouse complexes to east and south.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: ae/af Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: N. Bergen County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7 Frames 23-24 Color Roll: 7 Frames 23-24
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA ag Development Categoiy: Planning Retained as Satellite
County: Hudson
Municipality: Secaucus
Size: 36.5 (acres) GAI Field Map: 4
Local Designation: "Dude Pond"
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: i X |
.—. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: | |
^ota^ — 3 Presence/Absence Testing: | |
Partial I—I 4 Both (2 and 3): | |
Location 5 Struct. Doc.: | |
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: X Upland: | | Confluence: Qjj River/Stream Bank: | X | Knoll: | | Other
Umimi Status Pre-1970 Solid: [ X J Modern Sanitary: [~7] Informal Dumping: [7~] No Data: [~j Notes: whole parcel
(Source: CDM 1994dMa)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%) D P
ntz
u
N R
zo
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (•/•)
4
filled/drained? marsh
USC&GS 1962:3
"high ground"
all
100%
4
fill/grading in process
air photo 1963:5
south 1/2 filled; north 1/2 partially filled
all
100%
9
wooded/dirt roads/trails
air photo 1985
also N-S running ditch
all
100%
4
dry pood bed in north
airphoto 1992
trails, dirt roads, N-S ditch
all
100%
9
pond with fountain
field visit 1994
dirt bicycle trails/wooded
all
100%
Impact None: Q Partial: 1 1 Total: ~x]
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/VO
Date:
6/9/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID ae Date Visited 5/24/94 Municipality Secaucus County Hudson
BW Roll 9 Frames 11-15 Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes: Access from path off road to west. Large filled area bordered at the edges by drainages that may or may not be part of original marshland.
A duck pond with fountain is in a public park adjacent to southern corner of the PDA, which floods an adjoining warehouse parking lot.
Within the fill are some wetland that may not have been filled for drainage purposes, or cut and created, (a large ditch through the N-S center).
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: ag Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
BW Roll: 9 Frames 11-15 Color Roll; Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA aj Development Category: Planning Retained as Satellite
County: Hudson
Municipality: Kearny
Size: 27.1 (acres) GAI Field Map: 5
Local Designation: across Belleville Pike from 6Cf high municipal landfill
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
a
~
~
~
~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh:
Upland: X Confluence: | [ River/Stream Bank: | j Knoll: | | Other cedar swamp - E1/3
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Modem Sanitary. | | Informal Dumping: [x] No Data: | | Notes: all landfill
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
3
Date/Period
19th C
Source
Vermeule 1882
Comments
Location
Belleville Pike
Extent (•/•)
n/a
10
ca. 1872
in WPA guide 1939
Jersey City aqueduct
beneath Belleville Pike
n/a
6
19th C
Vermeule 1887
Erie-Lackawanna RR
S boundary
n/a
4
ca. 1839
USCS 1839
possible house location
SW corner parcel
n/a
D P
ncx
~
U N
JLH
~ ~CH
~ ~~
R
~ m
~~
~~
x]E
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
4
filled/drained? marsh
USC &GS 1962:3
"high ground"
all
100%
4
filled/drained? marsh
air photo 1963:6
spotty vegetation/open areas
n/a
90%
3
structures
air photo 1963:6
N portion along Belleville Pike
N
10%
1
roadway
air photo 1968:102
from Belleville Pike to R.R. tracks
center
10%
4
fillcd/graded/clearcd
air photo 1985
possible structures along Belleville Pike?
n/a
90%
1
roadway
air photo 1985
same as 1968:102
center
10%
4
cleared/informal? dumping
air photo 1992
vegetation/debris
all
100%
1
roadway/turn-around
Geld visit 1994
probable truck staging area?
SE comer
10%
Impact
None: f-] Partial: ~J Total: fx"
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS/VO
Date: 6/9/94 j
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID aj Date Visited 5/24/94 Municipality Kearny County Hudson
BWRoll 8 Frames 16,17 Color Roll 8 Frames 16,17
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
HifB-rmtial filling and/or frost heaving. Vegetation covered irregular topography above surrounding grade- fill?
No structures/foundations visible along Belleville Turnpike - north boundary.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel D>: aj Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Kearny County: Hudson
BWRoIl: 8 Frames 16,17 Color Roll: 8 Frames 16,17
Street Names:
*
¦ s.:,*
w$$M$
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA ak Development Category: Planning Retained as Satellite
County: Hudson
Municipality: Kearny
Size: 32.3 (toes) GA1 Field Map: 5
Local Designation: "Standard Tallow Co."
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
Impartially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: 1 x !
.—. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation. 1 |
^ota* LJ 3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 1
Partial 1—I 4 Both (2 and 3): | |
Location 5 Struct Doc.: ~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: X Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | | Other.
Landfill Statue Pre-1970 Solid: [_X | Modern Sanitary: | ] Informal Dumping: | | No Data: [ Notes: industrial site, 50% landfill S and SE
rnu 100 4
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (*/•) D P U N R
3 19th C Venneule 1887 road along N boundary N of parcel n/a I II 11 II X~| 1 I [
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS 1
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
7
industrial complex
air photo 1963:3
includes possible power plant?
all
100%
2
rail spur construction
air photo 1968:102
to various structures
n/a
n/a
4
fill in pi ogress/ditches
airphoto 1968:102
piles of fill/ditches
n/a
n/a
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1968:102
structures/tanks
all
100%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1985
laige warehouse NE, rest of parcel smaller structures
all
100%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1992
NW corner structures demolished
all
100%
Impact None: 1 ( Partial: j ( Total: IX
Grossman and Associates, be. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/VO Date: 6/10/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID ak Date Visited 5/24/94 Municipality Kearny County Hudson
BW Roll 8 Frames 20-22 Color Roll 8 Frames 20-22
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
inaccessible. Access to other areas of the property impossible from fences around construction equipment.
Extreme west corner has some open space. Rail spurs and parking areas. Access from Newark Turnpike.
Grossman & Associates, lac.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: ak Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Kearny County: Hudson
BW Roll: 8 Frames 20-22 Color Roll: 8 Frames 20-22
Street Names:
If: "
¦111
A:"-
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA aq N Development Category: Planning Retained as Satellite
County: Hudson
Municipality. Jersey City
Size: 14.3 (acres) GAI Field Map: 9
Local Designation: large truck terminals
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: | X | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | | Other:
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary. | | Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (•/.) D P U N R
9 17-18thC Hammond 1947 possible lot divisions jdl 100 % 1 11 11 11 X 1 1 1 1
6 19thC Venneule 1887 railroad Sborder n/a 1 II llxll 11 1 1
1 m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
E
Recommended Study Coverage
1 No Further Work:
Total ~
Partial | |
Location
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
~
~
~
~
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (%)
7 industrial complex air photo 1963:4 warehouses/trailer storage all 100 %
7
industrial complex
air photo 1968:68
warehouses/trailer storage
all
100%
7
industrial complex
air photo 1985
warehouses/trailers/parking lots
all
100%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1992
warehouses/trailers/parking lots
all
100%
Impact None: Q Partial: Total:
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by NAS/GJM/VO Date: 6/10/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID to North Date Visited 5/24/94 Municipality Jersey City County Hudson
BWRoU 7,8 Frames 36,1 Color Roll 7,8 Frames 36,1
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: aq North Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Jersey City County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7,8 Frames 36,1 Color Roll: 7,8 Frames 36,1
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ED: PDA aq S Development Category; Planning Retained as Satellite
County: Hudson
Municipality: Jersey City
Size: 16.7 (acres) GAI Field Map: 9
Local Designation: old power plant at river
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: I X j
. . 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: j 1
^"ota^ j=J 3 Presence/Absence Testing: [ j
Partial 1—J 4 Both (2 and 3): j |
LocaUon 5 Struct. Doc.: Q
I LAND FORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | j Upland: | X | Confluence: [^] River/Stream Bank: | X [ Knoll: [^j Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid £ | Modern Sanitary: [ | Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | X | Notes: demolition in process
(Source: CDM 1994 daU)
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (•/•) D P U N R
3 19thC Venneule 1887 roads N&S borders 10% j |[ ][ l[~x] fTI
10 19th C Venneule 1887 dock outlines NW corner 10% I II ] 1 il~X~l 1 1 |
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (*/•)
7 gas plant?/industrial complex air photo 1963:4 gasholders/docks/slip/structures all 100 %
7
gas piant?/industrial complex
airphoto 1968:68
large gasholders/structures
all
100%
7
gas plant?/industrial complex
air photo 198S
gasholders/tanks/roads/structures
all
100%
7
gas plant?/industrial complex
air photo 1992
gasholckrs/docks/roads/structures
all
100%
9
demolition in progress
field visit 1994
cleared/scattered piles of debris
S
n/a
Impact None: [^} Partial: Total: fjT
Grossman and Associates, lac. My 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 6/10/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID »q South Date Visited 5/24/94 Municipality Jersey City County Hudson
BWRoll 8 Frames 8-11 Color Roll 8 Frames 8-11
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
West vide - approx. 1/3 parcel ongoing demolition. East side - approx. 2/3 parcel - fenced empty lots.
Access from streets within the parcel.
Grossman A Associates. Ik.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: aq South Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Jersey City County: Hudson
BW Roll: 8 Frames 8-11 Color Roll: 8 Frames 8-11
Street Names:
_
£&fSi
:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ED: PDA ay Development Category: Planning Retained as Satellite
County: Hudson
Municipality: Secaucus
Size: 3 (acres) GAI Field Map: 3
Local Designation: within triangle of Route 3 corridors
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: | X | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: [ [ Knoll: | | Other, fast land extreme E border
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | X | Notes: probably disturbed by Route 3 construction
(Source: CDM 1994 daU)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: | X 1[
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: ] |
3 Presence/Absence Testing: | 1
4 Both (2 and 3): Q
5 Struct. Doc.: | |
D P U N
~ ~~~
R
~
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (•/•)
9
parking area?
airphoto 1963:8
open area, no structures
all
100%
7
industrial complex
air photo 1968:58
warehouse-east/trailer storage-west
all
100%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1985
warehouse/trailers/open area-west
all
100%
3
warehouse
air photo 1992
rest open area, no trailers
E
30%
Impact None: Partial: | | Total: [ XI
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 6/9/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID Date Visited Municipality Secaucus County Hudson
BWRoll Frames Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: ay Date Visited: Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
BW Roll: Frames Color Roll: Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Pared ID: PDA az Development Category: Planning Retained as Satellite
County: Hudson
Municipality: Secaucus/Noith Bergen
Size: 30.6 (acres) GAI Field Map: 7
Local Designation: Home Depot Mall/Sumo Co. Warehouse
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ' No Further Work:
.—. 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
I—) 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
LAj
Partial
Location
~
5 Struct. Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: j ) Upland: | | Confluence: | j River/Stream Bank: X Knoll: | | Other probably filled
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid' | | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping: 3T] No Data: j | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 dtfa)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partial!y disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
3
Date/Period
18th C
18-19th C
Source
Hammond 1947
Hammond 1947
Comments
road to "Indian Spring* ?
Paterson Plank Road
Location
across SE quadrant
near N border
Extent (•/•) D P
iq% i inn
U
n/a
N R
~ CD
~~~ram
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comment*
Location
Extent (*/•)
3
structures
air photo 1963:7
structures/cleared/spotty vegetation
NE corner
25%
1
road benn/curb construction
airphoto 1968:59
entire periphery of parcel
n/a
n/a
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1968:59
structures/parking lots
all
100%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1985:22
structures/parking/traileT storage
all
100%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1992
large warehouses/parking lots
all
100%
Impact None: Q Partial: Total: IXI
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 6/9/94
-------
Parcel IP az
BW Roll 7 Frames 18-20
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality H. Bergen County Hudson
Color Roll 7 Frames 18-20
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes: West side is open lots, turnpike access and Home Depot complex.
East side is Sums Co. complex to north. Home Depot to the south.
Grossman A Associates, foe.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: az Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: N. Bergen County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7 Frames 18-20 Color Roll: 7 Frames 18-20
ia^sgplfea?
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDAba Development Category: Planning Retained as Satellite
County: Hudson
Municipality: Secaucus
Size: 26.4 (acres)
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation: buildings along Secaucus Road
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both {2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: j X ) Upland: | ) Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: X Knoll: j | Other; fast land NW comer
Landfill Statu Pre-1970 Solid: [ X | Modem Sanitary. [ | Informal Damping: X No Data: | | Notes: all landfill
(Source: CDM 1994 data}
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
18th C
Source
G & A 1992
Vermcule 1887
Comments
Location
Penhom Creek W bank
all
Secaucus Road
W boundary
Extent (V#)
100%
n/a
D P
~EOI
~ ~I
E
~
~
~
~
U N
R
CD
m
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Diiturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
4
possible fill activity?
USC & GS 1962:3
"marsh and fast land"
all
100%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1963:4
large structures/trailer storage
all
100%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1968:59
stiuctures/trailers/fiin piles
all
100%
4
fill/grading in progress
airphoto 1968:59
piles of fill/debris amid buildings
n/a
n/a
7
industrial complex
air photo 1985:28
very large structures/trailers
all
100%
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1992
structures/trailers/piles of debris
all
100%
Impact None: Q Partial: {^] Total: fx"
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date. 6/10/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID b» Date Visited 5/23/94 Municipality Secaucus County Hudson
BWRoll 7 Frames 34,35 Color Roll 7 Frames 34-35
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Large residential? bldgs east side of road, semi-wooded - landscaped?
Large commercial?) structure at NW corner of parcel at dead end; auto shop w/ drums and tire refuse along road also.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: ba Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: Secaucus County: Hudson
BW Roll: 7 Frames 34,35 Color Roll: 7 Frames 34-35
<
-------
1 Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA n Development Category: Planning Retained as Satellite
County Bergen
Municipality: Carlstadt
Size: 10 (acres) GAI Field Map: 2
Local Designation: "Datability" parking lot/Superfund site
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: Confluence: River/Stream Bank: j X | Knoll: [^] Other
Landfill Statui Pre-1970 Solid: f ] Modem Sanitary: | I Informal Dumping I I No Data: j X I Notes: Superfund Site
(Source: CDM 1994 daU)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Ptyhigt^r I Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (%) D P U N R
2 prehistoric G &. A 1992 Berry's/Peach Island creeks all 100% 1 i I X 11 11 11 1 |
4 post 1913 BCMEC post 1913 "Kraft House*? near road, S boundary n/a I II II 1 l~X~] 1 1 |
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: j X |
I—| 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: |
U=J 3 Presence/Absence Testing: | [
PaTtial I—' 4 Both (2 and 3): | |
Location 5 Struct. Doc.: | |
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=PartialIy disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Disturb.
4
Description
filled/drained ? marsh
Source
USC & GS 1962:1
Comments
Location
"high ground'
all
Eitent (V.)
100%
8
ditched
airphoto 1963:8
to Berry's creek
7
industrial complex
airphoto 1963:8
structures/parting lots
all
100%
4
fill/grading in process
airphoto 1985
open area in center
7
industrial complex
air photo 1985
structures/parking lots
all
100%
9
cleared/covered
airphoto 1992
Superfund area • site visit
W
60%
9
industrial complex
airphoto 1992
structures/parking lots
E
40%
Impact None: [^] Partial: Total: IX |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date;
6/9/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID n Date Visited 5/16/94 Municipality Carlstadt County Bergen
BW Roll 2 Frames 21-31 Color Roll 2 Frames 6-12
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Tide-gate on Berry's Creek - under Gotham Partway today.
Billings Freight System building and paved trailer storage lot - east section.
Grossman & Associates, lac.
-------
Parcel ID: n
BW Roll: 2
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Date Visited: 5/16/94 Municipality: Carlstadt County:
Frames 21-31 Color Roll: 2 Frames 6-12
Bergen
Street Names:
mm
\ / / \ ^
V /X / / \ \
N7 / \«- >
\ / / \
. / / / \
L / \ i
; i ,r«?-
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA s Development Category. Planning Retained as Satellite
County;
Municipality:
Size: 30.7 (acres)
Hudson
North Bergen
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation: Behind Concrete Company
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh:
Upland- | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank: | X [ Knoll: | | Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: | X | Modem Sanitary: [ | Informal Dumping: ] [ No Data: | | Notes: 80% to east
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
ca 1941
Source
G&A 1992
BCMEC 1941
Comments
E bank Bellman's Creek
Location
NW section
6' x 6' tide gate on Bellman's Creek
NE comer
Extent (*/•)
40%
n/a
D
SI
~I
U
E
~
~
~
~
N R
nm
DB0
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
[l Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
fill in progress
industrial complex
fill in process
industrial complex
cleared/graded/filled?
industrial complex
Source
airphoto 1963:10
airphoto 1963:10
air photo 1968:56
airphoto 1968:56
air photo 1985
airphoto 1985
cleared/graded/open
air photo 1992
industrial complex
air photo 1992
Comments
Location
piles of fill amid structures
n/a
structures/trailer storage
all
piles of fill
n/a
structures/trailer storage/parking
all
piles of fill, vegetation
W
structures/roads/parking
NE comer
appears covered with vegetation
W
structures/parking
NE comer
Extent (%)
n/a
100%
n/a
100%
75%
25%
75%
25%
Impact None: Q Partial: j^| Total: IX |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/GJM Date: 6/9/94
-------
H&ckensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel IP 3 Pate Visited 5/23/94 Municipality N. Bergen County Hudson
BWRoll 6 Frames 32-36 Color Roll 6 Frames 32-35
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Open mcadw/jgrassland - probably filled and graded? Employee of said company says a former fireworks factory was there,
frv^rf^ai/ynfonnal dumping near fence and dirt road on parcel - associated with concrete company?
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: s Date Visited: 5/23/94 Municipality: N. Bergen County: Hudson
BW Roll: 6 Frames 32-36 Color Roll: 6 Frames 32-35
Street Names:
lilll
' Mmis s> ; / ¦ W
;
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: PDA z Development Category: Planning Retained as Satellite
County:
Municipality:
Size: 20.8 (acres)
Lyndhurst
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc:
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: j | Upland: X Confluence, j | River/Stream Bank: | | Knoll: | j Other fast land W side
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid: f X | Modem Sanitary: | j Informal Dumping: | | No Data: | [ Notes: all landfill
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
4
Date/Period
ca. 1839
19th. C
Source
uses 1839
Vermeule 1887
Comments
Location
possible house location
W side
Extent (%)
n/a
a
~
~
~
~
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
near N boundary, part of S n/a
D P U N
~ ~~IXI
~ ~~®
R
m
m
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (%)
3 two disposal plants BCMEC map 1924 Lyndhurst and North Arlington plants n/a n/a
8
ditches
BCMEC map 1924
ditched from and around plants
all
100%
3
disposal plant
BCMEC map 1934
"new disposal plant"
n/a
n/a
8
ditches
BCMEC map 1934
"new ditches" from and around plant
all
100%
4
garbage dump
BCMEC map 1941
dump and disposal plant
all
100%
7
structures, gasline
airphoto 1963:6
some open area
n/a
n/a
7
structures, roads, parking lots
airphoto 198S
trails, possible new N-S ditch
all
100%
5
houses/light industrial structures
air photo 1992
development W of road - E of road open
all
100%
Impact None: Q Partial: Q Total: j~X~l
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS/VO/GJM Date: 6/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID z Date Visited 5/24/94 Municipality Lyndhurst County Bergen
BWRoll 8 Frames 18,19 Color RoU 8 Frames 18,19
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes: Marshland.
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: z Date Visited: 5/24/94 Municipality: Lyndhurst County: Bergen
BW Roll: 8 Frames 18,19 Color Roil: 8 Frames 18,19
Street Names:
VioUu Helistop
" r* > -,r vr ,-'. '
:»V3- • •
t f—I 1 1 1 ! (-
¦ : i '' \:. «®ir
,
¦: ,
mm
*£T£i£?S:j?!
t
-------
HACKENSACK MEADOWIANDS
SENSmVITY EVALUATION FORMS
WETLAND MITIGATION AND CREATION AREAS.
Grossman and Associates, Inc.
-------
Figure 3. Project Base map showing the location of all Wetland Mitigation/Creation areas investigated, with the two parcels selected
for archaeological sensitivity cross-hatched. Areas recommended for pollen core samplmg are indicated by the letter "P"
in a circle.
Grouman ind Auociitei, Inc.
-------
Harkensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-1 E Development Category:
County: Hudson
Municipality: Secaucus
Size: 47.0 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 Ho Further Work: fx]
Total 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: |
Partial [^j 3 Presence/Absence Testing: j
Location 4 Both (2 and 3): 1
Pollen Core Q 5 Struct Doc.: Q
1LANDFORM
Laadfom Tidal Marsh: [ X ] Upland: | | Confluence: j^] River/Stream Bank [ j Knoll: Other.
Laadflll Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary: (^j Informal Dumping [ | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destn>yed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period
NONE
Source
Commenti
Location
Extent (V.)
D P U N R
~ ~~~~
ID DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
I Road Construction 2 R.R Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Ciit/fili Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distarb. Detcription Source Comment* Location Extent (%)
Exclnded-No Wntifird Resources
Impact None: ?c] Partial: Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, toe. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/6/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-1 W Development Category
County; Bergen
Municipality; E. Rutherford
Size: 69.6 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation;
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage \ No Further Work:
Total 1 | 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial 1 | 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core I I 5 Struct Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: | | Confluence: | X | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: [ | Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 date)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G&A 1992
Comments
W bank of Hackensack River/Blackman's creek
Location
W
Extent (•/•)
20%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D
so
U N
R
w
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
8
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 1992:14
possible fill 3.W-3.3' elev
N
40%
4
fill changes
AirPhoto 1992:14
1-95 fill piles 6.2-9.0"elev
central
20%
8
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 1992:20
possible fill 4.3'-4.7 elev
S
40%
Impact None: Q Partial: Q Total: fx]
Grossman and Associates, lac. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/6/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-1-A Development Category: Wetland Creation Area
County. Bergen
Municipality. E. Rutherford
Size; 19.5 (acres)
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
Partial
Location
Local Designation:
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work:
m
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
u
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
u
4 Both (2 and 3):
i i
5 Struct Doc.:
u
LLANDFORM
Laadform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland j | Confluence: River/Stream Bank [ X [ Knoll: QJ Other.
LaadfUl Status Pre-1970 Solid [ X | Modem Sanitary:) [ Informal Dumping [ | No Data: [ | Notes: 60% to E ft N
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric i Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Data/Period Source Comments
2 prehistoric G& A1992 E bank Blackmail's creek
Location
W
Extent (%)
70%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P
®(Z
U
D[
N R
~ ED
IU DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Conidor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dtstorfc.
1
Description
1-95 construction
Soarce
Comments
on 30"+ embankment
Location
W
Extent (%)
n/a
1
Route 3 construction
on 30"+ embankment
central
n/a
4
fill changes
totally disturbed and/or filled
all
100%
Impact None: Q Partial: [^] Total:
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/6/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-2 Development Category.
County: Bergen
Municipality; Rutherford
Size: 85 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage i No Further Work:
Total | | 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial [^] 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core ~ 5 Struct. Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: ^ Upland: [^] Confluence: River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: Qj] Other Fish Creek thru center
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | X \ Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | J No Data: | j Notes: 60% S half, and thru center
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G&A 1992
Comments
Location
E bank Berry's creek
W
Extent (*/•)
20%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P
sn
E
~
~
~
~
U N
R
m
ID DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
jl Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
4_
8
Description
fill
ditched marsh
Source
AirPhoto 1992:14
Air Photo 1992:14
Comments
ditched, fill piles 4.2-11.2' elev
Location
extensively ditched, piles of4.2'-4.6' elev
W
Extent (*/•)
40%
60%
j Impact None: / ? Partial: I ] Total: fxlj
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
j Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/6/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel 0>. WA 2-3 Pewtepmcat Category
County. Bergen
MimKipality: Rmherfotd, lyridljurft
Size: 130 (acres) GAI Fieid Map:
Local Designation:
Wetland Mitigation
parcel specific recommendations
Ktfomroendwi Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: fx]
Totai [~] 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial LJ 3 Presence/Absence Testings i
Location 4 Both (2 and 3): i~f
Pollen Core 5 Struct. Doc.:
ILANDFOSM
Tidal Marsh j~X~| Upland: j j Confluence | j River/Stream Bank [ X j Knoll: j [ Other
LawHIH Statas Pre-lWO Solid { | Modern Sanitary: j j Informal Dumping j | No Data: [x~j Notes: 40% landfill SW section
(Sow*. C DM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Resource
Specific
ReconvrKndauons
Prehistcric I Known, 2 Environittsital/otber
Historic 3 Roadway. 4 Sirature 5Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tkie Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=PaitiaIly disturbed
U=Undis
-------
Hickeasack Mewiowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Bergen
CDM Pared ID: WA 2-4-A Development Category:
Corasty.
Municipality
Size; 13 (acres} GAI Field Map.
Local Designation:
Wetland Mitigation
Rutherford
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
r
Partial
u
Location
Pollen Cere
~
PARCEL SPEClfIC RECOMMENDATIONS
1 No Further Work: px"^
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: [_
3 Presence/Absence Testing; [_
4 Both (2 and 3): £
5 Strnct. Doc.: 1 "
I LAfiDFORM
Indfom Tidal Marsh: [ X | Upland: (~j Confiueocei rj River/Stream Bank (~X~j Knoll: j [ Other
Landfill Status Pte-1970 Solid j j Modem Sanitary: | I Informal Dumping j | No Data-, fx] Notes: fill to the S
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
j RcS£tX'RALB«501JBCES
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Envirmmentai/o&er
Historic JReodway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tice Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, Desttnyed
Impartially disturbed
UHtodistuibed
N-No Jnfotmaiion
a P U N R
saancn
til DISTURBANCES SEEN IX AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ANP MAPS
I Road Compaction 2 RR. Corrida Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/511 Topographicchanges 5 Suburban Development 6 Ifadergnrottd Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike orthich 9 Other Activity j
Di*tnrt>.
8
Description
diketanbanlaiKSBt
Source
AirPlwto W2:13
Comments
W boundary access Rd to Rt 3
Locatkw
W
Extent (%)
a/a
2
RR on embankment
Airphoto 19ftJ:13
E boundary RR embankment
E
aIt
1
toad construction
Air Photo 1992:13
S boundary dirt access road
S
nit
4
OTt/fill/distuibed
Airphoto 1992:13
entire triangle shaped parcel
all
100%
f Impact Hooe; f~l Ratal: Q Total: fx|
Grossman and Associates, he. July 1994
j Prepared by. HAS Date. 7/6/94 j
-------
Hacfaensack Mewhwhutds Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parol n> WA2-6-aE Devetopmeat Categoty
County: Hudson
Municipality, Secaucus
Size 72.6 {acres) GAI Fieid Map:
Local Designation;
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage j No further Work. Q
Total j 1 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: {_ ,
Partial [_J 3 Presence/Absence Testing: | j
Location 4 Both (2 and 3): j |
Pollen Cote f~] S .Struct. Doc.: S i
c
L LANDFORM
taodforia Tidal Marsh: | X j Upland: | j Confluence: | X j River/Stream Bank | X j Knol): [ | Other ccrdRueoce wftmnasned creek, E bank Hackensack R.
LaadlUl Statu Pre-1970 Solid j j Modem Sanitary: [^j Informal Dumping [ j No Data: j X j Notes:
(Soom: COM 1994 dale) ~~
Resource
Specific
Recommendations.
» CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
?> Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N-No Information
Resoarct Date/Period
none
Source
Comments
Location
Eiteot (•/.)
0 P U N R
~ ~~~~
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
jl Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cal/fU! Topographic chacgcs 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex & Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtarfa. JVescriptioa Smuts Cmnmeoto Loc*tH» Extent (%)
Descriptioa
Kxrfwied-No Identi fied Resources
Impact None:
Partial: Q Total: ~
Grossman and Associates, Inc., July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/6/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
COM Parcel ID: WA2-6-aW Development Category:
County; Bergen
Municipality- E. Rutherford, Lyndhurst
Size; 90.8 (acres) GAI Field Map.
Local Designation
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total j 1
Partial ' !
Location
Pollen Core | X i
1 No Further Woric:
1 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and i).
5 Struct. Doc.:
I LANDFORM
Land form Tidal Marsh:'[ i Upland j j Confluence: [~X~j River/Stream Bank j~X~| Knoll: j j Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid [_xj Modem Sanitary: | j Informal rJaraping [ j No Data: j^j Notes: 10%N-central
(Score*. COM MM d*s*)
D CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Rootway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gste, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source Comments
G & A 1992 W bank Hackensack RyBenVs creek
Location
center
Extent (*-4)
40%
~
~
lJ
D
Resource
Specific
Recoramendati ons
Field Conditions j
D=Destroyed ;
P=Partialty disturbed !
U=Undistiirt>ed
N=No Information )
P U N R
xoncD
r
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
jl Road Construction 1R-R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex S Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Diltarb.
Description
Source
Comment*
Location
Extent (%)
e
ditched marsh
Air Photo 1992:20
scattered ponds 0-3.1' elev
S
60%
4
fill changes
AirPboto 1992.20
scattered piles adjacent to 1-95,4.3 -15 T elev
N't W
20%
2
RR co embankment
Air Photo 1992 (mosaic)
CooRaii corridor 1(7-30' elev
N&E
20%
4
landfill operation
Air Photo 1992 (mosaic)
out parcel in N half
N
Ttla
j Jayact None. [J fartkl: (xj Total: j |
Growawi tod Associates, lac. My 1994
j Prepared by. MS Pete: 7/6/94 ~"j
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 2-6-a (west) Date Visited Municipality County
BWRoll Frames Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes:
Grossman A Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 2-6-a (wes Date Visited: Municipality: County:
BW Roll: Frames Color Roll: Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-6-b Development Category.
County: Hudson
Municipality: Secaucus
Size: 0.9 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
n
Partial
u
Location
Pollen Core
~
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
1 No Further Work: [x]
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: |
3 Presence/Absence Testing: |
4 Both (2 and 3): |
5 Struct. Doc.: [
LLANDFORM
Laadfona Tidal Marsh: | } Upland: | | Confluence: [ | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: | | Other undefined
Landfill Statn Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary: | ) Informal Dumping j | No Data: | X [ Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID:
County;
Municipality;
Size; 0.4
WA 2-6-c Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
Hudson
Secaucus
(acres)
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
1 No Further Work:
Total
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial
~
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location
4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core
~
5 Struct Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh; | | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: | | Other undefined
Landfill Statu* Pre-1970 Solid | | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: (_xj Notes:
(Sours: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Paitially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent ("/•)
D P
~c
a
~
~
~
~
u N
~ d
R
~
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
Impact None: [x] Partial: Total: I i
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/6/94
J
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-7 E Development Category;
County:
Municipality:
Size: 3.34 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Secaucus
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total ~
Partial )
Location
Pollen Cote
~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: | ] Confluence: | j River/Stream Bank ] X | Knoll: [ | Other E bank of Hackensack River
T^mMiii Statu Pre-1970 Solid | | Modern Sanitary. | J Informal Dumping [~] No Data: |_X J Notes:
(Sonne: CDM 1994 data)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing.
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Rcfowce
6
Date/Period
19th. C
Source
Venneule 1887
Comments
RR corridor adjacent
Location
S boundary
Extent (%)
n/a
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P
~ [=
E
0
~
~
u N
R
~
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
I Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Source Comments Location Extent (%)
Description
Excluded-No Identified Reaources
Impact None: IT] Pwtial: Q] Total: 1 1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/6/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-7 W Development Category:
County: Bergen
Municipality; Lyndhurst
Size: 21.2 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total ~
Partial | [
Location
Pollen Core
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | X j Knoll: | j Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid [ | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | 1 No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 dxU)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
~
1 No Further Work: jT]
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.: |
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (*/•) D P U N R
2 prehistoric G& A 1992 both banks of Kingsland creek n/a 90% j 11 X || || j fT"!
6 19th. C Venneule 1887 RR corridor adjacent S boundary n/a [ II i 1 X 11 ] | 1 1
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
8
Description
ditched marsh
Source
AirPhoto 1992:19
Comments
ditched marsh/scattered ponds
Location
central
Extent (*/•)
90%
4
fill changes
AirPhoto 1992:19
disturbed, few structures
NE comer
>10%
1
rood construction
AirPhoto 1992:19
dirt? Rd along N border
N border
>10%
4
cut/fill changes
AirPhoto 1992:19
out parcel to west
W
n/a
Impact None: [J Partial: [x Total: I l|
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared ty:
HAS
Date: 7/6194
-------
H*ckensack Meadcvwlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel H>:
County.
Municipality:
Size: 10. t (i
WA 2-9-a Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
Hudson
Secaucus
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation;
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage j No Further Work:
Total 1 1 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial 1 | 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core Q S Stroct Doc.:
L
LLANDFORM
Ludfona Tidal Marsh: j | Upland: j | Confluence: ] | River/Stream Bank | X j Knoll: j [ Other E bank of Ilackensack River
LuMH Stetos Pre-2970 Solid j ) Modem Sanitary: Informal Dumping j [ No Data: jlT] Notes:
(Source. CDM I994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-9-b Development Category:
County:
Municipality:
Size: 0.7 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Secaucus
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage j No Further Work:
Total ~] 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial | j 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core j | 5 Struct. Doc.:
L LAND FORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland. | j Confluence. [ j River/Stream Bank j | Knoll: | j Other, undefined
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid j | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping j j No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 daU)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
6
Date/Period
19th. C
Source
Vermeule 1887
Comments
RR corridor adjacent
Location
E boundary
Extent (*/•)
10%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partialiv disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
a
~
~
~
~
D P U N R
~~~~~en
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Eitent (%)
Excluded-Disturbed
Impact None: ) J Partial: fx] Total: I |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
| Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/6/94 j
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ED: WA2-10E Development Category;
County.
Municipality:
Size: 3.73 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Secaucus
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total ~
Partial | |
Location
Pollen Core
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: | | Confluence: j | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: [ | Other E bank of Hackensack River
IjmMIII Statu Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: [x | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 d*a)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (%) D P U N R
1 prehistoric HCI1978 NJH2 proximity to Snake Hill finds toN n/a 1 11 11 llxll 1 1
4 19th. C HCI 1978# 13 proximity to County buildings toN n/a 1 II II 1 [~X~j I 1 1
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
DUtarb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (*/•)
I 1-95 construction Air Photo 1992:25 cuts thru N portion _N 20%
2
RR corridor
Air Photo 1992:25
along N & S boundaries
N&S
20%
9
transmission line
Air Photo 1992:25
along N boundary
N
n/a
8
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 1992:25
extensively ditched
EtoW
30%
4
fill changes
AirPhoto 1992:25
piles of fill 3.2'-4.2' elev
EtoW
30%
Impact None: 1 1 Partial: Total: IX [
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/6/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-10W Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
County:
Municipality.
Size: 25.7 (acres)
Local Designation:
Hudson
Kearny
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total | |
Partial | |
Location
Pollen Core
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X ] Upland: | | Confluence: | [ River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: | | Other:
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
~
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=PartiaHy disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period Source Comments
8 19th. C Vermeule 1887 Dike, W bank of Hackensack River
Location
all
Extent (•/•)
100%
D P
~ Cx
§
~
U N R
zocn
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description
Excluded-Disturbed
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (•/•)
Impact None: Q Partial, xj Total: I II
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/6/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDMParcel ID: WA2-IIN DewtapnenlCategory:
County:
Municipality;
Size: 116 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Wetland Mitigation.
Secaucus, Jersey City
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 Ho Further Work:
Total 2 Sensitivity Evaluation.
Partial ( | 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both<2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Pollen Core
~
L LAJVDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: f j Upland: | | Confluence: j X | River/Stream Bank | ) Knoll: j Other: confluence of Hackensack River 7.0' elev exnbankmait corridor
N border
n/a
impact None: {^3 Partial: 1 | Total: i X j
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/6/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-11 S Development Category:
County: Hudson
Municipality: Keamy
Size: 26.6 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh. | X | Upland: | j Confluence. | | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: j ( Other.
Landfill Statu Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
8
Date/Period
19th. C
Source
Vermeule 1887
Comments
Dike-S bank of Hackensack River
Location
through center
Extent (%)
50%
D P
~ SI
m
~
~
~
~
u N
R
m
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description
Excluded-Disturbed
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
Impact None: Partial: [xj Total: I i
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by. NAS
Date: 7/094
-------
Hackensack Meadowtands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Puree! 8>: WA 2-C E Development Category
County:
Municipality:
Size: 3.8 (acres)
Loc^ Designation:
WiHiand Mitigation
Ridgefieid
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Ccrverage
Total j |
Partial j)
location
PoGenCoce fx!
! No Farther Work:
1 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
L LANDFORM
land fa mi Tidal Marsb:pXj Upland j j Confluence: j j River/Stream Bank j~X~j Knoil: j j Other.
Landfill Statm Ffle-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitny: j^J Mbraud Dumping No Data: [x] Notes
(Soococ CDM 19M dcu)
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric ) Known, 2 Eavimmcailal/othcr
Historic 3 Roadway, A Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditcb, 9 Indicated Occigsation or 'umd Use 10 Other Feature
Reiourct
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
19th. C
Source Comments
G & A 1992 E bant of Hacteasaet River
Location
N
Venneale 1887
<}ite-H bank of Hackensack River
Nortral
extent (%)
70%
20%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
FiefcS Conditions
D=Destroyed
IM'airialty disturbed
1 F=Undisturbert
] M=No Infcwnativjo
» P If N R
sctzocd
~comm
F
|i Road Construction 2 R.R. Conidor Upgrades 3 Slnictares 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Ifndgtgraund Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AMD MAPS
3
DUtarb.
8
Description
dtke/embajitaaeBS
Source
Air Pboto 1992:5
Com menu
between RR and river lff-19.4'elev
Location
Nhaif
Eitent (%)
10%
4
cat/fill changes
Air Photo 1992.5
filled marsh XCM.}' elev
N half
30%
4
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 3992:5
ditches/dense vegetation O.T-S.S' ete»
ShaJf
60%
| Impart Nook Q Partial: j j Total: fx|
Grossman and Associates, Inc. iuly 1994
[ Prepasadby NAS ^~~Date: 7/7/94 ~"j
-------
Hackensack Meadowiands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 2-c(east) Date Visited Municipality County
BW Roil Frames Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes:
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Harkcnsack Mfaidowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 2-c (east) Date Vmtcd: Municipality; County:
BW Bali: Frames Color Roll: Frames
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-CW Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
County.
Municipality;
Bergen
Little Ferry
Size: 36.S (acres)
Local Designation:
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total | |
Partial [ [
Location
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work: 1 ) ,
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 1
3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 |
4 Both (2 and 3): ~
5 Struct. Doc.: 1 1
LLANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: [ | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: | | Other.
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes: fill to N
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G&A 1992
Comments
W bank of Hackensack River
Location
all
Extent (*/•)
100%
U N
~ EC
R
m
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description
9 shoreline modification
sewage disposal plant
Source Comments
Air Photo 1992:5 parcel from waterline to 0* contour
Location
all
AirPhoto 1992:5
immediately S of parcel
Extent (*/•)
100%
n/a
Impact None: Partial: ) j
Total:
a
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/7194
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-D E Development Catcgopr.
County: Bergen
Municipality; Ridgefield
5.3
Wetland Mitigation
Size:
(acres)
GAI Field Map;
Local Designation;
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
1 No Further Work:
Total
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial
~
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location
4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core
~
5 Struct. Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh; | X | Upland; | | Confluence; | | River/Stream Bank 1 X | Knoll; [ | Other E hank of Hackensack River
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modern Sanitary [^] Informal Dumping [^J No Data; | X | Notes;
(Source. CDM 1994 dab)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
PKbistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P
~ d
~
~
~
~
U N
R
~
IH DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distort*. Description
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
Impact None; _X Partial: [^J Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by
NAS
Date: 7/7/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID. WA2-DW Development Category.
County; Bergen
Municipality: Little Ferry
Size: 31.7 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total ~
Partial j |
Location
Pollen Core
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: [ [ Upland: | | Confluence: [ | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: [ [ Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid [ | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | [ No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
~
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G & A 1992
Comments
W bank of Hackensack River
Location
all
Extent (%)
100%
a
~
~
~
~
D P U N R
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description
9 shoreline modification
sewage disposal plant
Source
AirPhoto 1992:5
AirPhoto 1992:5
Comments
parcel from waterline to 4.01 contour
3 large tanks, fill, triple pier in river
Location
N
Extent (*/•)
50%
50% __
Impact None: Q Partial: Q Total: fx"]
Grossman and Associates, be. July 1994
Prepared by. NAS Date: 7/7/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Bergen
CDM Parcel H> WA2-E-a l>evek3ptnenl Category:
County:
Municipality;
Size; 15S (ages) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation.
Wetland Mitigation
Csristadt
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total Q
Partial | |
Location
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work: pX~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: P
3 Pnesence'Atsence Testing: [_
4 Both (2 and 3>: [__
5 Struct. Doc.: ) j
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | [ Confluence: (~j RiverfStream Bank | X j ICnolI: Other former cedar swamp & Reile/s Island
Landfill State* Pie-1970 Solid j j Modem Sanitary"-1 j Informal Dumping | | No Data: [ X ] Notes:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
(Sctttee-.CDU 1994 (fata)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
! Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
j Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Diteh, 9 indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
p=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturt!ed
N=No Information
Btumrce
2
OntriFciM
prehistoric
Source ComracBU
G&A1992 both banks of Moonachie Creek
Location
center
Extent (%)
30%
» P 0 N R
sozoiz)
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IT< AERIAL PHOTOCRAPKY AND MAPS " j
[l Road r'""«*n>ctiop 2R.R.Cocridot Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtarb.
Dctcriptioa
Source
COHBOtl
Locatioa
Extent (*/*)
8
ditched marsh
AirFhoto 1992:9
ditched/deose vegetation
n/a
75%
4
fill changes
AirPhoto 1992:10
scattered fill piles, 1-95 impact
S
@25%
4
cut/fill changes by 1924
BCMEC 1921-1924
Moonachie crock re-channeied
center
30%
| Impact None: P Partial: [ 1 Total: fxj
Grossman and Associates* he. luly 1994
Prepared by.
NAS
Date:
7/7/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Pared ID: WA 2-E-b Development Category:
County: Bergen
Municipality: Carlstadt
Size: 9.S (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ] No Further Work:
Total [[^] 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial | j 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core Q] 5 Struct. Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: j X | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: | | Other: former cedar swamp and 20% fasti and
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: [ X ] Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P
~rz
u
m
~
~
~
~
oi
N R
zo
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (*/•)
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Impact None: x] Partial: | ) Total: I i
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/7/94
-------
Hackensack Mesdowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel E> WA 3-E-c Pevetoproeat Category:
County
Municipality;
Size: 1 (acres)
Wetland Mitigation
Caristadt
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage j Ho Further Work.
Total
Partial
Location
Pollen Core
E
~
L IAMDFORM
Landforn Tidal Marsh:
Upland' | j Confluence: [ j River/Stream Bank j j Knoll: | ) Other near tributary of Moonachie Cr.
Laadflll Statat Pre-1970 Solid p j Modem Sanitary: P~] Infernal Dumping |__J No Data: fx") Notes:
(Sane: CDM 1994 dm) '
j It CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric i Known, 2 Enviromnental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Struchne 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or t>itch, 9 Indicated Occupation or [.and Use 10 Other Feature
2 Sensitivity Evaluation;
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both il and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
Impartially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Pertod
NONE
Seuree
CoetMcnti
Loc»tteti
Eittnl (V»)
D P U N B
~ ~~~~
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS H
1 Road Caustructian 1R R.. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Dcfefopmegt 6 Undeigrotmd Utilities 7 Industrial Complex S Pike ct Ditch 9 Other Activity j
Mafaufc. Dctcrfptioa Source Comneiib Locatkw Etteat {%)
Exeladod-No Ideotifioi Resource
Impact None [x] Partial: Q3 Totefc I ]
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/7/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID:
County:
Municipality:
Size: 22.1 (acres)
Local Designation:
WA 2-E-d Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
Bergen
Carlstadt
GAI Field Map.
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total | 1
Partial | |
Location
Pollen Core
~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: X Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank X Knoll: | [ Other: former cedar swamp NE
® !>»»,», ~ N„ DM. ~ NoIes:
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: LJ
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.: 1
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period
2 prehistoric
Sou rce
G&A 1992
Comments
both banks of Moonachie Creek
Location
center
Extent (•/•)
40%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P U N
SDDE
m
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R- Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
4
Description
fill changes
8 ditched marsh
Source
Air Photo 1992:9
Air Photo 1992:9
Comments
fill from I-9S corridor and ramp
fill along 1-95 on S border, 0.6'-3.3' elev
Location
W
Extent (*/•)
50%
50%
Impact None: Q Partial: j~| Total: fx
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared ty.
NAS
Date: W94
-------
Htcktnsttk Mesdotviands Sensitivity Evs)u«io«
CBMfercellDr
County;
Muracrpaii(y.
Size: UJ (acres)
Local Designate*!:
WA2-F DwrinpneBS Cstegoiy: Wdtafid Mitigation
Carfswdt
GAI Field Sfcp.
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMEHDATIOPiS
Sentjnegfcil Study Ceirtip
i No Further Wort:.
fx]
Twal
~
i S£iii)l)vii> Evaluation.
i i
Partial
~
3 Presence/A bseoce Testing:
hi
LocaUod
4 Both {2 and 3 V
a
Pollen Core
~
5 Street. Dsc.:
ILANDFORM
UaAia Tidd Marsh: j~X~) (Jpifei j | CmCveece J~"~! PjI'stfScamBurnt j j KkjIJ. j ] Otben
Lndfitf Ste&M Pre-WO Solid f I Modem Sanitary.I Infonoa) Darnpirig } ! Mor)ala: [xl Notes
(S«*sr. COM !»4
taine
Specific
RowmDendaaiMs
j Field Cooditions
1 D=Destrayed
j P^artially disturbed ]
: N-Ko Sifomtttiion j
ResMrce IHte/PerfcxI
NONE
Soane
Comments
locution
Sxtcat (%)
» P TJ K R
~ ~~~~
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AJSD MAPS
t Road Construction iR.lt. Corridor Ufepradcs 3 Structures i CitUfii? Topographic changes 5 Sutmrtan Development 6 tfndggrrainrf Utilities 7 Industrial Complex K Dike or Pitcfi 9 Otter Activity ,
Location
De«crtj»tJao
E^BdcJ4feMBB
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-G-a Development Category
County:
Municipality.
Wetland Mitigation
Caristadt
Size: 12.3 (acres)
Local Designation:
GA1 Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total I I
Partial j |
Location
Pollen Core
~
LLANDFORM
Laadfonn Tidal Marsh: | X ] Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: | [ Other W bank of Hackensack River
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid j | Modem Sanitary f~| Informal Dumping I j No Data: I X I Notes:
(Source CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 No Further Work: I X I
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 I
3 Presence/Absence Testing: | 1
4 Both (2 and 3): I i
5 Struct Doc.: j 1
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
l!=Undistiobed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
D V V N R
~ ~~~~
111 DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
|l Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (V.)
Impact None: (yj Partial: Q Total: f~|
Grossman and Associates, be. July 1994
j Prepared by: MAS Due: 7/8/94
-------
Htckensick Mudwlisds Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-C-b Devdopraent Category:
Wetland Mitigation
County
Municipality:
Siac 3.39 (aaes)
Local Dadgaatioa
Bergen
Cartetadt
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total j j
Partial H
Location
PolteaCote j j
L
L LANDFOHM
L»wlfonm Tidal Marsh: [xj Upland: Confluence j j River/Stream Bank j j Keoli: Other
Loadfttt Prfc-1970 Solid j j Modcni Sanitary j [ fcforanl Dcmf>ii% j ] HoDaa: j~X~j Ncrk.
(Source: COM ]994
-------
llackensaek Meidowlnxls Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-G-c Oevelopmettt Category:
County:
Menicipaticy.
Size. 5.1 Destroyed
?=Partia!/f disturbed j
^Undisturbed
| H=No Information
D P V N R
I ]~~~[~
1 at DISTURBANCES SEEN nV AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ASP MAPS~
jl Road Constmctitm 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cat/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Pitch 9 Other Activity
DUnri Detcriftioo Stwrte CmmaiU laciHoa Extent (%)
Excluded-No Identified Resources
fayct None, [x] Parttrf: Q Total: f j
Gmmta mtAstociales, Inc. July J 994 j Prepared by!^
m
Date 7/m
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Pared ID: WA 2-H-a OCTdopmsat Category
County:
Municipality.
Size: 92.1 (acres) GAS Field Map:
Load Designation:
Wetland Mitigation
Ridge, Carls., S Hack, L Feny
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Overage
Total
Partial
Location
Poilen Core
~
~
~
J No Further Wade:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Street Doc..
[
I. LANDFORM
Lmdfinra Tidal Marsh: j j Upland: j j Confluence: [jT] River/Stream Bank ] [ Knoll: j j Other
Landfill Status Bns-IPTO SaSd j j Modem Sanitary- {^J Informal Dumping [U No Data: [Xj Notes:
(Some: CDM 1994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Pared ID: WA 2-H-b Development Category
Wetland Mitigation
Comity:
Municipality;
Size: 3.5 (ages)
Local Designation.
Bergen
Ridgefield
GAI Field Map:
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
n
Partial
u
Location
Pollen Core
n
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
1 No Further Wort: [x]
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: j j
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3): 1 1
5 Struct. Doc.: j j
LLANDFORM
1
Landform Tidal Marsh; j ] Upland: j j Confluence: j j River/Stream Bank j | Knoll: [ | Other undefined
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid I ] Modem Sanitary: ] | Informal Dumping I j No Data: I X j Notes:
(Source; CDM 1994 datt)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
D CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric I Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturhed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
D P U N R
~ ~~~~
j III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS ~|
)l Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Pike or Ditch 9Qther Activity!
Distil rh. Description Source Comments Location Extent (%)
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Impact None; [jf Partial; J ? Total. I ?]
Grossman and Associates, be. My 1994
Prepared by: N AS Date: 7/8/94 J
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-I Development Category.
Wetland Mitigation
County:
Municipality:
Size: 4.1
Bergen
Ridgefield
(acres)
GAI Field Map.
Local Designation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
Pollen Core
~
LLANDFORM
Laodform Ttdal Marsh: j | Upland: Confluence: River/Stream Bank j X ) Knoll: j^] Other. E bank of Hackensack River
Laadfiil Status Prc-1970 Solid [ | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | j No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comment*
Location
Extent (%)
3
0 P U N R
~ ~~~~
|l Road
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 1 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distarb. Description
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Sotra
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
Impact None: 3C Partial: Q Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-KE Development Category:
County. Hudson/Bergen
Municipality: N Bergen, Secaucus, Ridgefield
Size: 202 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total | |
Partial | |
Location
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: j | Confluence: j X | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: [ | Other.
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary: [^] Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X [ Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
prehistoric
Source
G&A 1992
G&A 1992
Comments
E bank of Hackensack River/Bellman's Creek
confluence with Cromakill Creek
Location
S half
Extent (*/•)
30%
10%
D P
EC
~ [X
OL
m
~
~
~
~
U N
R
m
m
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (%)
1 I-9S construction Air Photo 1992:10 Park & Ride, embankment, fill I-9S NE 20%
9
shoreline modification
Air Photo 1992:10
parcel follows waterline to 0' contour
NW
30%
1
1-95 construction
AirPhoto 1992:16
embankment, fill I-9S
SE
20%
8
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 1992:16
some ditching, dense vegetation
SW
30%
Impact None: I J Partial: I J Total: [xlj
Grossman and Associates, lac. July 1994
| Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadow lands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ED: WA 2-K. W Development Category
County:
Municipality.
Size: 136 (acres)
Wetland Mitigation
Caristadi
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
n
Partial
~
Location
Pollen Core
~
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: j X | Upland: j j Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: [ j Other former cedar swamp Reileys Is
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid [ X [ Modem Sanitary: | [ Informal Dumping | | No Data: j [ Notes: 10% to S
(Source: CDM 1994 dtU)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisttirbed
N=No Information
R(N«ra DateflPetiod
NONE
Source
Comment*
Locttion
Extent {%)
~
~
D P U N R
~ ~~~~
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
i Road Construction 2 RR . Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike qt Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtarik DMcriptim Source Coanaests Location Extent (*/#)
Exchided-No Identified Resources
Impact None: [x] Partial: ~ Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, line. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensacfe Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson/Bergen
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-L Development Categoiy
County:
Municipality:
Size: 39.7 (acres) GA1 Field Map:
Local Designation:
Wetland Mitigation
N Bergen, Ridgefield
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Stud) Coverage , No Fultber Work:
Total
Partial
Location
~
~
Pollen Core
~
2 Sensitivity Ewluaticjr
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3);
5 Struct. Doc.:
I. LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: ] X | Upland: Confluence: River/Stream Bank j X | Knoll: Other: near confluence wf E bank, Hackensack River
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid j | Modem Sanitary, j j Informal Dumping | } No Data: j X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
D CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period Source Comments
2 prehistoric G&A 1992 both banks of Bellman's Creek
Location
center
Extent (%)
60%
m
~
~
~
~
» P U N R
~EEiDnm
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
(1 Road Construction 1 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Diiturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (•/•)
4
fill changes
Air Photo 1992:10
N boundary along 8' fill piles
N border
® 10%
9
transmission line
Air Photo 1992:10
corridor on embankment
E order
@ 10%
1
1-95 construction
Air Photo 1992:10
on embankment, fill piles
Wborder
@ 25%
7
industrial complex
AirPhoto 1992:16
to S, fenceline on S boundary
S border
n/a
8
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 1992:10
some ditching, ponds f .9-7.2 elev
n/a
50%
Impact None: j [ Partial: [x] Total: I j)
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-M Development Category.
Wetland Mitigation
County.
Municipality:
Size: 56.9 (acres)
Local Designation:
Hudson/Bergen
N Bergen, Ridgefield
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total ~
Partial [ |
Location
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landfbrm Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: j^j Confluence: | [ River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: [^] Other
Landfill Statu Pre-1970 Solid | X | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | | Notes: 25% to E
(Source. CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric I Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
Impartially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G & A 1992
Comments
both banks of Bellman's Creek
Location
N
Extent (*/•)
90%
D
~
~
~
PUN
ZOCZ
R
m
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtarb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
4
fill changes
AirPhoto 1992:11
N boundary along 8* fill piles
N border
@10%
9
transmission line
AirPhoto 1992:11
candor cm embankment
W border
@10%
2
RR corridor
AirPhoto 1992:11
ConRail on embankment/fill
E border
@20%
4
fill changes
Air Photo 1992:16
5.6' elev filled area
S
20%
7
industrial complex
AirPhoto 1992:16
trailer parking lot
SE
10%
8
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 1992 10
some ditching/dense vegetation, 1.6-3.6' elev
n/a
30%
Impact None: | | Partial: 1 | Total: X
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/8/94
-------
H&ckeosack Meadowl&itds Sensitivity Evaluation
Becgen
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-PN Development Category;
County;
Municipality;
Size: 141 (acres)
Wetland Mitigation
Caristadt
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage , No Further Work:
Total _ 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
S Struct. Doc-
Pollen Core
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: j [ Upland j | Confluence: j [ River/Stream Bank ) X j Knoll: j | Other, near confluence w/Hackensaek River
Landfill Status Pre-] 970 Solid
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Modem Sanitary: [ j Informal Damping | | No Data: ] j Notes: 5% to W
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 RoadwBy, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
E>= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undis£urbed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period
2 prehistoric
Source
G& A1992
Comments
E bank of Moonachie Creek
Location
W
Eitent (%)
10%
D P U N
~~[~~CI
R
1
| ~ 111 DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
|l Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distort). Description Source Comments Location Extent (%)
8 ditched marsh Air Photo 1992:16 extensive ditching filled to 3.9" S & E 30%
4
cut/fill changes
AirPhoto 1992:10
ditched, fill piles 3.4-5.4' elev
N % W
70%
I
1-95 construction
Air Photo 1992:9
on embankment, N boundary
N harder
n/a
j Impact None: Q Partial: Q Total.
a
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994 Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
COM Parcel n>. WA 2? S Dgycfapmeat Category:
County: Hudson
Municipality. Secaucus
Size- 53.1 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
W«laai Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC R E CO MMEA DA t IONS
Recommended Study Cwnge
Total
Partial
Location
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work:
1 Sensitivity Evaluation'
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Strttct. Doc.:
1 LANt>FORM
Ludfonn Tidal Marsh: JX Upland: j | Confluence: jjjTj Rjver/Stream Bank j~X~] Knoll: Other
LawlflH Statu Pte-3 970 Solid [ X j Modem Sanitary: j | infixmal Dumpiag j j No Data: ( ] Notes: 10%toNE
(Source: COM 199-t d*U>
Resource
Specific
RscommendMicsR
c
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
P
l!
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Eaviranmeatai/otfaer
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gale, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
KeMMtrce DtWhiM Source Commenti
2 prehistoric Q&A1992 W bank of Mill Creek/Hackensack River
Location
Extent (*/.)
20%
m
~
~
8
19a. c
Vermeule 1887
dikes tdoogff & E borders
N&E
10%
4
ca. 1840
Vemseule 1887
ca. 1840 Mill in vicinity
n/a
n/a
Field Conditions
X>DesTOyeci
P=PartiaBy disturbed
U=Undisturt>ed
N=No Infomtaiion
D P V fj Jt
soncm
scans
~~~SCO
in IHSTURflANCES SEEM IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AM? MAPS j
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Carodar Upgrades ? Structures A Cia/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Unities 7Ii^iBtt^C^pte<8P»keorDiteli 9 QtfaerActivity
DMx
Description
Source
Comment*
Locitkm
Extent (%)
8
ditched marsh
Airphoto 1992:15
extensively ditched, filled I.T-4.3'elev
W
70%
4
fil l changes
Air Photo 1992:16
also ditched, scattered piles to 6.6' elev
E
30%
8
ditch
Airphoto 1992:15
large N-S ditch is W boundary
W border
a/a
5
gutefaan development
Air Photo 1992:15
streets/bouses S boundary
S border
Jtla
4
fill changes
Air Photo 1992:16
landfill on PDA! E. boundary
E border
n/a
| Impact Hone: | j fartial: } } Total: 1 X j
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared bjr NAS DbU: 7/8/94
-------
rz
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID; WA 2-Q Development Category:
County:
Municipality:
Size: 120 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Secaucus
Local Designation.
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
Partial
Location
~
Pollen Core
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
L LANDFORM
Landfora Tidal Marsh: [ | Upland: | | Confluence: | [ River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: | | Other
Landfill State* Pre-1970 Solid IX | Modern Sanitary. I 1 Informal Dumping I 1 No Data: 1 I Notes: 5%toNW
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gale, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
ca. 1840
Source Comment!
G & A 1992 both banks of Mill C reek/Hackensack River
Venneule 1887
Location
n/a
ca. 1840*5 01111 in vicinity
n/a
Extent (%)
95%
n/a
D P
~tz
~d
a
u N
R
s
E
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (*/•)
1 1-95 construction Air Photo 1992.16 on embankment east boundary E border 10%
8
ditched
AirPhoto 1992:16
N-S ditch on W boundary
W border
10%
8
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 1992:19
inc tributary of Mill Creek
n/a
80%
4
fill piles
AirPhoto 1992:19
avoids fenced in fill to N
toN
n/a
Impact None: Q Partial: jZ Total: I 1
Grossman and Associates, be. My 1994
Prepared by: HAS Dote. 7W94
:: ¦!, ¦¦ —
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID 2-q Date Visited Municipality County
BWRoll Frames Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes:
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowtands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared 1ft: 1-q Date Visited: Municipality: County:
BW Roll: Frames Color Roll: Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-R Development Category.
County; Hudson
Municipality: N Bergen, Secaucus
Size. 216 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
Recommended Study Coverage
Jota]
n
Partial
~
Location
Pollen Core
~
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
] No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation.
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
L LAJVDFORM
Laadforra Tidal Marsh: X Upland: { | Confluence ( [ River/Stream Bank j~x"| Knoll: | | Other
LawifiH State Pre-1970 Solid | X | Modem Sanitary: Informal Dumping No Data: | | Notes. IO%toW-S
(Source: CDM 1994 d*U)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gale, 8 Dike c* Pitch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partiallv disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Rowree Date/Period Source Comments
2 prehistoric G&A 1992 both hanks of CromakiH Creek
Location
Extent (%)
80%
~
~
D P U N R
smnatT]
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AMD MAPS
(l Read Construction 2 R-R Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Dbtatfa.
8
Detcrlptioa
ditched marsh
Source
AirPhota 1992:16
Comments
E bank CT-2' contour, marsh
Location
NE
Extent {%)
20%
4
fill changes
AirPboto 1992:16
W bank 6.2-10.4' elev piles of fill
NW
40%
9
transmission lines
AirPhoto 1992:22
on embankment
SE
10%
4
fill changes
Air Photo 199222
filled marsh 1.0*-5.8' elev
SAW
30%
I
Grossman and Associates, Enc iuly 19*54 t Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/8/94
Impact None Q] Partial: Q3 Total: (jTj
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-T Development Categoiy:
County: Bergen
Municipality: Carlstadt
Size: 80.6 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage , No Fui1her Work;
Total 1 i 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial 1 1 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Pollen Core
~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: X Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank [ X j Knoll: j | Other Bashes Creek runs thru center
Laadfill Status Pre-1970 Solid [ X j Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | ] No Data: j | Notes: 10% to E
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source Comments
G & A 1992 both banks of Moonachie Creek/Hackensack R.
Location
Extent (*/•)
40%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P U
snc
a
~
~
~
~
N
R
m
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (*/•)
4 fill/spoil piles Air Photo 1992:9 scattered piles 3.3'-5.3' N & central 30%
8
dike/ditched
Air Photo 1992:9
to S along creek
S
>10%
8
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 1992:9
0.5-1.5' elev, low, wet
SW
30%
1 road construction Air Photo 1992:9 road on embankment N border >10%
Impact None: Q Partial: Q Total:
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS
Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-UE Development Category:
County.
Municipality:
Size: 28.S (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Secaucus
Local Designation'
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total | |
Partial | |
Location
Pollen Core
L LANDFORM
Laadfonn Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: | | Other.
LaadfiO Status Pte-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary. | [ Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X [ Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 d»U)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
~
1 No Further Work: [x]
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 1
3 Presence/Absence Testing: [ |
4 Both (2 and 3): | |
5 Struct. Doc.: [ |
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource Date/Period Source Comments
8 19th. C Vermeule 1887 dike along E bank Hackensack River
Location
N-S
Extent (%)
50%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P U N
~anc
R
m
UI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distarb. Description
Excluded-Disturbod
Soarce
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
Impact None: Initial: Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date. 7/8/94
-------
Hftckutsack Meadowlands Sertsitrvity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 2-U W Development Znhc^ry.
Wctiand Mitigation
County;
Manicipriity"
3S.8
Bergen
E, Rutherford, Carbtadl
Sins
Local Deagta&so:
(acres)
"™ ~
Roswtrw
SpeetSc
ftecommotdMiotts
L
U CULTURAL RESOURCES
! Piebistoric
I fSsfexk.
1 Known, 2 Enyirorttneataltotiier
3 Roadway, 4Stracture 5 Bridge, 6X*i!/iMfcl. ? lute Exte&t (V»)
Cedar Cr/Hockensacic It.; Bashes Cnseb'Hactetsad: 3 oen'.ef. V.' -' 60%
~
I X 1
a
FteM Ccadibocs J
IXDestrojoi j
P*=Fwtia% distorted j
IMJndistuibed j
K-Vo information j
Patosoa Plank Rd, eld recic
E centra!
10%
D f V X R
~II1DD0
nixj^OiU
La *w>rw.wi.,w
!i Road Cora
ni DISTURBANCES SEEN- Ui AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
Road Constrocttoo 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Caffill Topographic changes S Suburban Sevekpaiga 615atogrciaid Iftitities 7 indaarial Complex S Pike oc PiKfc 9 Other Activity
ObtntL
9
Description
siwreline modi/itafK®
Swnt
AirPnolo iW2;iS
ComnKali
pared fiom vatartiae to 0' contour
Uafhn
>i it central
JSiwnr (%)
25%
9
pipeline CErridor
Air Photo 1992:15
oo embankment 9 9" elev
W border
>:c%
8
riitdsed marsh
Air Photo !992:!4
dense 2 / 3 6' c.^v
Shaff
60%
1
RotSe 3 conatmctkm
AirPb8tol9!»2:M
remnant Blacfcmarfs creek 3 6' elev
S bonier
>i!K4
I hpxt Meae Q fmmt (xj TottL Q
(3tomsmti)dAsaocuiet,lBc.Myt994
Bepmdb?: HAS Cte 7M4 ~j
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID 2-m fwestt Pate Visited Municipality County
BW Roll Frames Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes:
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID: 2-u (west) Date Visited:
BW Roll: Frames
Municipality:
Color Roll: Frames
County:
-------
Hsckensack Meedowfarods Sensitivity Evaluation
COM Parcel ID:
Camty
Munkjpaisty:
Siw: S7,6 (was)
Locai Desigttaiioo:
WAl-V Development Categoiy:
Bergen
Wetland MitigaftaB
E- Stiiherford
GAJ Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMEffDATlONS
Recommended Stat}' Coverage
Total ~
Rmial j j
Location
Poltei Core
~
ILAHOFORM
Lwuffiun Tidal Marah: |
| Upland: j j Confluence: {^j Rj*er/S»resm Bank fx"] Knoll: QJ Other:
LmdSU Statu* Pre-1970 Solid ) j Modem Ssoitsre j j Informal Dumping S j NoDala: [X | Holes: fill to W
(Source. CDM 1994
II CtnJTtJRAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric ] Known, 2 Emironmeclai'otfeet
Historic JRaxhary, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, SRatlrcad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation « Umd Use (C Oilier Feature
{No Farther West
1 Sensitivity P.valuaUon
3 FjeseacefAbsence Testis®;
4 BMh (2 and 3):
5 SsiEd Dot:
tUwunt
2
D»tt/P*riod
prehistoric
19&.C
Sown CmmomHj
Cr & A 1992 Stockman's Cteefc W, Cedar Cicefc E
Uctlm
E%W
Venneate £S8T
Patersoc Plant Rd, old rage
Eboandary
n/a
J
Extent (%}
75%
Resowx
Specific
Rscoramendgtiaas
j Field Cfieditioits"
J IHOestroysd
[P=fatiallydisturtwd j
10»Undistart>ed
I H=No Sofonaauoo
B P U M R
iiinnDB
~~a® en
E
HI DBSTURBAHCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AWPMAFS
1 Road Coratructott 2 R-R. Ccrridcr Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cat/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburt»m Devriopmai! 6 Qndcrgroattd UtiUfes 7 IndMsft-iat Complex 8 Price ar Hitch V Other -Activity
MrtWffc.
1
De»cr»p(loo
J-05 owstnwtioc
Soarvt
Air Photo TOt IS
Comment]
TOibeMJnw.ufill piles
Looktoo
Ntmder
Extent (%)
10%
9
pipeline corridor
Ait Photo 1992:15
ot ejBhaninwit
£ border
10W
8
ditched man^/fiSed?
AirPboto 1992.15
scattered ponds 3.7-t.ff elev
central
60%
J
1-55 eoeBtnictioo
Ail Photo f 992:14
on 2tf + enstwnkroeiit
Wbotder
10%
9
pipeline oomdor
Air Photo 1992:14
ob emtenteKnt
Sbortfcj
10%
| Impact Moac {J Partial: f 1 Total: fxlj
Groisame mil Associates, lac. July 1994
Prepared by NAS Date: 7flW4
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-X Development Category.
County: Bergen
Municipality; E. Rutherford
Size: 101 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage j No Fulther Wwk:
Total 1 I 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial 1 1 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Pollen Core
~
L LANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: Other former cedar swamp areas-center 30%
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | [ Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping [^) No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G & A 1992
Comments
Location
E bank Berry's Creek
W
Extent (%)
5%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D
HI
u
m
~
~
~
~
N R
men
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
9
Description
pipeline corridor
Source
AirPhoto 1992:14
Comments
on embankment 7.6'-8.9' elev
Location
E border
Extent (*/•)
20%
2
RR corridor
Air Photo 1992:13
on embankment
W border
20%
4
cut/fill changes
Air Photo 1992:14
piles of fill and canal dredging spoil banks
N & centra]
60%
Impact None: Q Partial: Total: X|
Grossman and Associates, Inc. My 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-Y-A Development Category;
Wetland Mitigation
County:
Municipality:
Size: 7.2
Bergen
E. Rutherford
(acres)
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total ~
Partial | |
Location
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: | | Other: undefined
IjmMM Status Pre-1970 Solid j | Modem Sanitary: £ J Informal Dumping No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 date)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D
~
a
~
~
~
~
PUN
ZDd
R
~
HI DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
Impact None:
Partial: ~ Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-ZE Development Category.
County; Hudson
Municipality. Secaucus
Size: 2.07 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage , No Fui1her Work:
Total 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial I I 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct Doc.:
Pollen Core
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: [^] Confluence: [^J River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: Other: E bank of Hackensack River
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994
-------
Hsckensnck Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA2-Z W Development Category:
County: Bergen
Municipality: E Rutherford
Size: 5.79 (acres) GAJ Field Map:
LocdDcsjgntiw:
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total ~
Partial j
Location
~
PoiJen Core
1 No Further Work: ^XJ
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: j_
3 Presence^Absence Testing: '
4 Both (2 and 3): |
5 Struct JDoc.: |
I LAMJFORM
Ludfena
Ttdal Marsh:! | Upland: j j Confidence: | [ River/Stream Bank ) X | Knoll: [ j Other W bank of Hactensack Ri*er
LaftdfilfSum Pre-1970 Solid
IStmc: CDU1994 dau)
Modem Sanitary: j | Informal Dumping j^j No Data; f j Kates: 100% landfill on W side of Hactatsact R
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
(I CULTURAL RESOURC F.S
j Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 EaviraainejJtal/otber
j Historic 3 Roadway, 4Stnictqre 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 indicated Occupation or Laod Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destrayedl
Impartially disturbed
U=Undisturb«3
N-No Information
Rtwurtt
Date/Period
NONE
Source
CommeaM
Location
Extent (%)
D P P N R
~~nzn
[] Road Coastroctioc 2R.R.C«ridor'Uty»te 3 Structures 4 Cat/fill Topographic changes 5 Sutmrtwn Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
BfattA. DncriptkM
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Sow ret
Coin menu
Location
liteet f%)
Impact "Rone: fx] Partial: £3 Total: 11
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994 S Prepared by. NAS Date: 7/St/W
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Pared ED: WA 3-1-a Development Category:
County:
Municipality:
Size: 120 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Secaucus
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total |
Partial |
Location
Pollen Core
1 No Further Work: | ?
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 1
3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 1
4 Both (2 and 3): 1 1
5 Struct. Doc.: | ]
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: X
Upland: Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: | | Other former cedar swamp NE quadrant, 30%
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes: fill to W
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G&A1992
Comments
both banks of Penhorn Creek
Location
W
Extent (*/•)
40%
D P
~ HI
U N
R
CD
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
I Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distal*.
8
Description
ditched marsh
RR corridor
Source
Air Photo 1992:27
Air Photo 1992:27
Comments
2 large ditches N-S, dense vegetation
ConRail on embankment
Location
jU
S border
Extent (*/•)
100%
n/a
Impact None: Q Partial: fx]
Total:
~
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date:
7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel IP 3-l-» Date Visited Municipality County
BWRoll Frames Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing North is up toward top of page. Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes:
Grossman & Associates, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel ID: 3-1-a Date Visited: Municipality: County:
BW Roll: Frames Color Roll: Frames
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Pared 3D: WA 3-1-b Devefapraenl Category:
Wetland Mitigation
County:
Municipality:
Size 2.4 (acres)
Local Designation:
Hadsoc
N Bergen
GAI Fidd Map
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Stud)' Cweitp
Total Q
Partial ] }
Location
PoHen Core
~
1 No Further Worit:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both {land 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
I IA.NDFORM
Ludform Tidal Matdrj ^ Upland: f~~[ Confluence: ) | RjverVStream Bank j j Knoll: j j Other anderraed
L*adfSl Stitut Pre-i 970 Solid | j Modern Sanitary j j fefonaal Dumping j j Mo Data: fxl Nates:
Destro\«d J
P=Parfia!ty distuifced I
U^Undisturbed
N=No bfortnation
Rawta BttaTerkd
< I9tfcC
Source
Vermeule 1887
Comments
Loc*tion
RR corridor W boundary
W
Exteat (%)
nfe
~
~
» P U N R
coozo
HI DISTURBANCES SERN PH AERIAL PHOTOCRAPHV AND MATS
jl Rod Constroclioti 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fiti Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 5 Undetgraand Utilities 7 Industrial Complex K Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
HUM DttttliMm
Exchkied-No Identified Resources
Source
Comment*
Location
Extent (%)
bqpact Nooe: [x] Partial: ZJ Total: ( I
GrossmflB and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared iff.
HAS
Date: 7/12/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: WA 3-2 Development Category:
County.
Municipality.
Size: 347 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Kearny
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage j No Further Work:
Total | | 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial | | 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Pollen Core
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: j j Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: | | Other, former cedar swamp E, 60%
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | | Notes: 10% to W & SW excluding out parcels
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P U
~ ~d
~
~
~
~
N R
zin
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
Inq»ct None: jx] Partial: Q Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by
NAS
Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 3-4 Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
County.
Municipality:
Hudson
Kearny
Size: 41 (acres)
Local Designation:
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total Q]
Partial |
Location
Pollen Core
~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: | | Other former cedar swamp, 100%
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | [ Modern Sanitary: | [ Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Soma: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 No Further Work: | X 1
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 ]
3 Presence/Absence Testing: [ |
4 Both (2 and 3): | [
5 Struct. Doc.: | [
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
D P U
N R
zo
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description
Exeluded-No Identified Resources
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
impact None: fxl Partial: Q Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID:
County;
Municipality;
WA 3-5 Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
Hudson
Kearny
Size: 76.9 (acres)
Local Designation:
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total |
Partial |
Location
Pollen Core
~
LLANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: | | Other: former cedar swamp W, 40%
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid j | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: fx] Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
I No Further Work:
s
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
u
~
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
I I
5 Struct. Doc.:
u
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (•/•)
D P U
~ ~d
N
R
~
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distmrb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (*/•)
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Impact None: x] Partial; | | Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/8/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: WA 3-6 Development Category
County:
Municipality:
Size: 74 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Kearny
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage i No Further Work: fx~|
Total 1 ) 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 j
Partial [^J 3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 |
Location 4 Both (2 and 3): 1 1
Pollen Core Q] 5 Struct Doc.: I I
L LANDFORM
Landforn Tidal Marsh: | X j Upland: [ | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: (^j Other former cedar swamp NW corner 10%
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data. [X j Notes:
(Souroc CDM 1994 data)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent <%)
D P U N
~ ~~d
R
~
Irs
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (%)
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Impact None: jx] Partial: ) 1 Total: I 1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA3-7 Development Category:
County: Hudson
Municipality: Kearny
Size: 27.9 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage ] No Further Work:
Total | | 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Pollen Core
~
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: X Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: | | Other:
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid j | Modem Sanitary: | ] Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
8
Date/Period
19th. C
Source
Vermeule 1887
Comments
dike-west bank of Hackensack River
Location
E end
Extent (%)
10%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P U
~ EE
~
~
~
~
N
R
m
Disturb. Description
Excluded-Disturbed
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
Impact None: j^J Partial: [3T Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: WA 3-8 Development Category:
County:
Municipality:
Size: 23.4 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Kearny
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total | |
Partial | |
Location
Pollen Core
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: QJ Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: [^] Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid ) | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: [ X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
~
1 No Further Work: | X j
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: j
3 Presence/Absence Testing: | ]
4 Both (2 and 3): Q
5 Struct Doc.: | ]
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
8
Date/Period
19th. C
Source
Vermeule 1887
Comments
dike-west bank of Hackensack River
Location
E end
Extent (%)
10%
U N
~ EC
R
CD
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
DWui Description Source Comments Location Extent (*/•)
Excluded-Disturbed
Impact None: Q Partial: [x] Total: 1 I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 13-A Development Category:
County. Bergen
Municipality Ridgefield
Size: 15.S (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
n
Partial
u
Location
Pollen Core
~
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
1 No Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: | | Other patches of dense vegetation
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Paitially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P U
~ ~d
~
~
~
~
N
R
~
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (V*)
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Impact None: x] Partial: [^J Total: 1 1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by NAS Date: 7/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel E>: WA 13-B Development Category
County: Bergen
Municipality: Ridgefield
Size: 23.2 (acres) GA1 field Map;
Local Designation:
Wetland Mitigation
1LANDFORM
LaAdfonn Tidal Marsh: j X | Upland. |H[] Confluence: Rivei/Stream Bank j ) Knoll: j^] Odher. patches of dense vegetation
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary. {^] Informal Dumping j j No Data: | X j >Jotes
(Scarce: CDM 1994 date)
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric l Known, 1 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=lfedisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comment!
Location
Extent (*/•)
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage 1 No Further Work: fx!
Total | - 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: ¦ f
Partial [^j 3 Presence/Absence Testing: f j
Location ___ 4 Both (2 and 3): ! j
Pollen Core ~ 5StraO.Doc.: i i1
D P V N R
~ ~~~~
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cnt/fili Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
DMwfe. Description Stmrtt Commeftts Location Extent <%)
Excluded-No Identified Resources
impact None:
Partial: Q Total: j |
Grossman and Associates, Inc. My 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/13m
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 13-C Development Category:
County. Bergen
Municipality: RidgeCeld
Size: 33.8 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage j No Furlher Work;
Total 1 I 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial ) I 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Pollen Core
~
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: [ X [ Upland: | [ Confluence: | j River/Stream Bank ) | Knoll: j \ Other: patches of dense vegetation
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Sob
(Source: COM 1994 data)
y: j | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X \ Notes:
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (•/•)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P U
~~cz
~
~
~
N
R
~
ID DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distort). Description
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
Impact None: [x] Partial: jZJ Total: I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/13/94
-------
r
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA27-a Development Category;
County; Bergen
Municipality; Ridgefield
Size: 13.7 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation;
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage j No Further Work: [Xj
Total 1 1 2 Sensitivity Evaluation: j j
Partial | [ 3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 1
Location 4 Both (2 and 3): 1 I
Pollen Core [ \ 5 Struct. Doc.: 1 i
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: [xj Upland; Confluence: Qj] River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid j | Modern Sanitary; Informal Dumping No Data: [xj Notes:
(Some: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
6
Date/Period
19th. C
Source
Vermeule 1887
Comments
Location
RR corridor
E end
Extent (%)
>10%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P U N R
nncaam
IH DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Distarh. Description Source Comments Location Extent (*/•)
Description
Excluded-Disturbed
Impact None; X_ Partial: Q] Total: 1 I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by
NAS
Date: 7/12/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ED: WA 27-b Development Category;
Wetland Mitigation
County:
Municipality:
Size: 7.8 (acres)
Local Designation:
Bergen
Ridgefield
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total | |
Partial | 1
Location
Pollen Core
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: _X_ Upland: [^] Confluence: River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: [^] Other:
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid [ | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
~
1 No Further Work: | X 1
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: | |
3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 I
4 Both (2 and 3): | 1
5 Struct. Doc.: j |
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
6
Date/Period
19th. C
Source
Vermeule 1887
Comments
Location
two RR corridors
E end
Extent (•/•)
>10%
D
~ I
U N
R
cn
Disturb. Description
Excluded-Disturbed
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/¦)
Impact None X_ Partial: | ) Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, be. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA28 Development Category;
County. Bergen
Municipality: Ridgefield
Size: 29.4 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage j No Further Work:
Total | j 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial [33 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
Pollen Core
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank j | Knoll: | | Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modern Sanitary: | | Infonnal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
~
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
6
Date/Period
19th. C
Source
Venneule 1887
Comments
Location
three RR corridors
E end
Extent (%)
10%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P
~ d
U
jjy
~
~
~
N R
mm
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (*/•)
Description
Excludcd-Disturbcd
Impact None: l(fj Partial: Total: 1 I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/13/94
-------
Ilackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Kvaluation
CDM Parcel II): WA B-A Development Cutcgory:
County: Bergen/Hudson
Municipality: Ridgefield, N Bergen
GA1 Field Map:
Size: 13.4 (acres)
I.ocal Designation:
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: QJ Confluence: | [ River/Stream Bank | | Knoll:
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary: [ [ Informal Dumping | | No Data:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
L LANDFORM
Other: patches of dense vegetation
Notes:
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
i N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G&A 1992
Comments
W bank of Bellman's Creek
Location
all
Extent (*/•)
100%
D
P
~X~
11
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
1 No Further Work:
X
1 otal t j
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial j :
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location
4 Both (2 and 3j:
Pollen Core ; XJ
5 Struct Doc :
u N
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R-R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/nil Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
8
Description
ditched marsh/filled
Source
Air Photo 1992:11
Comments
dense vegetation 2.6-3.4' elev
Location
all
Extent (*/•)
100%
1
road construction
AirPhoto 1992:11
road on 6.9' embankment
N boundary
n/a
9
transmission lines
AirPhoto 1992:11
double corridor on W
W boundary
n/a
2
RR corridor
AirPhoto 1992:11
RR and pipeline on embankment
S boundary
n/a
Impact None: Q Partial: [3FJ Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994 j Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Parcel IP 33-* Date Visited Municipality County
BW Rolt Frames Color Roll Frames
Location Drawing Mortli is up toward top of page Arrows indicate direction of photograph.
Notes*.
Grossman & Associat es, Inc.
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Cultural Sensitivity Evaluation Form
Pared ID: 33-a Date Visited:
BW Roll: Frames
Municipality:
Color Roll: Frames
County:
Street Names:
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID:
County:
Municipality;
Size; 12 (acres)
Local Designation;
WA 33-B Development Category;
Wetland Mitigation
Bergen, Hudson
Ridgefield, N Bergen
GAI Field Map;
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage i n0 Further Work:
Total | j 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial [ | 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core ~ 5 Struct Doc.;
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland; | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank j | Knoll: | | Other dense vegetation
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary: [ | Informal Dumping | | No Data: | X | Notes: fill to S
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prdiistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source
G&A1992
Comments
both banks of Bellman's Creek
Location
all
Extent (%)
100%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
D P
~r
u
a
~
~
~
~
N R
zun
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
8
Description
ditched marsh
fill changes?
Source
AirPhoto 1992:11
AirPhoto 1992:11
Comments
ditched around out parcel to E
Location
filled around periphery, 2.6' elev, marsh
central
Extent (*/•)
20%
80%
Impact None: Partial:
TJ Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
COM Parcel ID:
County:
Municipality:
Size: 26 3 (acres)
Ixxal Designation:
WA 34 Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
Bergen
Kidgelteld
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
1 No Further Work:
X
Total [J]
2 Sensitivitv Evaluation:
Partial [_ |
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
1 outturn
4 Both (2 and 31:
Pollen Core [
5 Struct Doc :
|
[ 1. LANDFORM
Landfurm Tidul Mursli | X | Upland: [ | Continence j j River/Stream Bank |xj knoll J J Other:
Landfill Statu* Prc-1970 Solid | ] Modem Sanitary [ ] Informal Dumping ( ] No Dalit: [X | Notes:
(Source: C1>M 1W4 dull)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric I Known. 2 !:.nvironmental/other
Historic 3 Roudway. 4 Structure 5 Hridgc, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Cuile, 8 Dike or Dilch,') Indicated (Vcupution or 1-iuid Use 10 Othci lcatnre
Loch linn
Kmturre
2
finlt/PfrinJ
JHl'lllSlOl II
Source
Comments
<;«. a i4w
both K'liiks of I k'llni.ni's Creek
S
Extent ('/•)
20%
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
n=lVstm\cvl
P=Partially disturbed
l)=Uiulisturbeii
N=No Information
D
P
X
N
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Rood Construction 2 K.K. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Siibiulviti 1 Vvclopineni t< Underground lltilities n Industrial Complex S Dike or Ditch 0 t^lhcr Actmt\
Dtiturb. DrKriptkm
X dilclicd nuusli
4 fill clmnjjcs
7 ntdtisliiiil complex
I IINhI CintNlUKlltMl
1 knhI construction
Source
Air l>hot.> I'>'»2 11
Ah IMiofo iw: 1 1
Aii Photo 1*>'>2 11
Air I'hoto 1 «»•>: 11
An Photo !*)'>: 11
Comments
dense vegetation } 1 S' elev
fenceltue of fill mum to W
buildings. lots, tanks
Pleasant View I'cnacc \V to N
nvul on embankment to S
Location
••ill
\V border
V border
N bouler
S lvrdcr
Extent (*/.)
100%
lv'a
li/a
1VM
11.;!
Impact None | | I'mtuil j X | Ttrtnl | |J
Grossman and Asstvuiles. Inc. ,'ulv 11>'M
lYrjvired hv NAS
I >i!e 7/15/04
-------
Hackensack Meadotvlands Sensitivity Evaluation
C1>M Pared ID: WA 54-a Development Category:
Couoty: Bergen
MumopsUty. Lyndhurst
Size: 32.7 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Local Designation;
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
1 No Further Work:
Total
n
i—i
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial
~
3 Presence/Absence Testing
Location
4 Both (2 and 3Y.
Pollen Core
~
5 Struct Doc.
LIANDFORM
H CULTURAL RESOURCES
Landforro Tidal Marsh:] j Upland: j j Confluence: [ j River/Stream Bank j j Knoll. [^] Other: undefined
Landfill Statut Pre-1970 Solid j _j Modem Sanitary j~] Informal Dumping No Data: [X~j Notes: targe landfill to S
(Sauce: COM 1994 dnij
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Enviroonwaital/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gale, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
i Field Conditions
| JJ=Deslro}ed
P=PariialIy disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%}
O
> x
1 s
T» U N R
~ ~~~
111 DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
'I Rood Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/Pill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex SPilce or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Demtptlw Sowce Commend Location Extent (V.)
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Impact Nock:
Partial: I 1 Total: 1 1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Dale: 7/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowiands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 54-b Development Category:
County: Bergen
Municipality: Lyndhurst
Size: 12.3 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage j No Further Work
Total | 1 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial [^] 3 Presence/Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core I I 5 Struct. Doc.:
LLANDFORM
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: | j Upland: j | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll. Other: undefined
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary: ] [ Informal Dumping [ j No Data: | X j Notes: large landfill to S
(Source: CDM 1994
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 97-a Development Category:
County: Hudson
Municipality: Jersey City
Size: 7.1 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
1 LANDFORM
Laadform Tidal Marsh: | X | Upland: Confluence: River/Stream Bank | X j Knoll: Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | | Modem Sanitary [^] Informal Dumping j j No Data: | X | Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
n CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Field Conditions
D= Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
1 No Further Work:
x;
Total
~
~
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
u
Location
4 Both (2 and 3):
i
Pollen Core
~
5 Struct Doc.:
u
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (*/•) P P U N R
2 prehistoric G & A 1992 E bank of Penhorn Creek all 100% I llxll 11 ] I 1 1
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity I
Diitirb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
4
fill changes
Air Photo 1992:26
tongue of fill 3.C elev to E
E border
n/a
1
road construction
Air Photo 199226
access road along E bank of creek
W
10%
8
ditched marsh
Air Photo 1992:26
ditches/dense vegetation, ff-2.2' elev
all
90%
Impact None: Q Partial: If] Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by. NAS Date: 7/15/94
-------
1
i
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 97-b Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
County:
Municipality:
Hudson
Jersey City
Size: 4.3 (acres)
Local Designation:
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total j |
Partial j |
Location
Pollen Core
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh:
Upland: j^] Confluence: River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid \ | Modem Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: ] X ] Notes:
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
~
1 No Further Work: j ?
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: j 1
3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 1
4 Both (2 and 3): Q
5 Struct. Doc.: 11
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period Source Comments Location Extent (*/•) D P U N R
2 prehistoric G & A 1992 E bank of Penhoro Creek N 50% [ | 1 X 11 1 [ 1 1 1 I
6 19th. C Vermeule 1887 RR corridor N of border 10% 1 | 1 1 [~X~11 1 fT]
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb.
2
Description
RR corridor
Source
AirPhoto 1992:26
Comments
on 10' embankment/fill
Location
NE
Extent (*/•)
20%
8
ditched marsh
AirPhoto 1992:26
>2' elev ditched extensively
central
70%
4
fill changes
AirPhoto 1992:26
tongue of fill 3.0'
SW
10%
Impact None: Q Partial: [IF Total: I l|
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/15/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID:
County.
Municipality:
Size: 7.1 (acres)
Local Designation:
WA 99 Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Hudson
Secaucus, Jersey City
GAi Field Map:
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
i—J
Partial
u
Location
Pollen Core
~
I LANDFORM
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
1 No Further Work:
E
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Lj
n
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
i !
5 Struct. Doc.:
u
Landform Tidal ktarsh'.f X [ Uptand: j j Confluence: j [ River/Stream Bank j X j Knoll: | | Other
Landfill Statu Pre-1970 Solid [ j Modem Sanitary, j \ htfonnai Dumping j | No Data: j~>T| Notes.
(Source: CDM 1994
-------
Hackcnsack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
Hudson
CDM Parcel ID: WA 100 Development Category:
County;
Municipality:
Size: 17.8 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Secaucus, Jersey City
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Stud)- Coverage ] No pun^ Work:
Total 2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
Partial j j 3 Presence'Absence Testing:
Location 4 Both (2 and 3):
Pollen Core Q 5 Struct. Doc.:
L LAND FOR M
Landform Tidal Marsh:) X [ Upland: j j Confluence: j j River/Stream Bank [x~j Knoll: j j Other.
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
Source Comment!
G&A1992 both banks of Penhom Creek
Location
roost of parcel
Ei tent (%)
95%
~
~
~
~
D P U N R
~[roam
1H DISTURBANCES SEEN LN AERIAL PHOTOCRAPHY AND MAPS ~ ~ j
jl Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cat/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Diiturb.
2
Deicriptkm
multiple corridors
Source
Air Photo 1992:26
Comment!
on embankments
Location
N
Extent (*/•}
>10%
9
transmission line
Air Photo 1992:26
on embankment
N
>10%
g
dike/fill
Air Photo 1992:26
parallel to W bank of Penhoni creek, 3.9-5.0'
E half
20%
9
pipeline corridor
Air Photo 1992:26
pipeline on fill/fenced/dense vegetation
S
20%
8
ditched marsh
Air Photo (992:26
ditched marsh 1.3-1.5'elev
W & central
50%
Impact None: [^] Partial: jXj Total: I I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/1S/94
-------
H*ckens*ck Mtadowtands Sensitivity Evaluation
I. LANDFORM
i
Lmdfbti* Tidal Marsh:! 1 Upland: j^j Coafioence: j ] Rivet/Stream Bank j j Knotl: Qj Other, forma cedar g*amp >
Landfill Statoi Pre-1970So!id f>T| Motet! Sajeiafy: f~~j laferaud Dmnpffig f^j No Data: [7] 20%tofiE
(Soma COM tWdm)
( a cSxTTiRAL RESOURCES
10% at S
pWiisloricFKnown, 2 EnwfmmeBtaWKher
j iiissoTft J ftoatfwsy, 4 Straclure 5 Btx%e, SRsftroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Eike orDiidi, 9 Indicated Cteeapatkin or land Use 10 Ojher Feature
Resource
Specific
RecomsBendaUoas
FieW Conditions
ODesucyed
impartially disturbed
U-UnJistarteti
N=Ko fofotmatioti
Resource OattMul
MOOT
Source
Cowawatt
location
EltCIlt (%,
CDM Parcel ID: WA 107 I>«ele«£rtpWoa Source Cmnnti Lac*tb)n Extent ("/.)
Exclttied-No Maniified Resources
impact None:
Partial: Q Totai i i
Otossnum and Associates. bK. July 3994
Etepiredby.
NAS
Date 7/15/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 108 E Development Category:
County: Hudson
Municipality: Secaucus. Jersey City
Size: 52 (acres) GAI Field Map:
Wetland Mitigation
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total | |
Partial | [
Location
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work: | ) ,
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: 1 j
3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 |
4 Both (2 and 3): 1 |
5 Struct. Doc.: 1 I
LLANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh: | | Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | | Knoll: | [ Other undefined
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | X | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | ] No Data: | _| Notes: 20% S section
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (•/.)
D P U
I 11 II
N
R
~
m DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description
Excluded-No Identified Resources
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
Impact None: 2L Partial: | [ Total: | 1
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/15/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID; WA 108 W Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
County.
Municipality;
Size 32.1 (acres)
Local Designation:
Hudson
Sccaucus, Jersey City
GAI Field Map:
Recommended Study Coverage
Total
~
Partial
~
Location
Pollen Core
~
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
1 Ko Further Work:
2 Sensitivity Evaluation:
3 Presence/Absence Testing:
4 Both (2 and 3):
5 Struct. Doc.:
LLANDFORM
J
Landfonn Tidal Marsh: _X_ Upland: Confluence: QJ River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: Other
Landfill Status Pi»-1970 Solid
(Source: CDM 1994d«u)
Modern Sanitary; [ j Informal Dumping j [ No Data: [ j Notes: 20% N section
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
2
Date/Period
prehistoric
19th. C
Source Comment!
G & A 1992 both banks of Penhom Creek
Venneule 1887
Location
N
roadway along S border
Extent (%)
80%
>10%
B
i i
H
D P U N R
~ SDDE
III DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS j
I Road Construction 2 R-R- Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes 5 Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity j
Disturb.
Description
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
8
dike/ditch
Air Photo 1992:27
along E border
E border
n/a
4
fill/dike?
Air Photo 1992:27
parallel to Penhom Creek, 2.3-2.7' elev
N
20%
4
fill changes
Air Photo 199227
edge of filled "parking area" 4.1-9.6' elev
S border
10%
8
ditched marsh
Airphoto 1992:27
ditched, scattered ponds 1.5-1.8* elev
central & W
70%
fapact None; j [ Partial: [x
Total.
a
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date; 7/15/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 312 Development Category:
Wetland Mitigation
County:
Municipality:
Size: 71
Bergen
North Arlington
(acres)
GAI Field Map:
Local Designation:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total |
Partial |
Location
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work: [2
2 Sensitivity Evaluation. ,
3 Presence/Absence Testing: j [
4 Both (2 and 3): I I
5 Struct. Doc.: j j
LLANDFORM
Laadfona Tidal Marsh, j X ) Upland: j [ Confluence: j [ River/Stream Bank j X j Knoll: j | Other
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid j I Modern Sanitary. | I Informal Dumping j ! No Data: I X I Notes: large landfill to N
(Source: CDM 1994 d*U)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure 5 Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=PartialIy disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource Date/Period Source Comments
2 prehistoric G&A 1992 KingslandCreek tributary
Location
NE comer
Extent (%)
>5%
D P U
~sc
N
R
m
Disturb. Description
Excluded-Disturbed
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (*/•)
Impact None: I | Partial: (3T Total: 1 I
Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994
Prepared by:
NAS
Date: 7/13/94
-------
Hackensack Meadowlands Sensitivity Evaluation
CDM Parcel ID: WA 312-a Development Category: Wetland Creation Area
County;
Municipality:
Size: 25.1 (acres)
Local Designation:
N Arlington
GAI Field Map:
PARCEL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Study Coverage
Total | |
Partial | |
Location
Pollen Core
~
1 No Further Work: ] X |
2 Sensitivity Evaluation: j j
3 Presence/Absence Testing: 1 1
4 Both (2 and 3): 1 |
5 Struct Doc.: | [
L LANDFORM
Landform Tidal Marsh:
Upland: | | Confluence: | | River/Stream Bank | X | Knoll: [^] Other now filled
Landfill Status Pre-1970 Solid | X | Modern Sanitary: | | Informal Dumping | | No Data: [ | Notes: 100% landfill
(Source: CDM 1994 data)
Resource
Specific
Recommendations
II CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prehistoric 1 Known, 2 Environmental/other
Historic 3 Roadway, 4 Structure S Bridge, 6 Railroad, 7 Tide Gate, 8 Dike or Ditch, 9 Indicated Occupation or Land Use 10 Other Feature
Field Conditions
D=Destroyed
P=Partially disturbed
U=Undisturbed
N=No Information
Resource
Date/Period
NONE
Source
Comments
Location
Extent (%)
D P U
ddd
N
R
d
ID DISTURBANCES SEEN IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND MAPS
1 Road Construction 2 R.R. Corridor Upgrades 3 Structures 4 Cut/fill Topographic changes S Suburban Development 6 Underground Utilities 7 Industrial Complex 8 Dike or Ditch 9 Other Activity
Disturb. Description Source Comments Location Extent (%)
Excluded-Landfill
i None | j Partial: [~1 Total: IX || Grossman and Associates, Inc. July 1994 Prepared by: NAS Date: 7/15/94
-------
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
SENSITIVITY EVALUATION TABLE
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
CORRIDORS.
Grossman and Associates, Inc.
-------
Figure 4. Project Base Map showing location of all proposed Transportation Impact Corridors.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. August 1904
-------
Table III. HMDC Transportation Improvements for Preferred Alternative:
Recommendations for Additional Archaeological Assessment.
Page 1
Sensitivity
. A
Specific Recommendations *
Project#
Description
Project Area
(acres)
Prehistoric
Historic
1
2
3
4
5
Comments
1
Extend Sea View Ave, south to NE Corridor, 80 ft wide replacing Bergen
Line
5.8
X
X
X
2
Widen County Ave, from Secaucus Rd to County Ave/Rd, buffer existing
road by 18 ft on each side
7.4
X
X
4
Widen New County Rd, from County Ave/Rd to southern terminus, buffer
existing road by 22 ft on each side.
4.9
X
X
5
Realign ramps at Rt 3 and Meadowlands Parkway, as per plans
4
X
No Data
6
Widen Paterson Plank Rd, from E Spur NJ Tpk Bridge to West Side Ave,
buffer existing road by 22 ft on each side.
7.9
X
X
7
Widen and extend Bergen Ave, from District Boundary to Newark-Jersey
City Tpk, 66 ft wide.
4.9
X
No Data
8
Extend Meadowlands Parkway, north to Paterson Plank Rd, 100 ft wide
4.1
X
No Data
9
Connect/widen Paterson Plank Rd, from W spur NJ Tpk across river to
existing road, 100 ft wide.
5.3
X
X
X
10
New road (Bergen Arches Extension), along existing Bergen Line, from E
Spur NJ Tpk to Tannelle Ave, 60 ft wide, as per plans (see # 28)
28.1
X
X
X
12
Widen Belleville Tpk, from Sellers Street (District boundary) to Newark-
lersey City to Newark-Jersey City Tpk, buffer existing road by 40 ft each
side
28.4
X
X
1
13
Widen Castle Rd, from Meadowlands Parkway Extension to New County
Id (entire length), buffer existing road by 5 ft on each side
6.7
X
X
i
16
Widen Redneck Ave from Moonachie Ave to Liberty St (entire length),
Hiffer existing road by 10 ft on each side.
8.1
X
X
1
* 1 No Further Work
2 Sensitivity Evaluation
3 Presence/Absence Testing
4 Both (2 and 3)
5 Struct Doc.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. 1994
-------
Table III. HMDC Transportation Improvements for Preferred Alternative:
Recommendations for Additional Archaeological Assessment.
Page 2
Sensitivity
Specific Recommendations *
Project#
Description
Project Area
(acres)
Prehistoric
Historic
1
2
3
4
5
i
Comments
17
Construction of Park & Ride on approx 7 acres at Moonachie Avc/Railroad
St/Industrial Ave. No wetland fill allowed.
7.5
X
X
20
New ramp from W Spur NJ Tpk northbound at 18W to Rt 120, as per plans
9.4
X
No Data
21
New road east of Brendan Byrne Arena (Rt 120), as per plans
10.6
X
X
X
22
Widen Paterson Plank Rd, from Rt 17 to Washington Ave buffer existing
road by 15 ft on each side.
18.9
X
X
X
25
Widen Moonachie Ave, from Rt 17 to Washington Ave/Moonachie Rd,
buffer existing road by IS ft on each side.
14.2
X
X
X
26
Rt 17 South Extension, from Rt 3 to Rt 280 (along existing Kingsland
Line), 100 ft wide.
60.7
X
X
27
New rail line from Bergen Line, adjacent to widened NE corridor (see #
40) to NYS&W/West Shore rail (at Rt 3), 25 ft wide
5.1
X
X
X
Disturbed
28
E Spur NJ Tpk Interchange at Secaucus Transfer, as per plans
16.7
X
No Data
29
New rail line connecting Main Line to Bergen Line, west of Meadowlands
Parkway, 75 fit wide, as per tax map
6.9
X
X
NW end
30
Widen Main Line from connection from Bergen Line (see # 29} to NE
Corridor, buffer existing rail by 50 ft on each side
14.8
X
X
31
Waterfront Corridor Transit Rail, along District boundary from 50th Street
to Vince Lombaidi PAR (see # 38), 100 ft wide as per schematic
38.4
X
X
X
* 1 No Further Work
2 Sensitivity Evaluation
3 Presence/Absence Testing
4 Both (2 and 3)
5 Struct. Doc.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. 1994
-------
Table IIL I1MDC Transportation Improvements for Preferred Alternative:
Recommendations for Additional Archaeological Assessment.
Page 3
Sensitivity
Specific Recommendations *
Project#
Description
Project Area
(acres)
Prehistoric
Historic
1
2
3
4
5
Comments
32
Widen Newark -Jersey City Tpk, from District boundary to Belleville Tpk,
buffer existing road by IS ft on each side
20.7
X
No Data
33
Realign/grade separation of Secaucus Rd at NYS&W/Wcst Shore rail and
post office access road, as per plans
4.2
X
X
X
34
Ramps at intersection of West Side Ave and Paterson Plank Rd, and
realignment of West Side Ave, as per plans
1.1
X
X
35
Widen Washington Ave, from Paterson Plank Rd to Moonachie Ave,
buffer existing road by 10 ft on each side
13.2
X
X
X
36
Widen Secaucus Rd, from E Spur NJ Tpk to new alignment at West Shore
rail (see # 33), buffer existing road by 5 ft on each side
4.3
X
X
X
37a
Widen Rt 3 bridge over Berry's Creek, buffer existing road by 25 ft on
each ride
2.2
X
X
37b
Widen lb 3, from Rt 20 to Berry's Creek bridge (see # 37a), buffer by 20 ft
on each side
18
X
No Data
38
Expansion of Vince Lombardi Park & Ride, approx 10.7 acres, see map
10.7
X
No Data
39
Secaucus Transfer Station. Use remaining Land between Planning Area
"13", new Turnpike Interchange (see # 28), Penhora Creek, widened Mail
Line <# 30), and widened NE Corridor (see #40)
6.8
X
X
X
40
Widen NE Corridor Line, from Hackensack River to Secaucus Rd, buffer
existing trades by 80 ft on each side.
46.6
X
X
X
41
Widen County Rd from New County Rd/County Ave to Tonnelle Ave,
mffer existing road by 25 ft on each side
11
X
X
X
42
West Shore line Commuter Rail (between Vince Lombardi P&R-# 38)
and Meadowlands Sport Complex), 100 ft wide, as per plans.
53
X
X
* 1 No Further Work
2 Sensitivity Evaluation
3 Presence/Absence Testing
4 Both (2 and 3)
5 Struct. Doc.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. 1994
------- |