SEPA
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on the
Special Area Management Plan
for the
Hackensack Meadowlands District, NJ
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
June 1995
Appendices J - P
In partnership with:

-------
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 J - P
In partnership with:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission

-------
List of Appendices
Appendices J - P 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
J

-------
APPENDIX J
EVALUATION OF OUT-OF-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
NOVEMBER 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.

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
EVALUATION OF OUT-OF-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
HACKENSACK MEADOWIANDS SAMP/EIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for the
Hackensack Meadowlands District—Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) must
consider reasonable alternatives, as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Five alternative models for growth in
the District are considered in the Alternatives Analysis, from which a
sixth "hybrid" plan was prepared for more detailed evaluation in the EIS.
The work plan for the SAMP/EIS also requires an evaluation of the
potential for growth outside the District, in lieu of in-District growth.
Theoretically, a large number of alternative locations (and combinations
of sites) are potentially available. However, it is not useful or
effective to analyze the impacts of growth at each of the many alternate
locations dispersed throughout the region. The availability of
alternative sites is better measured, given the programmatic nature of
the EIS, by assessing representative locations that exhibit high
potential to function as alternative locations for growth.
The SAMP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) requires that a programmatic
EIS be prepared. Under a programmatic format, methodologies for analysis
are used that are appropriate at the regional scale, and that are
appropriate for supporting "program-level" decisions, in this case
involving selection of land management plans, environmental management
plans, and regulatory enhancements for the District that best meet the
goals of the SAMP and MOU. Toward that end, the following criteria have
been applied in selecting locations for review:
the out-of-District locations selected for review should be
representative of opportunities that conform with good planning and
natural resource protection principles, and,
the out-of-District locations preferred and selected for review are
sites that can achieve planning objectives outlined in the New
Jersey Development and Redevelopment Plan.
In accordance with the scope of work for the SAMP/EIS, out-of-District
sites will be selected for review that are most respresentative of the
forms of growth and the scale of growth anticipated to occur in the
-1-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
analysis°of (out-'o^Dis^ictfSemites i^th^EIS^idlnSfi ^th* ***
sites and location, outside the District that have b«n
evaluated; and then presents the conclusions of the analysis
This out-of-District alternatives analvsic He	j j * L
following topics:	analysis is arranged in order of the
Section 1. Introduction
1 jk-.;
S:	inslrls
Section. 6. Alternatives screening criteria*18 " * * KM
Section 9. Environmental review of
Section 10. Conclusions	selected representative sites
2.0 RELEVANT REGULATIONS
The consideration of out-of-District slurB,(i.	^ u vrc
the SAMP derives fro. the need to	reason^ SuUlt " Z
Regulations on Implementing NEPA'.
preparation and implementation of a Special Area Kanagement Wan lor the
Hackensack Weadovlands District.
In addition, the SAMP HOU specifically provides for the consideration of
out-of-District alternatives in the Els. A principal purpose o£ the SAMP
L"/SSU" fu he	""dovUnds Development Somnission's
=	^ '°r J}* W.ttict reflects the re,Uir.«nts of
Section 404(b)
-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
•	404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230 et seq.)
Interagency Memorandum of Understanding for the Hackensack
Meadovlands District SAMP (August 26, 1988)
Army/EPA Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Determination of
Mitigation (February 7, 1990)
•	ACE Public Interest Review (33 CFR 320.4, pursuant to NEPA)
Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 86-10 (October 2, 1986)
Hackensack Meadovlands Reclamation and Development Act (N. J. Stat.
13:17-1)
The overall project purpose is the development of a Meadovlands District
SAMP—a comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection and
reasonable economic growth. The SAMP contains a comprehensive statement
of policies and criteria to guide uses of lands and water in the
District, and sets forth the mechanisms that will effectuate the policies
in specific geographic areas.2 One of the products of the SAMP will be
the adoption of a revised Master Plan by HMDC that is consistent with the
SAMP.
Thus, the alternatives analysis incorporates a regional planning
perspective, and at the same time addresses the requirements for
alternatives analyses contained in relevant regulations, specifically:
the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the Army Engineers' Public Interest
Review (PIR), and NEPA. (The approaches to alternatives analysis in
these regulations typically, but not necessarily, focus on the details of
a specific project at the time a project applicant is applying for a
permit. In this project, the approach to alternatives analysis provides
for comparison of alternative regional land use and environmental
management plans, at a programmatic analytical level.)
To meet the requirements of federal regulations and the M0U, the EIS is
assessing practicable alternatives as outlined at 40 CFR 230.10(a)
[Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines]. An alternative is practicable under
Section 404(b)(1) if it is available to the project proponent and capable
of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology,
and logistics in light of the overall project purpose. Practicable
alternatives with less adverse impacts are presumed to exist if! (1) the
discharge occurs to a special aquatic site—such as wetlands; or (2) the
project is not water-dependent. This presumption is explicitly
acknowledged to be rebuttable in the regulations.
The 404(b)(1) practicable alternatives analysis drives federal decision-
making toward an alternative that is preferable from the standpoint of
2 SAMP Memorandum of Understanding (August 26, 1988)
-3-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
protection of the aquatic ecosystem. The central principle of the
Section 404(b)(1) guideline is that:
No discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if
there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge
that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so
long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse
environmental consequences.
Note, however, that non-aquatic environmental impacts are also taken into
account. If an alternative that is less damaging to the aquatic
ecosystem would have other significant adverse environmental
consequences, thf-n the Section 404 discharge may be allowed despite the
existence of a practicable alternative.
Other significant adverse environmental consequences are of particular
importance in the Meadowlands, because of the extensive damage to the
natural environment that has occurred in the District as a result of
historic land use and vaste disposal practices. Substantial
environmental improvements are necessary to offset the significant
environmental degradation and alteration that has resulted from past land
use practices, according to HMDC analyses.
The SAMP seeks to reconcile a broad range of land use conflicts and
remediate Che effects of inappropriate land uses, for example:
Environmental problems are severe, highly clustered, and take
almost every form encountered in a metropolitan area. The
District experiences the impact of metropolitan solid vasts
disposal, toxic waste disposal, wastewater disposal, and the
congestive effects of high travel demand through and into the
District.
•	Changes to the hydrology of the Hackensack River (via upstream
impoundment for public water supply purposes, ditching for
mosquito control, and diking for flood control) have permanently
altered the original ecosystem of the District by changing the
tidal influence, water quality, and nutrient inputs of the tower
Hackensack River.
•	Because the District is located within five miles of New Y.-rk
2fy,..th#rI iSThigh Tarket denand for land' L*nd values reflect
this demand. Inconsistent authorities of the federal era »
and local agencies have increased the difficulty '
unpredictability, and cost of growth in the District.
-4-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
The analysis of practicable alternatives is extended by the Army Corps of
Engineers/EPA Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Determination of
Mitigation (MOA). Section II.C. of the MOA states
In evaluating standard Section 404 permit applications, as a
practical matter, information on all facets of a project,
including potential mitigation, is typically gathered and
reviewed at the sanie time. The Corps, except as indicated
below, first makes a determination that potential impacts have
been avoided to the maximum extent practicable; remaining
unavoidable impacts will then be mitigated to the extent
appropriate and practicable by requiring steps to minimize
impacts and, finally compensate for aquatic resource values.
This sequence is considered satisfied where the proposed
mitigation is in accordance with specific provisions of a Corps
and EPA approved comprehensive plan that ensures compliance with
the compensation requirements of the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines (examples of such comprehensive plans may include
Special Area Management Plans, Advance Identification areas
(Section 230.80), and State Coastal Zone Management Plans)...
3.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND PROJECT GOALS
A broad range of project goals, to be achieved through implementation of
the SAMP, have been expressed by the many agency participants and public
commenters. The project goals and objectives describe the project
purposes (to be accomplished through the SAMP). Thus, the goals and
objectives establish the context for alternatives analysis. Two
fundamental goals are formalized in the SAMP M0U:
Natural resource protection
Economic growth
These goals embody a range of specific environmental, economic, and
social goals and objectives. In a number of cases, the visions of the
future District as expressed by different parties to the SAMP (and the
public) are discordant, that is, they result in different future uses for
the same lands. For example, a tract of land containing both uplands and
wetlands might be viewed as an area for environmental preservation by one
interest group, as an area for commercial growth by the landowner, and as
a location to meet housing and other social/cultural needs by the
regional planning agency. One function of the SAMP is to achieve a
balance among the various project goals that is in the public interest.
-5-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
HMDC's goals and objectives for the SAMP are described in the report on
Project Purpose and Need (4/21/93). The goals and objectives of HHDC?
designed to address a broad range of issues such as economic growth and
environmental management, describe the long-term approaches to land use
management in the Hackensack Meadovlands District. The legislated
of HMDC (as outlined fro. the purposes of Chapter 4oI.S*Sj.fU
N.J.S.A. 13 7-1 et seq.) involve promoting orderly, comprehensive
;ro""lnS	£« disposal of solid waste,
preserving ^he delicate balance of nature"; and to "reclaim nlar\
develop and -edevelop the Hackensack Meadovlands"	' pl"n'
Specific goals, objectives, and issues have been expressed by the SAMP
partners am)	public during the scoping and public meeting process
The goals in-luo,: achievement of environmental, developmental, focUl
and planning objectives. For example, envlronnental goals include
protection o£ the existing environmental resources wi'hin the District
and impleme,,ration of environmental improvements to enhance resources
vhere degra.v.tion has occurred. An example goal relating to economic
growth and -elopnent involves creation of ne. jobs through propetlj
planned grc A in office, commercial, and warehouse uses in the TOD.
Examples of ,-oci.l and planning goals Include the development of major
multi-use planned activity centers within the Meadovlands District (at
locations * we highway and mass transit systems vill support such
development .and meeting lov and moderate income housing goals in
accordance vith the N.J. Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) guidelines.
4.0 METHOD 'FOR OUT-OF-PISTOICI Al.TBauftTTVES
The out-of-Dustrict alternatives analysis seeks to safisfy the
overlapping federal regulations and guidance that outline the scope of
inquiry, in the context of a programmatic EIS. The method must also take
into account the SAMP's environmental, social, an : economic components.
The method r' out-of-District alternatives analy is—developed in
response to relevant requirements—is described below.
The multi-use center" form of growth proposed by fWDC is
efficient, to an environmental basis, than the sprawl single u^l
development patterns existing (and permitted under zoning in mL
surrounding suburban region. A study by Middlesex-Somerset
Regional Council finds that individual ei**i~use devsloBin^ I
with transportation demand management „	uDwarri* ™ concert
fewer trips a public roadways than	°£ perfant
developmenti (the usual development allowed unde^ subu^ban^oning

-------
Draft! 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
The SAMP MOU mandates an analysis of out-of-District alternatives as part
of the examination of reasonable alternatives under NEPA, and as part the
evaluation of practicable alternatives under the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. In November 1990, the EIS federal lead agencies
approved a scope of work for the SAMP/EIS that described the approach to
be applied in evaluating project alternatives, including out-of-District
alternatives. This approach is being followed in the evaluation of out-
of-District alternatives, and consists of the following major steps:
Identify potential out-of-District locations in the project
alternatives study area—defined as a six-county metropolitan area
in northern New Jersey, to Include Union, Essex, Hudson, Bergen,
Passaic, and northern Middlesex County. The out-of-District
locations to be considered should have sites that can accommodate
projects of scale, function, and density similar to HMDC's Planning
Areas, to evaluate achievement of comparable project purposes4 at
alternative locations. The identification of potentially available
and representative out-of-District locations was made using data
from three sources:
1.	Data was assembled from municipal tax records to indicate
vacant tracts of land in the study region,
2.	County and selected municipal planning staffs were
contacted and interviewed to identify available locations,
3.	Listings of available lands (obtained from the PSE&G Area
Development Program's site locator system) were reviewed
to identify potential locations.
4 Relevant federal regulations emphasize the Importance of
project purpose:
An alternative is practicable if it is available and
capable of being done after taking into consideration
cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes. (40 CFR 230.10(a)(2))
We consider it implicit that, to be practicable, an
alternative must be capable of achieving the basic purpose
of the proposed activity. (45 FR 85339, Dec. 24, 1980)
In order for an "external" alternative to be practicable,
it must be reasonably available or obtainable. (45 FR
85339, Dec. 24, 1960)
-7-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
•	The analysis of out-of-District alternatives focuses on sites
outside the District that are comparable to those in the HMDC-
identified Planning Areas, because (1) many small parcels of land
are theoretically available in the six-county out-of-District study
region and preparing individual reviews of each small parcel is
inefficient and a waste of project resources, and because (2) the
EIS is programmatic (regional) in nature. Representative out-of-
District locations were selected for additional consideration based
on a site's potential to accommodate growth, its ability to
accommodate projects of comparable scale, and the general
availability of infrastructure and transportation/transit systems.
•	Based on the review of potential out-of-District sites, four
representative out-of-District locations were selected for
additional analysis, involving sites in Jersey City, Newark, Wayne,
and Mahwah. The current environmental conditions and potential
environmental impacts of site development at each location were
generally assessed.
The feasibility of meeting SAMP goals and regulatory requirements
using locations outside the District is then assessed, and an out-
of-District alternative is proposed to test the rate at which some
in-District growth5 might be redirected to an out-of-District
location.
5.0 URBANIZATION PATTERNS IN THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES STUDY AREA
Satellite photography (1990, 1 inch - 2.3 miles) of the out-of-District
six—county study area was obtained to study the urbanization patterns of
the SAMP region, distinguishing the patterns by county. The satellite
photo shows a pattern of intense land uses throughout the inner portions
of the region, including the area surrounding the Hackensack Meadowlands
District.
Hudson Coi&ty is developed at urban densities typical of the period
between the Civil War and World War II. The only area of undeveloped
land noticeable in the photograph is the former industrial and railroad
land along the Hudson River in Jersey City, the largest component of
which is now Liberty State Park.
5 The growth projections for
document entitled "Need for Growth
Hackensack Keadowlands District".
the District are presented in the EIS
and Environmental Improvement in the

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
In Bergen County, the photograph reveals a continuous grid of suburban
residential land use, with intermittent concentrations of commercial and
other non-residential uses. Much of Bergen County appears "saturated,"
that is, developed everywhere as allowed by the zoning in effect. The
development patterns in southern Bergen County, much of which was
developed prior to World War XI, resemble those of Hudson County.
Northern and western Bergen County are less densely developed, but the
even fabric of suburban streets and houses clearly indicates development
saturation (although at lower zoned densities) over much of this area.
Some new development can occur in saturated areas, but it usually
involves redevelopment of underutilized land where the zoning allows
higher densities. Such redevelopment is extremely rare in suburban
areas.
The development patterns in Bergen County, as illustrated by the
satellite photograph, provide a classic illustration of urban sprawl: it
shows how real estate market forces working within typically suburban
zoning densities can, given sufficient demand over time, eventually leave
an entire county with little open space other than that deliberately set
aside as public parks, institutional campuses, country clubs, and the
like. (The alternative model of urbanization, common outside the
metropolitan areas of North America, allows areas of woodland and
farmland to survive between spatially confined towns and cities.
Typically, the residents of those towns and cities live and work in
densities higher than those prevailing in Bergen County or most other
North American urban areas.)
Passaic County is divided into two sections of sharply contrasting
density. The southern section, dominated by cities like Paterson and
Passaic, is developed at pre-Vorld War II densities like those of Hudson
County. West of Paterson, Passaic County exhibits near saturation at
typically suburban densities, with areas of apparent commercial and
industrial use scattered widely among areas of apparent residential use.
The northern section of the county exhibits some development but remains
largely vacant and forested, because of the constraints to development
posed by the steeply sloped lands, and because of the presence of
extensive lands in watershed use.
The land use patterns of Essex County indicate saturation, although the
density declines as the distance west of Newark increases. Union County,
like Essex, has a dense urban core in Elizabeth and Linden, and saturated
suburban development west of the core area. In both counties, the
density of development is lower west of the First Watchung Mountain, with
some larger tracts of undeveloped parkland and other public open space
evident in Essex County.
-9-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
In western Union County, the fabric of urbanization visible in the
satellite photograph is woven at a small» consistent scale, reflecting
predominantly residential land uses, In contrast, the uneven patterns of
urbanization evident in northern Middlesex County indicates irregular
land use patterns, in which areas of monolithic commercial and industrial
use are interspersed widely among residential uses. The residential
areas in Middlesex County show more div«r*ity in density and scale than
the single-family residential patterns of Union County. Like Union
County, hovever, Middlesex County north of the Raritan River appears to
be at or close to saturation.
The satellite imagery strikingly illustrates the development saturation
in the SAMP our-vf -District study region. In most of the region, the
undeveloped arecs that compare in size to the open lands within the
District are principally parks or other open space uses. Other than at
the outer fringes of the region, the satellite photograph indicates very
limited undeveloped land that would be comparable to the Planning Areas
conceptualised by HMDC inside the District.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING CRITERIA
The criteria used in the preliminary screening analysis reflect the
concepts rlvanced in the State Plan, which are intended to steer New
Jersey tovj.-rd less sprawling forms of development. The State Plan
advocates that growth be directed to "centers" that have high levels of
accessibility, provide a diversity of land uses and varying intensities
of land us$„ enhance the efficient delivery of public services, and
contribute to a perceived sense of place- In this analysis, preference
is given to sites that share with in-District locations the ability to
accommodate both housing and employment, providing adequate and
affordable housing sufficiently adjacent to places of employment to
minimize travel needs.
Specifically, the screening criteria favor.'
Site^ where mixed land use—combining (residential, commercial, and
office development—is permitted.
Sites that are commensurate with strict development sites in
their development potential. G«^eri*l3Ly. a suitable site would
require about 25 to 100 acres, *How for relatively high land
use densities. Smaller sites may also be suitable, particularly in
urban locations;
Proximity to public transportati°R and to major highways;

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
Locations that can realistically attract high-quality commercial
and market residential uses;
Sites that offer the potential for achieving synergistic effects in
meeting different needs. Mixed-use development can provide for
economic activity, delivery pf public services, living space, and
environmental protection, all in a coordinated way that encourages
interaction and mutual support among all these facets of the
community. Such synergism is necessary for the built environment
to achieve what the state plan calls "communities of place"—that
is, communities that are dynamic, diverse, compact, and efficient;
Sites that serve a market comparable to or substantially the same
as the market for in-District sites;
Sites that do not exhibit the potential for significant impacts to
the environment or natural resources resulting from development
activity (e.g., wetlands, water quality, terrestrial and aquatic
habitats) and future use of the site (e.g., traffic/air quality,
stormwater runoff).
Sites that are not known to have significant ECRA compliance
obstacles.
7.0 PRELIMINARY SITE IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING
Conceptually, an out-of-District alternative site should offer the
opportunity for mixed-use development, accommodating: about 1,000 units
of housing or more, ranging from affordable to luxury, at densities of 20
to 40 dwelling units per acre; and about one million square feet of
office/commercial space, consisting of various classes of office space
with retail support services. Given the saturated patterns of
development outside the District, this analysis does consider sites that
are smaller, and more limited than the in-District alternatives, in their
potential to accommodate the conceptual project outlined above. However,
the analysis does not consider the numerous out-of-District sites that
are too small and scattered to offer any comparable opportunities for
mixing densities and land uses because they are limited in scale.
CDM has completed a preliminary screening of potential locations and
sites. The sources of information used to identify out-of-District
alternatives included: county land use planners in Bergen, Passaic, and
Union Counties; the Office of State Planning; a number of municipal
planning and economic development officials throughout the six-county
study region; an inventory of available commercial/industrial sites
-11

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
maintained by Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G), and
color-enhanced satellite photography.
The parts of the six-county SAMP region that are nearest to the District
are the most built-up parts of the region. They include the older,
larger cities of Jersey City, Newark, and Paterson, and many smaller
cities and older suburbs. These areas are defined by the Stat« Plan as
the "Metropolitan Planning Area." The plan urges that growth within the
Metropolitan Planning Area be directed to the larger, older cities. The
older cities have suffered from the continuing shift of economic act ivity
and population away from urban centers that began after the Second World
War. These cities now have urban land that is underutilized and service
infrastructure "hat usually will accommodate growth. The older suburbs
in the Mefctop: :.i t/in Planning Area, described as standing
shoulder-r.o-shoulder in tightly woven settlement patterns, are less
likely to he able to accommodate major new growth concentrations.
The 1992 *»tate Development and Redevelopment Plan required counties to
submit dr»\.ft planning area and centers delineations (using the
"cross-accEptance" process) by March 1992. The urban centers are
designatiA* by the state) within the SAMP region they include Newark,
Jersey City, Paterson, and Elizabeth. Counties can designate regional
centers. Including existing regional centers and new regional centers;
towns; v- lages; and hamlets.
The out-of-District alternatives analysis relates directly to the state
master planning process! any out-of-District site identified as a
potential location for growth should logically be within the region's
designated jrban or regional centers. To	out v^at
centers—particularly regional centers—had been mapped so far by the
counties in the SAMP region, CDM spoke with the northeastern New Jersey
contact at the Office of State Planning, Dave i?^ki, and his colleague,
David Hos&ck.
Mr. Maski, from his personal knowledge of trv- region, said that none of
the centers identified in northeastern New ^er®fiy offer as much space for
growth as potential sites within the Keadot/lands. He felt that while
the region could probably accommodate	of the projected dea id for
growth without using the Meadowlands sit-as, ic could only do so in
fragments scattered over thousaws of ur/.	sites.	Y.th would
increase the undesirable patterns of	l&nd uses &nd s.rawling
development that erode the strength o£ established cities and place
unnecessary burdens on public service--. Mi: •• ^aski indicated	Jersey
City and Kevark nevertheless had space for growth through redevelopment.
Of all the suburban areas within the 3AMF region, he cited onlv Mahwah in

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
Bergen County as having the room to accommodate growth in an amount
comparable to the potential of the Meadowlands sites.
David Hosack identified many of the centers tentatively designated in the
state process so far in Bergen, Passaic, Essex, Hudson, and Union
Counties. He explained that many of these designations do not signify
the desire for growth, only that development should be directed to areas
where the infrastructure already exists.
CDM's preliminary screening of potential out-of-District alternative
sites reaches a similar conclusions within the closer-in areas of the
SAMP region, the cities of Jersey City and Newark appear to offer the
most substantial space for growth and also have the potential to promote
the urban redevelopment goals of the N. J. Development and Redevelopment
Plan. After their losses of population and business, these cities have
land available for redevelopment. They actively seek creative forms of
development, which the suburbs generally do not. This is because urban
centers, such as Jersey City and Newark, have more flexible land use
regulations that permit development with the desired diversity of use and
density. Because the major rail lines were built to serve the cities,
growth in these locations offers the greatest potential for shifting the
balance in northern New Jersey toward more public transportation and less
private automobile use. Both cities are also focal points of the
regional highway network, although connector routes may be congested.
The suburban areas, in contrast, are likely to continue to apply
restrictive land use controls that segregate land ases and discourage the
SAMP objective of combining residential and commercial growth at any one
location. The older suburban towns seek to maintain their suburban
character, and are skeptical of further urbanization. The suburban areas
generally have not suffered great economic decline, and so do not have
the land available for redevelopment that the larger cities have. Nor do
large tracts of virgin land remain, as exist in exurban areas. The
service infrastructure of many suburban areas does not have sufficient
surplus capacity to accommodate major new development.
7.1 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SITES
During the preliminary site screening a number of potential locations in
Jersey City, Newark, and Paterson were reviewed, as discussed below.
JERSEY CITY
The Hudson River waterfront in Jersey City features large tracts of land
once mainly used for rail freight yards. With the disappearance of rail
operations, the Hudson waterfront has become attractive to high quality
¦13-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
commercial and residential development. The 200-acre Newport
development, located at the northern end of Jersey City's Hudson River
waterfront, may be the largest project built to date. Newport includes a
one-million square-foot shopping mall, and, at full buildout, 9,100
dwelling units and 4.2 million square feet of office space.
The northern waterfront is the most attractive waterfront area for
further major development because it is closest to the Holland Tunnel and
the New Jersey Turnpike, is served by PATH trains, and hag the effect of
development momentum accruing from Newport, Harborside, and the new
buildings at Exchange Place. Sites in this area offer the opportunity to
achieve state planning goals of
coordinating public and private actions to guide future growth
into compact forms of development and redevelopment, located to
make the most efficient use of infrastructure systems and to
support the maintenance of capacities of infrastructure,
environmental, natural resource, fiscal, economic, and other
systems. (N. J. State Plan, State Planning Goal No. 9)
Of the tw; large, available development sites in this neighborhood,
Hudson Exchange (formerly known as Harsimus Cove) appears preferable for
the out-o¦-District alternatives analysis, as confirmed by Jersey City's
Planning Director, Robert Cotter. Hudson Exchange is not known to have
ECRA complications, as is suspected for Liberty Harbor North, which is
believed to have chromium and other heavy metal contamination. Hudson
Exchange is more accessible by PATH than Liberty Harbor North. The City
believes the owners of the Hudson Exchange site have already spent $40
million on plans and site preparation. This expenditure includes the
placement of dredged sand on the site to surcharge .he underlying fill.
Conrail still maintains track on the site, using It once every few months
to assemble freight trains. Once work on Conrail's Marion Junction
project, on the west side of Jersey City, is completed in 1994, there
will be no more rail operations at Hudson Exchange to constrain
development.
NEWARK
Newark contains several privately-ovned sites in the dovntown/r /erfront
area that are underutilized and could be developed. Ther® are ._.lso
underutilized, predominantly residential areas outside 'fovntovn where
high concentrations of city-owned land make redevelopment possible. The
City of Newark's Department of Development assisted CDH in defining these
outlying potential redevelopment areas; the City's Engineering Department
provided COM with the information on the covntovn-rivertront si es.
-14-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
The NJR-50 Urban Renewal District, between Penn Station and Bridge
Street, and from Broad Street to Raymond Boulevard, is the site of the
proposed New Jersey Performing Arts Center. Three city blocks are
designated by the renewal plan for commercial development to help fund
the operation of the performing arts facilities. An adjacent, six-acre
urban renewal district, between Raymond Boulevard and the Passaic River,
has been committed to a developer, named Capital Hill, which plans
residential development.
The City recommended for consideration five sites in the Passaic
Riverfront area, near the Performing Arts Center, comprising, in all, 36
acres of land. The City reports that most of the structures on these
sites have already been cleared, or are in the process of being cleared.
They are the following:
• The area immediately north of the Capital Hill site, between
McCarter Highway (Route 21) and the Passaic River, is an
underutilized region of parking lots and scattered, small
commercial buildings. It features proximity to downtown office
buildings, Penn Station, and highways. It affords the opportunity
to build on the momentum of the performing arts complex and
adjacent Capital Hill development. The site is in multiple private
ownership.
South of the Capital Hill site, next to the Passaic River and Penn
Station, is a former power plant site owned by Public Service
Electric & Gas. The site has been cleared and fenced; it appears
to be five to six acres.
The Mutual Benefit Life parking area along Orange and Bridge
Streets, between Broad Street and McCarter Highway, just south of
1-280, Includes several city blocks of employee parking at least
partly owned by Mutual Benefit Life. This site is close to major
office buildings, the Newark Museum and Public Library, and Broad
Street Station. The "City Visions" renewal study of Newark
recommends housing at this location.
' North of 1-280, between Broad Street and M. L. King Boulevard, next
to the high-rise Colonnades apartments, is a privately-owned site
of about five acres of wooded land.
A cleared site bordering the Passaic River southeast of Penn
Station.
The City pointed out areas beyond downtown with high concentrations of
city-owned land where redevelopment is being considered. These areas
-15-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
consist typically of numerous vacant lots interspersed with two and
three-family wooden houses. In particular, Newark: representatives
identified the Central Ward Redevelopment Area. This is an area to the
west of the K. Hovnanian/Society Hill at University Heights development,
between Springfield and South Orange Avenues, that contains many
underutilized blocks with high concentrations of city ownership.
Hovnanian prepared a block-by-block redevelopment proposal for a 55-acre
area here, which envisioned as many as 1,400 new dwelling units. This
average costs of acquisition, relocation, and clearance were estimated at
approximately $500,000 per acre. The City would favor mixed commercial
and residential uses in this area, with the residential component taking
the form of town house or duplex construction, like that of Society Hill
at University Euights.
Hovnanian's Society Hill project includes 1,200 dwelling units, 400 of
which have been completed already, and 100,000 square feet of retail
space. The housing is being sold at market rates with a 15 percent low
and moderate income component. It is located next to the University of
Medicine rnd Dentistry and the Essex County Courts, off Springfield
Avenue in central Newark. The City assumed the costs of site assemblage
and relocation, and delivered the 40-acre Society Hill site to Hovnanian.
CDM observed a path of private and institutional redevelopment that
points we.:; ward, roughly along the Market Street axis, toward the Central
Ward redevelopment area. Hence, the next area on this redevelopment path
may be the Central Ward redevelopment area (being considered by
Hovnanian). Its perceived linkage to other clusters of redevelopment
(listed below) makes this area more attractive than other outlying parts
of the city. This path begins with a big constellation of new, private
development around the restored Penn Station, including the Gateway
office and hotel complex and the planned New Jersey Performing Arts
Center. West of Broad Street is a cluster of expanding institutional
uses comprised of the University of Medicine ari Dentistry, the Newark
campus of Rutgers University, and the Essex County courts. Next to this
cluster is Hovnanian's Society Hill at University Heights.
The preliminary screening concludes that all the downtown/'riverf c-nt
sites, as well as the Central Ward Redevelopment Area, are suit?ole for
further consideration in the out-of-District alternative.
ELIZABETH
A demonstration project is being implemented in the City of Elizabeth
(and other parts of Union County) to recycle: and revitalize abandoned
urban and suburban sites. Regional Plan Association is conducting the
project, which is co-sponsored by the Union County Economic Development
-16-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
Corporation. The project will develop models for site reuse and explore
ways to redevelop undervalued land assets.
Phase I of the project, the inventory of vacant, contaminated, and
underutilized lands in the county, was completed in the fall of 1992.
Several large sites in the City of Elizabeth were identified. Phase II
of the project has two objectives: first, to develop policy prescriptions
for encouraging urban redevelopment, particularly in environmentally
degraded areas; and second, to provide concrete examples of how such
sites can be reclaimed. The plan will build on projects already
initiated, such as the Seaport Industrial Center and the Elizabethport
Waterfront Project. Linda Morgan, Director of Regional Plan Association,
indicated that current project activities focus on redevelopment
initiatives for a 166 acre site in Elizabeth, in an area that is
principally industrial.
The site and surrounding land uses are principally industrial, with a
focus on activities related to the shipping in adjacent Port Newark. A
mixed use project with a residential component, similar to projects
considered in the Meadowlands District, would be difficult to implement
at this location. While this location may be able to support mixed
industrial and commercial activity, the specialty uses related to
intermodal shipping, transport of goods, and support services for
shipping are likely to be the focus of commercial activity.
PATERSON
Michael Romanic, Acting Director of the City of Paterson Planning
Department, said there is very little land available in Paterson for
major development. He mentioned a 10-acre industrial property owned by
Public Service Electric & Gas that has potentially substantial ECRA
compliance issues. The only other site is the Ward Street superblock, a
two-block area in downtown Paterson which the City has been seeking to
develop for 15 years.
7.2 SUBURBAN ALTERNATIVES
During the preliminary site screening a number of potential locations in
Passaic, Bergen, Union, and Middlesex Counties were reviewed, as
discussed below.
PASSAIC COUNTY
Passaic County's existing regional centers include Clifton and Passaic.
The Willowbrook Mall area of Vayne is proposed as a new regional center.
However, large-site development in the sparsely settled northern part of
-17-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
the county is considered undesirable because of steep slopes, lack of
infrastructure, and the presence of lands reserved for watershed use.
The Passaic County Planning Department indicated that most development in
the county involves reuse of previously developed areas. There isn't the
space in the regional centers of the county to accommodate large-site
development on virgin land. Redevelopment usually requires assembling a
site out of contiguous parcels under multiple ownership, often in
combination vith the eminent domain power of local government. The sites
identified for consideration in Passaic County are as follows:
•	Passaic. The City of Passaic seeks to redevelop a 22-acre
industrial area devastated by a fire about five years ago. The
area is bordered by a hook in the Passaic River and is centered on
Eighth Steer. Seeking mixed-use redevelopment after the fire, the
City of Passaic designated Hartz Mountain as redeveloper. Althea
McDivitt of the Passaic Department of Community Development said
Hartz has produced various alternative plans for mixes of housing
and commercial space at this location, but has encountered some
problems—likely related to site contamination. She said the area
is nov under environmental study, and is still in multiple private
ownership.
•	Vavn.?. The Willowbrook Mall area of Wayne is a low-lying area near
the >ssaic and Pompton Rivers, east of Great Piece Meadows. The
area contains a highway node that includes 1-80, N. J. Route 23,
also a limited access highway; N. J. Route 3, a direct connection
to the Lincoln Tunnel? and U. S. Route 46. High intensity
commercial uses have developed here in recent decades, overlying an
older settlement pattern of rural residential use. The area has
grown without the spatial linkages in land use and circulation
advocated by the state plan, but it has the potential to acquire
the characteristics of a community of place. Passaic County
proposes designating this a regional center.
PSE&G's site inventory includes a 97.5-acre site at the heart of
this center, which is being marketed £or commercial development.
The developerf Toombs Development Company, received preliminary
site plan approval from Wayne Township for one-million square feet
of office space, but wetlands issues have prevented development to
date- Extensive wetlands would mak* the site difficult to develop.
Wayne's Planning Director, Don Ferguson, described a proposal for
mixed commercial and residential usfcs for a nearby site th t also
foundered on wetlands issues. Th« Township's site plan approval
was later voided by a court ruling on a challenge to cne project
based on wetlands. The Township hopes ;o appeal the decision.
-18-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
In sum, although sensitive environments in the area may limit
large-scale projects, the Toombs site will be considered as an
out-of-District alternative because it is representative of the
limited number of large area sites available for development in
suburban areas.
BERGEN COUNTY
The Bergen County Planning Department staff have identified many
potential regional centers and towns in a preliminary mapping of planning
areas for the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. Barbara Ualsh of
the Bergen County Planning Department stressed that the designations are
conceptual. Most of the regional center designations in Bergen County
are intended to guide state capital spending on infrastructure, rather
than to generate greater density.
Among the conceptually-designated regional centers where development at
relatively high densities is possible are Mahwah (in western Bergen
County) and Edgewater (on the Hudson waterfront).
Mahwah. The old Ford Motor site of 175 acres, off Route 17 in Mahwah,
has been subdivided and partially redeveloped with hotel and office
space. International Crossroads, a high-rise hotel and office project,
took 107 acres. Another 65 acres was taken by Sharp International for
offices, and a distribution and service center. Neither part of the site
has been fully redeveloped. Jim Hulsizer of the Bergen County Planning
Department said that this site could accommodate more office or retail
use, but that Mahwah Township would not favor mixed
residential-commercial uses.
The nearby Ramapo Ridge corporate park project being developed by McBride
has approximately 77 acres remaining of developable land among three
separate tracts of land. Ramapo Ridge is located next to the alignment
of 1-287, south of its junction with Route 17 and the New York Thruway.
Several sites in this corporate park have been developed with office
uses. Major mixed-use development could theoretically be accommodated
within its remaining sites, linking the existing office space in the
corporate park to the residential uses next to it. Residential use is
not favored here, however, partly because so much relatively dense
housing has been built already in the area. Next to the corporate park
are two higher-density residential developments: Ramapo Ridge
Condominiums, with approximately 4 dwelling units per acre on 64 acres;
and Kilmer Voods, with approximately 13 units per acre on 96 acres. Mr.
Hulsizer of the County Planning Department said that Mahwah already has
twice as much Mt. Laurel housing as required, and believes that the
19-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
Township would not entertain a mixed-use project containing housing on
the corporate park sites.
This part of Mahwah is part of an area that is proposed for designation
as a regional center, and it has several ingredients of a center in
having a regional highway crossroads, a passenger rail station, and a
concentration of residential and commercial uses. However, both Mr.
"ulsizer of the Bergen County Planning department and David Maski of the
New Jersey Office of State Planning indicate that Mahwah Township has
been reluctant to allow mixed use projects, either at International
Crossroads or elsewhere.
Edgewater. Mr. hulsizer identified the Independence Harbor site in
Edgewater, along the Hudson River, which has approximately 80 developable
acres. Another 33 acres has been developed with condominiums built on a
pier at a density of approximately 22 units per acre. Hartz Mountain
Industries, the developer, has proposed both housing, office, and
commercial uses at this site. Although land availability and its close
proximity to New York makes the Hudson River waterfront attractive to
development, most of the waterfront between Hoboken and Fort Lee has
inadequate rransportation infrastructure to accommodate major growth.
The State Department of Transportation is studying highway improvements,
but at present, the waterfront is served only by a two-lane county
highway.
Mr. Hulsizer agreed that the Edgewater site serves a significantly
different market than Bergen County areas west of the Palisades. He also
identified the two-block Helmsley site in Fort Lee, where high-rise
office and residential space has been proposed; and t\e 120-acre IBM
office site in Franklin Lakes, on the Mahwah border. To a lesser extent,
Fort Lee would serve a more specialized market than the Meadowlands. IBM
recently announced that it would close its Frank!in Lakes facility and
put it up for sale. Mr. Hulsizer believes that it Is not likely Franklin
Lakes would allow a zoning change to allow housing at this site.
The City of Hackensack indicated that it should be considered for the
out-of-District alternative. In a conversation with Eugene Duffy, the
City Planning Director, CDM learned that Hackensack has numerous ;iarcels
of 15,000 to 30,000 square feet for which the city seeks resident al
infill redevelopment, and a high-rise residential project on Pros'ect
Avenue that is stalled in mid-construction. Although these projects may
have merit and will probably be completed vh^n the economy recovers,
these are not the site scales being considered for the out-of-District
alternatives analysis. They are mostly too small, and in the cas-* of the
half-built larger project, too specialised a case to make for reasonable
comparison.

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
UNION COUNTY
Gary Weltchek, a Principal Planner in the Union County Department of
Engineering and Planning, Division of Planning & Development, identified
the Elizabeth waterfront and downtown Elizabeth urban renewal area as
potential locations for major mixed-use development in Union County. Mr.
Weltchek agreed that the Elizabeth waterfront is too industrial to be an
appropriate out-of-District site! for high-grade commercial and
residential uses. Elizabeth has a downtown urban renewal area, around
the train station, where it seeks redevelopment. The City recently
declared the area blighted, over the objections of some existing
businesses, and has designated K. Hovnanian as redeveloper.
Grace Hodgeson, of the township engineering department in Berkeley
Heights, indicated that Connell, Rice, of Westfield, N. J., plans to
build a 10-story office building with a parking garage on the 52-acre
former Reynolds Hospital site, located at Plainfield Avenue and Valley
Road. The project has been approved by the Township. She said the
Township would not favor housing at this site.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY
Bill Kruse, of the Middlesex County Planning Department, cited two
possible locations in the northern part of the county, north of the
Raritan River—Raritan Center and a location next to Woodbridge Center
Mall. Its owners had planned office and retail development in the lover,
undeveloped section of Raritan Center, which has not proceeded partly
because of wetlands issues. The owners are looking for a determination
from the Corps of Engineers and NJDEPE. A site consisting of two or
three parcels containing 15 to 20 acres altogether has been proposed for
development by Woodbridge Township.
Although Middlesex County is economically part of the SAMP region, the
area is not close enough to the Meadowlands District to be considered a
reasonable alternative location for out-of-District development
alternatives. The Woodbridge-Edison-Piscataway area is several local
markets removed from the Meadowlands, and the area is too distant from
the District for HMDC to feasibly participate in development of an
out-of-District alternative here.
8.0 SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE SITES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
From the sites/locations reviewed in the preliminary screening, four
sites were selected for additional analysis. They are (1) Hudson
Exchange in Jersey City, (2) a constellation of sites in Newark, (3) the
Toombs site in Wayne, and (4) the Ramapo Ridge and International
-21-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
Crossroads sites in Mahvah. These sites/locations best meet the
previously established screening criteria: mixed uses are permitted; each
could accommodate growth of a general scale that is comparable to
in-District sites; each is located in a potential regional center, and
each offers potential for synergistic effects in meeting divergent social
and economic needs. The four sites/locations were then subjected to a
preliminary evaluation of potential environmental impact, conducted at a
programmatic level-of-analysis. The preliminary environmental reviews
are presented in Section 9.0.
9.0	PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
This section cf :he alternatives screening chapter considers the
environmental .(-.pact issues potentially associated with the four sites
identified from the preliminary screening for further consideration as
out-of-District alternatives. The four alternative locations are
qualitatively compared with respect to the environmental effects of
growth in each location, using five environmental parameters—wetlands,
water quality, aquatic resources, terrestrial ecology, and transportation
(in itself, and as an indicator of air quality effects).
9.1	Jersey Citv
Wetlands. The Hudson Exchange site in Jersey City consists of formerly
developed urban land lying adjacent to the Hudson River. The
approximately 40-acre riparian part of this 117-acre site would be
regulated as a tidal wetland. Development at this site would have direct
impacts on the tidal wetland ecology if it involved dredging and filling
to construct bulkheads or piers. The upland portion of the site does not
contain wetlands.
Major filling or decking over the wat
-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
Water Quality. The City of Jersey City plans to handle most storrawater
from Hudson Exchange, when it is developed, by a new city stormwater
outfall at Second Street which is currently in the design stage. The
Second Street outfall is part of a comprehensive upgrading of the city's
storm sewerage in the waterfront development areas, planned in
cooperation with NJDEPE, to prevent sewage treatment plant overflows
during storm events. The city will extend the divided, four-lane
Washington Boulevard from Newport south through the eastern part of the
Hudson Exchange site, with storm and sanitary sewerage and a 30-inch
water main. The majority of the buildable area of Hudson Exchange lies
west of the Washington Boulevard alignment; stormwater from that area
would be discharged to the Washington Boulevard storm sewer which would
connect to the Second Street outfall. Stormwater falling on the eastern
portion of the site would be discharged directly to the Hudson River.
Aquatic Resources. As reported above, development of the Hudson Exchange
site will be unlikely to involve filling along the Hudson River
shoreline, other than to construct bulkheads. No land reclamation or
decking is expected. Therefore, the effect on aquatic ecology would be
limited to minor, short-term construction impacts. There would be no
significant long-term effects on the aquatic ecology of the Hudson River
in the area of Hudson Exchange.
Terrestrial Ecology. The Hudson Exchange site consists of land reclaimed
from the Hudson River and estuarine marshes. Formerly a railroad yard,
the site is largely covered with sand and has very little vegetation.
There is unlikely to be any important ecological habitat on this site.
Transportation. Hudson Exchange is accessible by PATH and by Hudson
County buses, and many work trips at this location would be made by way
of these mass transit modes. The site is about 1,200 feet from the PATH
Pavonia/Newport station and about 1,500 feet from the Grove Street
station. Access by car to downtown Jersey City is complicated by
existing commuter traffic congestion around the Holland Tunnel
approaches. The state and the city both support development on the
downtown Jersey City waterfront, and have interim and long-range
transportation plans for the area. The city is currently in the design
stage of an extension of Washington Boulevard south from Newport through
the Hudson Exchange site to serve development there. NJD0T is studying a
light rail line to connect the existing PATH service at Hoboken Terminal
to Port Imperial, Lincoln Harbor, and other Hudson County waterfront
development areas, terminating at the Vince Lombardi service area on the
N. J. Turnpike. The light rail line is expected to be in service early
in the 21st century. Although traffic would be an important issue in
developing Hudson Exchange, the existing transportation improvement
efforts are planned to provide for the traffic generated by development.
-23-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
9.2 Newark
Wetlands. Newark, is the location of a number of sites offered by city
agencies for consideration, including five downtown/riverfront sites and
the Central Ward Redevelopment Area. Three of the downtown/riverfront
sites border the Passaic River. The riverbank in downtown Newark
consists o£ bulkheads along some stretches of shoreline and rock
embankments elsewhere. The embankments contain partly filled, developed
or formerly developed upland areas. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is
participating in a bulkhead reconstruction and public walkway project for
the Passaic riverfront in downtown Newark. The Corps has $5 million in
place and will seek an additional $15 million to complete the project,
which is inter; .o co enhance the redevelopment potential of the
riverfront and 10 provide public access to the water as a feature of the
redeveloped riverfront. The pedestrian walkway and rebuilt bulkheads
will be part of the baseline environmental conditions under which
redevelopment of the three sites would be considered. Any question of
environmental impact of bulkhead work on the littoral ?one wetlands in
the river /ill have already been resolved in the Corps' project. The
other two downtown sites and the Central Ward Urban Renewal Area consist
of formerly developed urban land that is not adjacent to any wetlands.
Qua. ty. Sanitary sewage from development at any of the Newark
sites wou; be discharged to sewage treatment facilities. Newark
requires crisite retention of stormwater to prevent the sudden surges of
stormwater that contribute to combined sewer overflow. New building
projects in the city use various methods to retain or detain stormwater,
including French drains, which allow much of the stormwater to infiltrate
into the groundwater; and rooftop retention, which also helps to cool
buildings. The city indicated that untreated stormwater discharges into
the Passaic River would not be permitted (Sudol 1992).
All the land under consideration was once or i still developed. The
water quality of stormwater from new development is unlikely to be any
lower than that of present or historic stormwater discharges. In fact,
it may be superior to that of much contemporary large-scale development:
Stormwater runoff from the extensive open air parking and loading areas
typical of suburban development collects motor oil and other leaked or
spilled substances that contribute to water pollution. The much higher
densities of development in Newark would preclude most open-air parking,
so that cleaner pedestrian areas and rooftops would comprise most of the
impervious surfaces on site. Stormwater quality would therefore be
relatively high.
Aouatlc Resources. The Passaic River comprises the noteworthy aquatic
resources in proximity to the Neva.* sit-as. As noted above, ali the
-24-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
bulkhead construction work that might otherwise be required to develop on
the riverfront is being performed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Development at any one of the three riverfront sites would therefore not
involve additional bulkhead work or any associated short-term impacts on
aquatic resources. The city does not permit direct stormwater discharges
to the river, as noted above, so there would not be indirect long-term
effects on aquatic ecology from stormwater discharges.
Terrestrial Ecology. All the Newark sites under consideration are
formerly developed areas of urban land. The Central Ward Side
Redevelopment Area includes some pavement and much weed-covered vacant
land among the remaining buildings. The five downtown/riverfront sites
are predominantly paved, either with asphalt or gravel. None of the
sites would appear to contain any important terrestrial habitat.
Transportation. Development at any one of the downtown/riverfront sites
in Newark would have certain impacts on rush hour traffic in the downtown
area, particularly on McCarter Highway (N. J. Route 21) and Broad Street.
McCarter Highway is now the subject of a phased improvement project
planned to enable the downtown area to accommodate the traffic associated
with the ongoing and anticipated redevelopment there. The first phase,
expected to be completed in five years, involves widening, resurfacing,
and ancillary improvements. For the second phase, NJDOT is studying a
long-term option of moving the highway into a depressed alignment to
improve through traffic and open up the surface area for local traffic
circulation and other uses.
All the downtown/riverfront sites offer considerable potential for
diverting work trips from personal automobiles to mass transit modes.
Two of the sites are within walking distance of Penn Station; the other
three are within walking distance of Broad Street Station. All are
served by local buses. Vith the planned highway improvements and the
availability of useful mass transit, the impacts of development at one or
more of the downtown/riverfront sites are likely to be adequately
mitigated by minor, localized improvements such as additional turning
lanes and traffic signals.
The Central Ward Redevelopment Area is not as convenient to the railroad
stations, but is served by local buses. Although the area is outside
downtown Newark, the Essex County courts, University of Medicine and
Dentistry, and other uses in the area already generate substantial
traffic. Major development here has the potential to cause significant
traffic impacts.
-25-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
9.3 Wavne
Wetlands. The wetlands on the 97.5-acre out-of-District alternative site
in Wayne Township would severely constrain development, because
development here would have to be largely confined to upland Island
areas. Wetlands issues have prevented the current developer, Toombs,
from proceeding with construction on its town-approved site plan.
Although large-scale development can be integrated with wetlands in a way
that enhances the development and protects wetlands values, there appears
to be insufficient upland area on this site to make intensive development
feasible.
Water Quality The site is in a low-lying, and highly flood-prone area
near the Pompton and Passaic rivers, and Great Piece Meadows, which is an
extensive wetland area. Vater quality is likely to be an important issue
here, because of the abundant surface water resources and the already
substantial development in the area. The Passaic River is a water supply
source for the Passaic Valley Water Commission, which takes water from
the river irt Little Falls and treats it for potable use. Sanitary
sewerage ir, available at the Wayne site. The onsite wetlands could
possibly be used to filter and even out stormwater flows from development
areas of !rhe site.
Aquatic Resources. Although construction here would not have direct
impacts on surface waters through dredging and filling, the aquatic
ecology of the rivers and wetlands in the vicinity of the site (and
wetlands on the site) could be affected by development at this location.
The area j's sensitive for aquatic ecology, as it is for wetlands and
water quality, because the land is low and the area is historically prone
to flooding. The onsite wetlands would aid in flood storage, but
flooding may be a further constraint to development. Large-scale
development at this hitherto undeveloped site vjuld have more potential
impact than at the urban sites in Newark and Jersey City.
Terrestrial Ecology. Although this previously undeveloped site is not
known to contain any important habitats, its naturally vegetated upland
areas function to protect the ecology of its wetland areas, and ihe
interlinked terrestrial ecology of upland and wetland would be m>re
vulnerable to the effects of development than the barren sites in Newark
and Jersey City.
Transportation. Located at a regional highway node, the Vayne s,:te is
accessible by car from Interstate 80, N. J. F.cute 23, and other roads.
Nearly all work trips attributable to new development here would be by
car. This area of Wayne has been identifier: as a regional centf1-, which
Will make the area a focus of future invesiBient in highway
-26-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
infrastructure. The road system appears to be adequate to accommodate
new development in the area at present, as evidenced by the township's
final site plan approval of the Toombs office park.
9.4 Mahwah
Two project areas in Mahwah (as described in section 7.2) were assessed
for environmental effects associated with potential development. The
Ramapo Ridge corporate park currently contains three undeveloped tracts
of land; one site is 45 acres, one site is 22 acres, and one site is
developed but has approximately 9 acres available. While additional
development of the 9 acre parcel appears to be feasible, space available
on this property is limited and a major development project could not be
accommodated within the remaining site.
The Ramapo Ridge corporate park mixes primary office and
warehouse/secondary office parcels, and currently hosts a United Parcel
Service Data Center, the U.S. corporate headquarters for Jaguar, as well
as office and/or warehouse space for Meldisco, DialAmerica Marketing,
Seiko Pulsar, and Paulist Press. The corporate park is bordered to the
west by Route 287 and Ramapo College, and the corporate park is bordered
to the east by the Kilmer Woods Residential Condominiums.
The old Ford Motor site (172 acres) is located between Route 17 and the
Ramapo River. The site has been redeveloped in the form of a high-rise
hotel and office uses (International Crossroads) on a 107 acre tract, and
warehousing (Sharp International) on a 65 acre tract. Neither site is
fully developed, however, future development would be constrained by the
existing uses and site layouts. It is also appropriate to note that
Mahwah officials have recommended that policies continuing single use
site development practices remain in place.
Wetlands. According to NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection and Energy's
freshwater wetland map for the Ramsey quadrangle NE, only a few small
wetlands (Palustrine forested and scrub/shrub) are present at the three
sites in Ramapo Ridge Corporate Park and at the old Ford Motor site.
Large scale development of the sites could occur without significant
wetland impact, because the majority of the sites are identified as
upland areas. The existing wetland areas could likely be protected
within a site development plan.
Wftter Quality. Based on area topography, development of the Ramapo Ridge
Corporate Park sites would result in discharge of urban runoff to
Darlington Brook and/or the Ramapo River. Development of the Crossroads
International site would also contribute urban runoff to the Ramapo
River. The Ramapo River, from the NJ/NY border to the Pompton River, has
-27-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
a surface water quality classification of FV2-NT (non-trout). The water
quality effects of development at these sites would consist of short-term
construction-related impacts such as soil erosion and sedimentation
effects, and long-term effects associated with runoff from parking areas,
roads, and buildings. The stormwater discharge impacts are slightly more
significant here than at other sites because of the reliance on the
downstream Ramapo River as a public water supply source, and because of
the existing downstream flooding problems along the Ramapo River.
Aquatic Resources. Aquatic biology of Darlington Brook and/or the Ramapo
River would likely experience the minor effects of additional non-point
source pollutants contributed by site runoff from both project areas.
The relatively h^h quality waters present in these waterways suggests a
greater potenti;;i relative impact to receiving water and biology than
would occur in a river already stressed, such as the Passaic River in
Newark.
Terrestrial Ecology. The three available sites in the Ramapo Ridge
Corporate Park are previously undeveloped and covered with dense
vegetation/forest. The sites provide habitat for terrestrial wildlife
and refuge ?rom the surrounding development and loss of habitat. If
these parcels are developed the remaining existing terrestrial ecosystems
in this ar*a would be lost. The ecosystem interactions among the Ramapo
Ridge corporate part sites and the County Park (surrounding the
Darlington Lake) and other preserved open spaces in Mahwah would be
likely adversely affected by loss of habitat from development of the 22-
acre site in the Ramapo Ridge Corporate Center.
The International Crossroads and Sharp International sites were
previously industrially developed (Ford Motor Co.) and have been
partially redeveloped with hotel and office space. Although the site was
previously industrial, the reuse of this site resulted in notable
environmental improvement. Further redevelopment of the remaining vacant
land result in minor loss of existing terrestrial habitat.
Transportation. All of the sites identified in Mahwah are currently
accessible via Route 202, Route 17, and Route 287. New development at
these sites would significantly increase the number of vehicles in the
area, would add to congestion on the local roads serving Ramapo Ridge
corporate park, and would increase the generation of mobile source air
pollutants. Mass transit to these sites in theoretically feasible, using
the train station in downtown Mahwah, and in the form of bus service.
However, the low land use densities and semi-rural residential character
preclude efficient bus service from dispersed residential locations in
the region to potential office and commercial activities at the Mahvah
sites. The development sites are in excess of one mile from the train
-28-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
station, and would likely require additional bus transport of those
commuting to and from work, which is generally considered a disincentive
for transit use.
10.0	CONCLUSIONS
CDM has examined the availability and practicability of out-of-District
sites as alternative growth locations within the metropolitan region.
Two representative suburban locations, and two representative urban
locations have been reviewed. The problems and constraints related to
use of out-of-District sites, as practicable alternatives to in-District
growth, are reviewed below.
10.1	Ability of Out-of-District Alternatives to Achieve Protect Purpose
As noted earlier, the project purpose is the implementation of a SAMP in
the Meadowlands District to address the District's environmental quality
problems, and to resolve the land use and regulatory difficulties
affecting the District's anticipated growth.
The approach to SAMP implementation recommended by HMDC involves
"interdependency" between future land uses and environmental restoration,
and linkage between future land uses and mechanisms to achieve
environmental management goals and social needs (i.e., housing and
employment opportunity). The future ability to manage the complex
environment of the District is founded on;
future interdependency among land uses in District;
convergence of Federal, State, and local public policy objectives
with regard to environmental degradation, transportation, housing,
economic development;
• creation of a Federal/State partnership that can efficiently
address the "package" of problems and needs in the District;
imposition of development exactions and mitigation to finance
environmental rehabilitation, infrastructure, and environmental
management and monitoring systems.
Several mechanisms and tools are anticipated to be available to implement
the SAMP, for example:
Master Plan and Zoning revisions;
-29-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
Establishment of an Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) to
"ensure positive environmental gains for the District"®, which
relies on meaningful developer exactions; and creation of an
environmental monitoring program to index growth against
environmental improvement goals, assuring that SAMP Implementation
results in net environmental benefit;
•	Implementation of a variant of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
to alleviate 'takings' issues associated with conservation actions;
It is intended that HMDC land use regulations and zoning powers, among
other potential future responsibilities, will be relied on to assure that
the level of development permitted at any point in time would be
commensurate vi'Ii environmental improvement and the capacity of the
infrastructure systems. The environmental benefits and
remediation/mitigation improvements foreseen would be monitored to assure
specific targets and goals are realized in tandem with future growth.
Leveraging environmental preservation and improvement from real estate
development is regarded by HMDC as necessary to achieve the preservation
of the most valuable ecological features of the District, and to correct
historic environmental degradation of the District.
The following characteristics and potential implementation mechanisms
have been identified by HMDC as critical to realize SAMP goals, to effect
a management plan for the District, and to adopt a revised Master Plan:
•	High market demands for the land and resulting high land values
for usable land will fund appropriate environmental restoration
and preservation activities. Mechanisms that reek to share the
financial benefits of growth with landowners holding property
recommended for conservation, such as variants of TDR, are
necessary to address "takings" issues.
•	The pressures of metropolitan solid and hazardous waste disposal
requirements, vehicular traffic, water use, wastewater and
stormwater discharge, etc. requires a high level of protection
and management of environmental resources, via implementation of
SAMP goals in the District.
The District has in place & statutorily mandated organization
(HMDC) capable and experienced in environmental protection, with
the authority to regulate and control land use in a unified
6 SAMP Memorandum of Understanding
-30-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
manner across numerous local jurisdictions. The HMDC
organization is also vertically integrated into state regulatory
functions.
The District and its immediate environs have a high density of
employment providing the opportunity to locate new housing
resources close to existing jobs and to address the regional
housing needs of 14 constituent municipalities in two counties.
The unique confluence of numerous existing and potential rapid
transit facilities increases the potential to demonstrate the
advantages of mass transportation over vehicular, especially
where such transit facilities can be located near zones allowing
high density housing and employment opportunity.
Major development proposals emerging in the District involve
large-scale mixed use developments that reduce the environmental
impacts of more traditional urban/suburban metropolitan
development patterns.
Effectively realizing the goals of the SAMP, in particular the EIP, is
fundamentally dependent upon implementing SAMP mechanisms as identified
above—mechanisms that are integrally linked to achieve a District-wide
management plan. The cost and regulatory complexity of land and
environmental management objectives are significant for the District.
Directing growth out of the District, to urban or suburban locations
elsewhere in Metropolitan New Jersey, would make the essential
implementation tools for environmental improvement (such as exactions,
TDR, and mitigation/restoration projects) unavailable to HMDC. The
integrity and effectiveness of the SAMP would be undermined by shifting a
majority of the anticipated growth out of the District.
HMDC has clearly stated its support for revitalizing New Jersey's urban
centers. HMDC proposes to establish a program (described in section
10.3) to test the potential for redirection of growth to an urban
center(s), but such assistance is not practicable if it results in HMDC
forfeiting achievement of District and SAMP environmental management
goals.
HMDC has no authority or control over land use or environmental
improvement projects out of the District, nor could such projects
facilitate implementation of an EIP, the cornerstone of SAMP
environmental restoration actions. Because HMDC is "applying" for the
establishment of a federal regulatory presumption regarding the
availability of alternatives (analogous to a typical permit situation),
HMDC's goals, planning purposes, and authorities must be considered in
-31-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
assessing the practicability of alternative sites for development,
preservation, and restoration. Out-of-District growth, to the degree
that it detracts from in-District growth needs and improvement goals, is
inconsistent with HHDC's planning purposes and environmental goals.
The criteria of practicability under Section 404(b)(1) must include
elements such as the alternative's ability to satisfy HMDC's statutory
purposes, including overall environmental improvement, solid waste
management, and development of jobs and housing; and the existence of
mechanisms to enable remediation of environmental conditions.
Alternatives beyond the jurisdiction of HMDC cannot contribute to the
project purpose of implementing a SAMP with an effective EIP, for the
reasons set for "n above.
10.2 Ability of Out-of-District Alternatives to Fulfill Growth Needs
Suburban Locations
While locations have been identitied out of the District that would
accommodate single use needs, such as development of homes or office
buildings, growth dispersed throughout suburban locations (such as Mahwah
and Wayne) would contribute to the patterns of sprawl that the adopted
N.J. State Development and Redevelopment Plan discourages. Development
of the Rar.i-po Ridge sites in Mahwah will result in loss of forested
upland, with the attendant loss of wildlife habitat, open space, and
increased segregation of land uses (requiring additional dependence on
automobile travel), in an area that serves as an important source of
water supply to downstream users. Furthermore, large mixed-use sites
(with higher density and low- and moderate-income horsing components) are
not desired by Mahwah, because of the presence of high density housing in
the area and the fulfillment of housing goals (discussed in section 7.2).
The Wayne site has greater potential fox mixed u^e development, however,
as is the case for many large tracts that have remained undeveloped
through the years, the site has significant wetland acreage that
precludes implementation of a large mixed us« project.
Urban Locations
Growth in urban locations is consistent vith the State Master Plan.
However, the nature of the housing and office market is substantially
different than the market existing in the Meadowlands District, and urban
centers were not found to be functional substitutes for the forms of
investment and growth that are exhibited in the Meadowlands District.
(See the Purpose and Needs chapter for a review of growth, land use, and
development trends in the Meadowlands District.) CDM spoke with
-32-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
professionals in real estate development and brokerage to determine the
localized differences in the commercial and residential market.
A representative urban center—Newark—was selected, to assess the degree
to which an urban location is an interchangeable substitute for the
commercial and residential market in the Meadowlands. Although Newark
was used as a point of comparison, all urban centers were found to have
similar redevelopment characteristics during the interviews and analyses.
The urban centers all exhibited similar mixes of land use densities,
allowed similar flexibility in land use, required similar incentives to
stimulate interest from the development community (such as land assembly,
subsidization, and tax abatement), and were most successful in attracting
specific business sectors, such as utilities, education, government
agencies, and related government service businesses (such as law and
public accounting).
Urban Business Location Alternatives. The professionals contacted agreed
that Newark has certain strengths as a location that are unmatched in the
Meadowlands, that the Meadowlands has its own unique advantages, and that
the markets for each were distinctly different.
Generally, the Newark market comprises public sector and utility
companies and law firms. Among the major tenants in Newark are state
government offices, quasi-judicial boards, such as the Workers'
Compensation Board; law firms (Newark is the seat of Essex County and
federal New Jersey District courts); Prudential and Mutual Benefit Life
Insurance Companies, which have a long-established presence in Newark;
Public Service Electric & Gas, American Telephone & Telegraph, New Jersey
Bell, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The Jersey City-Hudson Waterfront
market is focused on finance and insurance firms considering relocation
from Manhattan. Such business activities are not incompatible with the
forms of primary office and business growth expressing interest in
Meadowlands locations (see Needs chapter), however, each location draws
principally from different sectors of the business community.
Jerry Birmingham, a broker at Cushman & Wakefield, agreed that the
Meadowlands and Newark markets for commercial space were different, but
stressed that Newark nonetheless has strong growth potential. He cited
the effective public-private sector coalitions working to Improve
business conditions, and an aggressively pro-business mayoral
administration. Mr. Birmingham said that the Meadowlands have been part
of the suburban market, and that companies unable to find space in the
Meadowlands would move north into Bergen County or other suburban
locations, rather than to Newark or another urban location. Newark, on
the other hand, has been able to hold onto its employers partly because
-33-

-------
Drafts 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
of its excellent public transportation connections to Nev York City and
points throughout northern Nev Jersey,
Diana Fainberg, of Bellemead Development Corporation, said that in real
estate, each location offers its own advantages that cannot be duplicated
elsevhere. She said that the prosperity of a region depends in part on
having a diversity of grovth locations that can serve different needs.
Ms. Fainberg felt that the tendency to believe that development at one
location vill take av&y from another—that development in the KeadowLands
will take from Nevark—can be an artificial dichotomyi in fact, the
prosperity generated by the grovth of strong locations contributes to the
economic vitality of all locations. Newark, she said, is a governmental,
legal, and educ,n-ion center, whereas the Meadovlands are a center of
business and comerce. Prosperity among businesses in the Meadovlands
and elsewhere in the region increases demand for the legal, governmental,
public utility, banking, and insurance services in Newark.
George Veinfcam, of PSE&G's Area Development program, attributed part of
Newark's success in retaining its employers to the availability of nev
office spaei» built in recent years that has attracted companies from
secondary office space in older, indifferently managed buildings. Mr.
Veinkam said that although most grovth in Newark is internal, it is
nonetheles significant. Mr. Veinkam said that Newark's transit linkages
to Nev Yorl make the city attractive to lav firms with ties to the
financial center in New York. Major bond counsel firms are located in
Newark. Newark's county and federal courts also, of course, make it a
strong location for law firms. Mr. Wienkam disputed the idea that crime
is an issue for potential employers, at least in downtown Newark, but
suggested that memories of the 1967 urban riots remaJ
-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
government had been "aggressive" in seeking space in Newark,. The anchor
tenant at One Newark Center is the Seton Hall Law School, with 200,000
square feet of space. PSE&G has taken 130,000 square feet, and law firms
and insurance agencies occupy the remainder of the leased space.
The Meadowlands, on the other hand, serve more of a general business
market. Karen Deffina of Bellemead, project manager for an office and
distribution center within the District in Lyndhurst, said that much of
the office space in her center was occupied by computer operations. She
said that many of the office and warehouse/distribution tenants have ties
to New York City. Two of her tenants are computer operations of the
Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital in New York and the Hontefiore Hospital
in the Bronx. Another tenant is an office operation of Saloman Brothers,
which has headquarters in downtown Manhattan. The warehouse/distribution
tenants tend to be smaller firms that have their office and operations
space all within one premises. These tend to be companies that need
vehicular access to New York City, such as garment manufacturers. Ms.
Deffina did not see any overlap between the commercial office market for
the Meadowlands and that for Newark or Jersey City. She said that
businesses unable to find space in the Meadowlands would much more likely
go to Morris County.
Urban Housing Location Alternatives. Newark, as a representative urban
center, shows limited potential as an alternative location for
residential growth. There appears to be demand for market-residential
space downtown: the proposed Capital Hill development near the proposed
New Jersey Center for the Performing Arts would include a residential
component, and Mr. Weinkam of PSE&G cited the successful conversion of
the former Newark Evening News building to residences. While downtown
locations are attractive to part of the residential market nationally,
younger, childless professionals and empty-nesters dominate that part of
the market. The heart of the housing market, comprised of middle-class
parent-child households, heavily favors suburban and small-town
locations.
A number of grass-roots organizations have built new and rehabilitated
housing in Newark neighborhoods for Newark residents in recent years.
However, only one mainstream housing developer could be identified that
built new, conventional market-rate housing in Newark to appeal to the
broad middle of the housing market—K. Hovnanian's Society Hill at
University Heights. Wayne Soojian of the K. Hovnanian Company said that
570 housing units have been started at University Heights, out of a
planned total of 1,200 units, over a four-year period, Most of the 570
are completed; all are sold. Hovnanian has averaged 125 closings per
year, and expects to complete the project in four years. All sales are
made prior to construction, and no units are built speculatively.
-35-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
Mr. Soojian described the Newark, project as a steady performer: it seemed
modest at first compared to yearly closings in the five hundreds at some
of Hovnanian's suburban developments in the late 1980's, but has kept a
steady pace through the recession as sales at suburban projects have
sunk. In contrast to suburban projects, however, Society Hill at
University Heights has required major public sector investments: Mr.
Soojian said they had used every incentive available. The.City of Newark
assumed the substantial costs and responsibilities of condemning the
land, consolidating the site, and relocating previous occupants. The
city wrote down the land costs, and gives tax abatements to homebuyers.
The city also declared the area an enterprise zone. Such subsidies
essentially compete for the same funds that would be needed to achieve
environmental goals for the District, and so could reduce the potential
of fulfilling SAMP goals.
Before the Hovnanian development, there was little to choose from within
the city limits for the many people who work in Newark, can afford good
housing, and are drawn to new construction. It would appear that a
potential market is there, as long as the city's and Hovnanian's joint
success in creating new housing in a safe, attractive, even exciting
physical context, can be continued.
However, interviews with real estate professionals indicate that the
demand for housing in the region, given the historic trends in demand for
suburban residential settings, can only be partially satisfied by
building higher density housing in an urban setting. The urban centers
of northeastern New Jersey—Newark, Jersey City, Elizabeth, Paterson—
cannot reasonably be considered interchangeable with the Meadowlands in
the housing market.
In conclusion, neither vacant suburban or urban locations appear to serve
as practicable alternatives to growth in the Meadowlands District.
Unfortunately, little validated research is available to measure the
potential for redirection of growth from locations such as the
Meadowlands District to urban centers. Real estate analysts widely
assert the importance of specific location in determining market demand,
and the demand for business and housing growth in urban centers, as a
proportion of the growth in the six-county region, has traditionally been
small without specific incentives and subsidization, or the attraction of
market sector concentrations. As a result, the population and employment
growth of the region is not likely to be accommodated in out-of-District
locations, and lack of marketable growth locations is projected to result
in loss of population and jobs to the region.
-36-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
Locations for Secondary Office/Varehouse Land Uses
Continuing market demand for secondary office/warehouse (distribution)
land uses is projected for the District. Growth in this industry segment
will be caused by increased demand for services to support primary
industry, immediate access to an extensive intermodal transportation
network, an excellent labor pool, and ready access to New York City
business activities.
The wholesale distribution market vill continue to play a vital role in
the demand for warehouse and distribution space- The proximity to New
York City and to the major highway systems, including new Turnpike
interchanges and Route 3 corridor improvements will stimulate the market.
The continued development of the freight rail facilities at Kearny and
Croxton Yards and as proposed by Susquehanna Railroad in North Bergen
will result in greater demand for "close in" storage and distribution
space.
The transportation industry, for both terminal facilities and trucking,
are projected to be an essential growth component given the expansion of
the in-District rail facilities. The recent trend in the shipping
industry to ship trailers by rail over long distances, and truck the
trailers in the short and medium range distances, will continue to create
a demand for trucking and storage facilities which can accommodate the
District's rail carriers. This, combined with the industry trend to
finish products and repackage at the point of distribution, will also
increase the demand for warehouse/distribution facilities.
In addition to the ready access to the transportation network that dravs
secondary office and warehouse land uses, and the proximity to commercial
activities in the area (including New York City), the demand for in-
District secondary office will also be a function of proximity to primary
office growth projected for the District. The demand for warehouse
growth in the District is also locationalf it is directly related to the
transportation network and proximity to New York City. While alternative
locations for secondary office/warehouse land uses are theoretically
present along the metropolitan area's highway system, the market demand
has been expressed almost exclusively in the Meadowlands District.
Hence, market forces are a significant indicator of the need for such
growth to be located in-District. This analysis recognizes that
warehouse and secondary office development is being encouraged in
Elizabeth (under several special studies and programs) and in Newark (as
well as other urban centers), however, the market forces have
predominantly preferred locations such as the Meadowlands, and these
trends are projected to continue. Relocating such uses away from the
-37-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
District's economic, transportation, and labor pool resources is likely
to result in loss of such uses in the region.
Another important factor that indicates secondary office and warehousing
uses are important in in-District locations is the proposed reliance on
TDR and developer exactions to fund part of the EIP.
10.3 Proposal to Test Redirecting Some Growth Out-Qf-District
This analysis has concluded that no suburban location was practicable as
an alternative site location, given the goals of the state and local
planning processes that discourage suburban and exurban sprawl, and given
the absence of appropriately sized parcels within the developed portion
of the region. In addition, this analysis has concluded that out-of-
District urban locations do not offer practicable alternative locations
for many of the forms of development for which there is market interest
and economic demand.
However, based on the review of out-of-District urban alternatives, this
analysis concludes that the potential for redirection of some of the
growth pressure focused on the Meadowlands District to out-of-District
urban locations should be tested within the context of the SAMP, insofar
as there is no effective measure of the potential for such redirection
currently available.
Several locations appear to be suitable for such a program, such as
Jersey City, Newark, and Elizabeth (described in section 7.1). A
location which appears to offer considerable potential is Jersey City,
because the City is a member municipality of HMDC, ard because several
alternative sites appear to be available. Supporting out-of-District
growth in Jersey City has fewer jurisdictional and policy constraints
than would arise for locations that are not member municipalities of
HMDC. However, this analysis also recognizes that substantial
redevelopment programs are being implemented in Newark and Elizabeth.
Vhile stimulus packages for these locations may be more limited than
those that might be made available to Jersey city by HMDC (because Jersey
City is an HMDC member municipality), stimulus mechanisms would be
included in the implementation tools developed to support out-of-District
growth in any urban area.
The Alternatives Screening Analysis reviewed a number of sites to assess
the effects of potential land use configurations in the District. As
part of that analysis HMDC identified the greater efficiency and
reduction in environmental impact that is associated with clustered
mixed-use development. A site size and mixed use approach similar to the
cluster (or node) project design preferred in the District was selected
-38-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
to assess the potential of supporting such a project out-of-District. A
site density of about 40 residential dwellings per acre vas assumed for
the alternatives screening analysis, as vas a floor area ratio of 0.75 to
1.0.
Using several Jersey City locations that might potentially represent
programmatic out-of-District alternatives, it was estimated that a site
in Jersey City of about 80 acres could host approximately 1.0 to 1.5
million square feet of office space and approximately 1,000 housing
units.7 (This is roughly comparable to the size of a smaller mixed use
node preferred by HMDC. The A3 primary office in-District parcels
assessed in the Alternatives Screening Analysis had a median project size
of 2,178,000 square feet, and the 37 residential office parcels assessed
had a median project size of 2,940 units. A project size of 1,000
residential units and 1.0 million square feet of primary office space is
equivalent to the project scale contemplated for the District by HMDC,
because it provides the desired land use efficiencies associated with
mixed use, higher density projects, such as clustered project layout and
reduced requirements for highway usage. A site of 80 acres is about the
size of the non-wetland acreage available at the Hudson Exchange tract.)
This quantity of residential and non-residential growth will serve as an
initial investment/stimulus out-of-District element, to test its rate of
utilization by the development community and to refine the stimulus
components.® This growth, to the degree allowable by law, would be
supported through SAMP mechanisms that would create incentives for
out-of-District development, using subsidization and regulatory
streamlining approaches to facilitate growth in an urban center(s).
Because several locations exhibit potential in Jersey City, and because
future utilization of specific sites by developers is not possible to
predict, the out-of-District growth program would be created such that up
to 1.5 million square feet of office space and up to 1,000 housing units
could be transferred to an out-of-District location(s) in Jersey City (or
in other urban areas) that met the transfer criteria (i.e., appropriate
scale and combination of available urban land uses).
7 An undetermined amount of commercial development could also be
accommodated in Jersey City out-of-District locations.
This alternatives analysis does not detail the mechanisms for
out-of-District stimulus; such detail will be part of the agreements
related to SAMP implementation.
-39-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
During the first 5 years, the out-of-District program would be monitored
to determine whether in-District developers and/or land owners were
successfully encouraged to shift development to Jersey City. The program
would be assessed to determine the level of success in encouraging
redevelopment in this urban center. Periodic review would also determine
whether adjustments needed to be made in the program to improve
incentives, and to reduce administrative and regulatory review for
projects in Jersey City supported by the program. The program would also
review whether proposed out-of-District development should be reassigned
to other out-of-District locations, or whether it should be redistributed
within the District planning areas. A program assessment would be
conducted every 5 years.
Mechanisms to £.'muiate out-of-District Non-residential Growth
HMDC would establish an out-of-District economic stimulus program for
office, commercial, and warehouse projects. This stimulus package would
be the principal mechanism to encourage out-of-District developments
•	development interests and site owners within the District would be
encouraged to use the out-of-District package as an alternative to
development that would have been proposed in the District; one
potential mechanism would be to create (together with Jersey City
officials) a streamlined development review process in Jersey City.
•	development interests outside of the District could take advantage
of the economic stimulus package to reduce the cost of development
in Jersey City (or other urban) locations that fit the
out-of-District criteria.
The funding for the economic package would be derived from the
utilization of HMDC powers (e.g., bonding, assessment and redevelopment,
and where permissible, through the collection of fees and contributions
from development inside the District). Funding incentives for
development would be combined with other public funding or economic
programs available from State and Federal sources, with a goal of
leveraging funds from private market or institutional sources. Other
incentives might include project financing assistance, project loans,
parcel assembly and consolidation, and infrastructure development to the
extent permissible under HMDC enabling legislation and to the extent
funding is available.
Mechanisms to Stimulate out-of-District Residential Growth
One goal of out-of-District residential development is to meet th«
current Council on Affordable Housing ^-as, guidelines, and regulations.
-AO-

-------
Draft: 30 November 1993
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
HMDC will work closely with Jersey City (and/or other urban centers) to
provide housing mixes appropriate for Jersey City's needs, and to provide
funding support (as possible) for clearing and assembling tracts into
acceptable residentially-based mixed use sites. HMDC would also work to
develop streamlined administrative/regulatory review procedures for
selected sites.
10.4 EIS Analyses
For the purposes of the draft EIS for the SAMP, the impacts of the
out-of-District development will be evaluated both:
within the District (proceeding under the assumption that no
out-of-District alternatives materialize, and also providing
analysis for a reasonable maximum SAMP buildout scenario), and,
within a representative Jersey City location (assuming the
out-of-District component of growth is fully realized).
A Jersey City location would be evaluated as a representative site
hosting out-of-District development, to assess effects on urban
locations.
(bc/6138)
-41-

-------
Appendix
K

-------
APPENDIX K
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING ANALYSIS
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
JUNE 1992
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.

-------
Hackensack Meadowlands District
Alternatives Screening Analysis
Special Area Management Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
June 1992
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Gannett Fleming
Grossman & Assoc., Inc.

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section	page
1.0 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING FOR THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
SAMP/EIS 		1-1
1.1	Introduction 		1-1
1.2	Alternatives Screening - Approaches and Assumptions ....	1-3
1.3	Description of Alternatives 		1-5
1.3.1	No Action Alternative 		1-6
1.3.2	Upland Alternative 				1-8
1.3.3	Redevelopment Alternative 		1-8
1.3.4	Highway Corridors Alternative 		1-8
1.3.5	Dispersed Development Areas Alternative 		1-9
1.3.6	Growth Centers Alternative 		1-9
1.4	Out-of-District Alternatives 				1-10
2.0 WETLANDS 		2-1
2.1 Screening-Level Impact Assessment for In-District
Alternatives 		2-1
2.1.1	Method for Assessing Impacts 		2-1
2.1.2	Results of Impact Screening 		2-3
3.0 THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES AND RARE/UNIQUE
HABITATS 			3-1
3.1 Screening-Level Impact Assessment for In-District
Alternatives 			3-1
3.1.1	Method for Assessing Impacts 						3-1
3.1.2	Results of Impact Screening 		3-4
4.0 WATER QUALITY 		4-1
4.1 Screening-Level Impact Assessment for In-District
Alternatives 				4-1
4.1.1	Method for Assessing Impacts 		4-1
4.1.2	Results of Impact Screening 		4-4
5.0 AQUATIC RESOURCES 		5-1
5.1 Screening-Level Impact Assessment for In-District
Alternatives 		5-1
5.1.1	Method for Assessing Impacts 			5-1
5.1.2	Result c! mpaet Screening 		5-2

-------
TAPl,g OF CONTENTS?
(continued)
Section	rage
6.0 TERRESTIAL RESOURCES 				6-1
6.1	Screening-Level Impact Assessment for In-District
Alternatives ....		6-1
6.1.1	Method for Assessing Impacts 			6-1
6.1.2	Results of Impact Screening 				6-2
7.0 TRANSPORTATION		7-1
7.3 Summary of Methods 						7-1
7.2	Transportation Screening Results 					7-3
7.2.: District-Vide Analysis of Transportation
Performance 							7_3
7.2.2	Summary of District-Vide Results 				7_i2
7.2.3	Localized Analysis of Transportation System
Performance 							7_ig
7.2.A Correlation of Link Congestion on Future Air
Quality Emissions 							7_i7
8.0 AIR QUALITY 		8-1
B. 1 Summary of Methods 	..........			8-1
8.2 Air Quality Screening Results 		8-2
8.2.1	Mobile Source Emissions Inventory Analysis .....	8-2
8.2.2	Transportation Congestion and the Potential for
CO "Hot Spot" Impacts 	.		8-5
8.2.3	Summary of Screening Results foi the Mobile
Source Emissions Inventory and Sot Spot
Analysis 						8-6
9.0 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS VASTE 		9-1
9.1 4 Screening-Level Impact Assessment for In-District
Alternatives 				9-1
9.1.1	Method for Assessing Impacts 					9-1
9.1.2	Results of Impact Screening 	.		9-1
10.0 REPORT FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES 			10-1
11.0 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING RESULTS 					11-1
11.1 Methods for Ranking Alternatives 		11-1
11.1.1	Environmental Impact Categories 		u_3
11.1.2	Overall Environmental Impacts 		11-14

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section	Page
11.2 Comparison of Management Alternatives 					11-15
11.2.1	Redevelopment Alternative 	• •		11-16
11.2.2	Upland Alternative 				11-17
11.2.3	Grovth Centers Alternative 						11-18
11.2.A	Dispersed Development Alternative 			11-19
11.2.5	Highway Corridors Alternative 			11-20
11.2.6	No Action (No SAMP) Alternative 			11-21
(ds/1978)

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure	Page
1-1 Upland Alternative 				1-14
1-2 Redevelopment Alternative 				1-16
1-3 Highway Corridors Alternative 	 1-18
1-4 Dispersed Development Areas Alternative 				1-20
1-5 Grovth Centers Alternative 				 1-22
1-6 No Action Alternative 		1-24
10-1	Three Dimensional Histogram Showing the Relative Number of
Identified Resources by Time Period 		10-11
11-1	Example of Alternative Ranking Procedure 		11-2
(ds/1978)

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table	page
1-1 Anticipated Land Uses of Planning Areas - Upland
Alternative 		...........			,1-15
1-2 Anticipated Land Uses of Planning Areas - Redevelopment
Alternative 						,1-1?
1-3 Anticipated Land Uses of Planning Areas - Highway Corridors
Alternative 				1-19
1-4 Anticipated Land Uses of Planning Areas - Dispersed
Development Areas Alternative	.				 1-21
1-5 Anticipated Land Uses of Planning Areas - Growth Centers
Alternative	..	.			- • 1-2-
1-6 Anticipated Land Uses of Planning Areas - No Action
Alternative 						1-25
1-7	Anticipated Size and Alternative for Secondary Office/
Warehousing Areas								 1-26
2-1	Alternatives Comparison - Direct and Indirect Wetland
Impacts 							 2-4
2-2 Upland Alternative - Indirect Wetland Impacts ................ 2-7
2-3 Redevelopment Alternative - Direct and Indirect Wetland
Impacts 				.. 2-8
2-4 Highway Corridors Alternative - Direct and Indirect Vetland
Impacts 						 2-9
2-5 Dispersed Development Alternative - Direct and Indirect
Vetland Impacts 						2-10
2-6	Groveh Centers Alternative - Direct and Indirect Wetland
Impacts 			 				 2-11
Z-? No Action Alternative - Direct and Indirect Wetland
Impacts 							 2-12
3-1	Alternatives Comparison - T/E and R/U Habitant Impacts ....... 3-3
3-2 T/E and R/V Habitat Impacts - Upland Alternative ............. 3-5
3-3 T/E and R/U Habitat Impacts - Redevelopment Alternative 	 3-6

-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table	Page
3-4 T/E and R/U Habitat Impacts - Highway Corridors Alternative .. 3-7
3-5 T/E and R/U Habitat Impacts - Dispersed Development
Alternative 	 3-8
3-6 T/E and R/U Habitat Impacts - Growth Centers Alternative 		3-9
3-7	T/E and R/U Habitat Impacts - No Action Alternative 		3-10
4-1	Criteria for Ranking Impacts 				4-3
4-2	Water Quality of Planning Area Runoff - Upland Alternative ...	4-5
4-3 Water Ou-. . ty of Planning Area Runoff - Redevelopment
Alternat e 					 4-6
4-4 Water Quality of Planning Arpa Runoff - Highway Corridors
Alternative 		 4-7
4-5 Water Quality of Planning Area Runoff - Dispersed Development
Areas Alternative 	 4-8
4-6 Water Quality of Planning Area Runoff - Growth Centers
Alternative 			 4-9
4-7 Water Quality of Planning Area Runoff - No Action (No SAMP)
Alternative 	 4-10
4-8 Water Quality of Warehousing/Sec. Office Area Runoff 	 4-11
4-9	Average SS Concentration in Discharges for Planning Areas
and Predicted Impacts 	 4-15
4-10 Acreage of Planning Areas with Severe Warer Quality Impacts
as a Result of Copper Concentration 	 4-17
5-1	Aquatic Resources Impacts - Alternatives Comparison 	 5-5
5-2 Aquatic Resources Impacts - Redevelopment Alternative ....... 5-6
5-3 Aquatic Resources Impacts - Highway Corridors Alternative .... 5-7
5-4 Aquatic Resources Impacts - Dispersed Development Areas
Alternative 			5-8
5-5 Aquatic Resources Impacts - Growth Centers Alternative 	 5-9
5-6 Aquatic Resources Impacts - No Action Alternative 		 5-10

-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table	Page
6-1 Terrestial Resources Impacts - Alternatives Comparison 	 6-3
6-2 Terrestial Resources Impacts - Upland Alternative 	 6-4
6-3 Terrestial Resources Impacts - Redevelopment Alternative 	 6-5
6-4 Terrestial Resources Impacts - Highway Corridors
Alternative 	 6-6
6-5 Terrestial Resources Impacts - Dispersed Development Areas
Alternative 	 6-7
6-6 Terrestial Resources Impacts- Growth Centers Alternative 	 6-8
6-7	Terrestial Resources Impacts - No Action Alternative 	 6-9
7-1	Evaluation of System Performance by Link. Types (AM) -
Average Speed 	 7-4
7-2 Evaluation of System Performance by Link Types (AM) -
Vehicle Miles of Travel 	 7-6
7-3 Evaluation of System Performance by Link Types (AM) -
Vehicle Hours of Travel 	 7-7
7-4 Evaluation of System Performance by Link Types (AM) - Vehicle
Hours of Delay			 7-9
7-5 Evaluation of System Performance by Link Types (AM) -
Volume to Capacity Ratio 	 7-10
7-6 Transit Model Split 	 7-11
7-7 Evaluation of System Performance by Link Types (AM) -
Distance 	 7-13
7-8 Transportation Screening Analysis of Alternatives 	 7-14
7-9	Congested Link Summary Table 	 7-18
7-10 Failed Link Summary Table 	 7-20
8-1	Mobile Source Emissions Summary Table - A.M. Peak. Hour
Emissions, lbs/hr 	 8-4

-------
LIST OP TABLES
(continued)
Table	Page
9-1 Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts - Alternatives Comparison ..	9-2
9-2 Solid and Hazardous Vaste Impacts - Upland Alternative 		9_4
9-3 Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts - Redevelopment
Alternative 	.		9-5
9-4 Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts - Highway Corridors
Alternative 			9-6
9-5 Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts - Dispersed Development
Areas Alternative 			9-7
9-6 Solid artr* hazardous Waste Impacts - Grovth Centers
Alternative 				..		9-8
9-7 Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts - No Action Alternative ....	9-9
10-1 Correlation Table of Identified and Potential
Archaeological and Historical Resource Areas 		10-12
10-2	Summary of Identified Cultural Resources by Time Period 		10-17
11-1	Wet and Resources Impacts 		11-5
11-2 Threatened/Endangered and Remnant/Unique Habitats Impacts ....	11-5
11-3 Water Quality Impacts 					11-7
11-4 Other Aquatic Resources Impacts 		11-8
11-5 Terrestrial Resources Impacts 				11-8
11-6 Transportation Impacts 		11-10
11-7 Air Quality Impacts 		11-10
11-8 Cultural Resources Impacts 				11-13
11-9 Composite Alternatives Ranking	 *		11-13
(ds/1978)

-------
1.0 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING FOR THE HACKENSACK MEADOVLANDS SAMP/EIS
1.1 Introduction
The alternatives screening conducted as part of the SAMP/EIS can be
described as a planning and environmental analysis designed to
identify the relative efficiency of land use and resource protection
regarding a set of alternative spatial arrangements and planning
approaches for future growth in the District. (Criteria for
evaluating efficiency are discussed belov.) In accordance vith NEPA
and the Clean Water Act, the alternatives to be considered in the SAMP
and programmatic EIS need to be reasonable, available, and feasible.
The alternatives screening constitutes the first phase of alternatives
evaluation. The screening will be followed by a second phase of
alternatives analysis that will evaluate the environmental impacts of
the specific locations and configurations of the alternative(s) that
ranks the highest following the screening. The alternative(s) that is
identified for more detailed analysis may consist of a hybrid, formed
from planning areas (associated with different alternatives) that meet
needs and exhibit relatively lower impacts.
The alternatives to be screened are those identified in the Scope of
Vork for the Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS (dated 11/1/90 and
approved by the SAMP partners). These alternatives consist of five
in-District and three out-of-District alternatives, as well as the No
Action alternative. The alternatives have been developed to represent
spatial arrangements that describe typical growth patterns in the NY
Metropolitan region. The alternatives have been identified as
follows:
1-1

-------
Ho Ac; .on Alternative
In-District Alternatives
o Upland Grovth
o Redevelopment
o Bighvay Corridors
o Dispersed Development Areas
o Grovth Centers
Out-of-District Alternatives
o Three locations representing urban and suburban locations In
the six-'-^unty study area, that could host large mixed-use
project.* hat achieve synergistic comntunity-of-place qualities
as described under the NJ State Haster Planning process.
A tvo-phase approach has been adopted for the alternatives screening
because the SAMP ZEIS can be conducted most effectively by first
identifying whether there are spatial arrangements for growth in the
District that have higher land use efficiencies, identifying vhich
speatial arrangements these are, and then evaluating detailed
environmen>^1 effects only for those forms of grovth that best meet
the objectives of the SAHP — a comprehensive plan providing for
natural resource protection and reasonable economic grovth (SAMP MOU,
8/26/88). With this in mind, the first phase consists of an
alternatives screening process to evaluate, on a relative basis, the
general environmental effects of each alternative. A more detailed
evaluation of specific environmental effects, associated vith the
alternative (or hybrid of alternatives) that fulfills needs with the
lowest iapacts during screening, vill be conducted during a second
phase of alternatives analysis. The spatial arrangeaents of the
alternatives are illustrated in figures 1-1 through 1-6, vhich are
presented at the end of section 1.
1-2

-------
1-2 Alternatives Screening - Approaches and Planning Assumptions
The alternatives are being tested to reveal the comparative
land use efficiency and the environmental effects of their spatial
arrangements and planning approaches. Thus, all the alternatives have
been developed so that, to the maximum extent feasible, they fulfill
HMDC-identified social, economic, and environmental needs, thus
facilitating a comparative measure of their environmental effects and
planning components based on a common set of assumptions. The
assumptions regarding HMDC-identified needs are being used to
establish equivalency among the alternatives during the screening
analysis. The assumptions regarding needs, which have been held
constant across all alternatives, can be characterized as follows:
A.	Achievement of social and economic needs in the District
consisting of the addition of 20,000 housing units, 18 million
square feet of primary office space, 2 million square feet of
commercial space, and 16 million square feet of secondary
office/light industrial/warehousing over a tventy-year period.
B.	Implementation of a broad set of environmental improvement
objectives in the Headovlands District, including natural
resource and habitat enhancement, solid vaste facility
improvements, hazardous vaste remediation, open space
preservation, and water quality improvement, among others.
Environmental objectives are described in HMDC's Environmental
Improvement Program for the District.
The alternatives are composed using land use density and intensity
factors of 20-110 units per acre, and floor area ratios of 0.4 to 0.7
for commercial space and 0.5 to 5.0 for office space.- The planning
areas included in each alternative, and their general land use
composition are identified in tables 1-1 through 1-7.
The spatial arrangements, and their related efficiencies will be
evaluated in terms of: the general magnitude of the environmental
impacts; the planning and management characteristics associated with
the alternative; the degree to vhlch the alternative fulfills the
objectives of the SAMP and HMDC-identified needs; and the relative
level of resources required from the public and private sectors to
1-3

-------
achieve envSpppiqejital improvement objectives for the District. The
alternatives, both in-District and out-of-District, will be evaluated
relying primarily on existing information.
Approaches and implementability of environmental Improvement goals for
the District (as identified in HMDC's Environmental Improvement
Program) are reviewed during the alternatives screening. Possible
approaches include: utilization of public and private funding sources
to realize environmentally beneficial projects; environmental
management and regulatory enhancements (in addition to minimum
compensation requirements as related to project impacts); coordination
of environmental projects that are now administered by a range of
governmental agencies; and use of a variant of transferable
development rigr;-?. within the District to achieve conservation
objectives.
Each of the alternatives connect to highway and mass transportation
systems in different ways (e.g., the highway corridor alternative is
highly road dependent). The transportation characteristics will be
analyzed as part of the transportation analysis during alternatives
screening. The alternatives also exhibit varying planning and
management characteristics. Finally, with the exception of the upland
alternative, the alternatives incorporate varying mixes of upland and
wetland locations because: (1) there is limited vacant upland in the
District available to meet HMDC-identified needs; and (2) they have
been developed using generally accepted planning principles standards.
The impacts of specific land uses that are commc-i to all alternatives
(such as assumed future transportation improvements) has not been
quantified in the screening analysis because identification of such
effects does not help discriminate between alternatives during the
screening process.
The upland and redevelopment alternatives will he evaluated using a
range of densities because of the limited land available in the
District that is either upland or that may be eligible for blight
designation pursuant to applicable New Jersey statutes. Because of
1-4

-------
the importance of evaluating use of non-wetlands in developing a
future comprehensive plan for the District, these alternatives will be
screened using land use densities that meet HMDC-identified needs.
Following the first screening, evaluation of those locations in the
upland or redevelopment alternatives that may be selected for
inclusion in plan development may occur using (lover) densities and
intensities of use more suitable to the District. Density adjustments
may facilitate their incorporation into a hybrid alternative.
In conclusion, the alternatives screening is designed to reveal the
more efficient ways to spatially arrange growth in the District,
applying a common and relatively equal set of assumptions. The
screening process will result in the development of a hierarchy of
alternatives with respect to their environmental impacts and their
relative abilities to efficiently meet environmental and social goals
for the District. At the conclusion of the alternatives screening the
alternatives will be ranked according to their abilities to achieve
SAMP goals and according to their relative environmental efficiency
regarding land use. A specific spatial arrangement will be developed
pursuant to the ranking, based on one alternative, or on a hybrid
formed from the alternatives.
The alternative (or hybrid of alternatives) that exhibits greater
efficiency will then be evaluated with respect to: (1) the
environmental effects resulting from the alternative; (2) whether
there are lower impact locations and land use configurations that are
possible for said spatial arrangement; and (3) ability £0 fulfill
Identified needs and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) goals.
1.3 Description of Alternatives
The general sets of assumptions underlying each of the alternatives
are presented below. These descriptions are designed to illuminate
the principles by which the alternatives were composed. The spatial
arrangements selected are based on three criteria; reasonableness of
the projected land use; representativeness of forms (or spatial

-------
arrangements") of growth that typically occur in the region; and the
feasibility and appropriateness of identified land uses and locations.
1.3.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative, by definition, does not result in the
creation and implementation of a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
for the District, as defined in the Memorandum of Understanding. The
characteristics of this alternative can be grouped into two principal
categories. The first set of characteristics include the assumptions
regarding future growth and land use in the District. The central
assumption is that the existing HMDC Master Plan and Zoning ordinance
would continue to be implemented. (The absence of a SAMP presumably
would represent ;? continuation of current, apparently conflicting,
authorities that increase the difficulty of achieving HMDC Master Plan
and the federal Clean Vater Act objectives. This apparently
conflicting authorities also increase the difficulty of realizing the
goal of integrating advance comprehensive planning into the federal
and state environmental regulatory processes affecting wetlands).
The second t of characteristics describe the potential environmental
and development management mechanisms that, by definition, are not
likely to be created and implemented in the absence of a Special Area
Management Plan. This alternative assumes increasing fragmentation
and dispersal of planning authority in the District, because HMDC
would not be able to adequately fulfill several of their statutory
planning and environmental management mandates.
It is not possible to predict the specific locations and sizes of
projects that would be implemented in the absence of a SAMP because it
is not possible to predict the outcome of future permitting processes.
Although HMDC has evaluated the generalized levels of growth that
would occur under full build-out of the existing Master Plan, it is
only reasonable to assume, on a District-wide basis, that some
"unknown" percentage of the build-out of the existing HMDC Master Plan
would occur over a 20 year planning period.
1-6

-------
For purposes of evaluating the No Action alternative, vhich primarily
describes the effect of no SAMP being implemented in the District, it
is assumed that land ovners vill continue to pursue site development
plans, in the context of current and future environmental lavs and
regulations. Just as it is not possible to describe the location and
size of future site development proposals, it is not possible to
describe the administration of future environmental lavs and
regulations given the absence of management controls that vould be
achieved through the SAMP. For these reasons the No Action
Alternative vill be described and evaluated qualitatively based on
reasonable assumptions regarding future social, natural, and economic
conditions vithout implementation of a SAMP.
The No Action alternative, because it does not result in the
development and implementation of a SAMP for the District, does not
include a number of regulatory, programmatic, and management benefits
that vould derive from the SAMP. The management and planning
improvements that vill not be available under the No Action
alternative, and prospective difficulties arising from No Action, are
listed belov.
-	In the absence of a SAMP there vill be no agreement on or
resolution of future alternatives analysis, as required under
Section 404. This lack of agreement of alternatives vill
increase the permitting complexity and permitting requirements
for projects proposed in the District, reducing the
predictability and consistency of the permitting process.
-	The vill be no nev comprehensive planning, management, and
monitoring mechanism to assure compatibility betveen the HMDC
Master Plan and the Clean Water Act (to address "no net loss
of vetland values" in the District), the Clean Air Act, and
the Superfund/SARA lavs, thereby increasing administrative and
management obligations for federal and state agencies.
-	There vill be no mechanism and limited resources and authority
to implement the goals and objectives set forth in HMDC's
Environmental Improvement Program, because the EIP goals are
best achieved by bringing together public and private
resources under a coordinated management system.
-7

-------
1.3.2 Uplap.i Growth Alternative
This alternative assumes that growth occurs only on vacant land that
is not wetland. Development of these sites assumes the use of several
properties suspected of being landfilled and/or contaminated, as well
as some properties with constrained road access. This alternative
also involves the use of infill upland parcels throughout the District
to accommodate secondary office, light industrial, and warehousing
land uses (as described in HMDC's Needs statement).
1.3.3 Redevelopment Alternative
Redevelopment locations included in this alternative are generally
consistent with standard blight criteria of under-utilization and
deteriorating conditions. The redevelopment sites shown under this
alternative involve redevelopment and conversion of lots on which
existing or remnant structures are present into residential* office,
commercial or warehousing uses. Redevelopment projects considered in
this alternative require government involvement in blight declaration
and in such activities as site planning, acquisition, financing,
relocation, *nd site disposition. Additionally, development of these
sites assumes use of several properties suspected of being landfilled
and/or contaminated, as well as some properties with constrained or
restricted road access. This alternative also involves the use of
infill and other parcels throughout District to accommodate
secondary office, light industrial* an<* warehousing land uses (as
described in HMDC's Needs statement)* w^ich would occur in both upland
and infill wetland locations.
1.3.A Highway Corridor Alternative
This alternative has been developed base<* on the assumption that
private market real estate pressure3	result in growth along
existing highvay corridors, specific**l5) the hlSh-visibllity Route 3
corridor. This form of growth is tyP" ^	NY/NJ Metropolitan
region, as development interests af® r^cted to highway corridors
1'S

-------
that exhibit high levels of use by automobiles for commercial
activities and that provide access for office and residential land
uses. This alternative involves growth in both upland and vetland
locations. This alternative also involves the use of a number of
infill and other parcels throughout the District to accommodate
secondary office, light industrial, and warehousing land uses (as
described in HMDC's Needs statement), which would occur in both upland
and infill wetland locations.
1.3.5	Dispersed Development Areas
The Dispersed Development Areas alternative assumes that a pattern of
functionally unrelated and decentralized growth is likely to result
from market pressures and demand; growth being located in small areas
of development scattered throughout the District. This alternative
involves growth in both upland and wetland locations, and includes
locations of mixed-use development. This alternative also involves
the use of infill and other parcels throughout the District to
accommodate secondary office, light industrial, and warehousing land
uses (as described in HMDC's Heeds statement), which would occur in
both upland and infill wetland locations.
1.3.6	Growth Centers Alternative
The Growth Centers Alternative involves growth focused in major nodes
within the Meadowlands District. It involves growth in both upland
and vetland locations. This alternative involves a high level of
linkage between nodes and areawide transit systems. It emphasizes
large scale mixed-use community designs that seek to integrate
housing, employment, and retail activity in common locations.
This alternative also involves the use of infill and other parcels
throughout the District to accommodate secondary office, light
industrial, and warehousing land uses (as described in HMDC's Needs
statement), which would occur in both upland and infill wetland
locations.
1-9

-------
1.4 Out-of-District Alternatives
Studies regarding the availability and feasibility of out-of-District
sites for alternatives analysis has indicated that several locations
in urban centers may be appropriate for analysis, and also that
identifying suburban sites that vill accept mixed-use developments may
be somewhat more difficult to accomplish, given the difficulty in
finding areas that vill accept mixed-use projects given adopted zoning
ordinances. In accordance with the input received during the scoping
process CDM has discussed developable locations with representatives
of the urban centers of Newark, Jersey City, and Paterson. The
preliminary results of these discussions are presented below.
Paterson. Information provided by the Paterson Planning Department
indicates that the City is almost entirely developed, although one
site — a two-block, site at Ward Street in downtown Paterson — has
been available for about 15 years. There is a 10-acre site believed
to require ECRA compliance located on private property in an
industrial area. Other than these locations, sites are not generally
available within Paterson.
Newark. Representatives of the Department of Development identified
some of the more likely areas that might host mixed-use residential
and commercial growth. Most development opportunities in Newark come
in the form of high concentrations of in-rem lots, that is, property
acquired by the city through tax foreclosures. In such areas, the
city might assist a developer in assembling a site by consolidating
the city-owned parcels and condemning and relocating occupants of the
remaining privately-held parcels. Through this process the city
recently delivered a 40-acre site to a developer for a project
involving 1,200 dwelling units (400 of which have been completed), and
100,000 square feet of retail space. The housing was sold at market
rates vith a 15 percent low and moderate income component.
1-10

-------
The area near Vest Side Park, between Springfield and Fourteenth
Avenues, has high concentrations of city-owned lots. This would seem
the most likely area to consider for large scale development because
it is in the area of existing redevelopment. The redevelopment area
begins at the restored Penn Station downtown, continues through the
Gateway Center office and hotel development, skips across Broad Street
to the growing institutional complex that includes a branch of Rutgers
University and the College of Medicine and Dentistry campus, and
concludes with the recent University Heights development.
Another area with a high concentration of city ownership lies to
either side of Irvine Turner Boulevard between Peddie and Avon
Streets. One six-block, 20-acre section of this area has been
designated the South ffard Industrial Park, and is under contract for
the development of 500,000 square feet of industrial space. The
project is considerably behind original schedule. The city has not
yet acquired the remaining private parcels nor has it relocated
occupants. North and west of the designated industrial park as far
north as Clinton Avenue are several more blocks that also have high
concentrations of city-owned land.
The cost and administrative difficulty of assembling development sites
in these areas must be considered. In 1989, the city estimated it
expended $5.5 million to cover acquisition and relocation costs for a
two-block area near the prospective South Ward Industrial Park. The
costs involved in preparing a 25- to 50-acre site could be about $30
million.
There are several completely cleared blocks under control of the
Newark Housing Authority located along Irvine Turner Blvd., between
Clinton and Springfield Avenues. These blocks were cleared for the
1-95 Connector, an Interstate Highway project that was later
abandoned. Although a development project in this location would not
incur significant acquisition and relocation costs, the cleared blocks
are flanked by some of Newark's largest public housing projects, which
1-11

-------
has been ccsidered a disincentive to development of market rate
housing.
Based on information currently available there appear to be no large
sites in Newark that are already cleared and available for
development that would be suitable for mixed-use residential and
higher quality commercial uses. The large sites that exist include
the 84-acre Vaverly Yards, an inactive freight yard betveen the Amtrak
mainline and Nevark Airport, and some industrial urban renewal area
sites with suspected site contamination problems.
Jersey City. Information provided by Jersey City Department of
Housing and Economic Development indicates that the most appropriate
locations in Jei-^y City are near the Hudson River waterfront. This
location features large tracts of land once mainly used for rail
freight yards. With the disappearance of rail operations, the Hudson
waterfront has become attractive to commercial and residential
development. The 200-acre Newport development, located at the
northern end of the Jersey City's Hudson River waterfront, is one of
the largest projects built to date. Newport includes a one-million
square fooi shopping mall, and, at full buildout, 9,100 dwelling units
and 4.2 million square feet of office space.
There are two large development tracts at the northern end of the
waterfront that would appear to be appropriate for the out-of-District
alternatives screening analysis. Both sites have been studied or
proposed for development but are not under any current development
plans.
Harsimus Cove is a 117-acre (including 40 acres under water)
waterfront site located between the Harborside and Newport projects.
One developer proposed 4,000 high-rise dwelling units for the site in
the early 1980's. The site is in private ownership.
Another major site is known as Liberty Harbor North, an approximately
100-acre area betveen Grand Street and the Tide Water Basin. The
1-12

-------
City's 1983 redevelopment plan proposed about 2,500 dwelling units and
500,000 square feet of commercial space on 75 acres here. Part of the
site is in city ownership; the rest is privately owned.
A third site being considered for alternatives screening is Caven
Point, located between Liberty State Park and the Claremont Channel.
About 100 acres of this site may be available for residential and
commercial use. Caven Point is not as accessible as the north
waterfront area, and given previous difficulties with the success of
projects at this location, developers may prefer less isolated
locations.
(ds/1623)
1-13

-------
~ D R A F T »
Dote: 0t-24-t992	Figure H
Upland Alternative
CDM
Hackensock Meadowlands SAMP/EIS

-------


Table 1-1




ANTICIPATED LAND USES
X>F PLANNING
AREAS
UPLAND -ALTERNATIVE
Planning Area
Size
(Acres)
Priaary Office
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
Commercial
Land Use
_(sq1_ft1)
Residential
Land Use
(units)
(A) Bellman's Creek
31


-----
(B) Arena
127
800,000


(C) Sportsplex
14


700
(D) UOP
36
2,352,240


(E) Red Roof Inn
22
7


1,100
350
(H) Standard Tool
79
5,161,860


(F) Tony's Old Mill
7


350
(G) Chromakill Creek
65
20

435,600
3,250
(K) Enterprise Ave. So.
38
2,482,920


(M) PR - 2 (II)
79


3,950
(N) SCP
10

217,800

(R) Koppers Coke
28

609,840

(0) Laurel Hill
144
25

544,500
7,200
(L) Walsh
64
4,181,760


(J) BCC East
6


300
(P) Kearny
27
1,764,180


23-Jan-92	829	16,742,960	1,807,740	18,750
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 14,270,256 square feet for this alternative.

-------
Illl JUT
METERS
~DRAFT*

Legend
CD
Planning Aria
m
Secondary Offiei/
Warthouii Aria
N
HUDC Boundary
N
Major Roads
N
Surlaci Walir
> * /
Rail
Dole: 01-24-1992
CDM
•nifwwitrf Mjimri, iciutiiti,
H«wri t moMftnnl cwiiiAaiU
Figure 1-2
Redevelopment Alternative
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS

-------
Table 1-2
ANTICIPATED LAND X3SES OF PLANNING AREAS
REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Planning Area
(A)*UOP~sice_
(B)	Rutherford STP
(C)	Bellman's Creek
(D)	Worth Bergen
(E)	Wood Ave.
(F)	Secaucus 1-495
(G)	Secaucus Rd.
(H)	Castle Rd.
(I)	Kearny West
(J) Jersey City
(K) Little Ferry Waterfront
(N) Riverviev
23-Jan-92
Size
(Acres)
__
36
36
17
31
8
26
10
26
33
42
111
22
10
50
31
10
551
Prinary Office
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
---------
2,352,240
2,025,540
1,089,000
2,156,220
4,835,160
1,437,480
Commercial
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
784,080
914,760
217,800
17,152,640
1,916,640
Residential
Land Use
(units)
1,870
880
3,080
2,860
5,500
3410
1100
18,700
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 15,489,936 square feet for this alternative.

-------

mr
. 	 	 i i
I llll	<111	III!
j/ETERS
~DRAFT*
m
Planning Area
CD
Secondary Office/
Warehouse Area
N
HUOC Boundary
N
Major Road*
A'
Surface Water
Rail
Date; 01-24-1992
CDM
MiitoMmW emtam, idnlitti,
ptomri t ni»i|im«l cmrtau
Figure 1-3
Highway Corridors
Alternative
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS

-------
TabLe 1-3
ANTICIPATED LAND USES OF PLANNING AREAS
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVE
Planning Area
Size
(Acres)
Primary Office
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
Commercial
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
Residential
Land Use
(units)
(D) Veterans Blvd
22
-------


(C) Arena
140
1,800,000


(B) Sportsplex
78


3,120
(A) TA2 92 (south)
32


1,280
(G) B1.219A (Rutherford)
17
55
740,520

2,200
(F) East Ruth. Bl. 109
216


8,640
(E) Berrys Creek Center
65
4,247,100


(H) Meadowlands Pkwy
35
22
1,524,600

680
(I) Plaza Center
17

370,260

(J) Mill Creek
2
8
348,480
43,560

(K) Chromakill Creek
65
10
18
1,089,000
392,040
2,600
(L) County Ave.
16
16
696,960
348,480

(M) Secaucus 1-495
10
28
653,400
609,840

(N) Secaucus Pat Plank Rd.
17

370,260

(0) SU - 2
142
28
6,185,520
609,840

23-Jan-92	1,059	18,243,900	2,744,280	18,720
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 16,300,000 square feet for this alternative.

-------
Mfms
" " mm
~DRAFT*
m
Planning Aria
a
Secondary Ollfci/
Wonhcun Area
N
HUDC Boundary
N
Uajor Roadi
/'V
Surface Water
• /
Rail
Sale: 01-24-1992
COM
mirtwmiil *qmin, teiwliiii,
fbntf) t	t ctfwtanli
Figure 1-4
Dispersed Development
Areas Alternative
Hackensack Meadowtands SAMP/EIS

-------


Table 1-4




ANTICIPATED LAND
USES OF PLANNING
AREAS
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS
ALTERNATIVE
Planning Area
Size
(Acres)
Primary Office
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
Commercial
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
Residential
Land Use
(units)
(A)~TAZ~92~(north)
81


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


(C) Sportsplex
58


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


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

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

3,880
(G) SU - 2
92


3,680
(H) Laurel Hill
169


6,760
(J) Kearny West
37

805,860

(L) Allied
28
4,878,720


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

(I) PR - 2
58
20
27
2,526,480
435,600
1,080
23-Jan-92
971
18,556,560
2,286,900
20,960
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 13,600,000 square feet for this alternative.

-------
fl
FEET
	, ._]	I
fill	(III	III!
Date: 01-24-1992
CDM
MviroMiMld MgiMtfi, icitntiih,
pfam«f> k mewgwwil cwwltiats
~DRAFT*
m
Planning iris
m
Sicondory Offlci/
Warihoun Aria
/V
HUOC Boundary
N
Major Roadi
N
Surfact Water
'"i!
Roll
Figure 1-5
Growth Centers Alternative
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS

-------
Table 1-5
ANTICIPATED LAND USES OF PLANNIN
GROWTH CENTERS ALTERNATIVE
Planning Area
(A) Empire Blvd Area
Size
(Acres)
225
69
62
Primary Office
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
3,005,640
Commercial
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
1,350,360
Residential
Land Use
(units)
-----
(B) Harmon Meadow Area	97	3,880
67	2,918,520
63	1,372,140
(D) Secaucus Transfer Area	20	4,356,000
63	2,744,280
169	6,760
(C) Berrys Creek Area	97	3,880
86	5,619,240
10	217,800
23-Jan-92	1,023	18,643,680	2,940,300	22,220
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 16,300,000 square feet for this alternative.

-------
I (Iff	4111
~DRAFT*
[D
Planning Area
m
Secondary Office/
Worehouie Aria
/V
HUDC Boundary
N
Uajor Roadi
N
Surface Water
A '
Roll
Dote: 01-24-1992
CDM
mjmttt, letatiiti.
pfcMtrs * maMpiimtt ctttUtwti
Figure 1-6
No Action Alternative
Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/[IS

-------



Table 1-6





ANTICIPATED LAND
USES OF PLANNING
AREAS
NO ACTION (NO SAMP)
Planning Area
ALTERNATIVE
Size
(Acres)
Primary Office
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
Commercial
Land Use
(sq. ft.)
Residential
Land Use
(units)
(A) Teterboro

23
_______


(B) IR-4

224


4,480
(B) IR-4

10

217,800

(C) IR-3

147


2,940
(D) IR-2

87


1,740
(E) Berrys Creek

93
2,025,540


(E) Berrys Creek

79

1,720,620

(F) PR-2

226


7,910
(F) PR-2

10

217,800

(G) SU-2

95
2,069,100


(H) TC-3

22
479,160


(I) PR-3

138


4,830
(I) PR-3

10

217,800

(J) SU-1

76
1,655,280


(K) SU-3

322
7,013,160


(L) RD Park

73
1,568,160


(M) HC Secaucus

133
2,896,740


23-Jan-92
1,768
18,208,080
2,374,020
21,900
Secondary Office/Light Industrial/Warehousing land uses, in a variety of locations
that are not within Planning Areas, total 15,524,784 square feet for this alternative

-------
Table 1-7
ANTICIPATED SIZE & ALTERNATIVE FOR SECONDARY OFFICE/WAREHOUSING AREAS
SECONDARY OFFICE. WAREHOUSING, &LIGHT,INDUSTRIAL AREA
COMPONENTS o£ IN-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
Warehousing &
Secondary Office &	Size Office Areas in each
& Warehousing Area	(Acres)	Alternative (1)
a
10	GUSNHR
aa 18	GUSNHR
9	GUSNHR
S I	GSNH|
38	GSNHR
1% 15	GSNHR
*1 38	GSNHR
££ 7	GUSNHR
13	GSNH
5? 26	GSNHR
20	GUNH
f? 22	GUSHR
5	GUSHR
20	GUSNHR
H If
•I 3
ar
as
«	GUSNHR
s	71	GUSNHR
b	2	GUSNHR
c	9	GUSNHR
d	, ?	GUSNHR
e	GUSNHR
f	13	GUSNHR
e	,3	GSNH
f?	18	GSNH
i	24	GSNHR
j	USNHR
R	NHR
I	|2	NHR
m	50	GSNH
n	I	GUSNHR
o	2	GUSNHR
n	2	GSNHR
q	,3	GSNHR
jf	19	GSNHR
s	GUSNHR
t	GUSNHR
u	GSNHR
v	29
36	GSNHR
45
28
22
23-Jan-92	1,001
*	45	GUSHR
V	28	GUSHR
y	22	GSNHR
(1) NOTE: G-Growth Centers Alternative; U-Upland Alternative;
S-Dispersed Development Areas Alt; N-No Action Alt;
H—Highway Alt; R—Redevelopment Alt

-------
2.0 WETLANDS
2.1 SCREENING-LEVEL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR IN-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
2.1.1 Method for Assessing Impacts
In order to assess impacts to wetlands in the District, an indexing system
based on chemical, physical, and biological wetland characteristics vas
developed to track potential changes to wetlands for a range of growth
alternatives. This indexing system provides a semi-quantitative measure of
vetland characteristics currently present in the District, and allows Eor a
measurement of impacts caused by potential changes to the wetland
characteristics.
The wetland indexing method operates by assigning a numerical importance
rank, to vetland characteristics as they relate to four valuable vetland
attributes: vater quality improvement (WQ), vildlife habitat (VH), social
significance (SS), and important (i.e. threatened or endangered species and
remnant or unique) habitat (IH). Each vetland in the District is indexed
on the basis of the presence or absence of these vetland characteristics.
The indexing system provides an "index" for each attribute which indicates,
on a scale of 0 to 100, how that wetland's characteristics compare to
existing high quality wetlands in the Meadovlands. The index for each
attribute is then multiplied by the area of the vetland (in acres) to
arrive at a final attribute "score" for the wetland for each of the four
attributes (i.e., "score" » "index" times acreage).
The list of vetland characteristics used to develop the indexing method is
based on the questions used in the draft version of the Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET), developed by the USACE Waterways Experiment Station, and
modified for the District. Of the initial list of more than 300
characteristics, over 190 are tracked in this wetland indexing system,
including physical, hydrologic, biologic, and social parameters. The
remaining characteristics that were not used were not applicable to wetland
functioning in the District's wetlands. The wetlands characteristics
2-1

-------
present in the District under existing conditions {the "baseline"
condition) were identified during the "Advanced Identification of Wetland
Resources in the Hackensack Meadovlands, New Jersey" (AVID), conducted by
USACE and USEPA. ¥etlands comprising 92% of the District's wetland area
were analyzed for the AVID, and this was considered a very effective
database on which to base the impact analysis.
The alternatives screening tracks two types of wetland impacts using the
wetland indexing system; direct and indirect. Direct impacts are those
impacts directly associated with the filling of wetlands. The wetland
indexing system tracks direct impacts by assuming that developed areas of a
wetland are filled, and lose all wetland characteristics. In other words,
the developed ar -a of a wetland ceases to be a wetland. Direct impacts to
wetlands are tracked by reducing the baseline attribute score for a wetland
based on the amount of wetland lost (i.e., the impact Is the acreage of
lost vetlarvd multiplied by the existing attribute indexes).
Take, for example, a 100-acre wetland, whose existing VQ, VH, SS, and IH
attribute indexes are 70, 60, 50, and 40 respectively. The baseline
attribute scores for this wetland are 7,000 (WQ), 6,000 (VH), 5,000 (SS),
and 4,000 (IH). Then assume that this wetland is to lose 25 acres as a
result of development. The direct impact of this fill reduces the
wetland's ¥Q attribute score by 1,750? the WH attribute score by 1,500? the
SS attribute score by l,250f and the IH attribute score by 1,000. The
post-impact attribute scores, assuming only direct impacts to the wetland,
would be 5,250 for the VQ attribute, 4,500 for the VH attribute, 3,750 for
the SS attribute, and 3,000 for the IH attribute.
When part of a wetland is filled, however, the remaining wetlands are
likely to experience secondary impacts from the new development. Vetlands
adjacent to, and downstream from the development are also likely to
experience impacts. Since these impacts are not caused by "direct"
activity In the wetland area, they are termed "indirect" impacts. Indirect
impacts to vetlands are measured in the alternatives screening process by
evaluating potential changes to the wetland characteristics of remaining
2-2

-------
wetlands that are either adjacent to, or downstream of development areas.
Using existing information regarding the possible effects of development on
wetland characteristics, the possible changes to wetland characteristics in
wetlands adjacent to, and downstream of development areas were assessed.
For example, development upstream of a wetland often causes the water
entering the wetland to become more channelized, with the introduction of
storm discharges. This may also change the primary source of sediments,
nutrients, and toxics to a wetland.
The wetlands near a development area that would experience changes in
characteristics were re-indexed based on the changed set of
characteristics. The revised attribute indexes were then multiplied by the
acreage of the impacted wetland (i.e., if fill occurs in that wetland, the
remaining acreage of the wetland), to determine the resulting,
"post-impact" attribute scores for that wetland. In the example cited
above, the indirect impacts might be assessed as follows:
After examining the existing characteristics of the example wetland and
assessing changes to these characteristics as a result of indirect
impacts from the development, re-indexing of the wetland based on the
changed characteristics results in "post-impact" VQ, WH, SS, and IH
attribute indexes were 40, 40, 30, and 30, respectively (reduced from
70, 60, 50, and 40, respectively). Since only 75 acres of this wetland
remain after construction directly impacts 25 acres, indirect impact of
the development reduces the WQ attribute score by (2,250 - [70 - 40] *
75)} the WH attribute score by (1,500 - [60 - 40] * 75)j the SS
attribute score by (1,500 - [50 - 30] * 75); and ~?h€ IH attribute score
by (750 - [40 - 30] * 75). Combining the direct and indirect impacts
to the example wetland, the "post-impact" attribute scores would be
3,000 (WQ), 3,000 (WH), 2,250 (SS), and 2,250 (IH).
2.1.2 Results of Impact Screening
Table 2-1 summarizes the results of the wetland impact screening. The
first two columns of table 2-1 present the total area of wetlands in the
district that are affected 'r.y norh direct impacts (i.e., wetland fill) and
2-3

-------
TABLE 2-1
ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON—DIRECT AND INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS
Attribute Scores (acre-points)
Mot
Total AA	Assessed	Water	Social
Acreage	Acreage	Quality Wildlife Signi- Important
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Improvement Habitat ficance Habitat,
Baseline
8527.3

707.1

521445
592609
309522
294273
Upland
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
(0.0)
0.0%
8527.3
(1532.7)
18.0%
(0.0)
0.0%
707.1
(45.0)
6.4%
(19629)
3.8%
501815
(8034)
1.4%
584575
(27602)
8.9%
281920
(35994)
12.2%
258278
Redevelopment
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
(425.4)
5.0%
8101.9
(1887.4)
22.1%
(32.3)
4.6%
674.8
(38.0)
5.4%
(67132)
12.9%
454313
(40950)
6.9%
551660
(59973)
19.4%
249549
(27123)
9.2%
267150
Highway Corridors
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
(978.2)
11.5%
7549.1
(1917.9)
22.5%
(33.4)
4.7%
673.7
(54.9)
7.8%
(99574)
19.1%
421870
(72999)
12.3%
519611
(68903)
22.3%
240619
(55045)
18.7%
239228
Dispersed Development Areas
Impact (793.9)
% Impact 9.3%
Post-Impact 7733.4
(2675.8)
31.4*
(26.4)
3.7%
680.8
(46.2)
6.5%
(98942)
19.0%
422503
(82138)
13.9%
510472
(67786)
21.9%
241737
(57816)
19.6%
236457
Growth Centers
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
(885.6)
10.4%
7641.7
(2331.7)
27.3%
(29.9)
4.2%
677.2
(60.4)
8.5%
(99956)
19.2%
421488
(71716)
12.1%
520894
(76817)
24.8%
232705
(59065)
20.1%
235207
No Action
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
(1625.0)
19.1%
6902.3
(3096.5)
36.3%
(31.4)
4.4%
675.8
(49.3)
7.0%
(156502)
30.0%
364943
(130854)
22.1%
461756
(98160)
31.7%
211362
(96320)
32.7%
197953

-------
indirect impacts (i.e., changes in wetland characteristics due to nearby
development) for each management alternative. The "Post-Impact" line for
each alternative represents the total area of wetlands that will remain
after the fill activity related to each alternative. There is no entry in
the "Post-Impact" line for indirect impacts, as these wetlands will remain
as wetlands; however, their functioning will be reduced. Because the
Upland alternative precludes wetland fill, there is no direct impacts to
wetlands for this alternative. However, there are indirect impacts to
approximately 18% of the District's wetland area for the Upland
alternative. The Redevelopment alternative has the next lowest direct and
indirect wetland areal impacts, followed by the Highway Corridors, Growth
Centers, and Dispersed Development Areas alternatives. The No Action
alternative has the highest wetland areal impact.
The next two columns in table 2-1 present the area of direct and assumed
indirect impacts to the subset of assessment areas which were not assessed
in the AVID process (approximately 8% of the Districts wetland areas).
These are wetlands for vhich no characteristic set is present and thus
changes to these wetlands cannot be assessed in the wetland indexing system
and are not reflected in the attribute scores. These impacts are measured
only by areal extent.
The last four columns in table 2-1 present the changes to the wetland
attributes scores, from both direct and indirect impacts. These attribute
scores vere calculated using the wetland indexing system described above.
The impact screening analysis shows that the Upland alternative would cause
the smallest change in the baseline score for the 4 attributes, and
therefore, it can be considered to be the alternative which will cause the
least impact to the wetlands in the District. The Redevelopment
alternative is next in terms of the changes it will cause in the baseline
attribute scores, while the Highway Corridors, Disperesed Development, and
Growth Centers alternatives are all approximately the same. The latter
three alternatives are all predicted to reduce the 4 baseline attribute
scores by about the same amount (19* for Water Quality, 13% for Wildlife
Habitat, 22-25* for Social	ficance, and 20X for Important Habitat).
2- 5

-------
Finally, the No Action alternative will cause the largest decrease in all A
attribute scores, and can therefore be considered to be the one vith the
largest negative impacts to the District's wetlands.
Tables 2-2 through 2-7 present the acreage and attribute score changes in
each assessment area for the various management alternatives. The first
column is the assessment area (AA) number assigned to the wetland during
the AVID process. The next column identifies the planning areas (capital
letters) or secondary office/warehousing areas (small letters) that impact
the AA. The next column is the existing (baseline) acreage of the AA. The
"Fill Acres" column was calculated by superimposing the map of AAs with the
map of planning areas on the GIS. The next column is the remaining acreage
after fill ("Tot:>i Acres" minus "Fill Acres1'). The "Impact Type" reflects
both the "status" of the AA (whether or not it was assessed as part of the
AVID) and the type of impacts (direct, indirect, or both). An AA has
direct impacts if there is any fill, and indirect impacts are indicated if
there are changes to the wetland characteristics as a result of
development. The remaining columns present the baseline attribute score,
the post-impact attribute score, and the impact (change) for each
attribute.
(ds/1969)
2-6

-------
TABLE 2-2
UPLAND ALTERNATIVE--INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS
AANO
Planning
Total
Pill Ramaln Impact
Watar Quality Soora
Ulldlifa Bab.
Scora
Social SLa.
Scora
IODDTUnt Rib
Scora
Ar«*
Aoraa
Aeraa
Aeraa
Typa
Baaa
Post
Impact
Baaa
Post
Impact
Baaa
Poat
Impact
Baaa
Post
Impact
104
0
2.7
0.0
2.7
NI
NA
KA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
HA
0
0
(0)
106
X
5.7
0.0
5.7
MI
HA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
ioa
L.aj
117.1
0.0
117.1
AI
9834
7024
(2810)
6907
5385
(1522)
4215
3863
(351)
0
0
<0)
112
L
12.2
0.0
12.2
AI
842
708
(134)
684
684
(0)
403
403
(0)
0
0
(0)
113
L
16.6
0.0
16.6
AI
1114
915
(200)
998
998
(0)
283
283
(0)
0
0
(0)
122
ak
4.0
0.0
4.0
HI
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
125
ak
1.9
0.0
1.9
NI
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
144
ao
a.s
0.0
8.8
NI
HA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
0
0
(0)
145
AO
B.J
0.0
8.3
AI
430
306
(124)
538
480
(58)
141
141
(0)
0
0
(0)
2 1
E
226.5
0.0
226.5
A
14040
14040
(0)
20381
20381
(0)
10870
10870
(0)
13156
13152
(4)
2 10
Q
60.0
0.0
60.0
A
2882
2882
(0)
384 3
3843
(0)
1981
1981
(0)
3172
2585
(587)
2 11
R, ao
274.7
0.0
274.7
A
16759
16759
(0)
21429
21429
(0)
8791
8791
(0)
20067
15080
(4987)
2 12
R
39.3
0.0
39.3
A
1533
1533
<0)
2044
2044
(0)
1101
1101
<0)
2736
2477
(258)
2 13
R
35.9
0.0
35.9
A
1399
1399
(0)
1865
1865
(0)
1435
1435
(0)
2469
2004
(464)
2 3
M.x
180.1
0.0
180.1
AI
12607
8825
(3782)
18010
15489
(2521)
13688
4142
(9545)
10489
957
(9532)
2 4
2 »K,x
31.9
0.0
31.9
AI
2010
1563
(447)
2074
2074
(0)
734
734
<0)
1456
148
(1309)
2 5
M
9.2
0.0
9.2
A
536
536
<0)
610
610
<0)
0
0
(0)
119
102
(1?)
2 a
O
868.8
0.0
868.8
A
69507
69507
(0)
79933
79933
(0)
79933
79933
(0)
10674
5654
(5020)
2 5
a
60.9
0.0
60.9
A
1583
1583
(0)
3228
3228
(0)
2436
2436
(0)
3878
3807
(71)
2 r
k
19.8
0.0
19.8
AI
1047
691
(356)
810
711
(99)
79
79
(0)
5
5
(0)
2 K
F
404 .9
0.0
404.9
A
17410
17410
(0)
25103
25103
(0)
4859
4859
(0)
10077
100.
(19)
2 M
t
74.5
0.0
74.5
AI
6037
4546
(1491)
5739
4919
(820)
1342
1342
(0)
0
0
(0)
2 P
F
239.3
0.0
239.3
A
11246
11246
(0)
14595
14595
(0)
2871
2871
(0)
4128
2496
(1632)
2 Q
F
185.4
0.0
185.4
A
13347
13347
(0)
11122
11122
(0)
12234
12234
(0)
10037
8858
(1179)
2 R
G,aa,ab
215.7
0.0
215.7
AI
19846
14669
(5177)
16826
15100
(1726)
10786
0
(10786)
0
0
(0)
2 U
C,£
154.3
0.0
154.3
AI
4783
4783
(0)
9103
8949
(154)
7406
7406
(0)
8073
2902
(5170)
2 V
B
9.1
0.0
9.1
AI
648
612
(37)
511
511
(0)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
2 2
£
18.9
0.0
18.9
A
492
492
(0)
1098
1098
(0)
435
435
(0)
1003
113
(890)
208
I.M
8.5
0.0
8.5
AI
416
382
(34)
577
577
(0)
0
0
(0)
69
0
(69)
222
ai
17.9
0.0
17.9
AI
1271
1020
(251)
1235
1110
(125)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
24*
D
17.3
0.0
17.3
AI
1210
1003
(207)
1089
1089
(0)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
3 2
P
349.6
0.0
349.6
A
31116
31116
(0)
29368
29368
(0)
34962
34962
(0)
34962
33211
(1751)
3 6
an
74.2
0.0
74.2
AI
6824
5637
(1187)
5934
5414
(519)
6675
2967
(3709)
5266
3574
(1692)
3 8
an
23.4
0.0
23.4
A
2156
2156
(0)
1781
1781
(0)
1B28
1828
(0)
1664
1443
(220)
301
F
58.1
0.0
58.1
AI
4645
4296
(348)
4006
4006
(0)
1510
1510
(0)
4113
3001
(1112)
33 A
A
13.4
0.0
13.4
AI
978
925
(54)
911
911
(0)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
33 B
A
12.0
0.0
12.0
AI
825
765
(60)
837
837
(0)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
39
aa
15.7
0.0
15.7
AI
1351
1084
(267)
1053
927
(126)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
U A
f
2.0
0.0
2.0
A
174
174
(0)
75
75
(0)
2
2
(0)
0
0
(0)
4 B
f
40.7
0.0
40.7
AI
3543
2525
(1018)
2891
2565
(326)
41
41
(0)
0
0
(0)
4 C
"8
65.5
0.0
65.5
AI
5899
5571
(328)
4850
4850
(0)
3408
197
(3211)
0
0
(0)
4 D
222.2
0.0
222.2
AI
16664
15775
(BB9)
19774
19774
(0)
15330
15330
(0)
0
0
(0)
4 £
N
2.0
0.0
2.0
AI
88
80
(8)
120
120
(0)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
4 F
N
7.4
0.0
7.4
AI
390
353
<37)
449
449
(0)
O
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
A G
o ,p
21.2
0.0
21.2
AI
1440
1356
(85)
1059
1059
(0)
360
360
(0)
0
0
(0)
40
5
3.4
0.0
3.4
NI
NA
HA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
404
H
5.0
0.0
5.0
NI
HA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
422
O
2.5
0.0
2.5
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
HA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
48
B
12.9
0.0
12.9
AI
1067
1002
(64)
694
655
(39)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
501
d
3.4
0.0
3.4
NI
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
502
58
H
2.7
0.0
2.7
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
<0)
H
2.0
0.0
2.0
NI
HA
NA
NA
8A
NA
NA
HA
NA
HA
0
0
(0)
59
6
H
1.2
0.0
1.2
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
ar
59.4
0.0
59.4
AI
2909
2671
(237)
3146
3146
(0)
2434
2434
(0)
1523
1512
(11)
73
P
1.7
0.0
1.7
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)

<19629)
(8034)
(27602)
C35994)
Disact Indlraet
Total »cr« 0.0 1532.7
NA acra 0.0 43.0
Impact tjrpas
AI » Asaassad and Indlraet onlyi AO * Aaaaaaad and Diraet onlyi AB • A*a«aa«d and Both)
HI ¦> Nat aasaaaad and Indlraet onlyi NO • Hot asaaasad and Dlract onlyi NB - Not aaaaaaad and Both
Na * Not Aaaasaad

-------
TABLE 2-3
REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE--DIRECT I INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS
Planning Total
AANO Area Acres
Fill Remain Impact
Acras Acras Type
Uatar Quality Score
Base Post Impact
Uildlifa Hab.
Basa Post
Score
Impact
Social Sig. Score
Base Post Impact
Important Hab. Score
Base Post Impact
104
106
108
112
113
119
122
123
125
144
143
147
16
17
18
19
2 1
2 11
2 12
2 13
2 3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
33
H
ag
G,as
aa
aa
ao
ao
J
B,v
B
B.v
B
E
ao
J.ap
1 ,m
D.t
201
214
220
222
225
226
23
24
3 1
33 B
34
35
37
38 A
39
4 A
401
404
410
420
421
422
501
502
58
K.a
K
2
D
v
aa
N
E
q
V
ac
al
H
I
J
A,J
F,G,»e
I.aj
am
an
s
C,s
D, v
aa
f
i
,e.g
,w.j
A
A
z
V
D
D
H
d
z
z
2.7
5.7
117.1
12.2
16.6
2.3
4.0
1.2
1.9
B.8
8.3
1.*
7.2
5.9
4.0
7.8
226.5
274.7
39.3
35.9
180.1
31.9
60.9
64.5
465.0
19.8
404.9
74.5
215.7
154.3
18.9
1.9
4.3
3.6
17.9
1.3
2.7
11.8
17.3
173.6
349.6
74.2
23.4
13.4
12.0
26.3
4.1
1.2
13.3
15.7
2.0
40.7
65.5
222.2
2.0
7.4
21.2
2.3
5.0
0.6
0.8
1.1
2.5
3.4
2.7
2.0
0.0
2.0
58.1
0.6
10.1
2.2
4.0
0.0
1.8
7.2
7.7
1.4
0.1
1.1
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
30.9
0.0
0.5
0.0
119.0
12.1
0.0
27.9
0.5
0.5
0.0
1.8
2.8
2.9
10.2
0.6
2.4
5.5
17.2
1.1
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.8
10.0
3.8
1.0
13.3
9.5
1.8
3.5
4.7
35.3
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.7
0.0
0.2
2.7
3.7
59.0
11.6
6.5
0.2
0.0
1.2
0.1
1.7
0.6
0.0
7.2
4.7
1.4
7.8
226.5
274.4
39.3
35.8
149.2
31.9
(SO . 4
64.5
346. 3.
7.7
404.9
46.6
215.3
153.8
18.9
0.1
1.5
0.7
7.7
0.7
0.3
6.3
0.1
172.5
349.6
73.8
23.4
13.1
11.2
16.2
0.3
0.2
0.0
6.2
0.2
37.2
60.8
186.9
1.9
7.4
21.0
2.2
3.1
0.6
0.8
1.1
0.8
1.7
2.7
1.8
NI
NB
AB
AB
AB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
AB
NB
NB
NB
AB
AI
A
AD
A
AD
AB
AI
AD
AD
A?
AB
A
AB
AB
AD
A
NB
NB
AB
AB
AB
NB
AB
AB
AB
AI
AB
A
AB
AB
AB
AD
AD
AB
AB
AD
AB
AB
AB
AB
A
AB
NB
NB
NB
NI
NI
NB
NB
NI
NB
NA
MA
9834
842
1114
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
430
NA
NA
NA
284
489
14040
16759
1533
1399
12607
2010
1583
1934
38132
1047
17410
6037
19846
4783
492
NA
NA
156
1271
76
NA
787
1210
15276
31116
6824
2156
978
825
1812
239
84
1041
1351
174
3543
5899
16664
88
390
1440
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
3541
753
268
0
0
NA
0
NA
20
0
NA
NA
63
349
14040
16735
1533
1398
7310
1467
1569
1934
20073
268
17410
2843
14637
4768
492
NA
NA
27
441
24
0
270
4
11040
22725
5607
2156
744
571
762
16
14
0
431
15
2306
5168
13268
76
390
1345
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(6293)
(89)
(846)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(410)
NA
NA
NA
(221)
(1*0)
(0)
(23)
(0)
(1)
(5297)
(542)
(14)
(0)
(18060)
(779)
(°)
(3194)
(5209)
(15)
(0)
NA
NA
(129)
(830)
(52)
NA
(517)
(1207)
(4236)
(8391)
(1216)
(0)
(234)
(253)
(1050)
(223)
(69)
(1041)
(921)
(159)
(1237)
(731)
(3395)
(12)
(0)
(96)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6907
684
998
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
538
NA
NA
NA
224
458
20381
21429
2044
1865
18010
2074
3228
3611
33017
810
25103
5739
16826
9103
1098
NA
NA
69
1235
46
NA
717
1089
11283
29368
5934
1781
911
837
1759
170
41
920
1053
75
2891
4850
19774
120
449
1059
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
2891
649
314
0
0
NA
0
NA
32
0
NA
NA
70
419
20381
21399
2044
1864
12829
1882
3199
3610
22149
276
25103
3076
15068
9075
1098
NA
NA
12
480
18
0
346
4
10005
26222
5386
1781
797
694
973
11
7
0
368
6
2343
4499
16632
113
449
1051
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(4016)
(35)
(684)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(506)
NA
NA
NA
(154)
(39)
(0)
(30)
(0)
(2)
(5181)
(191)
(29)
(1)
(10868)
(534)
(0)
(2663)
(1759)
(28)
(0)
NA
NA
(57)
(755)
(28)
NA
(371)
(1085)
(1278)
(3147)
(548)
(0)
(115)
(142)
(786)
(159)
(34)
(920)
(684)
(69)
(548)
(351)
(3142)
(7)
(0)
(9)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4215
403
283
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
141
NA
NA
NA
0
0
10870
8791
1101
1435
13688
734
2436
1805
11161
79
4859
1342
10786
7406
435
NA
NA
0
0
0
NA
0
0
5728
34962
6675
1828
0
0
0
0
0
227
0
2
41
3408
15330
0
0
360
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
1947
382
111
0
0
NA
0
NA
9
0
NA
NA
0
0
10870
8779
1101
1434
3431
734
2414
1805
8306
31
4859
792
0
7383
435
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17481
2951
1828
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
182
12895
0
0
357
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(2267)
(20)
(172)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(131)
NA
NA
NA
(0)
(0)
(0)
(12)
(0)
(1)
(10256)
(0)
(22)
(0)
(2855)
(48)
(0)
(549)
(10786)
(23)
(0)
NA
NA
(0)
(0)
(0)
NA
(0)
(0)
(5728)
(17481)
(3724)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(227)
(0)
(2)
(4)
(3226)
(2436)
(0)
(0)
(3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13156
20067
2736
2469
10489
1456
3878
2988
2955
5
10077
0
0
8073
1003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34962
5266
1664
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13036
15080
1223
674
4154
1343
494
2203
2955
5
10066
0
0
5679
723
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31466
3574
1443
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(119)
(4987)
(1512)
(1795)
(6335)
(113)
(3384)
(785)
(0)
(0)
(11)
(0)
(0)
(2393)
(280)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(3496)
(1692)
(220)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Direct Indirect
(67132)
(40950)
(59973)
(27123)
Total acre 425.4 1887.4
NA acre 32.3 38.0
Impact type: AI ¦ Assessed and Indirect onlyt AD - Assessed and Direct onlyi AB - Assessed and Bothi
NI - Not aaaeaaed and Indirect onlyi ND - Not assessed and Direct onlyi NB - Not assessed and Both
NA - Not Assasaad

-------
TABLE 2-4
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVE—DIRECT AND INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS

Planning
Total
Fill Remain Impact
Water Quality Score
Wildlife Bab.
Score
Social Sig.
Score
Important Hah
Scort
AANO
Area
Acres
Acres
Acres
Type
Base
Post
Impact
Base
Post
Impact
Base
Post
Impact
Base
Post
Impact
106
ag
5.7
2.0
3.7
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
108
0,al,as
117.1
60.6
56.5
AB
9834
3391
(6443)
6907
2769
(4138)
4215
1865
(2349)
G
0
112
a«
12.2
0.6
11.6
AB
842
753
(89)
684
649
(35)
403
382
(20)
0
0
113
0,a«
16. 6
16.0
0.6
AB
1114
25
(1089)
998
29
(969)
283
10
(272)
0
0
122
alt
4.0
1.9
2.2
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
125
a k
1.9
1.3
0.6
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
144
ao
8.8
7.2
1.7
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
145
to
8.3
7.7
0.6
AB
430
20
<410)
538
32
(506)
141
9
(131)
0
0
147

1.4
1.4
0.0
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
16
w
7.2
0.1
7.2
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
17
D
5.9
0.0
5.8
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
18
w
4.0
2.6
1.4
AB
284
63
(221)
224
70
(154)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
19
D
7.8
0.0
7.8
AI
489
396
(93)
458
458
(0)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
2 1
H
226.5
2.5
224.0
AD
14040
13886
(154)
20381
20157
(223)
10870
10751
(119)
13156
10987
(2168)
2 11
ao
274.7
0.4
274.4
AD
16759
16735
(23)
21429
21399
(30)
8791
8779
(12)
20067
15080
(4987)
2 12
*P
39.3
0.0
39.3
A
1533
1533
(0)
2044
2044
(0)
1101
1101
(0)
2736
1223
(1512)
2 13
*9
35.9
0.1
35.8
AD
1399
1395
(4)
1865
1860
(6)
1435
1430
(4)
2469
628
(1840)
2 2
F ,G
97.2
4.8
92.3
AB
6315
5540
(776)
8259
7848
(411)
1166
1108
(58)
6898
3276
(3622)
2 3
C, x
180.1
62.3
117.8
AB
12607
5774
(6833)
18010
10133
(7877)
13688
2710
(10978)
10489
3197
(7292)
2 A
X
31.9
0.0
31.9
AI
2010
1467
(542)
2074
1882
(191)
734
734
(0)
1456
1343
(113)
2 4A
F ,G
19.0
18.5
0.5
AB
1081
0
(1081)
1480
0
(1480)
228
0
(228)
1347
0
(1347)
2 B
a
60.9
0.0
60.9
A
1583
1583
(0)
3228
3228
(0)
2436
2436
(0)
3878
3ou 7
(71)
2 E
A, 1 ,cn,q
465.0
149.6
315.4
AB
38132
18294
(19839)
33017
20186
(12831)
11161
7570
(3591)
2955
1361
(1594)
2 F
k
19.8
12.1
7.7
AB
1047
268
(779)
810
276
(534)
79
31
(48)
5
5
(0)
2 M
t ,v
J
74.5
17.8
56.7
AB
6037
3461
(2576)
5739
3744
(1995)
1342
1021
(320)
0
0
(0)
2 Q
185.4
0.0
185.4
A
13347
13347
(0)
11122
11122
(0)
12234
12234
(0)
10037
7836
(2202)
2 R
K,aa~ac
215.7
4.0
211.7
AB
19846
14396
(5451)
16826
14819
(2007)
10786
0
(10786)
0
0
(0)
2 T
B
90.6
36.7
53.9
AB
4712
2209
(2503)
3262
1724
(1538)
1541
916
(624)
0
0
(0)
2 U
B, H
154.3
27.2
127.1
AD
4783
3941
(842)
9103
7501
(1602)
7406
6102
(1304)
8073
1200
(6873)
2 V
B,C
17.6
2.2
15.4
AB
1214
707
(507)
1091
800
(291)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
2 W
C
9.1
3.6
5.5
AB
648
286
(362)
511
253
(258)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
2 X
F
101.4
101.4
0.0
AB
4664
0
(4664)
1724
0
(1724)
1217
0
(1217)
7199
0
(7199)
2 YA
F
7.2
7.0
0.2
AB
376
0
(376)
87
0
(87)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
2 YB
F
11.4
5.9
5.5
AB
685
230
(454)
856
362
(494)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
2 2
B.C.H
18.9
1.3
17.6
AD
492
458
(34)
1098
1021
(77)
435
405
(30)
1003
0
(1003)
20
D
4.0
2.4
1.6
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
200
B
9.1
0.0
9.1
A
508
508
(0)
118
118
(0)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
201
q
1.9
1.8
0.1
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
214
V
4.3
2.8
1.5
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
215
D
4.9
4.8
0.1
NB
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
0
0
(0)
216
D
10.3
0.0
10.3
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
218
G
0.7
0.1
0.6
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
22
F
6.3
0.0
6.3
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
220
ac
3.6
2.9
0.7
AB
156
27
(129)
69
12
(57)
0
G
(0)
0
0
(0)
222
al
17.9
10.2
7.7
AB
1271
441
(830)
1235
480
(755)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
23
J
11.8
5.5
6.3
AB
787
270
(517)
717
346
(371)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
24
J
17.3
16.9
0.4
AB
1210
18
(1192)
1089
22
(1067)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
3 1
O.ae
173.6
154.0
19.6
AB
15276
1075
(14201)
11283
919
(10365)
5728
645
(5083)
0
0
(0)
3 2
+$
349.6
0.0
349.6
AI
31116
23425
(7692)
29368
26571
(2797)
34962
17481
(17481)
34962
33322
(1640)
3 6
am
74.2
0.4
73.8
AB
6824
5607
(1216)
5934
5386
(548)
6675
2951
(3724)
5266
3574
(1692)
3 8
an
23.4
0.0
23.4
A
2156
2156
(0)
1781
1781
(0)
1828
1828
(0)
1664
1443
(220)
303
F
67.7
67.7
0.0
AB
4402
0
(4402)
5825
0
(5825)
4132
0
(4132)
4809
0
(4809)
304
E.F
96.6
43.4
53.3
AB
5315
2716
(2599)
8408
4420
(3988)
1160
639
<521)
4861
0
(4861)
33 A
a
13.4
0.3
13.1
AB
978
744
(234)
911
797
(115)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
33 B
a
12.0
0.7
11.2
AB
825
572
(253)
837
695
(141)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
34
r
26.3
10.0
16.2
AB
1812
762
(1050)
1759
973
(786)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
35
V
4.1
3.8
0.3
AD
239
16
(223)
170
11
(159)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
37
V
1.2
1.0
0.2
AD
84
14
(69)
(956)
41
7
(34)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
38 A
V
13.3
11.9
1.4
AB
1041
84
920
83
(838)
227
25
(202)
0
0
(0)
39
aa
15.7
9.5
6.2
AB
1351
431
(921)
1053
368
(684)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
4 A
f
2.0
1.8
0.2
AD
174
15
(159)
75
6
(69)
2
0
(2)
0
0
(0)
4 fi
f
40.7
3.5
37.2
AB
3543
2306
(1237)
2891
2343
(548)
41
37
(4)
0
0
(0)
4 C
e.t.h
v, J
65.5
6.7
58.8
AB
5899
4999
(900)
4850
4352
(498)
3408
176
(3232)
0
0
(0)
4 D
222.2
35.2
187.0
AB
16664
13277
(3387)
19774
16643
(3131)
15330
12903
(2427)
0
0
(0)
4 F
n
7.4
0.7
6.6
AB
390
318
(72)
449
404
(45)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
4 G
o,P
21.2
0.2
21.0
AB
1440
1345
(96)
1059
1051
(9)
360
357
(3)
0
0
(0)
40
k
3.4
0.3
3.1
MB
MA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
401
h
2.3
2.1
0.2
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
404
z
5.0
1.9
3.1
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
410
V
0.6
0.0
0.6
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
48
C
12.9
12.9
0.0
AB
1067
0
(1067)
694
0
(694)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
501
d
3.4
1.7
1.7
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
502
z
2.7
0.0
2.7
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
505
E
0.5
0.5
0.0
AB
28
0
(28)
21
0
(21)
0
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
58
z
2.0
0.2
1.8
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
(0)
73
K
1.7
1.6
0.1
NB
MA
0
HA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
0
0
(0)

(99574)
(72999)
(68903)
(55045)
Direct Indirect
Total acre 978.2 1917.9
NA acre 33.4 54.9
Impact type: AI » Assessed and Indirect only; AD •> Assessed and Direct onlyi AB - Assessed and Bothi
NI m Hot assessed and Indirect only; ND - Not assessed and Direct onlyt NB ¦ Not assessed and Both
NA ' Not Assessed

-------
TAfiL* 2-5
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE—DIRECT AMD INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS
AANO
Act*
Acr««
Aerai
Acrtt
typ«
Bast
Pott
100
L
22.1
0.0
22.1
AI
1614
1238
104
H
2.7
2.4
0.4
NB
NA
0
106
*8
5.7
2.0
3.7
KB
NA
NA
108
G.al.ai
117.1
60.6
56.5
Alt
9834
3391
112
*«
12.2
0.6
11.6
AB
842
753
113
Craa
16.6
16.0
0.6
AB
1114
25
119
J
2.3
0,8
1.5
NB
WA
WA
125
J
1.9
0.0
1.9
NX
NA
NA
144
aa
8.8
7.2
1.7
NB
NA
NA
145
ao
8.3
7.7
0.6
AB
430
20
147
•<3
1.4
1.4
0.0
NB
WA
WA
16
V
7.2
0.1
7.2
NB
NA
NA
18
V
4.0
2.6
1.4
AB
284
63
2 10
K
60.0
0.0
60.0
A
2882
2862
2 11
K,*o
274.7
0.5
274.3
AS
16759
13439
2 12
*£.
39.3
0,3
39.0
AB
1533
1054
2 13
X,*9
35.9
O.i
35.8
AB
1399
966
2 2
97.2
6.1
91.1
AO
6315
5918
2 %
E.I,*
180.1
65.0
115.1
AB
12607
5639
Z 4
I.x
31.9
2.7
29.2
AB
2010
1342
2 4A
E
19.0
17.5
1.4
AB
ioai
82
2 5
1
9,2
0.0
9.2
A
536
536
2 8
H
868.8
8.1
860. 7
AO
69507
68857
2 8
a
60.9
0.0
60.9
j»
1583
1583
2 E
A,B,q
A,k
465.0
106.5
358 .

38132
20796
2 F
19.8
12.1
7.7
AB
1047
268
2 C
A.B
44.4
0.0
44 . 4
A
3196
3196
2 M
t,v
74.5
17.8
56.7
AB
6037
3461
2 Q
F,ad
185.4
96.1
89.2
AB
13347
4729
2 R
F.aa-ac
215,7
1.4
214.4
AS
19846
14576
2 S
F
14.3
0.1
14.2
NB
WA
WA
2 T
C
90.6
38.1
52.6
AB
4712
1997
2 I?
c
154.3
10.6
143.7
AB
4 783
4167
2 V
c
17.6
0.1
17.5
AO
1214
1210
2 X
D,£
101.4
25.8
75.6
AB
4664
3098
200
C
9.1
0.1
8.9
AB
5oa
286
201
c
1.9
1.8
".1
NB
NA
WA
208
1
8 »5
2.9
5.6
AC
416
275
214
V
4.3
2 < 0
i.S
NB
WA
ha
220
ac
3,6
2.9
0.7
AB
156
27
222
al
17*9
10.2
7.7
AB
1271
441
225
L
1.3
1»3
0.0
AB
76
0
23
J
11.8
5.5
6.3
AB
787
270
24
j
17.3
16-9
0.4
AB
1210
18
3 1
G,a«
173.6
84.0
39.6
AB
15276
5194
3 2
»J
349.6
0.0
49.6
AI
31116
23425
3 6
am
74.2
0.4
73.8
AB
6824
5607
3 8
an
23.4
0.0
23.4
A
2156
2156
301
F
58.1
0.0
58.1
Al
4645
3600
303
E
67.7
3.5
64.2
AO
4402
4176
304
D,E
96.6
37.2
59.4
AB
5315
3268
33 A
•
13.4
0.3
13.1
AB
978
744
33 B
«
12.0
0.7
*1.2
AB
825
572
34
r
26.3
10.0
16.2
AB
1812
762
35
V
4.1
3.8
0.3
AD
239
16
37
V
1.2
1.0
0.2
AO
84
14
38 A
V
13.3
11.9
1.4
AB
1041
84
39
•a
15.7
9.5
6.2
AB
2351
433
4 A
i
2.0
1.8
C.2
AD
174
15
4 B
f
40.7
3.5
37.2
AB
3543
2306
4 C
•;8»b
65.5
6.7
58.8
AB
5899
4999
4 D
V,j
222.2
35.2
187.0
AB
16664
13277
4 F
n
7.4
0.7
6.6
AB
390
318
4 C

21.2
0,2
21.0
AB
1440
1345
40
ad
3.4
0.4
3.0
WB
NA
NA
401
b
2,3
2.1
0.2
NB
NA
WA
404
%
5,0
1.9
3.1
NB
WA
WA
410
V
0.6
0.0
0.6
NB
NA
NA
422
H
2.5
1.6
0.9
WB
WA
WA
501
d
3.4
1.7
1.7
WB
WA
WA
502
E
2.7
0,0
2.7
NI
WA
WA
504
D
0.2
0.0
0.2
WI
NA
0
505
0
0.5
0.5
0.0
Afi
26
o
58
a
2.0
0.2
1.8
NB
WA
NA
91
L
2.3
2.2
3.1
A3
132
o
92
L
2.0
2.0
0.0
AB
111
o
97
I
13.8
0.0
13.8
AI
1088
757
98
L
4.9
0.0
4.9
Ar
262
238
386
99
L
28.0
16.3
11.7
AB
1707
Wacar Quality Seer*
Wildlife Hat.
Ba»« ?oat
Scoc«
Impact
Social Sig. Sccrt Important Hub. Scor«
Ba*« Post Impact B«sa Post Impact
Direct Indirect
Total »cra 793 9 2675.8
HA acre 26.4 46.2
(376)
1260
NA
WA
KA
HA
<6443)
6907
(89)
684
(1089)
998
NA
WA
WA
WA
KA
WA
<41©>
538
NA
NA
HA
NA
(221)
224
(0)
3843
(3320)
21429
(479)
2044
(433)
1865
(397)
8259
(6968)
18010
(668)-
2074
(1000)
1480
(0>
610
(650)
79933
(0)
3228
<27336)
3302 7
(779)
810
(0)
2441
(2576)
5739
(8617)
11122
(5270)
16826
WA
WA
(2715)
3261
(616)
9103
(4)
1091
(1566)
1724
U22)
118
Na
WA
(1 41)
577
NA
WA
(129}
69
(830)
1235
(76)
46
(517)
717
(1192)
1089
<10062J
11283
(7692)
29368
<1216)
5934
(0)
1781
(1045)
4CQ6
<227)
5825
<2047)
8408
(234)
911
(353)
837
(1050)
1759
(223)
170
<69)
41
(956)
920
(922/
1053
(159)
75
(1237)
2891
(900)
4850
(3387)
19774
<72)
449
<9fi)
1059
HA
WA
WA
NA
WA
WA
WA
NA
WA
NA
WA
HA
WA
WA
WA
NA
(28)
21
NA
WA
(132)
75
(111)
38
(330)
578
(24)
49
(1321}
3511


<98942)

1150
0
HA
*769
649
29
NA
WA
WA
32
NA
NA
70
3843
19196
1834
1681
7739
9897
1721
103
610
79185
322a
3605
276
2441
3744
4729
15005
MA
1682
8478
1087
1058
98
VK
381
MA
12
480
0
346
22
5104
*6571
5336
1781
3600
5525
4952
797
695
973
IX
7
83
366
6
2343
4352
16643
404
1051
KA
m
KA
HA
NA
NA
WA
0
0
NA
0
0
509
49
527
<1U>
HA
HA
(4138)
(35)
(969)
KA
NA
HA
(506)
NA
NA
(154)
(0)
<2231)
(2101
(1855
(519)
(8113)
(352)
11377)
W
(748)
<0)
(24412)
(534)
(1995)
(6393)
(1821)
NA
(1580)
<625)
(4)
(666)
(20)
HA
(196)
NA
(57}
(755)
(46i
(371)
(1067)
<6179)
<2797)
(548)
(0)
(406)
(3 00]
(3476)
(115)
(141)
(786)
(159)
<34>
(838)
(684 j
<£S)
"">48)
i 4981
(3131)
(45)
(9)
WA
PA
NA
KA
NA
na
HA
Ka
(21)
KA
(75)
(38)
(59)
(0>
(995}
(82138)
376
NA
WA
4215
403
263
KA
KA
HA
141
NA
NA
0
1981
8791
1101
1435
1166
13688
734
228
0
79933
2436
11161
79
888
1342
12234
10786
NA
1541
7406
0
1217
0
NA
0
MA
0
0
0
0
0
5728
34962
6675
1828
1510
4132
1160
0
0
0
c
0
227
0
2
41
3408
15330
0
360
NA
WA
WA
NA
Na
na
NA
Na
0
JJA
0
0
689
160
952
376
0
WA
1865
382
10
NA
NA
WA
9
NA
NA
0
1981
8776
1093
1430
1093
2647
671
17
0
79185
2436
8605
31
888
1021
5621
0
ma
894
6893
0
907
0
NA
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
2955
17481
2951
1828
1510
3919
713
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
37
176
12903
0
357
KA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WA
NA
0
0
WA
0
0
689
160
398
(0)
NA
NA
(2349)
(20)
(272)
NA
WA
WA
(131)
NA
NA
<0)
(0)
115)
(8)
(4)
(73)
(11041)
(63)
(210)
<0>
(748)
(0)
(2555)
(48)
(0)
(320)
(6613)
(10786)
NA
<«<7)
(508)
(0)
(310)
(0)
ha
(0)
na
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(2773)
(174B1)
(3724)
(0)
(0)
(213)
(447)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(202)
(0)
(2)
(4)
(3232)
<2427)
(0)
(3)
MA
NA
NA
KA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CO)
WA
<0)
<0)
(0)
(0)
54)
(67736)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3172
20067
2736
2469
6898
10489
1456
1347
119
60374
3878
29S5
5
134
0
10037
0
0
0
8073
0
7199
0
0
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34962
5266
1664
4113
4809
4861
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Impact typ»:
* Aa*«.-«*d and XndlTtct bnlvr An .	,
- Not	*nd
«ti
-------
TABLE 2-6
GROWTH CENTERS ALTERNATIVE--DIRECT AND INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS
AANO
Area
104
D
106
a*
108
D,al,as
112
ae
113
ae
122
ak
125
ak
144
ao
145
ao
16
w
18
V
2 2
C
2 3
C
2 4 A
c
2 8
D
2 10
D
2 11
ao
2 12
ap
2 3
X
2 4
X
2 B
a
2 E
A,q
2 F
A
2 G
A
2 H
A
2 M
t ,v
2 N
A
2 Q
B
2 R
B.aa-ac
2 S
B
2 T
A
2 U
A
2 X
C
20
A
200
A
201
q
202
A
214
V
218
C
219
B
22
B
220
ac
222
al
225
D
23
J
24
J
3 1
B, ae
3 2

3 6
ant
3 8
an
303
C
304
0
33 A
s
33 B
s
34
r
35
V
37
V
38 A
V
39
aa
4 A
f
4 B
I
4 C
e.g.h
4 D
v, J
4 F
n
4 G
O.D
40
B
401
h
404
z
410
V
422
D
501
d
502
z
504
C
58
z
87 A
D
90
D
91
D
92
D
97
D
98
D
99
D
Total
Acres
Fill
Acres
Rama in
Acres
Impact
Typa
Watar Quality
Bass Post
Scora
Impact
Wildlife Bab
Base Post
2.7
2.4
0.4
NB
NA


NA

5.7
2.0
3.7
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
117.1
60.6
56.5
AB
9835
3392
(6*43)
6908
2770
12.2
0.6
11.6
AB
8*2
753
(89)
684
6*9
16.6
10.1
6.5
AB
1114
268
(846)
998
31*
4.0
1.9
2.2
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9
1.3
0.6
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.8
7.2
1.7
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.3
7.7
0.6
AB
430
20
(410)
538
32
7.2
0.1
7.2
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.0
2.6
1.4
AB
284
63
(221)
22*
70
97.2
48.2
49.0
AB
6315
2794
(3522)
8259
377*
180.1
3.1
177.0
AS
12607
11505
(1102)
18010
17700
19.0
8.1
10.9
AB
1081
501
(580)
1*80
763
868.8
0.0
868.8
A
69507
69507
(0)
79933
79933
60.0
0.0
60.0
A
2882
2882
(0)
38*3
38*3
274.7
0.4
27*.*
AO
16759
16735
(23)
21429
21399
39.3
0.0
39.3
A
1533
1533
(0)
2044
20*4
180.1
30.9
1*9.2
AB
12607
7310
(5297)
18010
12829
31.9
0.0
31.9
AI
2010
1467
(542)
2074
1882
60.9
0.0
60.9
A
1583
1583
(0)
3228
3228
465.0
259.7
205.3
AB
38132
11704
(26428)
33017
13142
19.8
6.2
13.5
AB
1047
473
(574)
810
540
44.4
21.7
22.7
AB
3196
978
(2218)
2*41
1023
99.8
0.5
99. 3
AO
3293
3278
(16)
5489
5463
74.5
17.8
56.7
AB
6037
3461
(2576)
5739
3744
29.2
1.9
27.4
AB
1315
1122
(193)
1403
1313
185.4
96.2
89.2
AB
13347
5174
(8173)
11122
*728
215.7
5.9
209.9
AB
19846
1*270
(3576)
16826
1*690
14.3
0.1
14.2
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
90.6
38.1
52.6
AB
4712
2*70
(2242)
3262
1840
154.3
2.1
152.2
AD
4783
*717
(66)
9103
8977
101.4
26.2
75.2
AB
4664
2633
(2031)
1724
903
4.0
0.0
*.0
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.1
0.1
8.9
AD
508
500
(8)
118
116
1.9
1.8
0.1
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0
0.0
5.0
A
282
282
(0)
65
65
4.3
2.8
1.5
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
0.0
0.7
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.6
0.0
2.6
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.3
0.0
6.3
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.6
2.9
0.7
AB
156
27
(129)
69
12
17.9
10.2
7.7
AB
1271
*41
(830)
1235
480
1.3
1.3
0.0
AB
76
0
(76)
46
0
11.8
5.5
6.3
AB
787
270
(517)
717
346
17.3
16.9
0.*
AB
1210
18
(1192)
1089
22
173.6
0.0
173.6
AI
15276
11110
(4166)
11283
10068
349.6
0.0
3*9.6
AI
31116
23425
(7692)
29368
26571
74.2
0.4
73.8
AB
6824
5607
(1216)
593*
5386
23.4
0.0
23.*
A
2156
2156
(0)
1781
1781
67.7
3.7
6*. 1
AD
*402
4164
(239)
5825
5509
96.6
60.6
36.1
AB
5315
1732
(3583)
8*08
3032
13.4
0.3
13.1
AB
978
744
(234)
911
797
12.0
0.7
11.2
AB
825
572
(253)
837
695
26.3
10.0
16.2
AB
1812
762
(1050)
1759
973
4.1
3.8
0.3
AD
239
16
(223)
170
11
1.2
1.0
0.2
AD
8*
1*
(69)
*1
7
13. 3
11.9
1.4
AB
1041
8*
(956)
920
83
15.7
9.5
6.2
AB
1351
431
(921)
1053
368
2.0
1.8
0.2
AD
17*
15
(159)
75
6
40.7
3.5
37.2
AB
35*3
2306
(1237)
2891
23*3
65.5
6.7
58.8
AB
5899
4999
(900)
*850
4352
222.2
35.2
187.0
AB
16664
13277
(3387)
19774
16643
7.4
0.7
6.6
AB
390
318
(72)
449
404
21.2
0.2
21.0
AB
1*40
1345
(96)
1059
1051
3.4
3.0
0.*
NB
NA
0
NA
NA
0
2.3
2.1
0.2
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0
1.9
3.1
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6
0.0
0.6
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5
1.6
0.9
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.4
1.7
1.7
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.7
0.0
2.7
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
0.0
0.2
NI
NA
0
NA
NA
0
2.0
0.2
1.8
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.8
0.0
3.8
NI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.4
0.0
5.*
AI
351
227
(124)
286
25*
2.3
2.2
0.1
AB
132
0
(132)
75
0
2.0
2.0
0.0
AB
111
0
(111)
38
0
13.8
0.0
13.8
A
1088
1088
(0)
578
578
4.9
0.0
*.9
A
262
262
(0)
49
49
28.0
16.3
11.7
AB
1707
*91
(1216)
1511
550
_ _ _ _ _—

—
— — — — — —



_______
______






(99956)


Direct
Indirect




1 acr.
885.6
2331.7






A acrt
29.9
60.*






Score
Impact
Social Sig. Score
Base Post Impact
Important H»b. Score
Post Impact
NA
NA
(4138)
(35)
(684)
NA
NA
NA
(506)
NA
(154)
(4485)
(310)
(717)
(°>
(0)
(30)
(0)
(5181)
(191)
(0)
(19875)
(269)
(1418)
(26)
(1995)
(89)
(6395)
(2137)
NA
(1423)
(126)
(821)
NA
(2)
NA
(0)
NA
NA
NA
NA
(57)
(755)
(46)
(371)
(1067)
(1215)
(2797)
(548)
(0)
(316)
(5376)
(115)
(141)
(786)
(159)
(34)
(838)
(684)
(69)
(548)
(498)
(3131)
(45)
(9)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(32)
(75)
(38)
(0)
(0)
(962)
(71716)
NA
NA
*215
403
283
NA
NA
NA
141
NA
0
1166
13688
228
79933
1981
8791
1101
13688
734
2436
11161
79
888
1198
1342
701
12234
10786
NA
1541
7406
1217
NA
0
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
5728
34962
6675
1828
4132
1160
0
0
0
0
0
227
0
2
41
3408
15330
0
360
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
689
160
952
0
NA
1865
382
111
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
0
588
4602
131
79933
1981
8779
1101
3431
734
2436
4928
54
455
1192
1021
657
5620
0
NA
894
7304
903
NA
0
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
5728
17481
2951
1828
3908
433
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
37
176
12903
0
357
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
0
0
689
160
386
NA
NA
(2349)
(20)
(172)
NA
NA
NA
(131)
NA
(0)
(578)
(9086)
(97)
(0)
(0)
(12)
(0)
(10256)
(0)
(0)
(6233)
(25)
(433)
(6)
(320)
(45)
(6615)
(10786)
NA
(647)
(102)
(314)
NA
(0)
NA
(0)
NA
NA
NA
NA
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(17481)
(3724)
(0)
(224)
(727)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(202)
(0)
(2)
(4)
(3232)
(2427)
(0)
(3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(566)
(76817)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6898
10489
1347
60374
3172
20067
2736
10489
14 56
3878
2955
5
134
3693
0
126
10037
0
0
0
8073
7199
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34962
5266
1664
4809
4861
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5262
0
55839
2549
15080
1223
4154
: . '.3
3807
228
0
0
2268
0
84
1890
0
0
0
5414
4047
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33322
3574
1443
3213
878
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(6893)
(5227)
(1347)
(4535)
(623)
(4987)
(1512)
(6335)
(113)
(71)
(2727)
(5)
(134)
(1425)
(0)
(41)
(8147)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(2659)
(3152)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1640)
(1692)
(220)
(1596)
(3983)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(59065)
Impact type: AI ¦ Assessed and Indirect only;
NI ¦ Not assessed and Indirect
-	and Direct onlyi AB - Assessed and Both,
i - Not assessed and Dlr.ct only, NB - Not assessed and Both
HA » Not Assessed

-------

Planning
Total
Fill Ramaln Impact
Uatar Quality
AANO
Araa
Aeraa
Acraa
Acra*
Typ*
Baaa
Poat
100
H
22.1
0.0
22.1
AI
1614
1238
104
I
2.7
2.4
0.4
NB
NA
0
106
as
5.7
2.0
3.7
NB
NA
NA
108
G,al,aa
117.1
60.6
56.5
AB
9834
3391
112
a*
12.2
0.6
11.6
AB
842
753
113
a*
16.6
10.1
6.5
AB
1114
268
122
*k
4.0
1.9
2.2
NB
NA
NA
123
J
1.2
1.2
0.0
NB
NA
0
125
ak
1.9
1.3
0.6
NB
NA
NA
144
ao
8.8
7.2
1.7
NB
NA
NA
145
ao
8.3
7.7
0.6
AB
430
20
147
*<\
1.4
1.4
0.0
NB
NA
NA
16
V
7.2
0.1
7.2
NB
NA
NA
18
V
4.0
2.6
1.4
AB
284
63
2 10
I
60.0
0.0
60.0
A
2882
2882
2 11
ao
274.7
0.4
274.4
AD
16759
16735
2 12
«P
39.3
0.0
39.3
A
1533
1533
2 13
aq
35.9
0.1
35.8
AD
1399
1395
2 2
E.F
97.2
90.4
6.7
AB
6315
350
2 3
E.F.L
180.1
87.0
93.2
AB
12607
4844
2 4A
E
19.0
13.2
5.8
AS
1081
301
2 8
I
868.8
14.4
854.5
AB
69507
66649
2 B
a
60.9
0.0
60.9
A
1583
1583
2 E
B,1,m,q
465.0
300.6
164.4
<-7 "
38132
9535
2 F
k
19.8
12.1
7.7

1047
268
2 C
B
44.4
0.0
44.4
a:
3196
2131
2 J
C
8.5
5.1
3.5
AB
495
135
2 K
c
404.9
130.8
274.1
A3
17410
11513
2 M
t ,v
0
74.5
17.8
56.7
AB
6037
3461
2 Q
185.4
85.3
100.1
AB
13347
5905
2 R
M.aa-ac
215.7
34.5
181.3
AB
19846
10513
2 S
D
14.3
0.0
14.3
NB
NA
NA
2 T
B
90.6
38.1
52.6
AB
4712
2208
2 U
B
154.3
2.4
151.9
AD
4783
4708
2 X
E,F
101.4
41.2
f-
0	0	(°
0	0	(°
0	0	(°>
o	o	18!
0	0
0	0	12
o	0
0	0	<2?
0	0	0
0	0	(°>
0	0	(°)
o	0	!2i
0	0	(°>
3168	2586	(5JJ1
20067	15080	(4987)
2736	1223	(l*1?!
2469	628	(1840)
6898	0	(6898
10489	701	(9788)
1347	0	(1347)
60374	52231	(8143)
3878	3807	(71
2955	1117	(183?
5	5	CO)
134	134	(0
0	0	Cg>
10077	3237	(6840)
0	0	CO)
10037	2574	C'463)
0	0	c°)
0	0	CO'
0	0	CO)
8073	5364	(2709)
7199	1836	(5363)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	CO)
0	0	(0)
69	69	(°)
1719	1719	(0
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
5	0	(0)
0	0	<0
o	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
34962	22464	(12498)
4158	0	(4158
637	71	(566)
5485	0	(5485)
5266	0	(5266
1664	1443	(220)
4809	0	(4809)
4861	923	(3938)
0	0	(°)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
0	0	(0)
(96320)
Impact typ*: AI m A«a*»-«d and Indlract onlyi AD »	n<
NI - Not aaaaaiad and Indlract onlyi ND - Not »««ai"a^0Di?Jc£Bonl$"S5"dN*td B°th'
id *nd Both
NA - Not

-------
3.0 THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES AND RARE/UNIQUE HABITATS
3.1 SCREENING-LEVEL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR IN-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
3.1.1 Method for Assessing Impacts
Impacts to threatened or endangered (T/E) species and rare or unique (R/U)
habitats were assessed by measuring direct loss or indirect effects for
these important habitats. The important habitat (IH) attribute of the
wetland indexing system provides an analytical basis to evaluate impacts to
T/E species and R/U habitats. The wetland indexing system (briefly
described in section 2.0 of the Alternatives Screening Analysis) allows for
measurement of impacts to T/E and R/U habitats caused by potential impacts
to wetlands. The indexing system has also been applied to assess impacts
to T/E and R/U habitats in upland areas.
The two general characteristics measured for this analysis are: (1) whether
or not the area is a habitat for T/E species, as identified from available
sources; and (2) whether or not the habitat is rare or unique, also as
identified from available sources. The identification and evaluation of
T/E and R/U impacts are based on the potential for displacement of T/E
species or loss of R/U habitats as previously identified in federal, state,
and local sources (see figure 3-8 in "Chapter 3: Description of the
Affected Environment"). The loss of T/E and R/U habitats assumes loss of
environmental and habitat characteristics. Such characteristics are
incorporated by reference as identified by the original sources.
In the wetland indexing system, a wetland attribute was established to
evaluate T/E and R/U habitat impacts—the important habitat (IH) attribute.
To calculate the IH attribute, a numerical rank of 5 was assigned to the
T/E characteristic, and a numerical rank of 2 was assigned to the R/u
characteristic, indicating the relative importance of each characteristic
Because T/E species are protected under federal and state law they were
assigned a higher numerical rank. As with the other wetland attributes in
3-1

-------
the wetland indexing system, the numerical ranks for the characteristics
present in each AA are summed, and then normalized to a scale of 0 to 100
(by dividing by the maximum achieved value in the Meadovlands District and
multiplying by 100). There are areas in the District that have been
classified as both T/E and R/U habitats (Kearny Marsh, for example). Thus,
the maximum achieved value in the District is 7 (a rank of 5 for T/E plus a
rank of 2 for R/U). Thus, the maximum achieved index value for the IH
attribute for areas that are both T/E and R/U habitats is 100 (7 divided by
7 times 100)j the index value for areas that are only T/E habitats is 71 (5
divided by 7 times 100); the index value for areas that are only R/U
habitats is 29 (2 divided by 7 times 100); and the index value for areas
that are neither T/r: nor R/U habitats is 0. This index value is multiplied
by the acreage of the habitat to obtain the IH attribute score.
Two types of impacts to T/E and R/U habitats have been assessed: direct
and indirect. As with the other werland attributes, direct impacts are
caused by dirsct fill in wetlands, and involve the complete loss of any
characteristics that were previously present in that area. Direct impacts
are assessed Sy determining the area of T/E or R/U habitats that are within
the planning areas for each of the alternatives. This area is assumed to
lose its T/E and/or R/U habitat characteristics.
Indirect impacts are assumed for T/E habitats that are vithin 200 meters of
a planning area. Vithin this distance, substantial disturbance and
activity in the planning area may indirectly cause impacts to T/E habitat.
Computerized mapping (GIS) was used to identify T/E habitats that are
within 200 meters of a planning area. This border area was then assumed to
lose its T/E habitat characteristic.
After identifying the loss of T/E and R/U habitat area due to the direct
and indirect impacts from the planning areas, the wetland and upland areas
were rescored for the IH attribute. The impact is the difference between
the post-impact IH attribute score and the baseline IH attribute score.
3-2

-------
06/04/92
TABLE 3-1
ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
T/E AND R/U HABITAT IMPACTS
Total	Wetland	Upland
Habitat Araa IH Attribute Habitat Araa IH Attribute Habitat Araa IH Attribute
(acres)	Score	(acres)	Scora	(aeras)	Score
BaleLine
5,611.7
401,922
4,977.5
358,324
634.3
43,398
Upland






Impact
(790.0)
(54,886)
(516.6)
(36,678)
(273.4)
(18,209)
Z Impact
14. IX
13.7X
10.4X
10.2X
43.IX
41.8X
Poet-Impact
4,821.8
347,036
4,460.9
321,647
360.9
25,389
Redevelopment






Impact
(616.1)
(41,436)
(481.6)
(31,890)
(134.5)
(9,546)
X Impact
11.OX
10.3X
9.7X
8.9X
21.2X
21.9X
Poet-Impact
4,995.6
360,486
4,495.9
326,434
499.8
34,052
Highway Corridor*






Impact
(1,062.3)
(73,076)
(913.6)
(62,519)
(148.7)
(10,557)
X Impact
18. 9X
18.2X
18.4X
17.4X
23.4X
24.2X
Poet-Impact
4,549.4
328,847
4,063.9
295,805
485.5
33,041
Diapereed Development





Impact
(1,213.1)
(82,650)
(889.8)
(60,902)
(323.3)
(21,748)
X Impact
21.6X
20.6X
17.9X
17.OX
51.OX
49.9X
Post-Impact
4,398.7
319,272
4,087.7
297,422
311.0
21,850
Crovth Canters






Impact
(1,079.8)
(73,002)
(888.7)
(60,694)
(191.1)
(12,308)
X Impact
19.2X
18.2X
17.9X
16.9X
30. IX
28.2X
Post-Impact
4,532.0
328,920
4,088.8
297,630
443.1
31,290
No Action






Impact
(1,905.9)
(133,041)
(1,591.9)
(111,960)
(314.0)
(21,081)
X Impact
34.OX
33. IX
32.OX
31.2X
49.5X
48.4X
Post-Impact
3,705.9
268,882
3,385.6
246,365
320.2
22,517
Hotai T - T/E Habitat, R - R/U Habitat, M - Both T/E anri R/U habitat

-------
3.1.2 Results of Impact Screening
Table 3-1 summarizes the results of the T/E and R/U impact screening. The
first two columns in table 3-1 present the total area of T/E and R/u
habitat impacts and the impact to the IH attribute score for each
management alternative. The following four columns in table 3-1 provide a
breakdown by wetland and upland areas. The "Post-Impact" line for each
alternative represents the total habitat area and 19 attribute score
subsequent to assignment of impacts from development related to each
alternative.
As shown in table 3-1, the Redevelopment alternative has the lowest impacts
to T/E and R/U h- c-itats (10£ decline in the existing IE attribute score).
The Upland alternative has the next lowest T/E and R/U habitat Impacts (14%
decline in the existing IH attribute score), followed by the Growth Centers
(182), Highway Corridors (182), and Dispersed Development (213!)
alternatives. The No Action alternative has the greatest IH attribute
impacts (33.-, decline in the existing IH attribute score).
Tables 3-2 trough 3-7 present the acreage and attribute score changes in
each assessment area and upland area impacted by the various growth
locations identified for the six management alternatives. The first column
in tables 3-2 through 3-7 indicates the assessment area (AA) number
assigned to each wetland (during the AVID process), for upland areas, this
column contains "Upland". The next column presents the type of habitat in
the AA or upland area (T/E habitat, R/U habitat, or both). AAs that
contain more than one distinct habitat areas are indicated. For example,
AA 2-10 has a T/E habitat (the Hackensack River), and a R/U habitat (the
eastern bank of the Backensack River), and this is indicated by "R+T" in
the TERU Habitat column. The third column of tables 3-2 through 3-7
specifies which of the planning areas impact the AA or upland area. The
fourth column of tables 3-2 through 3-7 presents the acreage of direct
impact, which is the area within the AA or upland area that is either a T/E
or R/U habitat and is within a planning area. The fifth column is the
acreage of indirect impact, which is the area within the AA that is a T/E
habitat, and is in the 200 foot buffer around the planning areas.
3-4

-------
06/25/92
TABLE 3-2
T/E AND R/U HABITAT IMPACTS
UPLAND ALTERNATIVE


lapact
Dlraot
Indlract |
Baaallna

Poat-Impaet
1
Impact


TERU
Planning
Impact
Impact |
IH Attribute

IH Attribute
1
IH Attributa
AAHO
Habitat Azaa(a)
(Acras)
(Acra») j
Indax Acraa
Scoza
Indax
Acras
Scora |
Acta*
Scora
123
I
ak
0.0
1.2 |
71 1.2
87
71
0.0
3 1
(1.2)
(84)
2 1
T
I
0.0
0.1 |
71 224.4
15935
71
224.4
15931 |
(0.1)
(4)
2 10
R+T
0
0.0
8.0 |
55 57.7
3168
52
49.7
2602 |
(8.0)
(566)
2 11
M+R+T
R.an.ao
0.0
69.1 |
74 271.2
20078
75
202.1
15173 |
(69.1)
(4,906)
2 12
T
R
0.0
3.6 |
71 38.5
2736
71
34.9
2477 |
(3.6)
(259)
2 13
T
R
0.0
6.5 |
71 34.8
2469
71
28.2
2004 |
(6.5)
(464)
2 3
T
M,x
0.0
114.1 |
71 179.4
12739
71
65.3
4636 |
(114.1)
(8,103)
2 *
T
M.x.jr
0.0
21.9 |
71 31.9
2265
71
10.0
707 |
(21.9)
(1,558)
2 5
T
M
0.0
0.2 |
71 1.7
120
71
1.4
102 |
(0.2)
(18)
2 8
T
0
0.0
70.7 |
71 850.3
60374
71
779.6
55354 |
(70.7)
(5,020)
2 B
T
a
0.0
1.0 |
71 54.6
3878
71
53.6
3807 |
(1.0)
(71)
2 E
r
F
0.0
0.3 |
71 141.9
10077
71
141.7
10058 |
(0.3)
(19)
2 P
T
F
0.0
23.0 |
71 58.1
4128
71
35.2
2496 |
(23.0)
a,632)
2 Q
T
F,G
0.0
16.6 |
71 141.4
10037
71
124.8
8858 |
(16.6)
(1,179)
2 U
T
C.E
0.0
72.8 |
71 113.7
8072
71
40.9
2902 |
(72.8)
(5,170)
2 Z
T
E
0.0
12.5 |
71 14.1
1002
71
1.6
113 |
(12.5)
(889)
208
T
M,y
0.0
6.6 |
71 8.5
601
71
1.9
135 |
(6.6)
(466)
226
T
ak
0.0
2.7 |
71 2.7
191
71
0.0
0 1
(2.7)
(191)
3 2

P
0.0
25.2 |
100 349.6
34962
95
349.6
33171 |
(25.2)
(1,791)
3 6
T
am,an
0.0
23.8 f
71 74.2
5266
71
50.3
3574 |
(23.8)
(1,692)
3 8
T
an
0.0
3.1 |
71 23.4
1664
71
20.3
1444 |
(3.1)
(220)
301
T
F
0.0
15.7 |
71 57.9
4113
71
42.3
3001 |
(15.7)
(1,112)
46
T
J
0.0
0.7 |
71 0.7
51
71
0.0
0 1
(0.7)
(51)
SO
T
J
0.0
0.7 |
71 2.6
188
71
2.0
140 |
(0.7)
(48)
54
I
7
0.0
16.4 |
71 47.8
3392
71
31.4
2227 |
(16.4)
(1.165)



o
o
516.6





(516.6)
(36,678)
Upland
T
J
3.9
5.2 |
71 9.1
644
71
0.0
0 1
(9.1)
(644)
Upland
T
ak
0.0
8.3 |
71 8.3
588
71
0.0
0 1
(8.3)
(588)
Upland
T
y
23.7
44.0 |
71 67.6
4801
71
0.0
o 1
(67.6)
(4,801)
Upland
T
M,x
79.1
80.7 |
71 159.8
11346
71
0.0
o 1
(159.8)
(11,346)
Upland
R
X
28.6
0.0 |
29 28.6
830
29
0.0
0 I
(28.6)
(830)



135.4
138.0





(273.4)
(18,209)
135.* 654.6	(790.0) (54,886)
Kota: T - T/B Habitat, R - R/U Habitat, M - Both T/E and R/U habitat

-------
06/23/92
TABLE 1-3
TIt AMD X/U HABITAT IMPACTS
REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE


Impact
Direct
Indirect |

Baseline

Post-Impact
1
Impact


TERU
Planning
Impact
Impact |
IH Attribute

IH
Attribute
1
IH Attribute
AANO
Habitat
Araa(a)
(Acre*)
(Acres) |
Index
Acres
Score
Index
Acres
Score |
Acres
Score
123
T
I
0.0
1.2 |
71
1.2
87
71
0.0
0 1
(1.2)
(87)
2 1
T
E
0.0
1.7 |
71
224.4
15935
71
222.8
15816 |
(1.7)
(119)
2 11
M+R+T
an,ao,ap
0.0
70.1 |
74
271.2
20078
75
201.1
15100 |
(70.1)
(4,978)
2 12
T
J,ap
0.0
21.6 |
71
38.5
2736
71
16.9
1199 |
(21.6)
(1.537)
2 13
T
J,ap
0.0
26.9 |
71
34.8
2469
71
7.8
555 |
(26.9)
(1,913)
2 3
T
X
30.9
76.3 |
71
179.4
12739
71
72.2
5127 |
(107.2)
(7,612)
2 4
T
».r
0.0
4.4 |
71
31.9
2265
71
27.5
1956 |
(4.4)
(309)
2 B
T
K,a
0.0
47.6 |
71
54.6
3878
71
7.0
494 |
(47.7)
(3,384)
2 C
T
K
0.0
11.1 |
71
42.1
2988
71
31.0
2203 |
(11.1)
(785)
2 E
R
1
55.0
0.0 |
29
101.9
2955
29
46.9
1361 |
(55.0)
(1.594)
2 K
T
0
0.0
0.2 |
71
141.9
10077
71
141.8
10066 |
(0.2)
(U)
2 U
T
H
0.1
33.4 |
71
113.7
8072
71
80.0
5679 |
(33.7)
(2,393)
2 Z
T
E
0.0
3.9 |
71
14.1
1002
71
10.2
723 |
(3.9)
(279)
208
I
y
0.0
1.2 |
71
8.5
601
71
7.2
513 |
(1.2)
(88)
226
T
i
2.4
0.3 |
71
2.7
191
71
0.0
0 1
(2.7)
(191)
3 2
M
i.«J
O.O
49.7 |
100
349.6
34962

349.6
31431 |
(49.7)
(3,532)
3 6
T
am,an
0.0
23.8 |
71
74.2
5266
71
50.3
3574 |
(23.8)
(1,692)
3 8
T
an
0.0
3.1 |
71
23.4
1664
71
20.3
1444 |
(3.1)
(220)
54
T
y
O.O
16.4 |
71
47.8
3392
71
31.4
2227 |
(16.4)
(1,165)



88.6
393.0






(481.6)
(31,890)
Upland
T
y
23.7
44.0 |
71
67.6
4801 |
71
0.0
0 1
(57.6)
(4,801)
Upland
T
X
6.8
23.4 |
71
30.2
2147 |
71
0.0
0 1
(30.2)
(2,147)
Upland
T
I
1.3
35.1 |
71
36.6
2597 |
71
0.0
0 1
(36.6)
(2.597)
Upland
R
1
0.1
0.0 |
29
0.1
2 1
29
0.0
0 1
(0.1)
(2)



32.0
102.5






(134.5)
(9.546)
120.6 *93.3	(616.1) (41,436)
Mot*: T - T/E Habitat, R - R/U Habitat, M - Both I/E and RIV habitat

-------
06/25/S2
TABLE 3-4
I/E AMD K/U HABITAT IMPACTS
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVE


Impact
Dlract
Ind irect |

Baaelina

Poat-Impaet
1
Impact


TERU
Planning
Impact
Impact |

H Attrlbuta

IH Attribute
1
IH Attribute
AAHO
Habitat
Area(a)
(Accat)
(Acrea) |
Xnde
Acrea
Scon
Inda* Acres
Score {
Acrea
Score
123
T
ak
0.0
1.2 |
7
1.2
87
71 0.0
3 1
(1.2)
(84)
2 1
I
F.H
2.5
40.9 |
7
224.4
15935
71 181.0
12854 I
(43.4)
(3.081)
2 11
K+R+T
an.ao.ap
0.0
70.1 |
7
271.2
20078
75 201.1
15140 |
(70.1)
(4,938)
2 12
T
ap
0.0
21.3 |
7
38.5
2736
71 17.2
1224 |
(21.3)
(1,512)
2 13
T
ap.aq
0.0
25.9 |
7
34.8
2469
71 8.9
628 |
(25.9)
(1,840)
2 2
I
F,G
4.8
46.2 |
7
97.2
6898
71 46.1
3276 |
(51.0)
(3,623)
2 3
T
5,*
62.3
60.7 |
7
179.4
12739
71 56.5
4008 |
(123.0)
(8,731)
2 4
t
*.y
0.0
4.4 1
7
31.9
2265
71 27.5
1956 |
(4.4)
(309)
2 4A
r
r.c
18. S
0.5 |
7
19.0
1347
71 -0.0
-0 |
(19.0)
(1,347)
2 B
T
a
0.0
1.0 |
7
54.4
3878
71 53.6
3807 |
(10)
(71)
2 E
R
1
55.0
0.0 |

101.9
2955
29 46.9
1361 |
(55.0)
(1,594)
2 Q
T
J,K
0.0
31.0 |
7
141.4
10037
71 110.4
7836 |
(31.0)
(2,202)
2 U
T
B,H
1.8
95.0 |
7
113.7
8072
71 16.9
1200 |
(96.8)
(6,873)
2 X
T
F
101.4
0.0 |
7
101.4
7199
71 0.0
0 |
(101.4)
( / , 199)
2 YA
T
r
7.0
0.2 |
7
7.2
514
71 0.0
" 1
(7.2)
(514)
2 YB
T
F
5.9
5.5 |
7
11.4
810
71 0.0
O I
(11.4)
(810)
2 Z

B.H
1.0
13.2 |
7
14.1
1002
71 0.0
° 1
(14.1)
(1,002)
208
T
y
o.o
1.2 |
7
8.3
601
71 7.2
513 |
(1.2)
(88)
218
T
a
0.1
0.6 |
7
0.7
46
71 0.0
0 1
(0.7)
(46)
226
t
ak
0.0
2.7 |
7
2.7
191
71 0.0
0 1
(2.7)
(191)
3 2

aj
0.0
23.1 |
10
349.6
34962
95 349.6
33320 |
(23.1)
(1,643)
3 6
T
am,an
0.0
23.8 |
7
74.2
5266
71 50.3
3574 |
(23.8)
(1,692)
3 8
I
an
0.0
3.1 |
7
23.4
1664
71 20.3
1444 |
(3.1)
(220)
303
I
r
67.7
0.0 |
7
67.7
4809
71 0.0
0 1
(67.7)
<4,809)
304
I
2,F
43.4
53.2 |
7
96.6
6861
71 0.0
0 i
(96.6)
(6,861)
46
T
c
0.0
0.3 |
7
0.7
51
71 0.4
27 |
(0.3)
(24)
504
t
E
0.0
0.2 |
7
0.2
14
71 0.0
0 1
(0.2)
(14)
SOS
t
E
0.5
0.0 |
7
0.5
36
71 0.0
0 1
(0.5)
(36)
54
T
r
0.0
16.4 |
7
47.8
3392
71 31.4
2227 |
(16.4)
(1,165)



371.8
541.8





(913.6)
(62,519)
Upland
T
7
23.7
44.0 |
7
67.6
4801
71 0.0
0 1
(67.6)
(4,801)
Upland
r
r
6.4
0.0 |
7
6.4
458
71 0.0
0 1
(6.4)
(458)
Upland
I
E
11.8
9.1 1
7
20.9
1486
71 0.0
0 I
(20.9)
(1.486)
Upland
T
C,x
22. 4
23.0 |
7
45.4
3223
71 0.0
0 1
(45.4)
(3,223)
Upland
r
ak
0.0
8.3 |
7
8.3
588
71 0.0
o 1
(8.3)
(588)
Upland
R
1
0.1
0.0 |
2
0.1
2
29 0.0
o 1
(0.1)
(2)



64.4
84.3





(148.7)
(10,557)
436.2 626.1	(1,062.3) (73,076)
Hot«, T ¦ t/E Habitat, R - K/U Habitat, M - Both I/E and R/U habitat

-------
06/25192
TABLE 3-5
T/g AND B/U HABITAT IMPACTS
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE


Impact
Direct
Indirect )
Stsmllot


TERU
Plannlni
Impact
Impact |
IB Attribute

AAMO
flftblttt
Aree(e)
(Acre*)
(Acrei) )
Index Acree
Score
2 10
R+T



55 57.7
3168
2 11
M+R+T
K.an.ao
0.4
79.0 |
74 271.2
20078
2 12
T
K
0.0
33.0 |
71 38.5
2736
2 13
T
K.aq
0.0
26.6 |
71 34.8
2469
2 2
T
E
6.1
12.1 |
71 97.2
6898
2 3
T
E.I.x
65.0
113.6 {
71 179.4
12739
2 4
t
i.*,y
2.7
21.2 |
71 31.9
2265
2 4A
1
I
17.5
1.4 |
71 19.0
1347
2 5
t
I
0.0
0.3 |
71 1.7
120
2 a
T
B
6.2
64.5 |
71 350.3
60374
2 B
*
•
0.0
1.0 |
71 J*. 6
3878
2 E
It
A
54.2
0.0 |
29 101.9
2955
2 Q
I
F,ad
94.2
20.6 |
71 141.4
10037
2 U
I
C
1.7
48.2 |
71 113.7
8072
2 X
r
D.E
25.8
19.0 |
71 101.4
7199
20B
i
I.5T
2.9
3.7 |
71 8.5
601
a 2
N
•J
0.0
23.1 |
100 349.6
34962
3 6
1
am, an
0.4
23.4 |
71 74.J
5266
3 8
I
An
0.0
3.1 |
71 23.4
1664
303
T
E
3.5
8.6 t
71 67.7
4809
304
T
D.E
37.2
44.3 1
71 96.«
6861
504
T
D
0.0
0.2 J
71 0.2
14
305
t
D
0.5
0.0 |
71 0.3
36
54
T
y
0.0
16.4 |
71 47.8
3392
Po>t~Iinpacc
IH Attribute
Index Acre* Score
Impact
IB Attribute
Acres Score
Upland
T

Upland
T
0
Upland
r
y
Upland
T
t
Upland
k
8
118.4
B6.1
11*
23.7
15.0
29.S
165.3
571. 4
96.4
9.1
44.0
8.3
0.0
1SB.0
71
71
71
71
29
182. S
20. 9
67.6
23.6
28.6
12956 |
1486 I
4801 |
1675 |
610 |
52
75
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
29
71
71
71
71
93
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
29
49.7
191.8
5.5
8.1
78.»
0.8
B.O
0.0
1.4
779.6
53.6
47.6
26.7
63.7
56.5
1.9
349.6
50.3
20. J
51.7
15.1
0.0
0.0
31.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2602
14444
392
578
5602
56
565
0
101
55154
3807
1382
1893
4525
4315
136
33120
3574
1444
3952
1070
0
0
2227
(B.O)
<79.4)
(33.0)
(26 6)
(18.3)
(178.6)
(23.9)
(I9.0)
<0.3)
(70.7)
<1.0!
(54.2)
(114.7)
(50.0)
<44.9)
(6.6)
(23.1)
(23.8)
(3.1)
(12.1)
(81.6)
(0.2)

-------
06/25/92
TABLE 3-6
T/E AND R/U HABITAT IMPACTS
GROWTH CENTERS ALTERNATIVE
AANO
Impact
TERU Planning
Habitat Araa(a)
Dlract
Impact
(Acra*)
Indlract I
Impact |
(Acraa) I
Basallna
IH Attribute
Indax Acra*
Seora
I Po»t-Impact
| IH Attrlbuta
IIndax Acres Scora
Impact
IH Attrlbuta
Acraa Scora
0.0
1-2 I
71
1.2

1 71
0.0
3
(1.2)
(84)
0.0
8.7 |
55
57.7
3168
1 52
49.0
2553
(8.7)
(615)
0.3
69.8 |
74
271.2
20078
1 75
201.1
15100
(70.1)
(4,978)
0.0
21.3 |
71
38.5
2736
1 71
17.2
1224
(21.3)
(1.512)
0.0
10.7 |
71
34.8
2469
1 71
24.0
1706
(10.7)
(763)
48.1
48.9 |
71
97.2
6898
1 71
0.1
6
(97.1)
(6,893)
34.0
113.5 |
71
179.4
12739
1 71
31.9
2264
(147.5)
(10,475)
0.0
4.4 |
71
31.9
2265
1 71
27.5
1956
(4.4)
(309)
8.1
10.9 |
71
19.0
1347
1 71
0.0
0
(19.0)
(1,347)
0.0
63.9 |
71
850.3
60374
1 71
786.5
55839
(63.9)
(4,535)
0.0
1.0 |
71
54.6
3878
1 71
53.6
3807
(1.0)
(71)
51.0
0.0 |
29
101.9
2955
| 29
50.9
1476
(51.0)
(1,479)
0.2
0.0 |
29
0.2
5
| 29
0.0
0
(0.2)
(5)
4.6
0.0 I
29
4.6
134
I 29
0.0
0
(4.6)
(134)
0.0
20.1 1
71
80.3
5704
1 71
60.3
4279
(20.1)
(1.425)
1.4
0.0 |
29
4.3
126
| 29
2.9
84
(1.4)
(42)
94.2
20.6 |
71
141.4
10037
1 71
26.6
1890
(114.7)
(8,147)
2.0
35.4 |
71
113.7
8072
1 71
76.2
5414
(37.4)
(2,659)
26.2
18.2 I
71
101.4
7199
1 71
57.0
4047
(44.4)
(3,152)
0.0
1-2 I
71
8.5
601
1 71
7.2
513
(1.2)
(88)
0.0
2.7 I
71
2.7
191
1 71
0.0
0
(2.7)
(191)
0.0
23.1 |
100
349.6
34962
I 95
349.6
33320
(23.1)
(1,643)
0.4
23.4 |
71
74.2
5266
1 71
50.3
3574
(23.8)
(1,692)
0.0
3.1 1
71
23.4
1664
1 71
20.3
1444
(3.1)
(220)
3.7
18.8 |
71
67.7
4809
1 71
45.2
3213
(22.5)
(1.596)
60.5
15.9 |
71
96.6
6861
1 71
20.2
1436
(76.4)
(5,425)
0.0
0.2 I
71
0.2
14
1 71
0.0
0
(0.2)
(14)
0.0
0.5 |
71
0.5
36
1 71
0.0
0
(0.5)
(36)
0.0
16.4 |
71
47.8
3392
1 71
31.4
2227
(16.4)
(1,165)
334.8
553.8






(888.7)
(60,694)
39.0
46.1 |
71
85.2
6048
1 71
0.0
0
I (85.2)
(6,048)
23.7
44.0 |
71
67.6
4801
1 71
0.0
0
1 (67.6)
(4,801)
0.0
8.3 |
71
8.3
588
1 71
0.0
0
1 (8.3)
(588)
28.8
0.0 |
29
28.8
837
| 29
0.0
0
1 (28.8)
(837)
1.2
0.0 |
29
1.2
35
| 29
0.0
0
1 (1.2)
(35)
92.7
98.4






(191.1)
(12,308)
427.6
652.2






	 ..i
123
T
ak
2 10
R+T
D
2 11
M+R+T
an.ao
2 12
T
ap
2 13
T
ap
2 2
T
C
2 3
T
C.x
2 4
T
x,y
2 4A
T
C
2 8
T
D
2 B
T
a
2 E
R
A
2 F
R
A
2 G
R
A
2 H
I
A
2 N
R
A
2 Q
T
B
2 U
T
A
2 X
T
C
208
T
y
226
T
ak
3 2
M
aj
3 6
T
am,an
3 8
T
an
303
T
C
304
T
C
504
T
C
505
T
C
54
T
y
Upland
Upland
Upland
Upland
Upland
T
T
T
R
R
C,K
y
ak
D
A
Not*: T m t/e Habitat, R " 1'° Habitat, M ¦ Both T/E and R/U habitat

-------
06/25/92
TABLE 3-7
T/E AND R/U HABITAT IMPACTS
MO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
AANO
Impact
TERU Planning
Habitat Araa(a)
Diract Indirect
Impact Impact
(Acras) (Acras)
123




2 1
T
F
0.0
7.9 |
2 10
R+T
I
0.0
8.2 |
2 11
M+R+T
K.an.ao.ap
0.3
69.8 |
2 12
T
•P
0.0
21.3 |
2 13
T
»P.«I
0.0
25.9 |
2 2
T
E.F
90.4
6.7 |
2 3
T
E.F.L
86.9
82.6 |
2 4
T
L
0.0
2.1 |
2 4A
T
E
13.2
5.8 |
2 6
R+T
F
0.0
8.9 |
2 8
T
I.K
0.1
114.6 |
2 B
T
a
0.0
1.0 |
2 E
R
B.l
63.4
0.0 |
2 H
T
C
0.0
0.1 |
2 K
T
C
i 'j/ _ y
78.6 |
2 Q
T
D,M
83. /
21.5 |
2 U
T
B
2.3
35.9 |
2 X
T
E,F
41.2
34.4 |
2 YA
T
F
0.2
4.0 |
2 YB
T
F
5.9
5.5 |
208
T
L
0.0
1.2 |
211
M+T
A
18.7
33.3 |
221
T
J
2.7
0.0 |
226
T
J.ak
0.1
2.6 |
3 2
M

64,3
85.5 |
3 3
T
K
42.9
15.7 |
3 4
R
K
19.5
0.0 |
3 5
T
K
62.1
15.1 |
3 6
T
K, an
69.4
4.7 |
3 7
T
K
0.0
14.5 |
3 8
T
K, an
0.0
19.3 |
303
T
E.F
56.0
11.7 |
304
T
E
65.7
9.5 |
500
M+T
A
0.0
3.6 |
504
T
E
0.0
0.2 |
505
T
E
0.0
0.5 |
54
T
L
0.0
16.4 |
69
T
K
0.0
0.5 |
81
T
K
1.3
6.9 |
82
T
K
0.0
6.7 |
Basallna
IB Attribute
Indax Acraa Scora
Post-Impact
IH Attribute

Impact

IH Attributa
Scora


0
(1.2)
(87)
15373
(7.9)
(562)
2587
(8.2)
(581)
15100
(70.1)
(4,978)
1224
(21.3)
(1,512)
628
(25.9)
(1,840)
0
(97.2)
(6,898)
701
(169.5)
(12,038)
2115
(2.1)
(150)
0
(19.0)
(1.347)
7656
(8.9)
(635)
52232
(114.7)
(8,143)
3807
(1.0)
(71)
1117
(63.4)
(1,838)
5698
(0.1)
(5)
3237
(96.3)
(6,840)
2575
(105.1)
(7,463)
5364
(38.2)
(2,709)
1836
(75.5)
(5,363)
21}
(4.2)
(299)
0
(11.4)
(810)
513
(1.2)
(88)
8959
(51.9)
(4,238)
0
(2.7)
(191)
-0
(2.7)
(191)
22461
(149.8)
(12,501)
0
(58.6)
(4,158)
71
(19.5)
(565)
0
(77.2)
(5,485)
0
(74.2)
(5,266)
951
(14.5)
(1.026)
293
(19.3)
(1,371)
-0
(67.7)
(4,809)
1521
(75.2)
(5,340)
27084
(3.6)
(255)
0
(0.2)
(14)
a
(0.5)
(36)
2227
(16.4)
(1,165)
22151
(0.5)
(38)
-0
(8.2)
(579)
0
(6.7)
(476)

(1,591.9)
(111,960)
0
(78.9)
(5,601)
0
(80.3)
(5,702)
0
(14.6)
(1,039)
0
(36.0)
(2,558)
0
(1.1)
(76)
0
(2.0)
(145)
0
(72.1)
(5,120)
0
(0.1)
(2)
0
(28.8)
(837)

(314.0)
(21.081)
809.2
782.7
185.5
128.5
1
1.2
224.4
57.7
271.2
38.5
34.8
97.2
179.4
31.9
19.0
153.5
850.3
54.6
101.9
80.3
141.9
141.4
113.7
101.4
7.2
11.4
8.5
16X.7
2.7
2.7
349.6
58.6
22.0
77.2
74.2
27.9
23.4
67.7
96.6
385.0
0.2
0.5
47.8
312.5
8.2
6.7
87
15935
3168
20078
2736
2469
6898
12739
2265
1347
8290
60374
3878
2955
5704
10077
10037
8072
7199
514
810
601
13197
191
191
34962
4158
637
5485
5266
1977
1&64
4809
6861
27339
14
36
3392
22189
579
476
Upland
T
L
26.5
52.4 |
71
78.9
5601
Upland
T
J.ak
49.1
31.2 |
71
80.3
5702
Upland
T
A
6.4
8.2 |
71
14.6
1039
Upland
T
E
26.9
9.2 |
71
36.0
2558
Upland
T
C
0.0
1.1 |
71
1.1
76
Upland
T
K
1.4
0.6 |
71
2.0
145
Upland
T
F
46.3
25.8 |
71
72.1
5120
Upland
R
1
0.1
0.0 |
29
0.1
2
Upland
R
I
28.8
0.0 |
29
28.8
837
29
29
0.0
216.5
49.5
201.1
17.2
8.9
0.0
9.9
29.8
0.0
144.6
735.7
53.6
38.5
80.3
45.6
36.3
75.5
25.9
3.0
0.0
7.2
109.7
0.0
-0.0
285.4
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.
13.
4.
-0.
21.
381.
0.
0.0
31. ,
312. 0
-0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
994.7
911.2
(1,905.9) (133,041)
Not*i T - T/B Habitat, R -
R/U Habitat, H -
Both T/E and R/U habitat

-------
The remaining columns of tables 3-2 through 3-7 present the existing
condition (baseline), post-impact, and impact values for the IH attribute.
The index is calculated based on the type of habitat (R/U habitats have an
index of 29, T/E habitats have an index of 71, and habitats that are both
T/E and R/U have an index of 100). The acreage is the area within the AA
or upland area that is also a T/E or R/U habitat. The baseline and
post-impact scores are determined by multiplying the index by the acreage.
(ds/3190)
3-11

-------
4.0 WATER QUALITY
4.1 SCREENING-LEVEL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR IN-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
4.1.1 Method for Assessing Impacts
The major source of impacts to water quality from the different management
alternatives is considered to be from stormvater runoff. It is assumed
that solid and sanitary (liquid) wastes for all management plans will be
handled in the same way for all alternatives, and therefore these pollutant
sources are not determinative in the comparison of alternatives. For the
screening level impact assessment it will also be assumed that storm runoff
will be discharged into the nearest stream or tidal channel without any
treatment. These assumptions facilitate a more equitable comparison
between the different management alternatives.
The impacts of storm discharges on water quality in the District were
assessed by estimating the impacts of specific pollutants to be discharged
from each developed area. The mass of pollutants discharged during an
average storm event was estimated using the regression models that have
been developed from the data collected in the National Urban Runoff Program
[NURP](Tasker, G.D. and N.E. Driver, 1988. Nationwide Regression Models for
Predicting Urban Runoff Water Quality at Unmonitored Sites. Water Resources
Bulletin 24: 1091-1101). These regression equations calculate the mass
contribution to a waterway in terms of "pounds of contaminant per storm"
discharged for each modeled development area. These mass loadings were
then converted into concentrations based on the volume of water discharged
during a rain event from each modeled area. The volume of rain during an
average storm was based on an annual average rainfall of 43 inches and an
average of 50 rain events per year.
Of the ten contaminants for which regression models have been developed,
seven are considered to be significant in the Meadowlands, and have the
potential of changing water quality. These are:
4-1

-------
o Chemical Oxygen demand (COD) as a substitute for, and indicator of
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which was not modeled
o Total Suspended Solids (SS)
o Nitrogen (evaluated as TKN)
total nitrogen (TN)
ammonia (TA)
o Toxic metals
lead (Pb)
copper (Cu)
zinc (Zn)
Three contaminants for which equations are available (dissolved solids,
total phosphorus, and dissolved phosphorus) were not evaluated in the
alternatives screening because they are not considered to cause major
impacts in a brackish estuary such as the Meadowlands. Dissolved solids
are always high in marshes as a result of high primary productivity, and
phosphorus is not usually the limiting nutrient in estuarine areas.
The concentrations of contaminants in the runoff (as calculated from the
regression equations) were then compared with the available data on ambient
water quality values in the Hackensack River and its tributaries. Where
the estimated concentrations are greater than background, there is a
potential for some impact to water quality the modeled area.
The severity of the impacts were ranked in a semi-quantitative manner using
the following potential impact ratings: Low impact potential, Moderate
impact potential, and Severe impact potential. A series of criteria were
developed by which these semi-quantitative ranks have been assigned. These
ranks were determined based on the statistical distributions of the water
quality concentrations calculated for each planning area, and are not based
on evaluations of instream dispersion nor have the concentrations been
tested for actual aquatic effect. However, the water quality
concentrations did group into ranges that were useful for comparing
relative potential impacts. The criteria are summarized in table 4-1.
4-2

-------
TABLE 4-1
CRITERIA FOR RANKING IMPACTS
Parameter	Low Impacts	Moderate Impacts Severe Impacts
Oxygen Demand
Change is DO:
SS
Nitrogen
Copper, Lead
Zinc
<0.1 mg/1
<	1.5x increase
over background
<	10X increase
over background
Factor of 2 or
less greater
than EPA "Gold
Book" criteria
0.1-0.5 mg/1
< 2x increase
over background
10-50* increase
over background
2-5 fold increase
over "Gold Book"
criteria
>0.5 mg/1
> 2x increase
over background
>50% increase
over background
>5 fold increase
over "Gold Book"
criteria
(ds/1975)

-------
4.1.2 Results of Impact Screening
The estimated loadings of contaminants from each planning area are
summarized by alternative in tables 4-2 to 4-8. When these results are
compared to the water quality data collected by the HMDC between 1978 and
1988, only SS in the discharges is usually higher than background values.
Of the metals, which were not sampled in the HMDC study, Copper and Lead
were modeled to be present in concentrations higher than the EPA standards
for acute toxicity to marine organisms (Gold Book standards), at the
discharge point.
The concentrations in the discharges estimated for the Secondary Office/
Warehousing component of the alternatives (table 4-8) are also generally
higher than those exhibited by the principal planning areas in each of the
alternatives (tables 4-2 to 4-7 do not contain the secondary office/
warehousing component). The suspended solids concentrations range as high
as 369 mg/1, and the copper levels in some areas may be as high as 0.06
mg/1 (for both constituents a factor of two larger than those typically
exhibited in the principal planning areas for the alternatives). The
secondary office/warehousing component, however, exhibits similar impacts
for all six principal alternatives. The water quality concentrations at
the point of discharge (based on the mass loadings) shown for the secondary
office/warehousing component occur in addition to the concentrations from
the principal planning areas associated with each of the alternatives.
The results of the modeling of water quality runoff for each contaminant
are presented below.
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand). The predicted COD in stormwater discharges
from the screening analysis ranged between 5 mg/1 and 60 mg/1 for all
modeled areas. The average year-to-year background concentration of COD at
the 18 stations monitored by HMDC ranges between 50 mg/1 and 300 mg/1. All
of the predicted concentrations in the stormwater discharges are
approximately equal to or less than recorded COD levels, thus there is
4- 4

-------
TABLE 4-2
WATER QUALITY OF PLANNING AREA RUNOFF
UPLAND ALTERNATIVE

Size
COD
SS
TN
AN
CU
PB
ZN
Planning Area
(Acres)
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
(A) Bellman's Creek
31
7.82
51.69
0.30
0.27
0.01
0.02
oToi
(B) Arena
127
5.41
28.81
0.17
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.01
(C) Sportsplex
14
12.40
87.87
0.50
0.45
0.01
0.04
0.02
(D) UOP
36
7.29
47.39
0.27
0.24
0.01
0.02
0.01
(E) Red Roof Inn
22
9.39
64.15
0.37
0.33
0.01
0.03
0.02

7
20.31
149.96
0.85
0.77
0.02
0.06
0.04
(H) Standard Tool
79
5.63
32.81
0.19
0.17
0.01
0.02
0.01
(F) Tony's Old Mill
7
20.31
149.96
0.85
0.77
0.02
0.06
0.04
(G) Chromakill Creek
65
5.88
35.38
0.20
0.18
0.01
0.02
0.01

20
9.92
68.37
0.39
0.35
0.01
0.03
0.02
(K) Enterprise Ave. So.
38
7.11
45.98
0.26
0.24
0.01
0.02
0.01
(M) PR - 2 (II)
79
5.63
32.81
0.19
0.17
0.01
0.02
0.01
(N) SCP
10
15.62
113.12
0.64
0.58
0.02
0.05
0.03
(R) Koppers Coke
28
8.23
54.99
0.31
0.28
0.01
0.02
0.02
(0) Laurel Hill
144
5.45
28.24
0.17
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.01

25
8.74
59.04
0.34
0.30
0.01
0.03
0.02
(L) Walsh
64
5.91
35.61
0.21
0.18
0.01
0.02
0.01
(J) BCC East
6
22.86
170.06
0.96
0.87
0.03
0.07
0.04
(P) Kearny
27
8.39
56.24
0.32
0.29
0.01
0.02
0.02
23-Jan-92	829

-------
TABLE 4-3
WATER QUALITY OF PLANNING AREA RUNOFF
REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Planning Area
(A)	UOPSite"
(B)	Rutherford STP
(C)	Bellman's Creek
(D)	North Bergen
(E)	Wood Ave.
(F)	Secaucus 1-495
(G)	Secaucus Rd.
(H)	Castle Rd.
(I)	Kearny West
(J) Jersey City
(K) Little Ferry Waterfront
(N) Riverview
Size
(Acres)
COD
mg/1
50
6.42
36
7.34
36
7.34
17
11.03
31
7.87
8
18.49
28
8.29
10
15.73
26
8.62
33
7.64
42
6.86
111
5.45
22
9.45
10
15.73
50
6.42
31
7.87
10
15.73
SS
mg/1
TN
mg/1
40.11
0.23
47.70
0.27
47.70
0.27
76.98
0.43
52.04
0.30
135.63
0.76
55.35
0.31
113.87
0.64
57.97
0.33
50.15
0.28
43.83
0.25
29.83
0.17
64.58
0.37
113.87
0.64
40.11
0.23
52.04
0.30
113.87
0.64
AN
mg/1
CU
mg/1
6721
0.01
0.24
0.01
0.24
0.01
0.39
0.01
0.27
0.01
0.69
0.02
0.28
0.01
0.58
0.02
0.30
0.01
0.26
0.01
0.22
0.01
0.15
0.01
0.33
0.01
0.58
0.02
0.21
0.01
0.27
0.01
0.58
0.02
PB
mg/1
ZN
mg/1
0.02
oToI
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.03
23-Jan-92
551

-------
TABLE 4-4
WATER QUALITY OF PLANNING AREA RUNOFF
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVE
Planning Area
Size
(Acres)
COD
mg/1
SS
ng/1
TN
rng/1
AN
mg/1
CU
mg/1
PB
rag/1
ZN
mg/1
(D) Veterans Blvd
22
9?45
64?58
0.37
5733
o7oI
o7o3
6702
(C) Arena
140
5.47
28.54
0.17
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.01
(B) Sportsplex
78
5.68
33.17
0.19
0.17
0.01
0.02
0.01
(A) TAZ 92 (south)
32
7.75
51.06
0.29
0.26
0.01
0.02
0.01
(G) B1.219A (Rutherford)
17
11.03
76.98
0.43
0.39
0.01
0.03
0.02

55
6.22
38.33
0.22
0.20
0.01
0.02
0.01
(F) East Ruth. Bl. 109
216
5.99
28.00
0.17
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.01
(E) Berrys Creek Center
65
5.92
35.61
0.20
0.18
0.01
0.02
0.01
(H) Meadowlands Pkwy
35
7.43
48.47
0.28
0.25
0.01
0.02
0.01

22
9.45
64.58
0.37
0.33
0.01
0.03
0.02
(I) Plaza Center
17
11.03
76.98
0.43
0.39
0.01
0.03
0.02
(J) Mill Creek
2
57.14
442.06
2.46
2.24
0.07
0.17
0.10

8
18.49
135.63
0.76
0.69
0.02
0.06
0.03
(K) Chronakill Creek
65
5.92
35.61
0.20
0.18
0.01
0.02
0.01

10
15.73
113.87
0.64
0.58
0.02
0.05
0.03

18
10.64
73.97
0.42
0.38
0.01
0.03
0.02
(L) County Ave.
16
11.45
80.35
0.45
0.41
0.01
0.03
0.02

16
11.45
80.35
0.45
0.41
0.01
0.03
0.02
(M) Secaucus 1-495
10
15.73
113.87
0.64
0.58
0.02
0.05
0.03

28
8.29
55.35
0.31
0.28
0.01
0.02
0.02
(N) Secaucus Pat Plank Rd.
17
11.03
76.98
0.43
0.39
0.01
0.03
0.02
(0) SU - 2
142
5.48
28.48
0.17
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.01

28
8.29
55.35
0.31
0.28
0.01
0.02
0.02
23-Jan-92	1,059

-------
TABLE 4-5
WATER QUALITY OF PLANNING AREA RUNOFF
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS
ALTERNATIVE
Planning Area
(A)~TAZ~92~(north)
(B)	TAZ 92 (south)
(C)	Sportsplex
(D)	Berrys Creek
(E)	Rutherford Bl. 109
(F)	Mill Creek
(G)	SU - 2
(H)	Laurel Hill
(J) Kearny West
(L) Allied
(K) Koppers Coke
(I)	PR - 2
Size
(Acres)
COD
mg/1
SS
mg/1
TN
mg/1
AN
mg/1
CU
mg/1
PB
mg/1
ZN
mg/1
81
5~.IZ
32?73
o7l9
07l7
oToi
0?016
o75i
32
7.75
51.06
0.29
0.26
0.01
0.023
0.01
58
6.12
37.41
0.21
0.19
0.01
0.018
0.01
65
5.92
35.61
0.20
0.18
0.01
0.017
0.01
70
5.81
34.56
0.20
0.18
0.01
0.017
0.01
20
9.99
68.83
0.39
0.35
0.01
0.030
0.02
50
6.42
40.11
0.23
0.21
0.01
0.019
0.01
97
5.50
30.91
0.18
0.16
0.01
0.016
0.01
92
5.53
31.40
0.18
0.16
0.01
0.016
0.01
169
5.61
27.99
0.16
0.15
0.01
0.015
0.01
37
7.25
46.97
0.27
0.24
0.01
0.021
0.01
28
8.29
55.35
0.31
0.28
0.01
0.024
0.02
28
8.29
55.35
0.31
0.28
0.01
0.024
0.02
39
7.08
45.62
0.26
0.23
0.01
0.021
0.01
58
6.12
37.41
0.21
0.19
0.01
0.018
0.01
20
9.99
68.83
0.39
0.35
0.01
0.030
0.02
27
8.44
56.62
0.32
0.29
0.01
0.025
0.02
23-Jan-92	971

-------
TABLE 4-6
WATER QUALITY OF PLANNING AREA RUNOFF
GROWTH CENTERS ALTERNATIVE
Planning Area
Size
(Acres)
COD
mg/1
SS
mg/1
TN
mg/1
AN
rag/1
cu
mg/1
PB
mg/1
ZN
mg/1
(A) Empire Blvd Area
220
6 To 3
28?04
0.17
0.15
oToi
0.02
oToi

69
5.83
34.75
0.20
0.18
0.01
0.02
0.01

62
6.00
36.33
0.21
0.19
0.01
0.02
0.01
(B) Harmon Meadow Area
97
5.50
30.91
0.18
0.16
0.01
0.02
0.01

67
5.88
35.17
0.20
0.18
0.01
0.02
0.01

63
5.97
36.08
0.21
0.19
0.01
0.02
0.01
(D) Secaucus Transfer Area
20
9.99
68.83
0.39
0.35
0.01
0.03
0.02

63
5.97
36.08
0.21
0.19
0.01
0.02
0.01

169
5.61
27.99
0.16
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.01
(C) Berrys Creek Area
97
5.50
30.91
0.18
0.16
0.01
0.02
0.01

86
5.58
32.07
0.19
0.17
0.01
0.02
0.01

10
15.73
113.87
0.64
0.58
0.02
0.05
0.03
23-Jan-92
1,023








-------
TABLE 4-7
WATER QUALITY OF PLANNING AREA RUNOFF
NO ACTION (NO SAMP)
ALTERNATIVE
Planning Area
Size
(Acres)
(A) Teterboro
23
(B) IR-4
224
(B) IR-4
10
(C) IR-3
147
(D) IR-2
87
(E) Berrys Creek
93
(E) Berrys Creek
79
(F) PR-2
226
(F) PR-2
10
(G) SU-2
95
(H) TC-3
22
(I) PR-3
138
(I) PR-3
10
(J) SU-1
76
(K) SU-3
322
(L) RD Park
73
(H) HC Secaucus
133
23-Jan-92	1,768
COD
mg/1
SS
mg/1
TN
mg/1
AN
mg/1
CU
mg/1
PB
mg/1
ZN
mg/1
9721
62772
o7l3
0.12
0.01
oToi
6702
6.06
28.08
0.17
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.01
15.73
113.87
0.23
0.21
0.02
0.05
0.03
5.50
28.35
0.17
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.01
5.57
31.95
0.18
0.16
0.01
0.02
0.01
5.52
31.29
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.01
5.67
33.02
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.01
6.08
28.10
0.17
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.01
15.73
113.87
0.23
0.21
0.02
0.05
0.03
5.51
31.10
0.06
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.01
9.45
64.58
0.13
0.12
0.01
0.03
0.02
5.47
28.60
0.17
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.01
15.73
113.87
0.23
0.21
0.02
0.05
0.03
5.71
33.49
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.01
7.27
30.06
0.06
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.01
5.76
34.00
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.01
5.45
28.76
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.01

-------
TABLE 4-8
WATER QUALITY OF WAREHOUSING/SEC. OFFICE AREA RUNOFF
SECONDARY OFFICE, WAREHOUSING, & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA
COMPONENTS OP IN-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
Warehousing &
Secondary Office &	Size Office Areas in each COD	SS	TN	AN	CU	PB	ZN
& Warehousing Area (Acres)	Alternative (I) mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
__	__ gus~hr 15_g5 H2.92 0.23 0.21 0.02 0.05 0.03
18	GUSNHR 10.74 74.72 0.15 0.14 0.01 0.03 0.02
a
q a 	 			_	_ 		_
ab	9	GUSNHR	16.96	123.59	0.25	0.23	0.02	0.05	0.03
ac	4	GSNHR	29.81	224.87	0.45	0.42	0.04	0.09	0.05
ad	33	S	7.62	50.04	0.10	0.09	0.01	0.02	0.01
ae	38	GSNHR	7.19	46.55	0.10	0.09	0.01	0.02	0.01
af	15	GSNHR	12.14	85.71	0.17	0.16	0.01	0.04	0.02
ag	38	GSNHR	7.19	46.55	0.10	0.09	0.01	0.02	0.01
aK	7	GUSNHR	19.56	144.03	0.29	0.27	0.02	0.06	0.04
ai	13	GSNH	12.97	92.25	0.19	0.17	0.02	0.04	0.02
ai	26	GSNHR	8.59	57.79	0.12	0.11	0.01	0.03	0.02
ai	20	GUNH	10.04	69.22	0.14	0.13	0.01	0.03	0.02
al	22	GUSHR	9.54	65.31	0.13	0.12	0.01	0.03	0.02
am	5	GUSHR	24.99	186.77	0.38	0.35	0.03	0.08	0.05
an	20	GUSNHR	9.88	67.98	0.14	0.13	0.01	0.03	0.02
ao	47	GUSNHR	6.59	41.55	0.09	0.08	0.01	0.02	0.01
ap	41	GNHR	6.95	44.51	0.09	0.08	0.01	0.02	0.01
aq	5	SNH	28.79	216.83	0.44	0.41	0.03	0.09	0.05
ar	18	U	10.53	73.08	0.15	0.14	0.01	0.03	0.02
as	79	GUSNHR	5.67	33.08	0.07	0.06 0.01	0.02	0.01
b	3	GUSNHR	37.27	283.99	0.57	0.53	0.04	0.11	0.07
c	9	GUSNHR	16.73	121.79	0.25	0.23	0.02	0.05	0.03
d	2	GUSNHR	49.51	381.30	0.76	0.71	Q.oS	0.15	0.09
e	14	GUSNHR	12.57	89.11	0.18	0.17	0.01	0.04	0.02
f	13	GUSNHR	13.47	96.16	0.19	0.18	0.02	0.04	0.02
g	3	GUSNHR	42.66	326.80	0.66	0.61	0.05	0.13	0.08
K	18	GSNH	10.80	75.23	0.15	0.14	0.01	0.03	0.02
i	24	GSNH	8.96	60.68	0.12	0.11	0.01	0.03	0.02
i	48	GSNHR	6.52	40.92	0.08	0.08	0.01	0.02	0.01
K	19	USNHR	10.34	71.58	0.15	0.13	0.01	0.03	0.02
1	82	NHR	5.63	32.62	0.07	0.06	0.01	0.02	0.01
m	50	NHR	6.41	40.03	0.08	0.08	0.01	0.02	0.01
n	7	GSNH	20.67	152.72	0.31	0.29	0.02	0.06	0.04
o	2	GUSNHR	47.78	367.51	0.74	0.69	0.06	0.15	0.09
p	2	GUSNHR	47.29	363.59	0.73	0.68	0.06	0.14	0.09
h	3	GSNHR	40.03	305.91	0.61	0.57	0.05	0.12	0.07
-	10	GSNHR	15.44	111.65	0.23	0.21	0.02	0.05	0.03
s	26	GSNHR *8.53 57131 0!12 Oill OiOl 0:03 0102
t	26	GUSNHR .8.65 58.23 0.12 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.02
u
v
w
X
y
z
14	GUSNHR	12.59	89.29	0.18 0.17	0.01	0.04	0.02
28	GSNHR	8.33	55.67	0.11 0.10	0.01	0.02	0.02
36	GSNHR	7.36	47.88	0.10 0.09	0.01	0.02	0.01
45	GUSHR	6.69	42.38	0.09	0.08	0.01	0.02	0.01
28	GUSHR	8.32	55.61	0.11	0.10	0.01	0.02	0.02
22	GSNHR	9.48	64.81	0.13	0.12	0.01	0.03	0.02
23-Jan-92 1,001
(1) NOTE: G-Growth Centers Alternative; U-Upland Alternative;
S-Dispersed Development Areas Alt; N-No Action Alt;
H-Hignway Alt; R-Redevelopment Alt

-------
little potential of impacts on existing oxygen levels from additional
stormvater runoff.
The values estimated for COD can also be used to predict the BOD
concentrations on the basis of the ratio between COD and BOD found in the
data collected in the NURP program. On the average, the ratio of COD/BOD
concentration from runoff in residential areas is 7, and from commercial
areas it is 6. Assuming the modeled areas have a mix of residential and
commercial development, a reasonable estimate of the BOD in the storm
discharges can be estimated by applying a ratio of 6.5. On this basis, the
BOD in the stormvater discharges from the modeled areas vill also be
approximately equal to or less than the existing BOD levels. The BOD
concentration in the discharges from the modeled areas vill range from
approximately 0.8 mg/1 to 9 mg/1, while the range in average background
values at the 18 stations was approximately 5 mg/1 to 40 mg/1.
Nitrogen. The estimated concentrations of total and ammonia nitrogen in
the stormvater discharges from the different modeled areas are, with one
exception, less than 1 mg/1 and most are less than 0.5 mg/1. Although
total nitrogen or ammonia were not measured by HMDC, the information on TKN
can be used for comparison. TKN is a combined measure of organic nitrogen
and ammonia, which in estuarine marshes comprise most of the nitrogen. Of
the 90 annual average values for TKN obtained in the study (18 locations
monitored for 6 years), only 14 were below 1 mg/1, and most were in the 2
mg/1 - 4 mg/1 range.
Although there is some overlap in the concentrations of nitrogen in the
concentration ranges predicted for the stormwater discharges and for
ambient concentrations, the stormwater discharges are much lover overall.
The qualitative assessment is that nitrogen is not a critical factor that
vill affect the choice of management plans. A more quantitative assessment
is not possible because nitrogen values are highly variable in the
Meadovlands and the annual average can change by an order of magnitude at
one location (e.g., see data for Penhorn Creek-upper betveen 1985 and
1986). Thus, because of the changes in ambient concentrations it is
4-12

-------
difficult to predict if a stormwater discharge will be slightly higher or
lover than ambient concentrations.
In estuarine areas nitrogen, rather than phosphorus, becomes the limiting
nutrient for plant growth (Nixon and Pilson, (1983). Nitrogen in estuarine
and coastal marine ecosystems, in Nitrogen in the Marine Environment, eds.
Carpenter, E.J. and D.G. Capone. Academic Press). As a result, the
nitrogen loading to estuaries is a critical factor in assessing the
potential for water quality impacts. In the Lower Hackensack River,
however, the existing nitrogen loadings are very high, and the ambient
concentrations of inorganic N (as nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium) are very
much above those that can inhibit phytoplankton growth. As in most
eutrophied estuaries, the limiting factor for phytoplankton growth becomes
light (Keller, A. (1988). Estimating phytoplankton productivity from light
availability and biomass in the MERL mesocosms and Narragansett Bay. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 45s 159-168.). The light penetration in the
estuary is limited by the high populations of phytoplankton, and by the
suspended sediments. Nitrogen begins to limit phytoplankton growth below
concentrations of 0.05 mg/1 inorganic nitrogen. The concentrations of
inorganic nitrogen as measured by the HMDC are in the 1-3 mg/1 range.
Additional discharges approximately equal to or lower than the ambient
concentrations will have little potential of impacting nutrient dynamics in
the estuary.
7Inc. The EPA water quality criteria for zinc in marine waters is 0.095
mg/1 for acute toxicity. Because the stormwater discharges are sporadic
rather than continuous, the acute criterion is the appropriate measure in
assessing water quality. The acute criterion was developed to protect
marine organisms from a single discharge event, while the chronic criteria
was develo ' to protect organisms from continuous discharges. None of the
estimate ! zinc concentrations in the stormwater coming from the different
modeled areas are above these levels, and therefore, there is little
potential for impacts for this metal.
SS (suspended solids). The concentration of suspended solids discharged in
the stormwater for all alternatives will probably be slightly higher than
4-13

-------
those currently exhibited. The average annual concentration at the 18
stations monitored by HMDC was usually between 20 mg/1 and 50 mg/1, while
those calculated for the stormwater discharge for all alternatives were
mostly between 40 mg/1 and 120 mg/1. Large day-to-day variations in
existing concentrations were measured by HMDC, so it is difficult to
quantify an impact. The variation within a year at one station could be as
high as a 30-fold difference (e.g., minimum of 3.9 mg/1 and a maximum of
117 mg/1 in 1984 at Moonachie Creek), while year-to-year average
concentrations could differ by a factor of 5 at one station.
Because of this variation it is not possible to rate the severity of the
impacts from the SS discharged at individual areas. An assessment,
however, can be made of the impacts of the different management
alternatives because these show certain distinct patterns. On the average,
the SS concentrations under the No Action Alternative are the lowest while
those from the Redevelopment Alternative are the highest. The table below
indicates the (area-weighed) mean concentration of all SS discharges for
the six alternatives. These averages include the secondary office/
warehousing component of the alternatives. An assessment of the severity
of the impact to SS concentration can be made by comparing these values
with the overall average of ambient SS values measured during the 5 year
HMDC study (36 mg/1). Using the criterion listed in table 4-1 above, an
approximate level of potential impact has been predicted in table 4-9.
Lead. The EPA water quality criterion for Lead is 0.14 mg/1 for acute
toxicity. Only one discharge from a planning area (area J for the Highway
Corridors alternative) is expected to exceed this value and cause a water
quality problem. Because the predicted concentration, however, is 0.17
mg/1, the increase in concentration is less than factor or two. The
potential for impact from the lead discharge from this planning area can be
characterized as Low according to the ratings established previously.
Copper. The EPA acute toxic water quality criterion for Copper is 0.0029
mg/1. All of the stormwater discharges will exceed this criterion at the
point of discharge, before mixing with the receiving stream. Because the
lowest concentration to be discharged is at least 3 times greater than the
A- 14

-------
TABLE 4-9
AVERAGE SS CONCENTRATION IN DISCHARGES
FROM PLANNING AREAS AND PREDICTED IMPACTS
Mean SS
Alternative	Concentration	Potential Impact
Upland
53
mg/1
Low
Redevelopment
57
rag/1
Moderate
Highway Corridors
52
mg/1
Low
Dispersed Devel.
52
mg/1
Low
Growth Centers
48
mg/1
Low
No Action
42
mg/1
Low
(ds/1976)

-------
criterion, all discharges have a potential to cause at least a moderate
impact on water quality. Some projected discharges have concentrations at
least 5 times higher and can be considered to have a potential to cause
severe impacts. The management alternatives can be compared relative to
the volume of the discharges for each alternative that can be considered as
potentially severe. The drainage area, measured in acres, can be used as a
surrogate for discharge volume (because area times rainfall depth equals
discharge volume). The total acreage of the modeled areas for which copper
concentrations above 0.0145 mg/1 were predicted is shown in table 4-10.
Summary. The potential impacts on water quality of seven contaminants
typically present in stormwater runoff were assessed based on mass loading
rates calculated from EPA's national NURP data. Of the seven contaminants
modeled, only two—suspended solids and copper—will have discharge
concentrations greater than ambient concentrations in the District. In
terms of the six alternatives being considered, the Growth Centers,
Dispersed Development, and Upland alternatives will have the lowest
discharge concentrations. The Redevelopment, No Action, and Highway
Corridors alternatives will have the greatest discharge concentrations.
(ds/1970)
4- 16

-------
TABLE 4-10
ACREAGE OP PLANNING AREAS WITH SEVERE VATER QUALITY
IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF COPPER CONCENTRATIONS
Acres with Potentially
Alternative	Severe Impacts
Upland	125
Redevelopment	150
Highway Corridors	167
Dispersed Devel.	137
Growth Centers	142
No Action	162
(ds/1977)

-------
5.0 AQUATIC RESOURCES
5.1 SCREENING-LEVEL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR IN-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
5.1.1 Method for Assessing Impacts
The aquatic resources in the Meadowlands include the estuarine and marine
fauna and the flora that inhabit the main channels and permanently flooded
estuarine areas of the Hackensack River and its major tributaries. The
permanently flooded areas provide a distinct, but ecologically linked,
habitat that is different from the wetlands. During a high tide many
aquatic species will move into a tidal wetland for food and shelter. The
wetland and aquatic resources are different, however, because their basic
habitat characteristics such as temperature, hydrology, and substrate are
different.
None of the alternatives involve the filling of major streams, ditches, or
rivers, based on an analysis of the geographic extent of the planning areas
identified for each alternative. The direct impacts to the aquatic
resources in terms of lost aquatic habitat are predicted to be minimal for
all alternatives, and are not determinative in the comparison of
alternatives. Impacts to aquatic resources will be indirect, and will
rpsult from the following changes in existing conditions:
1.	Discharge of storm runoff containing potentially harmful levels of
contaminants and sediments that can affect the growth or metabolism of
aquatic organisms.
2.	The loss of primary productivity in filled estuarine wetlands that
support the aquatic food webs through the export of organic matter.
In the first ise, the impact of stormwater discharges has been assessed
using the results of the water quality analyses. The concentrations of
contaminants in discharges from planning areas were determined using the
regression equations described in section A. Based on these estimates, the
alternatives were ranked with regards to the potential for causing toxicity
to the aquatic organisms.
5-1

-------
In the second case, the loss of primary productivity of estuarine wetlands
for the different alternatives was compared on the basis of the total area
of estuarine tidal wetlands that would be filled under each alternative.
AAs in the District that were estuarine or brackish (i.e. with a salinity
greater than 5 ppt) were identified using the appropriate answers in the
VET database. The "footprints" of the different alternatives were
superimposed on the map of estuarine AAs to calculate the area of wetlands
that would be filled, and that would, thus, be removed as a source of
primary productivity.
5.1.2 Results of Impact Screening
The water quality impact assessment indicated that there are two
contaminants that will be discharged in stormwater runoff that have
potential for changing water quality. These two constituents, suspended
sediments and copper, can also cause potential impacts to aquatic
resources.
Impacts of Stormwater Discharges - Suspended Solids. An increase in
suspended solids (SS) can reduce the feeding efficiency of filter feeding
invertebrates and fish. The predicted contribution of SS in stormwater
runoff from all the alternatives, however, is not expected to be high
enough to actually smother organisms. Natural estuaries typically exhibit
sufficient sediment transport (resulting from the tidal flow) so that most
organisms have adapted to some levels of SS in the water. The SS
concentrations recorded by HDMC average 36 mg/1, and those modeled for the
stormwater (end of pipe) discharges for all alternatives are higher by a
relative factor of only 2-3 times.
The expected concentration of SS in the discharges fall within the maximum
measured during the HMDC survey. The aquatic organisms currently living in
the District are adapted to episodic (i.e., storm-related) increases in SS.
Because the volume of the stormwater discharges is low relative to the
volume of the receiving waters, the moderately higher concentrations will
be quickly diluted. Any localized increase in SS during a rain event will
be exerted only in the immediate vicinity of the stormwater discharge.
5-2

-------
Based on the qualitative assessment described above, the SS impacts on
aquatic resources are predicted to be o£ a lov severity for all management
alternatives.
Impacts of Stormvater Discharges - Copper
The EPA water quality criterion for copper is based on its toxicity to
marine organisms. Thus, the criterion can also be used to assess impacts
to aquatic resources. Any discharges that have copper concentrations
higher than 0.0029 rag/1 have the potential to pose a threat to marine
organisms. The potential impacts can be classified as Low, Moderate, or
Severe based on the dilution that needs to be achieved instream to meet the
criterion. When higher dilutions are needed the mixing zone where the
discharge does not meet the criterion is larger. This in turn means that
potentially toxic concentrations of the contaminant vill be found over a
larger area.
As mentioned in the Water Quality section, discharges for all alternatives
do not achieve the EPA criterion for copper. Because the lowest
concentration that is predicted to be in the discharges is at least 3 times
higher than the criterion, there will be a zone around each discharge where
Copper may be toxic. Thus, the impacts of all discharges can be considered
to be at least moderate. By assuming that a discharge with a concentration
that is 5 times higher than the EPA criterion has the potential for causing
severe impacts to the aquatic resources, the management alternatives can be
ranked in the same order as they were shown for water quality (see table
4-10). The impacts of copper in storm discharges on aquatic resources were
considered to be the same as for water quality because EPA water quality
criterion is based on toxicity to aquatic organisms.
Loss of Primary Productivity in Wetlands. The primary productivity of
estuarine wetlands provide the base of much of the food web in the aquatic
ecosystem. Removing this productivity by filling wetlands, therefore, has
the potential to reduce the amount of food available. It is assumed, for
the purpose of an initial screening, that the estuarine wetlands in the
Meadowlands all have approximately similar productivity. This assumption
5-3

-------
is based on the fact that of the 6583 acres of estuarine wetlands assessed
in the AVID/VET, 6510 acres (99 percent) were rated at Moderate for the
Production Export Function. Proceeding from this assumption, the
alternatives have been compared on the basis of the total area of estuarine
wetlands filled.
The comparison of impact to primary productivity is summarized in table
5-1. Tables 5-2 through 5-6 indicate the amount of estuarine wetland loss
by planning area for each of the in-District alternatives. Table 5-1 shows
that the largest area of estuarine wetlands loss (1,041 acres, or 15.8X of
the District's existing estuarine wetlands) occurs under the No Action
alternative. This alternative can, therefore, be expected to have the most
impact on the food web and aquatic resources in the estuary. Lower levels
of impact are exhibited under the Highway Corridors alternative (401 acres
of estuarine wetland loss or 6.1% of the District inventory), Dispersed
Development Areas alternative (417 acres or 6.3X of the District
inventory), and the Growth Centers alternative (422 acres or 6.42 of the
District inventory). The second lowest impacts are exhibited under the
Redevelopment alternative, because this alternative is characterized by the
lowest acreage requirement given the limited amount of land available under
this alternative. The Redevelopment alternative would incur the loss of
188 acres or 2.9% of the District's estuarine wetland inventory. The
lowest level of impact is exhibited by the Upland alternative, which
exhibits no loss of estuarine wetland area, by definition.
Please note that the loss of estuarine wetland acreage for each alternative
includes the use of infill parcels for Secondary Office/Warehousing
activity, that impacts 135 acres, 169 acres, 176 acres, 177 acres, and 179
acres for the No Action, Redevelopment, Growth Centers, Highway Corridors,
and Dispersed Development Areas alternatives, respectively. These impacts
are included in the primary productivity impacts totals presented above for
each alternative.
(ds/1971)
5-4

-------
TABLE 5-1
AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
Estuarine
Wetland
Acreage
Baseline
6582.94
Upland
Impact .
% Impact
Post-Impact
0.00
0.0%
6582.94
Redevelopment
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
187.90
2.9%
6395.04
Highway Corridors
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
401.97
6.1%
6180.97
Dispersed Development
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
416.57
6.3%
6166.37
Growth Centers
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
422.29
6,4%
6160.65
No Action
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
1041.15
15.8%
5541.79

-------
TABLE 5-2
AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS
REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Estuarine	Estuarlne
Planning	Wetland Secondary Office/	Wetland
Area	Acreage	Warehousing Area	Acreage
A 5.29 aa	9.94
C 0.01 al	10.16
D 11.86 am	0.39
J 0.03 ao	8.10
K 0.55 f	5.34
N 0.47 1	31.61
	 p	0.17
Subtotal 18.22 r	10.04
t	13.24
v	21.26
w	28.51
x	30.92
Subtotal	169.68
Total	187.90

-------
TABLE 5-3
AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVE
Estuarine	Estuarine
Planning	Wetland Secondary Office/	Wetland
Area	Acreage	Warehousing Area	Acreage
B 27.32 aa	9.94
C 16.48 al	10.16
E 36.07 am	0.39
F 101.99 ao	8.10
G 34.18 aq	0.11
H 5.86 f	5.34
K 3.55 h	6.73
	 j	31.61
Subtotal 225.45 p	0.17
r	10.04
t	13.24
v	21.26
w	28.51
x	30,92
Subtotal	176.52
Total

-------
TABLE 5-4
AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS ALTERNATIVE
Estuarine	Estuarine
Planning	Wetland Secondary Office/	Wetland
Area	Acreage	Warehousing Area	Acreage
C 10.64 aa	9.94
D 36.07 ad	3.01
E 39.12 al	10.16
F 97.02 am	0.39
H 8.13 ao	8.10
I 29.39 aq	0.11
K 0.37 f	5.34
L 16.29 h	6.73
	 j	31.6!
Subtotal 237.04 p	0.17
r	10.04
t	13.24
v	21.26
w	28.51
x	30.92
Subtotal	179.53
Total	416.57

-------
TAI3LE 5-5
AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS
GROWTH CENTERS ALTERNATIVE

Estuarine

Estuarine
Planning
Wetland
Secondary Office/
Wetland
Area
Acreage
Warehousing Area
Acreage
A
4.47
aa
9.94
B
101.57
al
10.16
C
123.54
am
0.39
D
16.29
ao
8.10
-
			
f
5.34
Subtotal
245.88
h
6.73


j
31.61


P
0.17


r
10.04


t
13.24


V
21.26


w
28.51


X
30.92


Subtotal
176.41
Total

-------
TABLE 5-6
AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Estuarine	Estuarlne
Planning	Wetland Secondary Office/	Wetland
Area	Acreage	Warehousing Area	Acreage
A	18.65	aa	9.94
B	2.41	ao	8.10
C	130.78	aq	O.li
D	85.28	f	5.34
E	101.24	h	6.73
F	191.53	j	31.61
H	13.98	p	0.17
I	14.38	r	10.04
J	1.32	t	13.24
K	287.11	v	21.26
L	25.44	w	28.51
M	33.99 	
—	 Subtotal	135.05
Subtotal	906.10
Total	1041.15

-------
6.0 TERRESTKIAL IMPACTS
6.1 SCREENING-LEVEL IHPACT ANALYSIS FOR IN-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
6.1.1 Method for Assessing Iapacts
The major terrestrial resources in the District are the open vegetated
upland habitats that have developed on unused portions of filled wetlands.
These vegetated filled areas provide a habitat for numerous terrestrial
species that have moved in from nearby uplands, as well as providing
habitat for species that use both wetlands and uplands. Because the
terrestrial habitats within the planning areas, are all located on areas
filled over the last century, there are no upland habitats that can be
considered indigenous. Furthermore, the dominant community on these open
spaces is one that can be characterized as "early successional". Because
most of the fill is recent, the local upland climax connrunity has not had
sufficient time to develop. Many open spaces have also subject to
continuous disturbances, such as vehicular traffic and fire which have
slowed the natural process of succession.
An analysis of aerial photographs taken in 1985 (printed at a scale of 1
in. « 200 ft,-) indicate that the terrestrial habitats that fall vithin the
proposed planning areas for the management alternatives can all be
characterized as exhibiting an early successional community. A comparison
of the aerial photographs with the land use »ap developed by the HMDC also
indicated that this habitat corresponds vel2 vith to the "vacant" land use
category. Thus, this land use category, or aore specifically, those areas
not in wetlands that were characterized by "vacant" land use, were used as
the basis for assessing the impacts of the management alternatives on the
terrestrial resources.
The dominant vegetation in the early successional community ia mixed
scrub/shrub and grasses, with some young trees. In some planning areas the
6-1

-------
vegetation is thinner because of vehicular traffic (i.e., dirt roads
currently criss-cross vegetated areas). None of the planning areas being
evaluated through the screening, however, include fully developed, mature
grasslands or forests.
For this initial screening analysis it was assumed that all the terrestrial
vegetation and its associated community will be removed in each planning
area. The impacts of the different alternatives on terrestrial resources
were, therefore, assessed on the basis of the area of vacant upland (and
thus the area of the early successional community) that is removed/impacted
under each alternative.
6.1.2 Results of Impact Screening
Table 6-1 summarizes the area of the early successional community (as
measured by the area of upland vacant land use) found in the planning areas
for the different alternatives. Tables 6-2 through 6-7 present the acreage
of upland impact for each planning area for the six alternatives (including
the No Action alternative). The No Action alternative impacts 798 acres of
early successional habitat (38% of that current found in the District), the
Dispersed Development ALternative impacts 749 acres of early successional
habitat (36% of the District inventory), and the Upland alternative impacts
726 acres of the early successional habitat (35% of the District
inventory). On a relative basis, the lowest levels of impact are
associated with the Redevelopment alternative (loss of 507 acres, or 24% of
the District inventory), and the Highway Corridors alternative (loss of 578
acres, or 28% of the District inventory).
None of the terrestial habitats found within the planning areas have been
reported as important to endangered species or as raptor feeding grounds.
(This was determined by overlaying the HMDC Habitat Cover Map with the
planning area maps for each alternative. Confirmation of this result is
pending additional analysis from the Natural Heritage Program.) in regard
to effect on T & E species therefore, there are no significant differences
6-2

-------
TABLE 6-1
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

Vacant
Upland
Acreage
Baseline
2096.14
Upland
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
726.65
34.7%
1369.49
Redevelopment
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
507.57
24.2%
1588.57
Highway Corridors
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
578.43
27.6%
1517.71
Dispersed Development Areas
Impact 749.11
% Impact 35.7%
Post-Impact 1347.03
Growth Centers
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
690.18
32.9%
1405.96
No Action
Impact
% Impact
Post-Impact
798.33
38.1%
1297.81

-------
TABLE 6-2
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
UPLAND ALTERNATIVE
Vacant	Vacant
Planning	Upland Secondary Office/	Upland
Area	Acreage	Warehousing Area	Acreage
A	20.61	c	9.17
B	22.93	d	0.63
C	4.32	e	10.12
D	31.11	f	5.61
E	15.04	k	6.79
F	7.11	o	2.46
G	50.11	p	2.33
H	23.63	u	13.82
J	3.91	x	5.32
K	35.57	y	23.66
L	47.31	aa	7.71
M	78.97	ab	8.83
N	6.07	ak	12.57
0	154.04	al	11.47
P	15.57	am	3.62
R	29.19	ao	31.24
		ar	14.75
Subtotal	545.49	as	11.06
Subtotal	181.16
Total	726.65

-------
TABLE 6-3
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Planning
Area
Vacant
Upland
Acreage
Secondary Office/
Warehousing Area
Vacant
Upland
Acreage
A
6
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
N
Subtotal
43,22
1.56
0.16
4.17
8.19
13.96
1.30
45.43
8.12
9.97
5.00
146.OB
c
d
e
f
J
k
1
Bl
O
P
r
s
u
V
w
X
y
z
aa
ab
ae
af
aS
al
am
ao
ap
as
Subtotal
9.1?
0.53
10.12
5.61
16.35
6.79
4.65
8.09
2.46
2.33
0.22
20.14
13.82
6.48
2.57
5.32
23.66
19.73
7.71
B.83
25.59
11.76
35.65
15.57
11.47
3.62
31.24
40.82
11,06
361.49
Total
507.57

-------
TABLE 6-4
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVE
Planning
Area
Vacant
Upland
Acreage
Secondary Office/
Warehousing Area
Vacant
Upland
Acreage
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
0
Subtotal
2.75
4.50
22.93
0.02
11.84
6.37
15.55
22.19
3.71
56.52
3.30
8.19
4.69
162.56
c
d
e
f
h
i
j
k
1
m
n
o
P
r
s
u
v
w
X
y
z
aa
ab
ae
af
flg
ai
aJ
ak
al
am
ao
ap
as
9.17
0.63
10.12
5.61
3.67
24.19
16.35
6.79
4.65
8.09
6.17
2.46
2.33
0.22
20.14
13.82
6.48
2. 57
5. 32
23.66
19.73
7.71
8. 83
25.59
11.76
35.65
7.80
15.57
12.57
11.47
3.62
31.24
40. 82
11.06
Subtotal
415.87
Total

-------
TABLE 6-5
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS ALTERNATIVE
Vacant	Vacant
Planning Upland Secondary Office/	Upland
Area Acreage Warehousing Area	Acreage
A 3.92 c	9.17
B 3.14 d	0.63
C 4.34 a	1Q.12
C 11.84 f	5.61
E 14.97 h	3.67
F 53.93 1	24.19
G 1.45 j	16.35
H 154.03 k	6.79
I 79.10 n	6.17
J 2.57 o	2.46
K 59.66 p	2.33
L 10.18 r	0.22
	 s	20.14
Subtotal 399.13 u	13.82
v	6.48
w	2.57
x	5.32
y	23.56
z	19.73
aa	7.71
ab	8.83
ad	0•24
ae	25.59
af	11.76
ag	35.65
ai	7.80
aj	15.57
al	11.47
am	3.62
ao	31.24
as	11.06
Subtotal	349,98
Total	749.11

-------
TABLE 6-6
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
GROWTH CENTERS ALTERNATIVE
Vacant	Vacant
Planning	Upland Secondary Office/	Upland
Area	Acreage	Warehousing Area	Acreage
A 7.62 c	9.17
B 75.91 d	0.63
C 32.16 e	10 12
D 178.16 f	5;61
			 h	3.67
Subtotal 293.85 i	24.19
j	16.35
n	6.17
o	2.46
P	2.33
r	0.22
s	20.14
"	13.82
v	6.48
w	2.57
x	5.32
y	23.66
z	19.73
aa	7.71
ab	8.83
ae	25.59
af	11.76
ag	35.65
ai	7.80
aj	15.57
ak	12.57
al	11.47
am	3.62
ao	31.24
ap	40.82
as	11.06
Subtotal	396.33
Total	690.18

-------
TABLE 6-7
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Vacant	Vacant
Planning Upland Secondary Office/	Upland
Area Acreage Warehousing Area	Acreage
A 6.41 c	9.17
B 6.95 d	0.63
C 1.57 e	10.12
D 3.46 f	5.61
E 26.85 h	3.67
F 46.29 i	24.19
G 3.93 j	16.35
H 8.74 1c	6.79
I 146.86 1	4.65
J 49.11 m	8.09
K 35.88 n	6.17
L 26.52 o	2.46
M 63.94 p	2.33
	 r	0.22
Subtotal 426.53 s	20.14
u	13.82
v	6.48
v	2.57
z	19.73
aa	7.71
ab	8.83
ae	25.59
af	11.76
ag
35.65
ai	7.80
aj	15.57
ak	12.57
ao	31.24
ap	40.82
as	11.06
Subtotal	371.80
Total

-------
in the impacts of the different management alternatives on the terrestrial
resources, other than the actual area of vegetated uplands (habitat) that
would be lost under each alternative.
There are, however, some qualitative differences in the importance of the
terrestrial habitats in two locations that can be inferred from the aerial
photographs. Two upland areas, which do contain the early successional
community, can be considered relatively more important from an ecological
perspective. The two areas and the reasons for their relative importance
are as follows:
1.	The dirt road between Berrys Creek and Berrys Creek Canal (created as
an access road to the former Rutherford Landfill) will be impacted by
planning area "E" in the Dispersed Development alternative, planning
area "G" in the Highway Corridors alternative, planning area "C" in
the Growth Centers alternative, and planning areas "L","E","P" in
No Action alternative. This dirt road is a long upland finger that
provides an undisturbed terrestrial corridor between the edge of the
upland and the river. As such is provides access for terrestrial
species to the river and wetlands, and passage between wetlands.
2.	The empty lots just north of Rt. 3 bridge on the east bank of the
Hackensack River will be impacted by planning area "H" in Highway
Corridors alternative, and planning area "E" in the Upland
alternative. This vacant area contains relatively more trees than in
other vacant areas, and is adjacent to the river. The area can be
considered as a suitable habitat for many terrestrial birds and other
small animals that live in uplands but also use rivers (e.g.,
kingfishers, kingbirds). It is one of the few remaining undeveloped
upland areas that are adjacent to the river itself, rather than to a
wetland.
Summary
The No Action alternative will have the greatest impact on terrestrial
resources relative to the other alternatives, followed in close succession
by the Dispersed Development Areas alternative and the Upland alternative.
It will impact 38£ of the remaining vegetated open lands in the District.
The least impacts will be from the Redevelopment alternative which will
affect 242 of the open space. Furthermore, neither of the two more
important open space areas that have been identified will be impacted in
the latter alternative. Please note that the area of disturbed land for
each alternative includes the use of infill parcels for secondary office
6- 10

-------
and warehousing activity that impacts 181 acres, 349 acres, 361 acres, 371
acres, 396 acres, and 415 acres for the Upland, Dispersed Development,
Redevelopment, No Action, and Growth Centers, and Highway Corridor
alternative, respectively. These impacts are included in the terrestrial
impact totals presented above for each of the alternatives.

-------
7,0 transportation
7.1 SUHHART CF H2TH0DS
Transportation system modeling was performed using the Hackensack
Meadowlands Transportation Model (BMTM) to screen alternative land use
configurations as part of the development of a Special Area Management Plan
(SAKP) for the District. The land use was described by indicating the
quantity of development in 30 land use categories that vould take place in
each of 52 transportation analysis zones within the study area. The land
use scenarios vere provided by HMDC, based on input from the SAMP partner
agencies.
The BUT Kodel is a state-of~the-industry computer-based planning tool that
can project future travel patterns and volumes based on assumptions
regarding future land development patterns, future transportation
improvements and future travel behavior characteristics. Transportation
and transit assumptions in the network include existing facilities and
services plus regional improvements that may be in place during the 20 year
planning period. The assumptions regarding regional improvements represent
projects that vere contained in proposed short-and long-range state or
local transportation plans and vere considered reasonable alternatives in
1990. Transportation project development is a dynamic process vhich is
influenced by many social and economic factors, and as such, changes have
occurred, are occurring, and will continue to occur, to the information
used to develop the 2010 transportation network.
The model uses separate but coordinated analytical procedures to project
future public transportation usage and future highway travel demand, with
the information regarding public transportation usage serving as an input
data item when projecting future highway travel demand. The study area
boundary consists of the 52 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) with land use
activity forecasts developed for each 3one to keep track of where people
will live and where business will locate in the future. Differing patterns
of land use and development will have differing impacts on the
transportation system, Not only will the gross amount o£ development
7~1

-------
affect the overall demand for transportation services, but so will the net
density of development as well as the mixture of land uses and the location
of land development within the District.
The Keadovland Transportation Hodel uses the traditional four-step modeling
process; trip generation, trip distribution, model split and trip
assignment. For each of the land use types, a set of trip generation rates
were assumed based on national standards, primarily the Trip Generation
Handbook (Fourth Edition) published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). These rates were then further broken down into three
major trip purposes; home-based work (HBS), hone-based other (HBO) and non-
hone based (NHB).
Within the primary study area the land use types were identified with trip
generation rates for each of the 30 land uses by peak hoars and by
directions. Trip distribution analysis determines the origin and
destination of trips produced or attracted to each TAZ. The results are
displayed as a set of matrices or trip tables which show the traffic flow
between each pair of study zones. The trip distribution module of the HMTM
defines a total of twenty-one (21) different trip distribution patterns by
major land use types.
After the trip distribution patterns for the land use alternatives were
defined, the next step was to estimate transit ridership and potential
ridership into and out of the Meadowlands District. The final phase of the
travel demand forecasting process assigned trips to specific routes in the
transportation network and estimated traffic volumes on each of the
individual network links vithin the system. An important element of the
assignment process dealt with defining the "path" or routes that trips
would likely take. This step is commonly known as "pathfinding". The
determination of assignment path is typically based on the relative ease by
which traffic may flow along alternative routes, and includes consideration
of travel time, cost, and distance. With the knowledge of such paths,
various trip assignment techniques could be used to "load" trips onto the
network by assigning them to each specific paths. This results in
estimates of the level of use of each network link.
7-2

-------
The traffic assignment module of the HMTM utilized the incremental
assignment technique provided by the MicroTRIPS transportation planning
package. The trip tables were assigned in three increments. The first
increment assigned 40* of the trip tables, the second and third increments
assigned the remaining 30X and 30% respectively. Previous experiments and
initial testing of this method on the study network produced realistic
results.
Using the previously described land, use categories for each of the
alternatives, travel demands were estimated for the morning peak hour
period. The trip generation results closely followed the expected
relationships based on the land use activity level for each alternative.
The travel demands were subjected to trip distribution, modal split, and
assignment to develop estimates of the traffic volumes that would be
carried on each link of the future year highway network.
7.2 TRANSPORTATION SCREENING RESULTS
7.2.1 District-wide Analysis Of Transportation System Performance
Results of the transportation screening effort are presented in Tables 7-1
through 7-6. Table 7-7 provides summary information on the link types and
network composition.
Average Speed. Table 7-1 contains average speed information from the model
runs of the alternative land use scenarios reported by each highway network
link type. The highway network was modeled using 32 distinct link types as
defined in Table 7-7. Link type 32, centroid connectors, is not included
in the system totals because centroid connectors do not represent actual
roadway segments. (Centroid connectors are essentially artificial links
used by the model to allow traffic volumes to enter and exit the network
from the planning areas.) The average speed reported in Table 7-1 is the
total length of the link type divided by the time it takes to travel the
links of that type, weighted by the volume of traffic on each link in miles
per hour. In general, the higher the total average speed, the less the
7-3

-------
TABLE 7-1
EVALUATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BY LINK TYPES (AM)
AVERAGE SPEED

1988
GC
HC
RD
DD
UG
NA
LINK
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
TYPE
SPEED
SPEED
SPEED
SPEED
SPEED
SPEED
SPEED
1
32.48
19.76
17.55
24.79
19.01
18.97
19.98
2
27.77
11.03
9.36
11.B1
11.58
9.75
11.65
3
23.79
6.45
5.81
12.29
15.78
11.63
11.60
4
40.39
35.04
34.69
36.38
35.98
35.61
35.95
6
33.36
33.46
34.12
30.71
34.36
32.60
34.11
7
19.77
22.35
18.23
14.02
20.69
17.06
20.36
9
35.10
29.63
31.77
30.32
30.13
29.41
27.49
8,10
23.55
18.67
14.88
20.51
19.94
19.33
20.03
12
25.80
23.03
21.99
21.83
23.34
22.25
22.56
13
16.51
14.57
13.44
15.64
15.37
12.92
14,15
15
23.62
22.37
22.54
24.69
23.58
24.07
22.65
17,22
30.48
31.57
29.59
9.89
30.28
23.65
12.01
19,20
28.51
25.94
25.60
26.41
25.97
25.59
26.01
23
3.90
1.30
2.93
2.53
1.72
1.00
2.06
11,16,24
13.87
6.33
11.69
5.80
11.14
6.62
8.62
14,25
13.15
7.42
5.39
17.30
7.46
13.63
7.59
26
22.81
9.89
8.55
10.77
12.06
9.45
10.72
5,18,21,27-31
31.20
28.28
26.72
27.74
27.70
27.07
26.56
TOTAL
31.48
25.61
24.51
26.44
25.79
24.23
25.29
NOTE: 1988 - 1988 LAND USE
GC - GROWTH CENTERS ALTERNATIVE
NA - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
HC - HIGHWAY CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVE
RD - REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
DD - DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS ALTERNATIVE
UG - UPLAND GROWTH ALTERNATIVE

-------
congestion on the network and the better the performance of the
alternative. Analyses of the average speed by link type can be instructive
for determining where highway improvements might be considered.
The results of the alternatives screening indicate that the Redevelopment
alternative results in the highest average speed, or lowest impact, for the
alternatives tested. The Growth Centers, Dispersed Development and the No-
Action alternatives were grouped about a midpoint value. The Upland Growth
and Highway Corridors had higher impacts, or lover overall average speeds.
Vehicle Miles of Travel. Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) are reported by
link type in Table 7-2. This number represents the sum of the number of
vehicles multiplied by the length of each link type. Total VMT on the
network is the composite summation of the individual link type VMT. In
general, a lower value of vehicle miles of travel is more desirable than a
higher value. The addition of improvements to expressways often results in
increased vehicle miles, but with these type improvements, total travel
time is reduced because the increased speed more than, compensates for the
increased distance.
Results of the alternatives screening for VMT indicate that Dispersed
Development Areas had lower impact, or VMT, followed closely by Growth
Centers and Redevelopment. The remaining alternatives, No Action, Upland
Growth, and Highvay Corridors had more impact with Highway Corridors
i -suiting in the highest VMT of the alternatives tested.
Vehicle Hours of Travel. Vehicle hours of travel (VHT) are reported in
Table 7-3. The values in the table represent the total travel time spent
by all vehicles in the network reported by link type. A decrease in
vehicle hours of travel is always desired as this value is the best
indicator of network wide travel efficiency. Results of the alternatives
screening for VHT indicate that the Redevelopment alternative had the least
impact, or lowest VHT. The Dispersed Development Areas and Growth Centers
were grouped around a midpoint value. The No Action, Highway Corridors and
Upland Growth had higher impact VHT with the Upland Growth alternative
resulting in the highest VHT among the alternatives.
7-5

-------
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
8,10
12
13
15
17,22
19,20
23
,16,24
14,25
26
27-31
TABLE 7-2
EVALUATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BY LINK TYPES (AM)
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL
1988
VEH
MILES
96312
3971
4353
589742
11344
12220
23870
25834
103408
5498
35544
12434
78789
3170
12861
7772
11495
1743231
2781848
GC
VEH
MILES
121670
5892
9660
705919
11276
21012
29042
33040
130300
5245
35093
15187
92413
7457
14548
23695
24107
1897035
3182591
HC
VEH
MILES
125853
5615
10356
711251
10715
22042
28782
39217
131694
5337
36179
16276
92455
8427
15115
30666
26033
1918322
3234335
RD
VEH
MILES
111663
5042
7807
695424
12560
21287
31080
34854
130864
6208
35534
18425
90915
6228
17344
20361
24951
1909699
3180246
DD
VEH
MILES
123002
5247
9155
693610
10444
20922
28350
33273
131699
5242
34636
17776
92253
10764
12459
20594
24099
1897373
3170898
UG
VEH
MILES
122968
4572
9284
700970
9651
21592
31143
34689
136655
6046
35136
18635
94097
10950
16323
19482
24979
1934014
NA
VEH
MILES
121696
5474
9619
698898
10300
20929
32248
35468
134265
6210
36038
23550
93203
7334
12643
21674
24048
1923848
3231186 3217445

-------
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
,10
12
13
15
,22
',20
23
',24
¦,25
26
-31
TABLE 7-3
EVALUATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BY LINK TYPES (AM)
VEHICLE HOURS OF TRAVEL
1988
QC
HC
RD
DD
UG
NA
VEH
VEH
VEH
VEH
VEH
VEH
VEH
HOURS
HOURS
HOURS
HOURS
HOURS
HOURS
HOURS
2965
6156
7173
4505
6472
6481
6092
143
534
600
427
453
469
470
183
1498
1781
635
580
798
829
14602
20148
20506
19117
19275
19683
19442
340
337
314
409
304
296
302
618
940
1209
1518
1011
1266
1028
680
980
906
1025
941
1059
1173
1097
1770
2635
1699
1669
1795
1771
4008
5659
5990
5995
5643
6143
5951
333
360
397
397
341
468
439
1505
1569
1605
1439
1469
1460
1591
408
481
550
1863
587
788
1961
2764
3562
3612
3443
3552
3677
3583
812
5749
2881
2458
6260
10972
3561
927
2297
1293
2990
1118
2466
1467
591
3192
5687
1177
2760
1429
2855
504
2437
3046
2317
1999
2642
2243
55880
67079
71789
68852
68497
71439
72446
88360 124748 131974 120266 122931 133331 127204

-------
Vehicle Hours of Delay. Vehicle hours of delay (VHD), reported in
Table 7-4, is a subset of the VHT data reported in Table 7-3.
Specifically, VHD is the vehicle hours of travel spent traveling on links
that are congested. As with the vehicle hours of travel, a lower value of
VHD is more desirable than a higher one. Congested links are defined as
those links where the predicted volume of traffic exceeds the capacity of
the link. Results of the alternatives screening for VHD indicate that the
Redevelopment alternative had the lowest impact, or lowest VHD, followed
closely by the Dispersed Development Areas and Growth Centers alternatives.
The No Action alternative resulted in a midpoint value for VHD. The
Highway Corridors and Upland Growth had higher impact on VHD with the
Upland Growth alternative resulting in the highest impact on VHD of the
alternatives tested.
Volume to Capacity Ratio. The volume to capacity ratio by link type (v/c)
presented in Table 7-5 is the projected average of the volume of traffic on
a link divided by the link capacity. In theory, v/c for "good" performance
conditions cannot exceed 1.0. However, in the application of travel demand
forecasting and transportation network simulation models, v/c values often
exceed 1.0 on individual links. Links exceeding 1.0 are defined as
congested as discussed above for estimating VHD.
As with the other parameters evaluated, the alternatives were grouped with
respect to impacts on v/c ratio. Results of the alternatives screening for
v/c ratio indicate that Dispersed Development Areas had the lowest impact
on network congestion followed closely by Growth Centers and the
Redevelopment alternatives. The remaining alternatives,the No Action,
Upland Growth and Highway Corridors alternatives, had higher impact on the
network v/c ratio. The Highway Corridors alternative resulted in the
highest v/c ratios, creating a higher potential for congestion among the
alternatives.
Transit Modal Split. Modal split results are presented in Table 7-6. The
total person trips reported in the table are all trips that are related to
the land uses within the Hackensack Meadowlands District. This includes
trips:
7-8

-------
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
1,10
12
13
15
',22
1,20
23
(.2*
i,25
26
-31
TABLE 7-4
EVALUATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BY UNK TYPES (AM)
VEHICLE HOURS OF DELAY
1966
GC
HC
HD
DD
UG
NA
HRSOF
HRSOF
HRSOF
HRSOF
HRSOF
HRSOF
HRSOF
DELAYS
DELAYS
DELAYS
DELAYS
DELAYS
DELAYS
DELAYS
1213
3944
4885
2475
4235
4245
3879
55
403
476
315
336
368
348
59
1222
1485
412
319
532
554
4773
8382
8652
7526
7715
8000
7794
56
55
46
95
43
55
44
312
415
658
986
488
726
504
150
335
267
334
311
367
457
445
938
1648
622
831
922
878
1423
2402
2698
2724
2350
2727
2595
176
210
244
220
191
295
262
469
566
571
424
480
456
561
70
79
118
1362
118
296
1353
1164
1687
1736
1599
1680
1769
1694
685
5451
2544
2209
5830
10534
3267
556
1881
861
2495
761
1999
1105
332
2402
4665
498
2074
780
2132
216
1834
2395
1694
1397
2017
1642
21433
29477
33721
30918
30876
33026
34194
33609
61683
67670
57108
60035
69114
63253

-------
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
8.10
12
13
15
17,22
19,20
23
,16,24
14,25
26
27-31
TABLE 7-5
EVALUATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BY LINK TYPES (AM)
VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO
1988
GC
HC
RD
DD
UQ
NA
V/C
V/C
V/C
V/C
V/C
V/C
V/C
RATIO
RATIO
RATIO
RATIO
RATIO
RATIO
RATIO
0.828
1.016
1.051
0.932
1.027
1.027
1.016
0.365
0.541
0.516
0.463
0.482
0.420
0.503
0.490
0.686
0.736
0.555
0.650
0.659
0.683
0.666
0.731
0.737
0.720
0.718
0.726
0.724
0.486
0.484
0.460
0.539
0.448
0.414
0.442
0.733
0.887
0.930
0.898
0.883
0.911
0.883
0.479
0.582
0.577
0.623
0.568
0.624
0.647
0.729
0.694
0.823
0.732
0.699
0.728
0.745
0.815
0.796
0.805
0.800
0.805
0.835
0.820
0.661
0.630
0.641
0.746
0.630
0.727
0.747
0.504
0.498
0.513
0.504
0.491
0.499
0.511
0.427
0.417
0.447
0.506
0.488
0.512
0.647
0.824
0.792
0.792
0.779
0.791
0.806
0.799
0.231
0.526
0.595
0.440
0.760
0.773
0.518
0.393
0.418
0.434
0.498
0.358
0.469
0.363
0.334
0.464
0.601
0.399
0.404
0.382
0.425
0.480
0.780
0.842
0.807
0.779
0.808
0.778
0.698
0.750
0.759
0.755
0.751
0.765
0.761
0.684
0.739
0.751
0.738
0.736
0.750
0.747

-------
TABLE 7-6
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN/EIS
TRANSIT MODAL SPLIT
| ALTERNATIVE
1988
GC
HC
RD
DD
UG
NA
I PERSON TRIPS
64,703
136,706
138,300
123,997
134,443
135,357
138,906
1 AUTO TRIPS
61,580
121,299
127,703
114,964
120,259
124,648
127,823
| PERCENT AUTO
95.2%
88.7%
92.3%
92.7%
89.5%
92.1%
92.0%
I PERCENT
I TRANSIT
4.8%
11.3%
7.7%
7.3%
10.6%
7.9%
8%
1 TRANSIT TRIPS IN
1 THOUSANDS
3.1
15.4
10.6
9.0
14.2
10.7
11.1

-------
1)	between home and work, If either home or work is located within the
District?
2)	between home and shopping locations;
3)	between work and restaurants;
4)	among shopping locations;
5)	between home and recreational or social activities; and,
6)	among recreational or social activities.
Obviously, many of these trips are short trips vithin the District that are
not candidates for transit use. These short, intra-district trips,
however, must be included in the count to accurately represent the total
travel volumes in the District. This, in part, explains the relatively low
transit mode share estimates. The remainder of the numbers presented in
Table 7-6 are derived from the first two. In general, a higher modal split
percentage and a larger number of person trips by transit is preferred over
a lover percentage or number because the higher percentage or number of
transit trips indicate fever automobile trips and a better utilization of
the transit system infrastructure.
7,2.2 Summary of District-vide Results
Highway. The results of the transportation network testing are summarized
in Table 7-8. The fiedevelopment Alternative has the best performance in
all categories, except vehicle miles of travel where it is second and modal
split where it is sixth. The Upland Growth Alternative, on the other hand,
has the poorest performance indicators overall.
The No Action Alternative has the highest travel demand, followed closely
by the Highway Corridors, Growth Centers and Dispersed Development Areas
alternatives. The No Action Alternative has slightly higher travel demand
than the Highway Corridors Alternative. The Upland Growth Alternative has
about 3 percent less travel demand than the No Action Alternative and the
Redevelopment Alternative has about 11 percent fever trips than the No
Action Alternative.
7-12

-------
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
8,10
12
13
15
17,22
19,20
23
16,24
14,25
26
27-31
32
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
8.10
12
13
15
17,22
19,20
23
,16,24
14,25
26
27-31
32
TABLE 7-7
EVALUATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
NETWORK LINK TYPES (AM )
DEFINITION
ROUTE 3 MAINLINE
ROUTE 3 SERVICE ROADS
MEADOWLAND PARKWAY
NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE (EAST & WEST)
ROUTE 20
ROUTE 20 (PATERSON PLANK ROAD)
RT. 1/9 SKYWAY
ROUTE 1491 ROUTE 1-9 & 48
ROUTE 17
RIDGE ROAD / KERNY AVE
SCHUYLER AVE / ORIENT WAY
RT. 7/ HARRISON AVE.
ROUTE 46
ROADWAYS IN HMD @ 25 MPH
ROADWAYS IN HMD @ 35 MPH
ROADWAYS IN HMD @ 30 MPH
ROADWAYS IN HMD @ 40 MPH
OTHERS
CENTROID CONNECTORS
1988 NETWORK
TOTAL
COUNT DIST
25
21.55
20
3.6
14
4.2
49
99.4
6
4.4
12
14.2
4
9.8
30
16.4
30
31.2
14
10.4
26
26.3
20
13
32
34.6
44
13.32
68
28.7
82
20.12
44
17.82
635
711.54
356
822.38
1511 1902.93
2010 NETWORK
TOTAL
COUNT DIST
25
21.55
20
3.6
16
5.8
56
99.4
6
4.4
12
14.2
4
9.8
30
16.4
36
40.2
14
10.4
26
26.3
22
13
38
40.8
51
13.62
70
28.9
106
32.12
46
17.42
643
718.54
376
828.68
1597 1945.13

-------
TABLE 7-8
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
TRANSPORTATION SCREENING ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
I ALTERNATIVE
NUMBER
OF PERSON
TRIPS
(xl,000)
SPEED
(MPH)
VEHICLE
MILES OF
TRAVEL
(xl0,000)
VEHICLE
HOURS OF
TRAVEL
(xl,000)
HOURS OF
DELAY
(xlOO)
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
MODAL H
SPLIT
(%)
1 Growth Centers
137
2Si
318
125
617
.748
1L3
J Highway
9 Corridors
138
24-5
323
132
677
.751
7.7
Redevelopment
124
26.4
318
120
571
.738
73
Scattered Clusters
134
2SJ
317
123
600
.736
10.6
Upland Growth
135
24.2
323
133
691
.750
13
No Action
139
253
322
127
633
.747
8.0

-------
The Redevelopment Alternative has the highest average highway travel speed
for all links while the Upland Growth Alternative has the lowest. The
Dispersed Development Areas Alternative has the fewest vehicle miles of
travel, followed by the Redevelopment Alternative. The Highway Corridors
Alternative has the most vehicle Biles of travel and the most vehicle hours
of travel. The Upland Growth Alternative has the most hours of delay and
the Redevelopment Alternative has the least. The Vcluae to Capacity Ratio,
the measure of traffic congestion most often used to indicate the adequacy
o£ highway capacityT indicates that the Dispersed Development Areas
Alternative and the Redevelopment Alternative provide the higher levels of
service while the Highway Corridors provides a lover level of service.
Transit. The modal split results from the tests are also instructive. The
highest modal split percentages are for alternatives that propose more
concentrated growth, the Growth Centers arid the Dispersed Development Areas
Alternatives. The poorest performances involve growth in areas that are
currently developed but have poor transit service. The Growth Centers
Alternative provides the best transit access followed closely by the
Dispersed Development Areas Alternative.
Because the quantity of land use varies by as much as 10 percent from
alternative to alternative, it is difficult to evaluate the absolute effect
of the alternative concepts alone 0*1 transportation. However, the
Dispersed Development Areas Alternative is either first or second best in
terms of all measures of travel efficiency, and would probably perform
consistently better than the Bedevelopment Alternative with an equivalent
amount of growth. The Dispersed Development Areas Alternative, compared to
the Highway Corridors Alternative, performs considerably better in terms of
all the performance measures except transit use.
The Growth Centers and Dispersed Development Areas alternatives are very
close in terms of their transportation performance and would be even closer
if the total development were exactly the same- Both perform batter than
the Upland Growth Alternative.
7-15

-------
The No Action Alternative results in residential development and local
commercial development that generates more trips than the other
alternatives, and consistently performs less efficiently than most of the
six alternatives except for modal split. Of the alternatives evaluated, it
is concluded that the Growth Centers and Dispersed Development Areas
Alternatives are better than the other alternatives vith respect to their
overall transportation performance. There is little difference between
them and one cannot be considered better than the other on the basis of the
testing conducted. The Highway Corridors and Upland Growth Alternatives
are inferior in terms of transportation performance. Although it is not
certain, it appears that the Redevelopment Alternative would also perform
less efficiently than the Growth Centers or Dispersed Development Areas
Alternative with exactly the same quantity of growth.
7.2.3 Localized Analysis Of Transportation System Performance
No further assess 2010 transportation network performance among
alternatives, particularly with respect to secondary effects on other
environmental Impacts such as mobile source air quality emissions, a
detailed analysis of link congestion was conducted.
Because air quality impacts are most sensitive to link speed, the
relationship among alternatives for secondary impacts on link congestion
seemed the most reasonable performance parameter to identify differences
between alternatives. Differences in congestion among alternatives would
directly affect air quality emissions. If distinctions in congestion
patterns could be identified between alternatives, and if those
distinctions resulted in a direct correlation to air quality impacts or
benefits, then the transportation model could be assumed to be sensitive to
traffic operations and resultant air quality emissions as a function of
land use.
7- 16

-------
7.2.U Correlation Of Link Congestion On Future Air Quality Emissions
The initial tier of investigation consisted of an analysis of congestion
for each of the 32 link types defined in the transportation network.
Congested links were defined as those links operating at a volume to
capacity (v/c) ratio equal to or greater than 1.0. A summary of the total
number of congested links by link type is presented for each alternative in
Table 7-9. Link types which displayed minimal or no net differences
between the number of congested links were primarily representative of
those links which were congested by assigned "through traffic" trips.
Link types displaying a minimum net change of 3 links per link type
(standard deviation of .9 or more) between alternatives were selected to
test the model results for sensitivity to changes in land uses. Of the 32
link types represented in the netvork, eighteen, or 56 percent of the link
types, displayed a measurable variation between the 2010 land use
alternatives and the number of congested links per link type. Each
alternative was then evaluated for the maximum and minimum numbers of
congested link types. Based upon this qualitative comparison, the
alternatives were ranked to test the correlation of air quality emissions
to land use alternatives.
Results of the link congestion analysis indicate that the Growth Centers
alternative has the least impact on congestion, followed closely by
Redevelopment and Dispersed Development Areas. Highway Corridors resulted
in the most impact on congestion with the No Action and Upland Growth
alternatives resulting in intermediate impacts.
A second measure of congestion on air quality emissions would be the number
of failed links per link type per alternative. Failed link types were
defined as those links for which the v/c ratio was equal to or greater than
1.25, and the link would be unable to facilitate any traffic flow Level of
Service (LOS). A summary of the total number of failed links by link type
for each alternative is presented in Table 7-10. Of the 32 link types
contained in the transportation network, fifteen, or 47% of the link types,
displayed a measurable variation between the 2010 land use alternatives and
7- 17

-------
TABLE 7-9
HACKENSACK MEADQWLANDS SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN/EIS
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
CONGESTED LINK SUMMARY TABLE





TOTAL CONGESTED LINKS (V/C
> 1.0)



TYPE
LINK DESCRIPTION
1988n
NO ACTION
SAMP ALTS
STATS


BL
NA1988
NA2010
GC
BC
DP
UG
PD
MAX
MIN
Std Dev
1
RT 3 MAINLINE
4
16
15
14
14
13
14
12
15
12
0.9
2
RT 3 SERVICE RD
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
0.4
3
MEADOWLAND FKWY
0
3
4
3
6
4
4
3
6
3
1.0
4
N.J. TURNPIKE (EtW)
7
18
15
15
16
14
17
14
17
14
1.1
5
OTHERS
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.0
6
RT 20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
7
RT 20 J PATTERSON PLANK RD)
5
8
5
3
3
3
3
4
5
3
0.8
e
RT 149/RT l-9£48
5
11
4
2
5
2
2
2
5
2
1.2
9
RT 1/9 SKYWAY
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.0
10
RT K9/RT l-9fc48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
n
RDWYS IN BHD 8 35 MPB
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
Q.O
12
RT 17
3
14
11
9
10
9
10
9
11
9
0.7
13
RIDGE RD/KERNY AVE.
3
6
4
2
3
2
3
3
4
2
0.7
14
RDWYS IB HMD 8 30 MPH
2
10
8
5
8
4
5
3
8
3
1.9
15
SCHUYLER AVE/ORIENT WAY
2
8
3
2
4
2
5
2
5
2
1.2
16
RDWYS IN HMD ( 35 MPH
2
1
0
3
1
0
1
3
3
0
1.2
17
RT 7/HARRISON AVE
0
8
5
0
2
1
5
6
6
0
2.3
18
OTHERS
5
12
11
8
10
11
11
10
11
8
1.1
19
RT 46
3
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
0.0
20
RT 46
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
0.5
21
OTHERS
3
11
12
11
11
9
9
12
12
9
1.2
22
RT 7/HARRISON AVE
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0.7
23
RDWYS IN BHD % 25 MPH
4
18
17
16
18
22
18
11
22
11
3.3
24
RDWYS IN HMD » 35 MPH
8
14
11
13
11
11
16
18
18
11
2.7
25
RDWYS IN HMD # 30 MPH
4
9
8
10
14
8
9
8
14
8
2.1
CONGSTN1.WK1

-------
TABLE 7-9
(continued)
HACKENSACK HEADOWIANDS SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PXAN/EIS
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
CONGESTED LINK SUMMARY TABLE
TYPE
LINK DESCRIPTION
TOTAL CONGESTED LINKS (V/C >1.0) |
1988
BL
NO ACTION
SAMP ALTS
STATS
NA19B8
NA2010
GC
HC
DD
UG
RD
MAX
MIN
Std Dev
26
RDWYS IN BHD « 40 MPH
3
17
13
13
20
15
14
12
20
12
2.6
27
OTHERS
22
51
38
31
39
29
31
30
39
29
4.0
28
OTHERS
6
30
9
8
5
6
a
7
9
5
1.3
29
OTHERS
32
64
47
43
47
*7
46
45
47
43
1.5
30
OTHERS
10
26
24
19
26
23
26
20
26
19
2.7
31
OTHERS
0
1
1
1
1
L
1
1
1
1
0.0
32
CENTROID CONNECTORS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
NBR CONGESTED LINKS
141
377
282
248
290
251
273
251

LEAST CONGESTED 2010 LINK TYPES

3
7
2
8
2
9
HOST CONGESTED 2010 LINK TYPES

6
I
8
?
4
3
HMDC SAMP Alternative* Screening Legend
1988BL
Baseline Alternative
NA1988
2010 No Action Land Use v/ 1986 transportation network
NA2010
2010 No Action Land Use w/ 2010 transportation network
GC
SAMP: Growth Centers Alternative
HC
SAMP: Hiqhway Corridor Alternatives
DD
SAMP: Dispersed Development Areas Alternative
UG
SAMP: Upland Growth Alternative
RD
SAMP: Redevelopment Alternative
CONGSTN1.VK1

-------
TABLE 7-10
HACKENSACK KEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN/EIS
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
FAILED LINK SUMMARY TABLE
TYPE
LINK DESCRIPTION
TOTAL FAILED LINKS (V/C > 1.25)
1988
BL
NO ACTION
SAMP ALTS
STATS
NA1988
NA2 010
GC
HC
PP
vq
RP
MAX
HIM
Ptd P*V
1
RT 3 MAINLINE
0
12
3
3
5
6
4
2
6
2
1.3
2
RT 3 SERVICE RD
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.0
3
HEADOWLAND PKWY
0
3
2
3
4
0
2
2
4
0
1.2
4
N.J. TURNPIKE (EtW)
0
3
5
5
6
3
3
4
€
3
1.1
5
OTHERS
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.0
6
RT 20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
7
RT 20 (PATTERSON PLANK RD)
2
3
0
1
2
2
2
1
2
0
0.7
8
RT 1&9/RT 1-9(48
0
6
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
0.4
9
RT 1/9 SKYWAY
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.4
10
RT U9/RT 1-9448
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
11
RDWYS IN HMD 6 3 5 KPH
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O.O
12
RT 17
0
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
4
1
1.4
13
RIDGE RD/KERNY AVE.
2
5
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
0.4
14
RDWYS IN HMD § 30 MPH
1
4
3
3
4
0
0
3
4
0
1.6
15
SCHUYLER AVE/ORIENT WAY
1
6
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
0.5
16
RDWYS IN HMD « 35 MPH
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0.5
17
RT 7/HARRISON AVE
0
4
4
0
0
0
1
6
6
0
2.3
18
OTHERS
0
5
4
2
1
3
3
3
4
1
0.9
IS
RT 46
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.0
20
RT 46
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
0.5
21
OTHERS
2
4
5
4
4
3
5
5
5
3
0.7
22
RT 7/HARRISON AVE
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0.7
23
RDWYS IN HMD €25 MPH
3
18
12
11
11
14
13
6
14
6
2.5
24
RDWYS IN HMD g 35 KPH
4
10
9
10
3
6
11
13
13
6
2.2
25
RDWYS IN HMD « 30 KPH
2
8
3
3
7
4
2
0
7
0
2.1
CONGSTN2.WK1

-------
TABLE 7-10
(continued)
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN/EIS
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
FAILED LINK SUMMARY TABLE
TYPE
LINK DESCRIPTION
TOTAL FAILED LINKS (V/C >1.25) I
1988
BL
NO ACTION
SAMP ALTS
STATS I
NA1988
NA2010
GC
HC
DD
UG
RD
MAX
X
w
SB
Std Devi
26
RDWYS IN HMD % 40 MPH
2
10
11
8
13
7
10
7
13
7
2.2
27
OTHERS
12
28
20
14
17
14
16
19
20
14
2.31
28
OTHERS
2
14
6
5
2
1
2
3
6
1
00
•
H
29
OTHERS
18
36
31
29
34
31
33
32
34
29
1.6
30
OTHERS
0
15
13
6
13
10
15
8
15
6
3.1
31
OTHERS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0.4
32
CENTROID CONNECTORS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o.ol
NBR FAILED LINKS
57
211
150
126
153
120
140
136
1
HMDC SAMP Alternatives Screening Legend
1988BL
Baseline Alternative
NA1988
2010 No Action Land Use w/ 1988 transportation network
NA2010
2010 No Action Land Use w/ 2010 transportation network
GC
SAMP: Growth Centers Alternative
HC
SAMP: Highway Corridor Alternatives
DD
SAMP: Dispersed Development Areas Alternative
UG
SAMP: Upland Growth Alternative
RD
SAMP: Redevelopment Alternative
CONGSTN2.WK1

-------
the number of failed links per link type. Each alternative was then
evaluated for the maximum and minimum total numbers of failed link types
per alternative. The alternatives were ranked to qualitatively assess the
correlation of failed links on air quality results for each land use
alternative.
Results of the failed link analysis indicate that the Dispersed Development
Areas alternative had the least number of failed links followed closely by
the Growth Centers alternative. Results of the analysis indicate that the
Redevelopment and Uplands Growth alternatives resulted in intermediate
impacts for failed links. The most impact on the number of failed links
occurred for the No Action and Highway Corridors alternatives.
The effect on air quality of congestion and the number of failed links in
the network for each land use alternative is further evaluated in Section
8.0, Air Quality.
(ds/3192)
7- 22

-------
8.0 AIR QUALITY
8.1 SUMMARY OF METHODS
An air quality screening analysis was conducted to compare the effects of
each land use alternative on mobile source emissions from traffic
operations within the District. Mobile source emissions were estimated for
the A.M. peak, hour using results obtained with the Hackensack Meadovlands
Transportation Model (HMTM). The reader is referred to Section 7.0,
"TRANSPORTATION", for a description of the HMTM.
The EPA M0BILE4.1 Mobile Source Emission Factor Model (revised November
1991) was used to estimate the 1988 and 2010 speed-dependent mobile source
emission factors. Coordination vas conducted with the New Jersey
Department Of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEP&E) to obtain the
M0BILE4.1 model input assumptions used to estimate baseline and future
mobile source emissions. The air quality screening analysis included cold
start idle emission factors, which is representative of the A.M. peak hour
period, and moving vehicle emission factors for vehicle speeds from 2.5 to
60 mph. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions were estimated using ambient winter
conditions while hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) were
estimated using ambient summer temperatures.
The methodology used to estimate total mobile source emissions consisted of
calculating the speed dependent emissions contribution of each link, in the
network then summing the component contributions. The composite results of
the emissions inventory were obtained in pounds per hour for each land use
alternative. The following methodology was used to calculate the emissions
totals:
o The M0BILE4.1 emissions estimates were converted from grams/veh
mile to pounds/vehicle mile.
o The converted emissions factors were defined in a cross reference
table as a function of speed.
8-1

-------
o The results of the transportation travel demand forecasting were
used as input into the air quality emissions model.
o Average link, speed was determined for each link in the
transportation network.
a. If the average link speed was less than 2.5 mph, an idle
emissions contribution was calculated for the link by
multiplying the average travel time on the link by the idle
emissions factor.
b. If the average speed was equal to or greater than 2.5 mph, a
running emissions contribution was calculated for the link by
multiplying the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the link by the
non-idling emissions factor.
A total of 1,511 links were contained in the 1988 Baseline Alternative
transportation network and detailed emissions inventory analysis. The 2010
No Action and SAMP Alternatives network contained 1,597 links and included
regional transportation and transit network improvements assumed to be
completed or in place during the 20 year planning period.
8.2 AIR QUALITY SCREENING RESULTS
8.2.1 Mobile Source Emissions Inventory Analysis
A mobile source emissions inventory of the transportation network within
the Hackensack Meadowlands District was prepared for carbon monoxide (CO),
hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The emissions inventory
included an analysis of the criteria pollutants for the 1988 Baseline and
2010 No Action and SAMP Land Use Alternatives. Results of the analysis
were used to comparatively evaluate the estimated mobile source emissions
associated with each land use alternative on future air quality conditions
within the District.
8-2

-------
The air quality emissions inventory analysis and associated transportation
performance parameters are presented in Table 8-1. The air quality
performance parameters for the 2010 No Action Alternative, using the 1988
baseline transportation network, are presented in Table 7-1 to
qualitatively verify the need for the transportation and transit
improvements to reduce future mobile source emissions within the District.
At the District level, the air quality screening results show an 8.7
percent variation among land use alternatives. The "through trips"
component of traffic operations within the District results in an initial
utilization of available capacity on the transportation network which is
equivalent for each land use alternative analyzed. Therefore, the
magnitude of the difference in mobile source emissions among alternatives
is a reasonable result since approximately 40 percent of traffic operating
in the District is through traffic (Rt 3, Rt 17, NJ Turnpike, etc.), and
the number of trips generated was similar for each land use alternative
evaluated. (See Section 7,0, TRANSPORTATION.)
Results of the air quality screening analysis indicate that the
Redevelopment, Dispersed Development Areas, and Growth Centers alternatives
had the least CO impact, with the Dispersed Development Areas alternative
contributing only slightly more CO than either the Redevelopment or Growth
Centers land use alternatives. The Highway Corridor and Upland Growth land
use alternatives consistently resulted in the highest mobile source
emissions of the SAMP alternatives evaluated. The No Action land use
alternative had higher mobile source emissions than the Redevelopment,
Growth Centers or Dispersed Development Areas alternatives. Mobile source
emissions for HC and NOx vera generally proportional to the CO results.
An exception in the trends observed among alternatives was a slight
reordering of the NOx impact for the Redevelopment, Dispersed Development
Areas and Growth Centers land use alternatives. See Table 6-1.
8-3

-------
TABLE 8-1
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN/EIS
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS SUMMARY TABLE
A.M. PEAK HOUR EMISSIONS, LBS/HR
PERFORMANCE
PARAMETERS
1988
Baseline
2010 NA v/
1988Netvork
SAMP Alternatives
Filename«->
BASELINE
NA 88NET
NO ACTN
GRTH CTR
HWY CORR REDEVLMT
UPLAND DISP DEV
EMIS SIONS (LBS/PEAK-HR1:
CO
143.599
71,323
62,616
60,391
65,451
59,764
65,062
60,805
NO(X)
17.925
10,944
10,667
10,506
10,781
10,490
10,758
10,487
|HC
16.301
11.218
10.170
9.846
10.579
9.823
10.415
9.864
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION PARAMETERS:
VMT (1)
2,781.846
3,254,364
3,217.444
3,182,594
3,234,334
3,180,247
3,231,186
3,170,898
CONGESTED LINKS
84
166
132
122
137
115
133
131
FAILED LINKS
57
211
J50
126
153
136
140
120
(I) Does not include VMT or air quality impacts associated with centroid connectors
HMDC SAMP Alternatives Screening Leqend
BASELINE
1988 Baseline Alternative
NA 88NET
2010 No Action Land Use w/ 1988 transportation network i
NO ACTN
t — '™ 				1
2010 No Action Land Ure w/ 2010 transportation network
GRTH CTR
SAMP: Growth Centers Alternative
HWY CORR
SAMP: Hiqhway Corridor Alternatives
DISP DEV
SAMP: Dispersed Development Areas Alternative j
UPLAND
SAMP: Upland Growth Alternative
REDEVLMT
SAMP: Redevelopment Alternative
EMISN TBL.WK1

-------
8.2.2 Transportation Congestion and the Potential for CO 'Hot Spot' Impacts
The demonstration of conformity with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) on a project specific basis requires a microscale
analysis. For those proposed projects which may contain congested roadways
or intersections, the microscale analysis often includes an analysis of
potential CO 'hot spots'. Hot spots are created when traffic volumes
greatly exceed the capacity of a roadway or intersection, resulting in
large numbers of idling vehicles. These conditions often result in
localized, short-tern, high concentrations of emissions. Roadway, or link-
specific hot spots, may occur when free flow roadway segments become grid-
locked resulting in the inability of vehicles to enter, exit, or advance.
Hot spots at an intersection typically occur when capacity on two or more
links feeding the intersection overload the signalization timing sequence.
Specific patterns of link congestion were analyzed to assess the potential
for various land use configurations to create CO hot spots within the
District. Information on link congestion contained in Section 7.0,
"TRANSPORTATION", was used as the basis to qualitatively measure the
potential of each alternative to result in hot spot locations.
Congested links are defined as those links with a v/c ratio of 1.0 to 1.2-4.
Congested links in this range may generate hot spots depending upon the
actual average speed, total number of idling vehicles, and level of
service. However, two or more of these link types common to a node
(intersection) would likely result in a critical intersection location.
Failed links were defined as those links with a v/c ratio of 1.25 or
greater. All links in the "failed link" category would represent potential
CO hot spots within the District. A summary of these transportation system
parameters associated with potential hot spot development, congested links
and failed links, are presented in Table 8-1.
Analysis of the number of congested links per alternative indicates there
is a 16 percent variation among the alternatives evaluated. The Growth
8- 5

-------
Centers and Dispersed Development Areas alternatives had the least number
of congested links. The Redevelopment, No Action and Upland Growth
alternatives were grouped around the midpoint, with the Highway Corridor
alternative having the most congested links.
Analysis of the number of failed links per alternative indicates there is a
21 percent variation among the alternatives evaluated. A slight reordering
of alternatives occurred for failed links with the Growth Centers and
Redevelopment alternatives having the least number of failed links, with
the Upland Growth and Redevelopment alternatives grouped around the
midpoint. As in the previous discussion, the Highway Corridor alternative,
in conjunction with the No Action alternative, would have the most number
of failed links.
8.2.3 Summary of Screening Results for the Mobile Source Emissions
Inventory and Hot Spot Analysis
The air quality screening analysis indicates that although total VMT would
increase with any 2010 alternative relative to the 1988 Baseline condition,
a reduction of Baseline emissions levels would occur within the District
for each alternative evaluated. The reductions in mobile source emissions
would be due to projected improvements in the vehicle tailpipe emissions
control technology by the year 2010.
Based upon the results contained in the matrix, the Growth Centers,
Dispersed Development Areas, and the Redevelopment Alternatives generally
resulted in the lowest mobile source emissions within the District. The
Highway Corridors and Upland Growth alternatives consistently resulted in
the highest mobile source emissions of the alternatives evaluated. The No
Action Alternative had higher mobil® source emissions than the Dispersed
Development Areas, Redevelopment or Growth Centers, but had lower mobile
source emissions than the Upland Growth or Highway Corridors Alternatives.
(ds/3193)
8-6

-------
9.0 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
9.1 SCREENING-LEVEL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR IN-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
9.1.1	Method for Assessing Impacts
Chapter 3 of the SAMP/EIS describes the existing and past landfill
practices in the District, as veil as potentially hazardous sites in the
District. In comparing the different management alternatives, it is
important to examine the general vay in which growth in planning areas may
overlay existing solid and hazardous waste locations. However, the
presence of solid waste and hazardous materials does not preclude future
development. In fact, as part of an environmentally managed land use plan,
such locations may experience accelerated remediation and/or closure,
insofar as additional funding sources may be available for site
utilization.
To assess the spatial relationship between the six management alternatives
and past solid waste and hazardous land uses, maps of the alternatives were
superimposed on maps of historic landfills and known hazardous waste
locations, as identified in sections 3.16 and 3.17 of the SAMP/EIS. The
acreage for areas where development is coincident with past landfills or
known hazardous waste sites was calculated. The exact location and areal
extent of the Chromate contamination sites in the District are not known,
so the impact from these hazardous waste sites were enumerated, but are not
included in the impacted acreage values.
9.1.2	Results of Impact Screening
Table 9-1 presents a summary of the screening results for solid and
hazardous waste sites for the six management alternatives. The acreage of
historic landfills that would wholly or partially underlie the planning
areas and secondary office/warehousing areas for each alternative is
presented, along with the acreage of known hazardous waste sites (and the
number of Chromate contamination sites impacted) that might experience
9-1

-------
TABLE 9-1
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
Solid	Hazardous Waste
Waste	Chromium
Acres	Acres Sites
Upland
433.6
100.2
2
Redevelopment
427.0
133.5
3
Highway Corridors
417.4
137.6
2
Dispersed Development
461.0
159. 7
3
Growth Centers 396.7	137.6	3
No Action 511.7
137.6	6

-------
development activity in the development areas. Table 9-1 shovs that the No
Action alternative would involve the nost land disturbance near past solid
waste locations, and the Growth Centers would Involve the least land
disturbance near past solid waste locations. A relative comparison of the
overlap of the planning and secondary office/warehousing areas for each
alternative with known hazardous waste sites shows that the Dispersed
Development Areas alternative involves the greatest usage of known
ha2ardous waste site lands, while the No Action alternative overlaps the
most Chroaate sites. The Upland alternative involves the lowest usage of
known hazardous waste site lands, while the Highway Corridors and Upland
alternatives overlap the least number of Chromate sites.
Tables 9-2 through 9-7 present the acreages of solid and hazardous waste
sites overlapping each component planning area and secondary
office/warehousing area of the six alternatives. Also indicated in tables
9-2 through 9-7 are the specific hazardous waste sites overlapping each of
the areas.

9-3

-------
TABLE 9-2
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPACTS
UPLAND ALTERNATIVE
Planning
Area
A
B
D
F
G
H
K
L
M
M
P
R
Solid Hazardous Waste
Waste	Chromium
Acres Acres Sites
20.1
48.4
14.0
9.4
59.3
31.2
35.6
37.0
79.0
0.0
18.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
29.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Subtotal 362.5 42.7
Secondary
Office/Ware-
Solid Hazardous Waste
Waste
Chromium
housing Area
Acres
Acres
Sites
a
9.0
0.0

0
aa
3.3
0.0

0
ab
0.7
0.0

0
ak
13.2
0.0

0
an
0.0
16.7

2
ao
0.0
40.8
#
0
as
19.2
0.0

0
g
0.0
0.0

0
t
16.3
0.0

0
u
9.3
0.0

0
Subtotal
71.0
57.4

2
Total
433.6
100.2

2
Note:
*> sci.«iflc tt-UJ]cV VaW'"°l ^ Pr<""1CtS;
#) Koppers Coke; @) Diamond

-------
TABLE 9-3
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPACTS
REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Solid Hazardous Waste	Secondary Solid Hazardous Waste
Planning Waste Chroalum Office/Ware-	Waste	Chromium
Area Acres Acres Sites housing Area	Acres	Acres Sites
A 8.9 16.0 +0 a	9.0	0.0	0
B 16.8 0.0 0 aa	3.3	0.0	0
C 17.4 0.0 0 ab	0.7	0.0	0
D 26.8 0.0 0 ae	4.2	0.0	0
0	25.3 0.0 0 af	14.5	0.0	0
1	104.9 0.0 0 ag	35.7	0.0	0
J 0.0 0.0 1 aj	25.2	0.0	0
K 8.8 0.0 0 an	0.0	16.7 
-------
TABLE 9-4
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPACTS
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS ALTERNATIVE
Planning
Solid Hazardous Waste
Waste	Chromium
Area
Acres
Acres
Sites
A
0.3
0.0
0
B
0.1
0.0
0
C
48.4
0.0
0
D
17.7
0.0
0
F
3.2
0.0
0
G
17.1
0.0
0
K
73.4
0.0
0
0
3.0
0.0
0
Subtotal
163.2
0.0
0
Secondary
Office/Ware-
housing Area
Solid Hazardous Waste
^aste	Chromium
Acres Acres sites
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
9.0
0.0

aa
3.3
0.0

ab
0.7
0.0

ae
4.2
0.0

af
14.5
0.0

ag
35.7
0.0

ai
8.3
0.0

aj
25.2
0.0

ak
13.2
0.0

an
0.0
16.7
@
ao
0.0
40.8
#
ap
0.0
40.7
#
as
19.2
0.0

g
0.0
0.0

h
8.5
0.0

i
6.1
17.3
+
J
0.1
19.3
+
n
0.0
2.8
*
s
19.5
0.0

t
16.3
0.0

u
9.3
0.0

V
15.2
0.0

w
1.0
0.0

y
27.8
0.0

z
17.0
0.0

Subtotal 254.2 137~6
Total 417.4 137,
Note: *) Scientific Chemical Processing; +) Universal Oil Produri-
#) Koppers Coke; @) Diamond Shamrock	s

-------
TABLE 9-5
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPACTS
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS ALTERNATIVE

Solid
Hazardous Waste
Secondary
Solid
Hazardous
Waste
Planning
Waste

Chromium
Office/Ware-
Waste

Chromium
Area
Acres
Acres
Sites
housing Area
Acres
Acres

Sites
E
21.7
0.0
0
a
9.0
0.0

0
F
37.7
0.0
0
aa
3.3
0.0

0
G
2.8
0.0
0
ab
0.7
0.0

0
I
107.9
0.0
0
ad
31.4
0.0

0
J
18.5
0.0
0
ae
4.2
0.0

0
K
0.0
62.8
# 0
af
14.5
0.0

0
L
0.0
0.0
1
ag
35.7
0.0

0

	
	
	
ai
8.3
0.0

0
Subtotal
188.6
62.8
1
flj
25.2
0.0

0




an
0.0
16.7

2




ao
0.0
40.8
#
0




as
19.2
0.0

0




g
0.0
0.0

0




h
8.5
0.0

0




i
6.1
17.3
+
0




j
0.1
19.3
+
0




n
0.0
2.8
*
0




s
19.5
0.0

0




t
16.3
0.0

0




u
9.3
0.0

0




V
15.2
0.0

0




w
1.0
0.0

0




y
27.8
0.0

0




z
17.0
0.0

0




Subtotal
272.4
96.9

2




Total
461.0
159.7

3
Note: *) Scientific Chemical Processing; +) Universal Oil Products;
#) Koppers Coke; 0) Diamond Shamrock

-------
TABLE 9-6
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPACTS
GROWTH CENTERS ALTERNATIVE

Solid
Hazardous Waste
Secondary
Solid
Hazardous
Waste
Planning
Waste
Chromium
Office/Ware-
Waste

Chromium
Area
Acres
Acres Sites
housing Area
Acres
Acres

Sites
A
10.3
0.0 0
a
9.0
0.0

0
B
91.6
0.0 0
aa
3.3
0.0

0
C
40.6
0.0 0
ab
0.7
0.0

0
D
0.0
0.0 1
ae
4.2
0.0

0

	
		
af
14.5
0.0

0
Subtotal
142.5
0.0 1
ag
35.7
0.0

0


ai
8.3
0.0

0



aJ
25.2
¦ 0.0

0



ak
13.2
0.0

0



an
0.0
16.7

2



ao
0.0
40.8
#
0



ap
0.0
40.7
#
0



as
19.2
0.0

0



g
0.0
0.0

0



h
8.5
0.0

0



i
6.1
17.3
+
0



j
0.1
19.3
+
0



n
0.0
2.8
*
0



s
19.5
0.0

0



t
16.3
0.0

0



u
9.3
0.0

0



V
15.2
0.0

0



w
1.0
0.0

0



y
27.8
0.0

0



z
17.0
0.0

0



Subtotal
254.2
137.6

2



Total
396.7
137.6

3
Note: *) Scientific Chemical Processing; +) Universal Oil Products;
#) Koppers Coke; @) Diamond Shamrock

-------
TABLE 9-7
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPACTS
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Solid
Hazardous Waste
Secondary
Solid
Hazardous
Waste
Planning
Waste
Chromium
Office/Ware-
Waste

Chromium
Area
Acres
Acres Sites
housing Area
Acres
Acres

Sites
B
5.0
0.0 0
a
9.0
0.0

0
E
20.5
0.0 0
aa
3.3
0.0

0
F
92.4
0.0 0
ab
0.7
0.0

0
H
0.0
0.0 1
ae
4.2
0.0

0
J
53.6
0.0 0
af
14.5
0.0

0
K
0.0
0.0 3

35.7
0.0

0
L
27.8
0.0 0
ai
8.3
0.0

0
M
86.0
0.0 0
aj
25.2
0.0

0

		
	
ak
13.2
0.0

0
Subtotal
285.3
0.0 4
an
0,0
16.7

2



ao
0.0
40.8
#
0



ap
0.0
40.7
#
0



as
19.2
0.0

0



g
0.0
0.0

0



h
8,5
0.0

0



i
6.1
17.3
+
0



j
0.1
19.3
+
0



n
0.0
2.8
*
0



s
19.5
0.0

0



t
16.3
0.0

0



u
9.3
0.0

0



V
15.2
0.0

0



V
1.0
0.0

0



z
17.0
0.0

0



Subtotal
226.4
137.6

2
Total 511.7 137.6	6
Note: *) Scientific Chemical Processing; +) Universal Oil Products;
#) Koppers Coke; @) Diamond Shamrock

-------
10-0 REPORT FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES
On the folloving pages is the alternatives screening foe cultural resources
conducted by Grossman and Associates, Inc. for this project.
I, 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 draft Stage 1A Cultural Resource
Assessment entiiied "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 {HMQC} development
alternative zones. As a planning tool, this scaled series of color coded overlay maps
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.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. February 1992
10-1

-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation	Draft Alternative Actions
Page 2
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 Draft 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
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
Grossman and Associates. Inc. February 1992
10-2

-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation	Draft Alternative Actions
Page 3
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.
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.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. February 1992
10-3

-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation	Draft Alternative Actions
Page 4
II. 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.
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)
Grossman and Associates, Inc. February 1992
10-4

-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation	Draft Alternative Actions
Page 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.
III. 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
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.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. February 1992
10-5

-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation	Draft Aiternatlva Actions
Accordingly, Vermeule's 1887 map served as a graphic back drop for the
depiction of both known and projected prenistoric resources, as well as tor 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 smpty absolute, or coordinate specific,
locations given the current levef of definition, ambiguities in the original accounts, and
the paucity of previous site specific survey and testing programs. These depictions
have been presented onfy 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,
locations! 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 Genera!
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 tend subdivisions which were compiled by Hammond from Winfield's
History of Land Titles, showing lot lines and property owners on iand grants to the east
of what is now Perihom Creek. Although predominantly inundated land today, this
zone of eariier historic iand grants is significant because it indicates that this section of
the basin appears to have once constituted arable dry tend within the past three
hundred years.
As indicated by the limited number of mapped historic resources depicted on
the 16th century Erskine map, the level of development and exploitation of the area
appears to have been relatively light in'ihe 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 soma detaH 16th century
GrosartMtrt and Associates, Inc. February 1992
10-6

-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation	Draft Alternative Actions
Page 7
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
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
Grossman and Associates, Inc. February 1992
10-7

-------
Pages
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 Modnachie area which suggests that aithouah
not precisely located, any development activities projected for the areas borderina
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 previous!
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
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 cent
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 m
deed, and archival investigation.
IV. Results - Cultural Resource Correlations and Rankings
Despite the limitations in the relative uniformity and level of coverage throuah
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
1) with the following results:
Grossman and Associates, inc. February 1992
10-8

-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation	Draft Alternative Actions
Page 9
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), ail 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
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.
Grossman and Associates, Inc. February 1992
10-9

-------
HMDC Archaeological and Historical
Sensitivity Evaluation	 Draft Alternative Actions			Page 10
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. February 1992
10-10

-------
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 10-1 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 January 1992

-------
TABLe 10-1
Correction T»bia at Identified and Potential (Irchaeotogicjt and Historical
Resource Araas within the Hackenaack Maadowlands Development Zona
PSL - Pre-1970 SoSd Lartdfl *	UL - Upland	PPS - Potential PrehkstOffc Ssnstwify
USL - Uodem Sanitary Landf* U. » Lowland	PHS > Potential Historic SenstMty





btentttadand Potential Hwources

Aichwdio^iqaifml'-^ •
PoUrtttalU«r»eiopm«rt
Ar«a(HMOC10/17/91)
Be*.
Zona ID
" Siz* ' Land till
(Acres) Status
Elevation •
Zona
Prehletorte
17th l#th 19th
Century CeflHay?<> Century
sm
C emery ^
HWortcatBaacnrc
R*f«r«nc*1kU;>• -
1. UPLAND GROWTH
Batman's Creek
A
31
PSL
LL
PPS





Arena
B
127

LL
PPS


PHS

A.C-5
Sportpwx
C
14

LL



PHS
PHS
A.C-5&8
UOP
0
36
PSL
LL
PPS


DIKE


Red Foot Inn
E
29

LL



DIKE

A.C.D
Tony's OHM*
F
T

LL
PPS


MILL
PHS
A,C>4
Crcxnak* Creek
3
£5
PSL
LL
PPS





I Standard Tool
H
79
PSL
LL.UL



mill

C-JS
IBCCEast
J
6

a






Ertwptte* Aw. South
K
38
. PSL
u.






waw>
L
64
PSL
LL

PHS
PHS


B,C
PB - 2 (It)
M
79
PSL
a
PPS




A
SCP
N
10

UL
PPS




A
Laurel H*
0
163

UL
Snake HK1


Snake HS

A
Kearny (ISO)
P
27
PSL
a






KopperCoke
«
28
PSL
LL


Ferry?
Oock?

B-3.C
*Dteda*iwr Based or COW Base Maps. Pre-1970 Solid LancrtB Data (known registarad Laretflte).
Dnrtt
Gronmn and tatodalw, Inc. referuary 1M2

-------
TABLE 10-1
(continued)






Identified and Potential Resources
Archaeological and
Potential Development
Are* CHMDCtO/t7/9t)
Dev.'
Zone ID
Size
¦f
(Acres)
Landfill
Status
Elevation
- -Zone '
Prehistoric :
17th
Century
ieth
Century
19th
Century
,20th
Century
Historical Besoorc# *
- *
. Reference Map
2. REDEVELOPMENT AREAS
UOP Site
A
86
PSL
LL
PPS


DIKE

A.C
Rutherford STP
B
36

LL



R.R.

C
Belt man's Creek
C
117
PSL
LL
PPS




A
North Bergen
D
31
PSL
LL
PPS




A
Wood Ave.
E
8

LL






Secaucas f - 495
F
38

LL


PHS



Secaucus Bd.
G
26
PSL
LL
PPS


PHS

A.C
Castle Rd.
H
33

UL



PHS

A.C
Kearny West
1
153
PSL
LL



R.R.

C
Jersey City
J
82

UL

PHS
PHS
PHS

B,C
Utile Ferry Waterfront
K
31
PSL
LL.UL



PHS

C
OVumiam
niwnvw
N
10

LL



PHS

C
X HIGHWAY CORRIDORS
TAZ92 (south)
A
32

LL






Sportptex
B
78

LL
PPS


PHS

AC
Arena
C
140
PSL
LL
PPS


PHS

c
Veterans Blvd.
0
22
PSL
LL
PPS


R.R.

AC
Berrys Creek Center
E
65

LL
PPS





East Ruth. Bl. 109
F
216

LL



R.R.

C
B1. 21SA (Ruthedonj)
G
72

LL
PPS


R.R.

AC
Meadowlands PWwy.
H
57

LL



R.R.
PHS
C
Plaza Center
1
177

UL



FH3
PHS
B.C
Ml Creek
J
10

LL






Oomakll Creek
K**
S3
PSL
LL
PPS





County Ave
L
32

UL



PHS

AC
Secaucus 1 - 496
M"
38

LL

PHS
PHS
PHS

C
Secaucus Pat Plank Rd.
N"
17

LL



PHS

AC
SU-2
O"
170

LL
PPS
PHS
PHS
R.R.

AC
Oralt
*• Boundaries under redefinition
Grossman end Associates, Inc. February 1992

-------
TABLE 10-1
(continued)
Identified atxi Potential Resources	Archaeotogtoatandr
i-i PotontWOttMiopment Dev.
Area^HMDC 10^17/91) Zone ID
Size
(Acres)
Landfill
Status
Elevation
Zone
Prehistoric
17th
Century
18th
Century
19th
Century
20th
Century
** ~
Historical Resource -
4. DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS
TAZ 92 (north)
A
81

LL





A
TAZ 92 (south)
B
32

LL



PHS

A.C
Sportptex
C
58

LL





A
Benys 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 HM
H
169

UL
Snake H311


Snake Hil 1

A-1.C
PR-2
1
105
PSL
LL
PPS




A
Kearny West
J"
37
PSL
LL






(KoppereCoke
K"
67
PSL
LL |

Ferry?
PHS
RR Lift Bridge
A.B.C-1
5. GROWTH CENTERS

Empire BM. Area
A"
351
PSL
LL
PPS


PHS

a,c
Harmon Meadow Area
B"
227
PSL
LL
PPS

PHS
PHS

C
Berrys Creek Area
C
193
PSL
LL
PPS


R.R.

A.C
Secaucus Transfer Area
D
252
PSL
LL.UL
Snake HI 1


Snake Hill

A-1.C-7
8. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Tetertxxo
A
23

LL



PHS

C
IR -4
3
234
PSL
LL
PPS





1R-3
C
147

LL






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




PR - 3
1
148

UL.LL
PPS


Snake Hal I

C
SU-1
J
76
PSL
LL






SU-3
K
322

LL



PHS

C
RD Park
L
73
PSL
LL
PPS





HCSecaucus
M
133
PSL
LL
PPS


PHS

C
** Boundaries under redefinition
Drall	Grossman and Associates, Inc. February 1992

-------
TABLE 10-1
(continued)
<¦ ~~::: Arthsaologtcslmnd^
AimftfllOC 10/17/91) Zona ID (Aerw) Stttu«	Zorw Prehistoric Century	Century	Century	C wrtmy " ^ •"'rIW*rmcm U»p^'7
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.

8, C

ac
4

a

PHS
PHS
B.R.

B.C

ad
33
PSL
LL







ae
38
PSL
a

PHS
PHS


B,C

af north
15
PSL
LL

PHS
PHS
PHS

B.C

af south
79
PS L
LL

PHS
PHS
PHS

B.C

ag
38
PSL
LL







ah
7

UL



R.R.

C

si
13
PSL
LL

PHS
PHS
PHS

B.C

ai
26
PSL
LL.UL



PHS

C

ak
20
PSL
a



R.R.

C

ai
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

a
2

UL


PHS
PHS

B.C

e
14

LL







f
13

LL



PHS

C

0
3

LL



PHS

C

h
18
PSL
LL
PPS


PHS

C

I
24
PSL
LL



R.R

C

1
48

LL
PPS


R.R.

C

k
19

LL







1
82

U.
PPS






m
50

LL






Draft
Grossman and Associates, Inc. February 1M2

-------
TABLE 10-1
(continued)
Identified and Poterrtiaf Rs&c-urces
: PofenttaTDevelopritenl ' Dev.. Sl2» Landitti Elevation
Area (HMPC10/17/91) 2on« ID (Acres) Statu*	Zone
Prehistoric
17th
Century
18th
Century
19th
Century
20Ut
Century -
7. CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT {Com.)

n
7

LL
PPS






o
2

UL







P
2

UL



PHS

C

q
3

LL







r
10

LL
PPS






s
26
PSL
LL
PPS






t
26
PSL
LL
PPS


R.R.

c

u
14
PSL
a


PHS
R.R

c

V
28
PSL
LL







w
36
PSL
U.
PPS


R.R.

c

X
45

LL
PPS






y
ze
PSL








z
22
PSL
LL






Draft
Grossman and Associates, Inc. February 1992

-------
TABLE 10-2
Summary of identified Cultural Resources by time period for each of the
seven currently defined Hackensack Meadowiands Development Action Alternatives
' Potent(af
Development Areas
Prehistoric
17th.
Century
18th.
Century
19th.
Century
20th.
Century

1. Upland Growth
6
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

ft. No Action Alternative
8
1
1
6

7. Conservation Management
9
5
9
26

Draft
Grossman and Associates, Inc. February, 1992

-------
11.0 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING RESULTS
IN-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES
Screening of potential environmental impacts associated with the six
in-District management alternatives has been conducted using the methods
described in sections 2 through 10. The results of the screening analysis
for each of the environmental impact categories were also described in
sections 2 through 10 (of the Draft Alternatives Screening Analysis
Report). This section compares the six in-District management
alternatives. First, the potential impacts from the alternative are
compared for each individual environmental impact category, and then the
range of potential environmental impacts are combined and compared for the
alternatives.
Ranking of six alternatives is done on a scale of 1.0 to 6.0, vith 1.0
assigned to the alternative with the least potential for impact, and 6.0
assigned to the alternative vith the greatest potential for impact. The
remaining four alternatives are ranked between 1.0 and 6.0 according to
their relative impact potentials. This approach consists of placing the
numerical results of the impact analyses on a relative scale from 1.0 to
6.0. The actual range of values calculated for each impact category varied
based on the measurement used to calculate that impact. For example, the
impacts to terrestrial resources are measured in acres of habitat lost
(ranging from 500 to 800), while the impacts to cultural resources are
measured in number of resources affected (ranging from 9 to 24). In order
to compare these impacts on an equal footing, the measures of numerical
impact were normalized proportionally between 1.0 and 6.0. The numerical
method used is illustrated on figure 11-1.
11.1 METHODS FOR RANKING ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives have been ranked based on their relative potential for
environmental impacts as reported in sections 2 through 10. In most cases,
a numerical measure of impact has been used. Using a numerical measure of
11-1

-------
Terrestrial Resources
Impact Analysis Results
(acres of terrestrial
habitat impact)
No Action
(798.3)
800
Dispersed
Development
(749.1)
Upland
(726.7)
700 H
Growth Centers
(690.2)
600 H
Highway Corridors
(578.4)
Redevelopment
(507.6) 500
Terrestrial
Resources
Impact
. Ranking
Cultural
Resources
Impact
Ranking
~r 6.0

Example:
[(578.4-507.6) 1
[798.3 - 507.6) X J
x 5 + 1 « 2.2
(5.7)|
(5.2)
h 5.0 H
(4.8)
(4.1)
4.0
(3.3)1
3.0
kr.'
(22)
h 2.0
— — 1-0
f (lmpactA,t - lmpactmin)
L(lmpactmax - lmpactmin)

x 51+ 1 =
RankA|t
Cultural Resources
!("P®ct Analysis Results
(total number of
resources affected)
r25
— Highway Corridors
Upland
(23)
h 20
Dispersed
Development
(18)
No Action
(16)
Redevelopment
10
Growth Centers
I?)

environmental engineers, scientists,
planners 
-------
impact allovs a direct comparison of impacts of one alternative relative to
another. From the comparisons of impact the alternatives have been ranked,
within each impact category (i.e., wetlands, water quality, transportation,
etc.). For all impact categories, the rankings have been calculated such
that the alternative with the least potential for impact receives a rank of
I.0,	and the alternative with the greatest potential for impact receives a
rank of 6.0 (because there are six alternatives). The remaining
alternatives receive ranks between 1.0 and 6.0 which reflect how their
potential impacts compare to the minimum and maximum potential impacts.
This provides for scoring separation between alternatives that have very
different levels of impact, and yields similar ranks for alternatives that
have similar levels of impact. It should be noted that the impact
assessment methodologies were selected, and the impact assessments were
conducted at a screening level-of-analysis, designed primarily to reveal
differences among alternatives.
II.1.1	Environmental Impact Categories
Wetland Resources. To assess the potential for impacts to wetland
resources, the attribute impact scores for the water quality improvement
(WQ), wildlife habitat (VH), and social significance (SS) attributes (as
discussed in section 2.1) were combined. At this level of screening, the
impact values for the three attributes were added equally because the EIS
Subcommittee felt that insufficient information was available at this stage
in the project to assign other than equal weights to the three attributes.
The important habitat (IH) attribute was not included as part of the
assessment of potential impact to wetland resources, because it is
presented as a separate environmental impact category. These issues are
addressed in the following subsection, entitled Threatened/Endangered
Species and Remnant/Unique (TERU) Habitats.
The attribute impact scores were calculated using the wetland indexing
system (described in more detail in Chapter 3s Description of the Affected
Environment, and in Appendix B to that chapter). The wetland indexing
11-3

-------
system operates by assigning a numerical importance rank to wetland
characteristics as they relate to three general wetland attributes. Each
assessment area (AA) in the District is indexed on the basis of the
presence or absence of these wetland characteristics, on a scale of 0 to
100. The final attribute score is obtained by multiplying the attribute
index by the area of the wetland (in acres).
Potential for impacts to the wetland resources are measured by predicting
changes in wetland characteristics to each AA in the District, and
rescoring the AAs based on the revised set of wetland characteristics. The
potential impact is then identifiable as the difference between the
post-impact score and the baseline score.
The results of the wetland impact ranking are presented in table 11-1. The
alternatives rank as follows, from highest to lowest potential for impacts
to wetland resources: the greatest potential for impact results from No
Action (6.0), followed by Dispersed Development (3.9), Growth Centers
(3.9), Highway Corridors (3.8), Redevelopment (2.7), and the lowest
potential for impact results from Upland (1.0).
Threatened/Endangered Species and Remnant/Unique (TERU) Habitats. To
assess the potential impacts to this environmental impact category, the
attribute impact score was determined for TERU habitats using the index
approach used for wetland impacts (discussed in section 3.1). The results
of the TERU habitat impact ranking are presented in table 11-2. The
alternatives rank as follows, from highest to lowest potential for impacts
to TERU habitats: the greatest potential for impact results from No Action
(6.0), followed by Dispersed Development (3.2), Highway Corridors (2.7),
Growth Centers (2.7), Upland (1.7), and the lowest potential for impact
results from Redevelopment (1.0).
Water Quality. As described in section A.1.2, modeling results for two of
the several pollutants evaluated for stormwater runoff impacts indicated
potential stormwater concentrations greater than ambient surface water
quality concentrations in the Districts suspended solids (SS) and copper.
The measurement selected to describe potential SS impacts was the mean SS
11-4

-------
TABLE ll-l
WETLAND RESOURCES IMPACTS
Alternative
Impact
VQ+WH+SS
Attributes
Relative
Rank
Upland
55265
1.0
Redevelopment
168055
2.7
Highway Corridors
241476
3.8
Dispersed Development
246866
3.9
Growth Centers
248489
3.9
No Action
385516
6.0
TABLE
11-2

THREATENED/ENDANGERED AND REMNANT/UNIQUE HABITATS IMPACTS
Alternative
Impact
IH Attribute
Relative
Rank
Upland
54886
1.7
Redevelopment
41436
1.0
Highway Corridors
73076
2.7
Dispersed Development
82650
3.2
Growth Centers
73002
2.7
No Action
133041
6.0
11-5

-------
concentration (in mg/1) in runoff (the "end of pipe" concentration before
dilution) estimated for each alternative. The measurement selected to
describe potential copper impacts was the acreage of the planning areas
which resulted in projected higher relative stormvater quality
concentrations (greater than 5 times the EPA acute toxic water quality
criterion, see section 4.1.2). Because the impacts from copper are
measured in acres contributing runoff , with levels of copper estimated to
have "significant impact potential", while the potential impacts from SS
are less significant, and because of the numerical relationship between the
two sets of scores, the copper ranks were given twice the weight of the SS
ranks. The measures of SS and copper impact potential were used to rank
the six alternative from 1.0 to 6.0, providing the water quality ranking.
The results of this ranking are presented in table 11-3. The alternatives
rank as follows, from highest to lowest potential for impact to water
quality: the greatest potential for impact results from Highway Corridors
(6.0), followed by Redevelopment (4.8), No Action (3.7), Dispersed
Development (2.3) Growth Centers (2.2), and the lowest potential for
impact result from Upland (1.0).
Other Aquatic Resources. Principal impacts to aquatic resources, as caused
by loss of wetland and reductions in water quality, have already been
incorporated in the screening analysis as part of the impacts identified
for those environmental categories. Potential for additional impacts to
aquatic resources were calculated by measuring the acreage loss of
estuarine wetlands, which provide a source of primary productivity to the
surface water ecosystems (see section 5.1.2). Loss of primary productivity
is an indirect effect on aquatic ecosystems resulting from the reduction of
export of bioraass to downslope waters that occurs when estuarine wetland
are lost. This biomass (organic matter) serves as a food source for
aquatic organisms and supports the aquatic food chain. Thus, this category
of impact measures indirect and cumulative potential impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem, in addition to those aquatic impacts calculated separately as
part of the wetland and water quality impact assessments. The results of
the "other aquatic resources" impact ranking are presented in table 11-4.
The alternatives rank as follows, from highest to lowest potential for
impact to other aquatic resources: the greatest potential for impact
11-6

-------
TABLE 11-3
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Alternative
SS
Hean Concentration
Measure Rel. Rank
Copper
Acres of Higher
Impact Potential
Measure Rel. Rank
Summed Rank
from SS and
Copper
Relative
Rank
Weight —

1


2



Upland
53

4.7
125

1.0
6.7
1.0
Redevelopment
57

6.0
150

4.0
14.0
4.8
Highway Corridors
52

4.3
167

6.0
16.3
6.0
Dispersed Development
52

4.3
137

2.4
9.2
2.3
Growth Centers
48

3.0
142

3.0
9.0
2.2
No Action
42

1.0
162

5.4
11.8
3.7

-------
TABLE 11-4
OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS
Alternative
Estuarine
Wetland
Acres Lost
Relative
Rank
Upland
0.0
1.0
Redevelopment
187.9
1.9
Highway Corridors
402.0
2.9
Dispersed Development
416.6
3.0
Growth Centers
422.3
3.0
No Action
1041.2
6.0
TABLE
11-5

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES IMPACTS

Alternative
Vacant
Upland
Acres Lost
Relative
Rank
Upland
726.7
4.8
Redevelopment
507.6
1.0
Highway Corridors
578.4
2.2
Dispersed Development
749.1
5.2
Growth Centers
690.2
4.1
No Action
798.3
6.0
11-8

-------
results from No Action (6.0), followed by Growth Centers (3.0), Dispersed
Development (3.0), Highway Corridors (2.9), Redevelopment (1.9), and the
lowest potential for impact results from Upland (1.0).
Terrestrial Resources. Potential impacts to terrestrial resources were
determined by calculating the loss of vacant upland area from the six
management alternatives, measured in acres (see section 6.1.1). The
results of this ranking are presented in table 11-5. The alternatives
rank., from highest to lowest potential for impacts to terrestrial
resources, as follows: the greatest potential for impact results from No
Action (6.0), followed by Dispersed Development (5.2), Upland (4.8), Growth
Centers (4.1), Highway Corridors (2.2), and the lowest potential for
impact results from Redevelopment (1.0).
Transportation. The potential impacts to transportation were measured by
combining the effect of three different transportation system measures (see
section 7.1):
1.	the sum total length of roadway "links" (unidirectional sections of
road in the transportation model) projected to encounter peak hour
congestion, based on the ratio of traffic volume to roadway
capacity (V/C ratio) for each alternative;
2.	the hours of delay from roadway congestion resulting from
development of each alternative; and
3.	the modal split for each alternative.
These indicators of transportation system performance best characterized
the range of relative transportation impacts.
In order to obtain a single set of ranks for impacts to the transportation
system, the three general measures of transportation system impacts listed
above were combined. The weights assigned to transportation system impact
measures are shown in table 11-6. The three general measures of
transportation impacts groups were assigned equal weights. The measure of
length of roadway congestion has been broken dovn into 2 measurements: (1)
the sum total length of roadway links that were projected to "fail" in the
peak hour (i.e., the links with a V/C ratio above 1.25; and (2) the
11-9

-------
TABLE 11-6
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
Congested Link Klles
Alternative Measure Rel. Rank
Failed
Measure
Link Mllee
Rel. Rank
Hours
Measure
of Delay
Xel. Rank
(100 - Modal Split}
Measure Rel. Rank
Sun. of
Weighted
Ranks
Relative
Rank
Weight - 1

2

i
3


(JplMad
Redevelopment
Hl|hv«T Corridors
Dispersed Dtvtlvpoiftt
Growth C«nttn
Ho Action
95.a	5.0
£8.8	1.0
95.3	4.7
97.0	5.7
94.9	*.5
97.5	6.0
95.5	5.4
89.6	3.8
97.3	5.8
82.4	1,8
79.2	1.0
97.9	6.0
691
571
677
600
617
633
6.0
1.0
5.4
2-2
2.9
3.6
92.1	5.3
92,7	6.0
92.3	5.5
89.4	1.9
88.7	1.0
92.0	5.1
49.5
29.6
49.1
21.6
:e.2
44.1
6.0
2.8
5.9
1.5
1.0
5.1
TABLE 11-7
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Emissions, Ib/hr
Sun of
Relative
Alternative
CO
N0(x)
HC
Emissions
Rank
Weight -
1
1
1


Upland
65062
10758
10415
86235
5.6
Re developnent
59764
10490
98 23
80077
1.0
Highway Corridors
65451
10781
10579
86811
6.0
Dispersed Development
60805
10487
9864
81156
1.8
Growth Centers
60391
10506
9846
80743
1.5
No Action
62616
10667
10170
83453
3.5

-------
remaining length of roadway links that were projected to encounter
"congested" (i.e., with a V/C ratio above 1.0) peak hour conditions. Thus,
the links that were predicted to encounter peak hour V/C ratios above 1.0
were divided into two groups—those with V/C ratios above 1.25 were termed
"failed" links, and those with V/C ratios above 1.0 but below 1.25 were
termed "congested" links. Furthermore, because a "failed" link is worse
than one that is congested, the miles of failed links were weighted twice
as high as the miles of congested links. Presenting two indicators of
congestion (failed links and congested links) leads to the weighting
presented in table 11-6, where the measure of congested links receives a
weight of "1", the measure of failed links receives a weight of "2", and
the remaining two measures receive weights of "3". (Thus, each of the
three general measures of transportation impacts are weighted equally,
since the sum of the weights of the congested and failed link measures
equals "3"). Also, because alternatives exhibiting higher modal splits (as
indicated by the transportation model) should be associated with a more
favorable (i.e., lower) ranking, the measure used to rank the alternatives
was 100 minus the modal split percentage (in reality, because the modal
split is the percentage of trips in the District using public
transportation, 100 minus the modal split is the percentage of trips in the
District using personal automobiles). This adjustment results in a higher
impact measure leading to a higher impact rank.
The results of this ranking are presented in table 11-6. The alternatives
rank as follows, from highest to lowest potential for impacts to
transportations the greatest potential for impact results from Upland
(6.0), followed by Highway Corridors (5.9), No Action (5.1), Redevelopment
(2.8), Dispersed Development (1.5), and the lowest potential for impact
result from Growth Centers (1.0).
Air Quality. The air quality screening analysis, based on the vehicle
emissions as calculated from the projected traffic volumes and speeds under
each alternative, resulted in peak hour emission rates for carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (N0[Xj), and hydrocarbons (HC), in pounds per hour
(see section 8.1). These emissions were combined to indicate the relative
potential for impacts to the air quality from each alternative. The
11-11

-------
results of this ranking are presented in table 11-7. The alternatives rank,
as follows, from highest to lowest projected impacts to air quality: the
greatest potential for impact results from Highway Corridors (6.0),
followed by Upland (5.6), No Action (3.5), Dispersed Development (1.8),
Growth Centers (1.5), and the lowest potential for impact results from
Redevelopment (1.0).
Solid and Hazardous Waste. The presence of solid waste and hazardous
materials is important in assessing the potential developability of a site.
However, the level of information available for solid and hazardous waste
sites varies widely, from virtually no information regarding the types and
levels of contamination for many sites, to detailed remedial investigations
for a few sites. Consistent information of sufficient detail was not
available to support alternatives screening. More detailed information is
necessary to assess impacts or benefits from proximity to solid or
hazardous waste site locations. The effect of proximity to solid and
hazardous waste sites will be evaluated in the development of the preferred
alternative. Thus, the discussion of solid and hazardous waste has been
presented for informational, not alternatives screening, purposes.
Cultural Resources. Section 10.0 enumerates the identified cultural
resources by time period for each of the six management alternatives. To
estimate the relative potential for impacts to the cultural resources of
the District for each alternative, the total number of identified cultural
resources that might be affected by an alternative for all time periods was
used. The results of this ranking are presented in table 11-8. The
alternatives rank as follows, from highest to lowest potential potential
for impacts to cultural resources: the greatest potential for impact
results from Highway Corridors (6.0), followed by Upland (5.7), Dispersed
Development (4.0), No Action (3.3), Redevelopment (3.0), and the lowest
potential for impact results from Growth Centers (1.0).
11-12

-------
TABLE 11-8
CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS

Pre-
17th
18th
19th
20th
Total Resources
Relative
Alternative
historic
Century
Century
Century
Century
Affected
Rank
Weight —
1
1
1
1
1


Upland
8
1
3
9
2
23
5.7
Redevelopment
(*¦
1
2
e
0
15
3.0
Highway Corridors
7
2
2
LI
2
2U
6.0
Dispersed Development
6
1
1
S
5
18
4.0
Growth Centers
4
0
1
h
0
9
1.0
No Action
S
1
1
6
0
16
3.3
TABLE 11-9
COMPOSITE ALTERNATIVES RANKING
Alternative
tfetlUMi
Resource
T-ERU
Habitats
Wat«r
Quality
Aquatic
Resources
Terrestrial
Resources
Transpor-
tation
Air
Quality
Cultural
Resource*
Heightad
Ranks
Relative
Rank
Weight *
8
16
k
2
4
4
4
2


OpLaad
1.0
1,7
1.0
1.0
*.a
6.0
5.6
5,7
118.4
2.1
Redevelopoent
2.7
1.0
4.8
1.9
1.0
2.8
1,0
3.0
85. e
1.0
Hi*bvajr Corridors
3.3
2.7
6.0
2.9
2.2
5-9
6.0
6.0
172.7
3.9
Dispersed £tarfel
-------
11.1.2 OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In order to identify the alternatives exhibiting relatively lower overall
potential environmental impacts, it was necessary to combine the relative
ranks for the eight assessed environmental impact categories discussed
above. (Locations of solid and hazardous waste were not assessed as an
impact category for the reasons stated in section 11.1.) A relative
importance weight was assigned to each impact category, to take into
account the importance of each environmental impact category in relation to
the other impact categories. The weights assigned to each of the assessed
environmental impact categories are presented in table 11-9. The weights
are the consensus of the professional staff of each of the SAMP partner
agencies.
Impacts to threatened or endangered species and remnant or unique (TERU)
habitats receive the highest weight (a weighting factor of "16") because
such habitats are very important in the ecosystem, and impacts can be very
difficult to mitigate.
Impacts to wetland resources receive the next highest weight (a weighting
factor of "8") because wetlands are a very important natural resource in
the District. Moreover, they provide habitat for a wide range of both
aquatic and terrestrial organisms, as well as providing many valuable
social and ecological functions, such as nutrient transformation, sediment
stabilization, and retention of toxic materials. Furthermore, the location
of the wetlands, within an urban complex, makes them valuable as a refuge
for many native species that have been displaced by development.
Impacts to the transportation system and air quality in the District have
been assigned weighting factors of "4", due to the significance of existing
transportation and air quality problems in the District.
Impacts to terrestrial resources have been assigned a weighting factor of
"4". Terrestrial resources are important because only limited areas of
upland open space remain in the District to provide habitat for terrestrial
species.
11-14

-------
Impacts to water quality have also been assigned a weighting factor of "4".
Water quality is important to the wildlife and the ecosystems of the
District; however, the additional stormwater runoff resulting from the six
in-District alternatives does not have the potential to substantially
degrade the existing water quality in the District. The additional
stormwater runoff would comprise only a very small fraction of existing
point and non-point source discharges in the District. Existing loadings
of point-source pollutants are relatively high, and the additional
stormwater discharges will not substantially increase these loadings.
Impacts to other aquatic resources and to cultural resources have each been
assigned a weighting factor of "2". Because impacts to aquatic resources
are primarily measured as part of the impacts to wetlands and to water
quality, the "other aquatic resources" category measures only indirect
impacts on the aquatic ecosystems, and thus the significance as measured
for the screening assessment (i.e., the loss of primary productivity from
estuarine wetlands) represents this category's status as only one of
several measures to aquatic resources. Other impacts to this
category—wetland and water quality—are considered under separate impact
categories. Cultural resources may be an administrative impediment to the
implementation of the SAMP, but typically do not preclude the use of land
if cultural resources are logged during disturbance or construction.
The combined environmental impacts were ranked on a relative basis for each
alternative by multiplying the weight for each impact category by the
relative rank, for that category. The results for all eight impact
categories were then summed. This resulted in a single "impact score" for
each alternative. Using these total impact scores, the alternatives were
then ranked on a scale of 1.0 to 6.0, as discussed in section 11.1 above.
This resulted in a composite rank for each alternative.
11.2 COMPARISON OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Tables 11-1 through 11-8 presented the relative impact ranking for the six
management alternatives for each of the eight environmental impact
11-15

-------
categories assessed in the alternatives screening. Table 11-9 presents the
composite rank for each alternative. The composite rank combines the
relative ranking determined for each of the eight impact categories, using
a weighting formula (described above). Please note that the discussion of
level of impact is comparative only. Thus, where a moderately high impact
is described, it must be interpreted within the range of impacts determined
for the alternatives. These impacts are relative impacts, not absolute
impacts.
The alternatives rank as follows, from highest to lowest composite
estimated impacts (for all eight environmental impact categories): the
greatest composite impacts result from No Action (6.0), followed by Highway
Corridors (3.9), Dispersed Development (2.8), Growth Centers (2.1), Upland
(2.1), and the lowest composite impacts result from Redevelopment (1.0).
The following sections discuss each alternative, its composite rank, and
its relative ranks for the various impact categories assessed during the
screening process. The alternatives are presented in order of composite
rank, from lowest impact potential to highest.
11.2.1 Redevelopment Alternative
The Redevelopment alternative involves the least amount of land
disturbance, because of the finite supply of land available for
redevelopment. This alternative relies primarily on lands already
developed. Thus, it has lower impacts to many of the impact categories
that are dependent on land area, such as terrestrial resources, wetland
resources, and other aquatic resources. The Redevelopment alternative has
the lowest impacts to terrestrial resources, due to the fact that most of
the land is already developed. It also has the lowest impacts to
threatened or endangered species and remnant or unique (TERU) habitats, low
impacts to other aquatic resources (1.9 ranking) and moderate impacts to
wetland resources (2.7 ranking), due to the comparatively lower amount of
wetland acreage involved.
Impacts to water quality from the Redevelopment alternative are moderately
high (4.8 ranking), due to a higher number of smaller parcels of land,
11-16

-------
which tend to increase the concentration of pollutants discharged directly
into the receiving waters, instead of being attenuated by infiltration and
overland flow. The impacts from the Redevelopment alternative to the
transportation system are moderate (2.8 ranking), and the air quality
impact is the lovest of the six alternatives. The cultural resources
impacts from the Redevelopment alternative are moderate, compared to the
other alternatives.
The Redevelopment alternative exhibits relatively lower impacts than the
other alternatives. This is due to the lov impacts to wetland resources,
terrestrial resources, TERU habitats, other aquatic resources, air quality,
and cultural resources. The greatest relative impact for the Redevelopment
occurs in the water quality impact category, because the small size of the
Planning Areas does not effectively retain on-site stormwater-borne
contaminants.
11.2.2 Upland Alternative
The Upland alternative, by definition, involves no fill of wetlands. Thus
it follows that the Upland alternative has the lowest impacts to wetlands
of the six management alternatives. (There are, however, indirect impacts
to wetlands for this alternative.) Also, due to the absence of wetland
fill, the other aquatic resources impact (as measured by the amount of
estuarine wetland fill) for the Upland alternative is the lovest among the
alternatives. The Upland alternative exhibits the lovest potential to
degrade water quality, although the range of impacts to water quality among
all six alternatives is not substantial. Impacts to TERU habitats are
comparatively lov (2.1 ranking) for the Upland alternative. Impacts to
TERU habitats are not the lovest as a result of the impacts caused by
development on upland T/E habitats, and the indirect impacts caused by the
proximity of some of the Upland alternative locations to wetland T/E
habitats.
The Upland alternative, by definitionally containing no fill in wetlands,
must use a large amount of vacant upland, and thus the impact to
terrestrial resources is moderately high (4.8). Impacts to the
11-17

-------
transportation system from the Upland alternative are the highest among the
six alternatives—the spatial locations of the Planning Areas under this
alternative cause relatively greater increases in vehicle mile traveled and
congestion. High levels of vehicle miles traveled results in the Upland
alternative having high air quality impacts (5.6). The Upland alternative
also has a high effect on cultural resources (5.7), compared to the other
alternatives.
The relatively low overall impact ranking for the Upland alternative (2.1)
is due to the low impacts to wetland, water quality, and other aquatic
resources, as a result of no wetland fill. However, the impact ranking is
not the lowest because of the higher impacts to transportation, air
quality, terrestrial resources, and cultural resources, which results
primarily from the limited availability of upland property, and the
scattered spatial arrangement that results from using only upland sites.
11.2.3 Growth Centers Alternative
The Growth Centers alternative is based on the planning principle that
larger mixed-use centers of development are a more efficient way of
managing growth. However, focusing growth in the District into centers
involves wetland fill, because the available uplands in the District are
not grouped so as to allow development of mixed-use centers.
The relatively lower increase in vehicle miles traveled and congestion
under the Growth Centers alternative results in relatively low impacts to
transportation (1.0 ranking) and air quality (1.5). The Growth Centers
alternative has the lowest impact to transportation, and the second lowest
impact to air quality. The centralized locations, located in areas with
fewer cultural resources, results in the lowest impacts to cultural
resources (1.0). Cultural resources in the District are primarily found in
areas along the Hackensack River that are not proposed for inclusion in the
Growth Centers alternative. The large size of the planning areas in the
Growth Centers alternative is responsible for moderately low impacts to
water quality (2.2)—large areas allow more chance for pollutant
attenuation by infiltration and sediment trapping.
11-18

-------
The terrestrial resources impacts from the Growth Centers alternative are
moderately high (4.1). The terrestrial resources impacts are due to the
amount of vacant upland that is included in this alternative.
Wetland (3.9) and other aquatic resources (3.0) impacts from the Growth
Centers alternative are both ranked moderate. Impacts to TERU habitats are
ranked comparatively low (2.1). These moderate rankings result from the
relatively intermediate amount of wetlands disturbed as part of this
alternative, compared to the other alternatives.
The moderately low overall impacts exhibited by the Growth Centers
alternative (2.1) is due to the relatively low impacts to transportation,
air quality, and cultural resources, along with the relatively moderate
impacts to wetland, terrestrial, other aquatic resources, water quality,
and TERU habitats.
11.2.4 Dispersed Development Areas Alternative
The Dispersed Development Areas alternative is comprised of somewhat large
areas of development (between 30 and 170 acres in size) distributed
throughout the District. The dispersed nature of this alternative, with
planning areas that are, for the most part, readily accessible, leads to a
relatively low impact to transportation (1.5 ranking) and air quality
(1.8). The relatively large size of the planning areas is responsible for
the moderately low impacts to water quality (2.3)—larger areas allow more
chance for pollutant attenuation by infiltration and sediment trapping.
Impacts to wetland (3.9) and other aquatic resources (3.0), as well as to
TERU habitats (3.2) are moderate, and are slightly higher than impacts from
the Highway Corridors alternative, and similar to the impacts from the
Growth Centers alternative. Impacts to terrestrial resources (5.2) and to
cultural resources (4.0) are moderately high.
The Dispersed Development Areas alternative exhibits moderate overall
impacts (2.8), higher than the Growth Centers alternative, but
11-19

-------
i	,.i,,n the Highway Corridors alternative. The relatively
srrcr;:hr:o:::/to ^ .*«	<«.«.
alternative result from the spatial arrangement of this alternative. While
development is somewhat clustered under this alternative there is still a
substantial amount of dispersion of the plannin8 areas. It is this
combination of both clustering and dispersion that contributes to the
moderate level of environmental impacts for the Dispersed Development Areas
alternative.
11.2.5 Hiffhvay (frrridorsjtl tentative
The Highway Corridors alternative is typified by develops around the
, « Tt He this spatial arrangement and the higher vehicle
Route 3 corridor, it is uu» v	^	t
miles traveled under this alternative that lead to the high impacts to
transportation (5.9 ranting, only slightly lover the No Action
alternative), air quality (6.0), and cultural resources (6.0). The high
transportation impact reveals that development around the already congested
Route 3 corridor leads to a worsening of already heavily congested traffic
conditions. This, plus the increase in vehicle miles traveled, is
estimated to cause relatively high air emissions. The Route 3/Paterson
a h** been a historic location for activity in the District
Plank. Road area has Deen a mo
since the 19th century, thus there is a substantial potential for cultural
resources from this time period to be encountered.
The spatial arrangement of this alternative results in moderate impacts to
wetland resources (3.8), other aquatic resources (2.9), and TERU habitats
,3 9) when compared to the other alternatives. The amount of direct
wetland fill involved in this alternative is the second largest among the
"lternatlves. The wetland resources impacts are similar to (and only
slightly lower than) the wetland Impacts from the Dispersed Development
Area and Growth Centers alternatives. This is because most of the wetlands
around the Rout. 3 corridor (except for the wetlands surrounding Berrys
rree* and Berrys Creek Canal) are already disturbed, are smaller and
¦ lated and are thus of lower quality relative to other wetlands affected
"der other alternatives. The Highway Corridors alternative also has
rate impacts to aquatic resources and TERU habitats, with only slightly
11-20

-------
lower impacts than the Dispersed Development Areas and Growth Centers
alternatives, for much the same reasons.
The impacts to terrestrial resources are moderately low (2.2), because the
Route 3 corridor area is already highly developed and has little vacant
upland suitable for terrestrial habitats. Impacts to water quality from
the Highway Corridors alternative are the highest among the alternatives,
due to the number of smaller parcels involved in this alternative. Smaller
parcels tend to increase the concentration of pollutants discharged
directly into the receiving waters, instead of being attenuated by
infiltration and sediment trapping.
The Highway Corridor alternative exhibits relatively high impacts to
transportation, air quality, cultural resources, and water quality, along
with the moderate impacts to wetland, other aquatic, TERU, and terrestrial
resources. The spatial arrangement of planning areas for this alternative
(centrally located around the Route 3 corridor) is directly responsible for
the moderately high overall impact ranking for this alternative (3.9).
11.2.6 No Action (No SAHP) Alternative
The No Action alternative was developed using existing HMDC zoning, and is
a projection of possible development patterns in the absence of a SAMP.
The use of existing HMDC zoning means that much larger areas must be used
to accommodate the HMDC-identified development needs, because the existing
zoning uses lower development densities than is assumed for other future
management alternatives. In fact, the No Action alternative requires over
65 percent more land area than that involved in the Highway Corridors
alternative to meet similar needs. The comparatively large amount of land
area for the No Action alternative required to meet HMDC-identified needs
under existing zoning, along with the spatial arrangement of these parcels,
results in comparatively higher environmental impacts.
The No Action alternative has the highest projected impact for four of the
eight environmental impact categories: wetland resources, TERU habitats,
other aquatic resources, and terrestrial resources. Impacts to the
11-21

-------
transportation system are also high (5.1 ranking), resulting from the
relatively high vehicle miles traveled and the congestion projected to
occur under this alternative. Impacts to air quality (3.5), vater quality
(3.7), and cultural resources (3.3) are all moderate.
The relatively high overall environmental impacts of the No Action
alternative (6.0) are due to the extensive impacts to wetland resources,
terrestrial resources, other aquatic resources, TERU habitats, and
transportation impact categories.
(ds\3191)
11-22

-------
Appendix
L

-------
APPENDIX L
HYBRID ANALYSIS
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
THE HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MAY 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.

-------
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
HYBRID ANALYSIS
May 23, 1995

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HYBRID ANALYSIS
SECTOR	PAGF.
I. INTRODUCTION TO PLANNING ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY
FOR TB I DOCUMENTATION OF THE HYBRID PLAN	1
H. PLANNING AREA ANALYSIS
LAND USE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
EXCLUSIONARY AND PLANNING CRITERIA	4
m. PLANNING *.LYSIS OF LAND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 7
REDEVELOPMENT	10
UPLANE GROWTH	34
GROW CENTERS	62
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS	72
HIGHW Y CORRIDORS	92
IV.	PLANNING ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE AREAS	118
V.	DEVELOPMENT OF THE HYBRID PLAN	185

-------
I INTRODUCTION TO PLANNING ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE
DOCUMENTATION OF THE HYBRID PLAN
This document presents a methodology to be used by Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission (HMDC) planners in conjunction with a Master Plan revision, and the ongoing
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Hackensack Meadowlands
Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). The planning analysis utilized in this document
represents generally accepted planning practices concerning spatial and locational land use
diversions. The planning analysis establishes and applies criteria intended to address the cost,
logistics and technology parameters of the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
The Planning Analysis reviews the Planning Areas associated with each of the Land Management
Alternatives and recommends their inclusion or exclusion in the Hybrid Plan. The Land
Management Alternatives are described in the Alternatives Screening Report which assessed the
environmental impacts of the individual alternatives at the screening level. The planning analysis
for the documentation of the Hybrid Plan considers each of the Land Management Alternatives
in a comprehensive and objective manner. Although the planning analysis includes certain
environmental factors, as does the current Master Planning process, it is not intended to
subrogate the full environmental analysis performed in the EIS.
Each of the Land Management Alternatives contain two distinct types of planning units -
"Planning Areas*, which are locations where the principal land use classifications (office,
commercial and residential) are planned, and "Satellite Areas" which are locations where the
secondary office and warehouse/industrial uses are planned. The Satellite Areas are dispersed
throughout the HMD, are vacant parcels located in proximity to the Planning Areas, and remain
essentially constant in each of the Land Management Alternatives. Planning Areas not considered
suitable for primary land uses will also become Satellite Areas.
The purpose of this Planning Analysis is to document the process utilized to determine the
suitability of Planning Areas to comprise the principal land use classifications in the context of
a comprehensive plan for the HMD. This determination will be based on the application of the
exclusionary and planning criteria described in Section n.
Each Land Management Alternative will be analyzed in the order in which it was ranked in the
EIS Screening Analysis as shown;
REDEVELOPMENT
UPLAND GROWTH
GROWTH CENTERS
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS
The Planning Areas are analyzed separately; however, the ability to merge Planning Areas
within close proximity to each other is important in the analysis. The principal object of the
analysis is to fulfill developmental needs and comprehensive planning objectives for the HMD
1

-------
bv consolidating selected Planning Areas from the several Land Management Alternatives, and
to address concurrently the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guideline*. This may include
using selected parcels in each of the alternatives in order to make any necessary adjustments that
can ensure a balanced distribution of needs. Planning Areas that ultimately are included in the
Hybrid Plan will result from the analysis contained in this document.
The Planning Analysis section applies the exclusionary and limiting planning criteria to the
Planning Areas in the Land Management Alternatives to determine their suitability in the Hybrid
plan. (See Section II for a complete description of the Planning Criteria).
Three Tiers of planning criteria are applied1:
Tier I Exclusionary Criteria are factors or circumstances which are of such significance
that they would eliminate the Planning Area from any further consideration as a Planning
Area or as a Satellite Area. Specifically, Tier I Criteria relate to site availability,
contamination, and ownership or jurisdictional issues.
Tier II Potential Cost, Logistics and Technology Exclusionary and Planning Criteria
are factors, which when applied, may transfer a Planning Area to a Satellite Area
category. Tier II criteria also are intended to address the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
with regard to the disposition of wetlands.
Tier IH Limiting Planning Criteria are factors that demonstrate the ability of the
Planning Area to be responsive to comprehensive planning principles and HMDC
developmental needs. Tier HI criteria also help to define the specific land use types,
either primary or secondary to be implemented in the Planning Area.
'Tier I and Tier II criteria were developed to address the Costs, Logistics, and v^hnology
parameters of the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
2

-------
The presence of a Tier I criteria could result in the elimination of the Planning Area from
further consideration. The presence of Tier n criteria in a Planning Area may change the status
of the Planning Area to a Satellite Area or result in the elimination of the Planning Area from
further consideration based on accepted planning principles and professional judgement. Tier m
criteria alone will not result in the elimination of a Planning Area; rather the Tier in criteria are
used to refine the responsiveness of the Planning Area to meet HMDC developmental needs.
Other factors described in the existing conditions section may also help define the presence of
exclusionary and planning criteria.
Based on the Planning Analysis, a recommendation is made with regard to the feasibility of
including the Planning Area into the Hybrid Plan in the context of comprehensive planning.
The planning recommendations could include:
(1)	Retaining the Planning Area;
(2)	Changing the Planning Area status to Satellite Area;
(3)	Merging the Planning Areas with other Planning Areas;
(4)	Eliminating the Planning Area from any further consideration; or
(5)	A determination of land use in the Planning Area.
Planning Areas that are changed to the Satellite Area category may be utilized to satisfy the
secondary office/warehouse/industrial needs. Certain Planning Areas can also be assigned to non-
development status such as open space, if appropriate.
The format of the analysis shown below is typical of land use planning techniques. Each
Planning Area will be analyzed in accordance with the following format:
Existing Conditions
Projected Land Use
Planning Analysis
Tier I Criteria
Tier n Criteria
Tier HI Criteria
Planning Recommendation
The Existing Conditions section describes the boundaries of the Planning Area and its physical
and man-made features. Also identified, are the land uses surrounding the area and any specific
feature which may have an affect on the feasibility of the selected area to be included in a
Hybrid Plan. Access to the Planning Area will also be identified from both roadway and mass
transit modes. The presence of any water and sewerage infrastructure is also discussed.
The Projected Land Use section indicates the land use type proposed for development within the
Planning Area in each Land Management Alternative. This section may also indicate any factors
that would assist in understanding why the specific land use was selected for the Planning Area.
3

-------
n PLANNING AREA ANALYSIS LAND USE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA
TIER I EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA (concerning environmental conditions and «jjfP
availability)
1-1. Severe Land Contamination: Identified locations within the Planning Area where
reasonable certainty exists of hazardous material contamination, where no public program
for remediation exists and the extent of contamination is suspected to preclude
development within the 20 year planning period.
1-2. Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: Land parcels within the Planning
Area that are publicly or quasi-publicly owned and where land development may be
institutionally precluded (e.g. Teterboro Airport is under the jurisdiction of the Port
Authority of N. Y. N.J.). Similarly, land owned by certain entities (e.g. N.J. Sports and
Exposition Authority), where the HMDC regulatory jurisdiction is limited, would be
included in this criteria as well as any land that is deed restricted from development.
1-3. Current Land Development: Land uses projected for the subject Planning Area under this
Land Management Alternative are no longer available either because incompatible
development is underway or is imminent (i.e. received all government approvals) or
existing development in the Planning Area is viable and would not meet redevelopment
criteria.
TTFtt IT POTENTIAL COSTS. LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY EXCLTISTONAPV
AND LIMITING CRITERIA
n-1. Poor Accessibility:
a).	Hifhwav Capacity: The road and highway system within or adjacent to the Planning
Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from
the Planning Area. New roadway access and rights-of-way are not available o sufficient.
b).	Direct Highway Impact: The Planning Area must utilize the regional highway system
as its primary means of access without existing or future alternative secondary access
opportunities that can reasonably be expected to be built.
c).	Maximum Direct Impact To Local Road System: The Planning A rea muv utilize the
local roadway network exclusively without any existing or future direc: access to
collector or arterial systems that can reasonably be expected to be built.
d).	Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: The Planning Area cannot provi e effective
access to mass transportation facilities, either existing or proposed.
4

-------
II-2. Lack of Efficient Public Services: Insufficient infrastructure capacity (sewerage or water)
and the inability to support new infrastructure development within the projected 20 year
planning period.
n-3. Incompatibly J am1 u Implementation: The Planning Area is not of sufficient mass and scale to
contribute effectively to TDM or TCM programs, (e.g., carpool and parking
restrictions).
ffl-2 Poor Relationship to Open Space/Recreation: The Planning Area cannot be physically
oriented to take advantage of open space/recreation areas.
m-3 Capacity to Foster Cultural Facilities: The size and types of uses proposed in the
5

-------
Planning Area are insufficient to achieve cultural facility implementation (e.g. theaters,
art and design exhibitions, galleries, concert areas, etc.).
jjj_4 ]riirft nf Visual Cphe"veness: Tb* projected land uses in the Planning Area will have a
negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds including views from in-District locations
to areas outside the District and from areas outside the District to locations in this
Planning Area; and views across the HMD.
6

-------
m PLANNING ANALYSIS OF LAND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
It was determined during the EIS Screening Analysis Phase that each Land Management
Alternative to be tested in the EIS, to the maximum extent possible, must fulfill the same and
equal District-wide development needs established by HMDC. The above requirement is based
on an interpretation of NEPA requirements by the federal co-lead agencies in order to facilitate
equivalent examination of EIS Land Management Alternatives.
This requirement imposed certain constraints on the Upland Growth and Redevelopment
Alternatives. In order to fulfill the same and equal development needs under the Upland Growth
and Redevelopment Land Use Management Alternatives it was necessary to apply unusually high
densities that are, at least at the present time, inconsistent with generally accepted land use
planning practices as well as present and projected market conditions in the Meadowlands.2 In
addition, the limited number of available Planning Areas under the Upland Growth and
Redevelopment Land Management Alternatives required the designation of primary land uses
in certain Planning Areas which are inappropriate but which, nevertheless represent an attempt
to apply the best possible primary land use choices to the Upland and Redevelopment
Alternatives.
Throughout the Planning Analysis of Land Management Alternatives in this section, there are
Planning Areas that do not exhibit Tier n Potential Cost, Logistics, and Technology
Exclusionary and Limiting Criteria, and/or Tier in Exclusionary and limiting Criteria. The
following is a generalized description of these instances:
'Residential densities applied in the Upland Growth and Redevelopment Land Management
Alternatives are 110 dwelling units/acre and 50 dwelling units/acre, respectively. In all other
Land Management Alternatives, the Tange of residential densities applied is 20 to 40 dwelling
units/acre. Densities in the 20-40 dwelling units/ac. range are consistent with existing HMDC
zoning regulations.
Office Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Upland Growth and Redevelopment Land Management
Alternatives are 1.5 FAR and 1.0 - 2.5 FAR, respectively. All other Land Management
Alternatives, in general, utilize a 1.0 FAR.
7

-------
tier n POTENTIAL COST. LOGISTICS, AMD TECHNOLOGY EXCLUSIONARY Aiyp
LlMTnNiL£EEffiSlA
c-l Foot Acegssfciiia
a),	highway Capacity: The road and highway capacity within or adjacent to the Planning
Area is adequate or can reasonably be improved to accommodate traffic projected from
the Planning Area. Rights-of-way and existing development characteristics do not appear
to inhibit roadway improvements,
b).	Pfrect Highway impact: 'Hie Planning Area is not limited to access from regional
highway systems, and secondary access opportunities either exist or can reasonably be
expected to be built.
c)	Maximum Direct Impact Tq Local Road System: The Planning Area does not
exclusively rely or. the local roadway system. Alternate accessibility is available to other
local or regional road systems.
d).	Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: The Planning Area can effectively access
ejcistutg c? proposed mass transportation faciiilies. Raii access is provided through
proximity to existing or proposed rail stations. Bus service can be directed to the
Planning Area from existing routes.
ff-2 I-acfo of F flcient Public Services; The size and scale of the Planning Area can facilitate
growth n;.x.:ageiRent controls in ah environmentally sensitive maimer that is calibrated to
the availability of public facilities, and sufficient capacity exists by public service
providers to support development.
U-3 Incompatible Land Uses; Projected land uses in the Planning Area generally are
compatible with surrounding land uses. The market demand for the projected
development in the Planning Area wouid not hs affected substantially by the surrounding
land use pattern.
H-4 Insufficient Scale: The Planning Area is of sufficient size and scale to maximize District-
wide land use efficiencies such as mixed use projects and employment centers.
U-5 iUck jplSyqg&tefe gffftflfi;
a). Corarsanity Of Place: The diversity of proposed uses in the Planning Area can
support community of place attributes which contribute to overall synergy. Examples of
such attributes include; a variety of lifestyles; job opportunities; cultural and recreational
opportunities; shopping conveniences; diverse housing opportunities where reasonably
priced ho-..sing choices art available; close relationship of employment, residential,
shopping, and recreational opportunities, nearby public transportation, and er-virons that
3

-------
define the community; opportunities to provide natural and built landmarks that foster a
sense of place and orientation at a human scale.
b).	Disproportionate Densities: The proposed Floor Area Ratios and housing densities
are consistent with present and projected market conditions and generally accepted
planning principles.
c).	Poor Jobs to Housing Linkage: The relationship between office, commercial, and
housing uses within the Planning Area can support acceptable jobs to housing linkages
by creating attractive communities in which people live and work.
n-6 Engineering/Financial Constraints: Excessive land preparation and construction costs are
not anticipated that would render development impractical.
TIER m LIMITING PLANNING CRITERIA
m-1 Lack Of Transportation Demand Management fTDMl\Transportation Control Measures
fTCM> Implementation: The size and scale of the mixed uses proposed in the Planning
Area can facilitate effective TDM and TCM Programs. Examples of such programs are
ride sharing, van pooling, alternate transportation modes, mass transit, staggered work
hours, parking restrictions, high occupancy lanes, parking fee structure variations, etc.
m-2 Poor Relationship to Open Space/Recreation: The location of the Planning Area is within
proximity to existing parks and recreation areas tracts. There is the potential to preserve
open space through local land use regulations.
m-3 Capacity to Foster Cultural Facilities: The scale of the Planning Area can facilitate a
range of cultural and recreational facilities consistent with community of place attributes.
Ill-4 Lack of Visual Cohesiveness: Land Uses projected in the Planning Area will not have
a negative impact on HMD viewsheds including views from in-District locations to areas
outside the District and from areas outside the District to locations within the Planning
Area; and views across the HMD.
9

-------
REDEVELOPMENT
1. Planning Area A
A.	Existing Conditions
Planning Area A is located in the municipalities of Carlstadt and East Rutherford and is 86 acres
in size. It generally is bounded by Berry's Creek on the east; unimproved vacant land and
wetland on the south; Broad Street to the north; and the Pascack Valley Rail Line on the west.
The Planning An-a is currently a mix of existing commercial and industrial uses, and
unimproved vacant upland.
Surrounding land uses include out-of-district commercial uses along Route 17 to the west; the
NJ Sports and Exposition Authority (NJSEA) Sports Complex to the east; and existing industrial
uses to the south aiid north.
Access to the Planning Area is available from Paterson Plank Road, which connects with Route
17 and Route 120. Secondary access is from Murray Hill Parkway to Route 17 via Union
Avenue. There is no existing or proposed rail mass transportation services available to Area.
However, the Parcaek Valley Branch of the NJ Transit Commuter Railroad passes within 1/4
mile of the westen: boundary of the Planning Area and provides both freight and passenger
service in the general area. No existing rail station is in proximity to this Area. Bui service is
available on Paterson Plank Road serving surrounding communities and the region.
A portion of the F .wining Area, known as Universal Oil Products, is contaminated with a variety
of chemical contaminants. Remediation activities under the Federal Superfund Program are
currently underway but questions remain concerning the suitability of the site for development
within the 20 year planning period. In addition, the Area is within the NJDEP Berry's Creek
Mercury Contamination Study Area.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Bergen County Utilities Authority (BCUA), respectively.
B.	Projected I„ind Uses
The screening document analysis proposed 3,267,000 sq. it. of primary office space and 784,080
sq. ft. of commercial space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
10

-------
I-1 Severe Land Contamination: There are 31 acres within this Planning Area currently part
of on-going Superfund activities. Approximately 27 acres are being addressed through
approved remediation plans. There is no finalized plan for the remaining 4 acres.
1-3 Current Land Development; A 15 acre portion of this Planning Area currently has
existing viable development that would not meet the criteria necessary for redevelopment.
TIER n CRITERIA
n-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects;
a)	Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
b)	Disproportionate Densities: Although office space is appropriate for this Planning
Area, the Floor Area Ratio (1.5) should be adjusted to more accurately reflect existing
development patterns in the HMD and projected market conditions.
c)	Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: There is a lack of possible linkages between the
subject Area with other Planning Areas. Opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to
housing linkages are limited.
H-6 Engineering/Financial Constraints: The cost associated with the development of
contaminated sites are not predictable at this time. Potential mercury contamination as
well as the viability of development on the Universal Oil Products Superfund site raise
the possibility of excessive land preparation costs.
TIER m CRITERIA
m-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
As described above, Planning area A is 86 acres in size and includes portions of contaminated
sites totaling 31 acres. Given the existing physical conditions described above and the
exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other
primary (commercial, residential) uses to this Planning Area under the Redevelopment Land
Management Alternative. Of the remaining acreage (55 acres) of Planning Area A 15 acres
cannot meet the various criteria necessary for redevelopment and are therefore excluded from
further analysis. Therefore, 40 acres are retained as a Planning Area and 31 acres are retained
as a Satellite Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
11

-------
2. Planning Arsa-B
a. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Rutherford and is 36 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by the NJ Transit Bergen Rail Line on the east and north; existing
development on the south; and Veterans Boulevard on the west. The Planning Area currently
contains the structural remains of the Tri-Boro Joint Meeting Sewerage Treatment Plant which
ceased operations in 1988. A pumping station owned and operated by the BCUA is now in
place. The Area also contains a compost facility owned and operated by the Town of l utherford.
Surrounding land uses include office and industrial development to the west; industrial uses to
the east and north m East Rutherford; and secondary office and warehouse distribution uses to
the south.
Access to the Planning Ajv.a is from Route 17 onto Highland Cross Road and Veterans
Boulevard. Currently, there are no existing or proposed bus or rail mass transit facilities. The
proximity to Route 17 provides potential for bus service.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected L?nd Uses
The screening doc ument analysis proposed 2,352,240 sq. ft. of primary office spa<,c for this
Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-2 Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: Planning Area B is own ad by the
Tri-Boro Joht Meeting Utilities Authority and contains a pumping station owned and
operated by the BCUA. Development Plans would require the approval of East
Rutherford, Rutherford and Carlstadt and may require dissolution of the Utilities
Authority. A further question exists concerning HMDC zoning jurisdiction and
redevelopment power over this site because of the ownership status.
12

-------
TIER II CRITERIA
II-l Poor Accessibility;
a) Highway Capacity: The road and highway system within or adjacent to the Planning
Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from
the Planning Area. New roadway access and rights-of-way are not available or sufficient.
c)	Maximum Direct Impact To Local Road System: The projected office uses would
severely impact the local road system, without opportunity for roadway widening or
improvements.
d)	Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: The Planning Area does not provide effective
access to mass transportation facilities. Although the NJ Transit Bergen Rail Line is
adjacent to the site, it is improbable that a station would be available since an existing
station in Rutherford is located 1/2 mile to the north.
II-3 Incompatible Land Use: The established pattern of land uses in and around the Planning
Area relate poorly to the proposed land use under the Redevelopment Land Management
Alternative. Implementation of this primary land use would be impractical or severely
limited by market demand.
n-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects:
a)	Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The Floor Area Ratio (1.5) should be adjusted to more
accurately reflect existing development patterns in the HMD and projected market
conditions.
c)	Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: There is a lack of possible linkages between the
subject Area with other Planning Areas. Opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to
housing linkages are limited.
TIER ffl CRITERIA
in-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas within the HMD and adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area B should be elimin?t ¦1 :.r ?, Planning Area. Given the existing physical conditions
described above and the exclusic »:rv criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible
13

-------
/	residential) or secondary office\warehouse uses to this
to assign any oAer,pn^S«loi)ment Land Management Alternative. In addition this Area
Planning Area under the Redev P	Dept. of Public Works activities for the Town
^EIS
3 ^>)^nning-AlSa^
A	sting _coa&iigfls
•	in the municipality of North Bergen and is 17 acres in size. It
The Planning Area isiiocareu t	^ Rail Line on the east; a freight spur line on the
generally is bounded by the w ^ unimpr0ved vacant upland on the west. The Planning
south; Bellman's Creek to tne nu , warehouse distribution building, a cement factory, a
Area currently consists ot an	chouse industrial uses consistent with current zoning,
junkyard, and other secondary
illAi vacant unimproved upland and the Bellman's Creek wetlands to
Surrounding land uses	™ dustriai uses t0 the east; and existing industrial development
the west; existing out-of-district
to the north and south.
• from pairview Avenue, which intersects with Route 1 & 9, and
Access to the ptonmg1^ Currently, there are no existing or proposed rail or bus mass
is mainly outside the	tQ the planning Area.
transportation seme
«,aiiahle to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
rAumoriiy ^rcspectively'
b Fleeted Laodilsss
nosed 1 870 residential units for this Planning Area. This
The screening	pr°j^nce mQre suitable sites under this Land Management
designation is made in >a	^ order to meet HMDC needs, a density of 110
Alternative for residential aevei F
dwelling units\acre was required.
q pinnnHSAnalvsis
4 . characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
The subject Planning Area is characterized oy
HER I CRITERIA
~ irtn«u»r»f This Planning Area currently has exiting viable
1-3	criteria necessaly f°r red,!vel0^"nen,•
development that wouiu
14

-------
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
a) Highway Capacity: Access to Planning Area C is severely restricted by a local two
lane road which lies mainly outside of the jurisdiction of the HMDC. The opportunities
available to improve this road are remote due to jurisdictional, engineering, and physical
planning factors.
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: There are no available mass transportation
facilities, either existing or proposed.
II-3 Incompatible Land Uses: The existing land uses in this Planning Area are dominated by
heavy industrial and warehouse uses which would most likely preclude the development
and marketability of residential uses in this Area.
II-4	Insufficient Scale: The size, and housing density of this Planning Area cannot provide
sufficient population density to maximize District-wide land use efficiencies.
H-5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
a)	Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The Planning Area exhibits extraordinarily high densities
(110 dwelling units/acre) that would be adversely impacted by physical and market
constraints.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-l	Lack Of TDM/TCM Opportunities: The opportunity to institute Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs would be highly problematic given the scale that can be
assigned to the area and the limited access.
IH-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
ni-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The potential to foster the development of cultural
facilities is not available. The Area is remote and virtually isolated and thus cannot
encourage the development of cultural facilities.
m-4 Lack Of Visual Cohesiveness: The projected land uses in the Planning Area will have a
negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds.
15

-------
D. Planning Recommendations
As described above, 1,870 residential units were projected for this Area. Given the existing
physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed
appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office, commercial) or secondary
office/warehouse land uses to this Planning Area under the Redevelopment Land Management
Alternative. Also, the existing uses are consistent with current zoning and would not meet the
various criteria necessary for redevelopment. Therefore, this Area is eliminated from further EIS
evaluation.
4. Planning Area D
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of North Bergen and is 31 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by West Side Avenue on the east; wetlands on the south; existing industrial
development and Bellman s Creek to the north; and the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the west.
The current use of the subject property is an industrial building that was constructed in the early
part of the 20th century and appears to be in fair condition with multiple industrial tenants and
is consistent wish current zoning.
Surrounding land uses include the Bellman's Creek wetlands and the Hackensack River to the
west; wetlands and out-of-district industrial uses to the east; and wetlands md existing
warehouse/industrial development to the south and north.
Access to the Planning Area is from West Side Avenue on the east side of the tract. There
currently is no rail mass transit available to the Planning Area although, bus service to the site
may be available from nearby locations.
The proposed NJ Transit's Light Rail Transit System waterfront connection front Weehawkin
to the Meadowlands includes a potential alignment along the Conrail tracks east of the Planning
Area. The proposed alignment would terminate at the Vince Lombardi Park & Ride Facility in
Ridgefield. A passenger station is proposed in the vicinity of the Planning Area.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the North Bergen MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 2,025,540 sq. ft. of primary office space for rus Planning
Area.
16

-------
c. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-3	Current Land Development: The existing building contains many small businesses and
has undergone renovations at the initiative of the owner and, as such, would not now
meet the various criteria necessary for redevelopment.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-l	Poor Accessibility:
a) Highway Capacity: The road system adjacent to the Planning Area cannot be
reasonably improved to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from the Area.
Specifically, 83rd Street which is a local two lane road, cannot be improved because of
the railroad bridge which runs above it just east of the site. This road is also outside the
jurisdiction of the HMDC for a majority of its length between the Planning Area and
Route 1 & 9.
II-3	Incompatible. T -and ITsps: The existing land uses in this Planning Area are dominated by
heavy industrial and warehouse uses. The CSX intermodal facility to the north generates
substantial truck volumes on West Side Avenue which is not conducive to large scale
office development.
n-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects;
a)	Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The Planning Area exhibits an extraordinarily high Floor
Area Ratio (1.5) that would be adversely impacted by physical and market constraints.
c)	Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: There is a lack of possible linkages between the
subject Area and other Planning Areas. Opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to
housing linkages are limited.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
17

-------
D. Planning Recommendations
As described above, 2,025,540 sq. ft. of primary office space was projected for this Planning
Area. Based on the existing physical conditions and the exclusionary criteria identified above,
it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to utilize this Area for residential or any other primary
(office, commercial) land uses under the Redevelopment Land Management Alternative. Also,
since the existing uses are consistent with current zoning and the property owner has initiated
redevelopment of the building on his own the site would no longer meet the various criteria
necessary for redevelopment. Therefore, this Area is eliminated from further EiS analysis.
5. Planning Area E
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 8 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by Route 3 on the east; Route 3 and existing development on the south; Route 3 and
existing devdopmeui to the north; and Meadowlands Parkway on the west. The Planning Area
currently contains existing warehouse development and vacant structures.
Surrounding lar d uses include the Hess oil tanks and a Department of Public Wo. . , yard to the
west; Route 3 and Downtown Secaucus to the east; and existing residennal development to the
north and south.
Access to the banning Area is from Meadowlands Parkway on the west side of the tract. There
currently is no -ail mass transit service to the site and none is feasible because there are no rail
lines nearby I' * service does not currently directly serve the Planning Area. However, buses
that currently operate on Meadowlands Parkway, south of the Planning Area, presumably could
be available.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	PreifH T -and Uses
The screening document proposed 880 residential units for this Planning Area. Th=s designation
is made in the absence of more suitable sites under the Redevelopment Land Management
Alternative for residential development.. In order to meet HMDC needs, a ciwisity of 110
dwelling units\acre was required.
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria
18

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
I-3	Current Land Development: An existing building on five acres has undergone renovations
at the initiative of the owner and, as such, would not now meet the various criteria
necessary for redevelopment.
TIER n CRITERIA
II-3	Incompatible Land Use: The established pattern of land uses in and around the Planning
Area relate poorly to the proposed land use under the Redevelopment Land Management
Alternative. Implementation of this primary land use would be impractical and severely
limited by market demand.
II-4	Insufficient Scale: The size, and housing density of this Planning Area cannot provide
sufficient population density to maximize District-wide land use efficiencies.
H-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects:
a)	Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The Planning Area exhibits extraordinarily high densities
(110 dwelling units/acre) that would be adversely impacted by physical and market
constraints.
c)	Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: There is a lack of possible linkages between the
subject Area with other Planning Areas. Opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to
housing linkages are limited.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-l	Lack Of TDM/TCM Opportunities: The opportunity to institute Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs would be highly problematic given the scale of the single
land use that can be assigned to the Area.
m-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The potential to foster the development of cultural
facilities is not available due to the small size and location of the Area.
ffl-4 Lack Of Visual Cohesiveness: The projected land use in the Planning Area will have a
negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds particularly considering its proximity to
Route 3 which borders it on three sides.
19

-------
D. Planning Recommendations
As Described above, 880 residential units were projected for this Area. However, based on the
exclusionary criteria identified above, this Area is more suitable for inclusion in ihe Satellite
Area category for the secondary/office warehouse component. Given the existing physical
conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate
or feasible to assign any other primary (office, commercial) land uses to this Planning Area
under the Redevelopment Land Management Alternative. Also, 5 of the 8 acres consist of
existing uses that would not meet the various criteria necessary for redevelopment since the
owner upgraded the building. Therefore, the 5 acres are eliminated and the remaining 3 acres
are retained as a Satellite Area for further EIS analysis as part of the Hybrid Plan.
6- Planning Area F
The Planning Area is located in the municipalities of Secaucus and North Bergen and is 37 acres
in size. It generally is bounded by Route 3 on the east; 1-495 on the south; Paterson Plank Road
on the north; and the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the west. The Planning Area currently
contains vacant structures and existing commercial and warehouse uses.
Surrounding land uses include existing industrial development to the west; retail and warehouse
uses to the east, Harmon Meadow Mall to the north; and wetlands to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road while secondary access could be
provided from Route 3 and the NJ Turnpike. There currently are no existing or proposed rail
mass transit services available to the site. Bus service may be available because or the location
of the Planning Area relative to Route 3 and Paterson Plank Road.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Prnjacted Land Uses
The screening document proposed 1,089,000 sq. ft. of primary office space and 30 ^0 residential
units for this Planning Area. The residential designation is made in the absence of nore suitable
sites in the Redevelopment Land Management Alternative. In order to meet HV bC needs, a
density of 110 dwelling units/acre was required.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
20

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
I-3	Current Land Development: The development of a retail/commercial use has been
approved by the HMDC on seven acres of the Planning Area and construction is
imminent for this project.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
a)	Highway Capacity. The road and highway system within or adjacent to the Planning
Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate or provide reasonable access to the
extent of traffic projected from the Planning Area. New roadway access and rights-of-
way are not available or sufficient.
II-3 Incompatible Land Use: The established pattern of land uses in and around the Planning
Area relate poorly to the proposed residential land use under the Redevelopment Land
Management Alternative. Implementation of this primary land use would be impractical
and severely limited by market demand.
II-5	Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The Floor Area Ratio (2,5 FAR) is incompatible with
current development patterns in the HMD. The residential component required a density
of 110 dwelling units/acre.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D, Planning Kwrnmendatigns
Planning Area F should be eliminated as a Planning Area. As described above, 3080 residential
units and 1,089,000 sq. ft. of office space were projected for this Area, However, based on the
exclusionary criteria identified above, this Area is more suitable for inclusion in the Satellite
Area category for the secondary office\warehouse component. Given the existing physical
conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified it is not deemed appropriate
or feasible to assign any other primary (commercial) land uses to this Planning Area, under the
Redevelopment Land Management Alternative. Therefore, the7acres undercurrent development
are elimir&ted and the remaining JO acres are retained as a Satellite Area for further EIS
evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
7. planning Area Q
21

-------
A, ^i
-------
a)	Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The Planning Area exhibits extraordinarily high densities
(110 dwelling units/acre) that would be adversely impacted by physical and market
constraints.
c)	Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: There is a lack of possible linkages between the
subject Area with other Planning Areas. Opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to
housing linkages are limited.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
III-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The potential to foster the development of cultural
facilities is not available because of the nature of the projected land use and surrounding
land use patterns.
III-4 Lack Of Visual Cohesiveness: The projected land uses in the Planning Area will have
a negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds based on the projected density of housing
in relationship to the surrounding area.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area G should be eliminated as a Planning Area. It would best be developed in
conformity with the already established pattern of industrial development adjacent to it. As
described above, 2,860 residential units were projected for this Area. However, based on the
exclusionary criteria identified above, this Area is more suitable for inclusion in the Satellite
Area category for the secondary office\warehouse component. Given the existing physical
conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate
or feasible to assign any other primary (office, commercial) land uses to this Planning Area
under the Redevelopment Land Management Alternative. Therefore, this Area is retained as a
Satellite Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
8. Planning Area H
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 33 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by the NJ Turnpike western spur on the east; the NJ Transit Main Rail Line on the
south; the NJ Transit Bergen Rail Line on the north; and existing development on the west. The
Planning Area currently consists of existing industrial development.
23

-------
Surrounding land uses include the Castle Road Outlet Center and existing warehouse uses to the
west; wetlands and an inactive landfill across the NJ Turnpike to the east; commercial and
industrial uses to the north; and vacant upland to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Castle Road which bisects the Planning Area in an east/west
direction and from New County Road which bisects the tract in a north/south direction.
Currently, there are no existing rail or bus mass transportation services to the Area however,
both are proposed.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUa, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 2,156,220 sq. ft. of primary office space for this Planning
Area. This is based on implementation of the proposed Secaucus Transfer Station and the NJ
Turnpike interchange adjacent to the Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier criteria appear to be present.
ITER II CRITERIA
II-5	Ijtck of Synergistic Effects:
b)	Disproportionate Densities: Although office space is appropriate for this Planning
Area, the Floor Area Ratio (1.5) should be adjusted to more accurately ref ect existing
development patterns in the HMD and projected market conditions.
c)	Poor fobs To Housing - Linkage: There is a lack of possible linkages between the
subject Area with other Planning Areas. Opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to
housing linkages.
TIER in CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D.	Planning Recommendations
24

-------
Planning Area H should be retained as a Planning Area. It seems prudent to combine the Area
with Planning Areas from the other Land Management Alternatives. The selected land use for
this Area appears to be appropriate in light of the adjacent non-residential uses although
consideration should be given for market conditions to adjust the Floor Area Ratio. Therefore,
this Area is retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
9. Planning Area I
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Kearny and is 153 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by Route 280 and the NJ Turnpike 15W interchange on the east; Route 280 on the
south; a Conrail Rail Line on the north; and the Kingsland Freight Rail Line on the west. The
Planning Area currently contains existing warehouse and industrial facilities; and unimproved
vacant land that previously was part of the 1-D landfill.
Surrounding land uses include out-of-district existing industrial development to the west; other
landfill areas that have not been properly closed in accordance with State Regulations to the east;
the Kearny freshwater marsh and another landfill area not properly closed in accordance with
State Regulations to the north; and Route 280 and NJ Transit Rail Lines to the south.
It should be noted that the HMDC has proposed and approved a non-processible landfill on a
parcel north of the Planning Area.
Access to the Planning Area is from the Newark-Harrison Turnpike which bisects the tract in
an east/west direction. Access to the Newark-Harrison Turnpike is available from Route 280 and
the NJ Turnpike western spur. Currently, there are no existing or proposed rail or bus mass
transportation services to the Area, however bus service is presumably available from nearby
regional routes.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Passaic Valley Water Commission
and the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, respectively.
B.	Projected Und Uses
The screening document proposed 4,835,160 sq. ft of primary office space and 914,760 sq. ft.
of regional commercial space for this Planning Area.
c. Planning Analysts
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
25

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
1-1 Severe Land Contamination: A portion of the eastern section of this Planning Area is
contaminated with petroleum-related substances. Adjacent areas that were previously part
of the 1-D landfill may also be contaminated. There are 59 acres affected by this criteria.
1-2 Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: A 40 acre portion of the Planning
Area adjacent to the NJ Turnpike 15W interchange is owned by the Town Of Kearny and
was also previously part of the 1-D landfill.
I-3	Current Land Development: A 22 acre portion of this Planning Area currently has
existing viable development that would not meet the criteria necessary for redevelopment.
TIER II CRITERIA
H-l Poor Accessibility:
a) Highway Capacity: The road and highway system west of the Planning Area, which
is outside the HMD, cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic
projected from the Planning Area.
c)	Maximum Direct Tmpact To Local Road System: Given the existing traffic volumes
in proximity to the Area, the impact of the projected land uses would be significant on
the local road system west of the Planning Area.
d)	Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: Bus service may be available from nearby
regional bus routes. There is no opportunity to access rail mass transit facilities.
II-6	Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Planning Area could
result from excessive land preparation and building construction costs related to the
development of contaminated areas within the Planning Area.
TIER m CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
As described above, 4,835,160 sq. ft. of primary office space and 914,760 sq. ft. of commercial
space was projected for this Area. However, based on the exclusionary criteria identified above,
those properties not affected by the Tier I Criteria are more suitable for inclusion in the Satellite
Area category for secondary office\warehouse uses. Given the existing physical conditions
described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible
26

-------
to assign any other primary (residential) land uses to this Planning Area under the
Redevelopment Land Management Alternative. In addition, 22 acres of existing development
would not meet the various criteria necessary for redevelopment and are therefore excluded from
further analysis. Based on the contamination and ownership criteria 99 acres are also excluded
from further analysis. Therefore, the remaining 32 acres are retained as a Satellite Area for
further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
10. Planning Area J
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the City of Jersey City and is 82 acres in size. It generally is
bounded by Route 1 & 9 on the east and south; existing development to the north; and the
Hackensacic River on the west. The current uses in this Planning Area are trucking terminals,
heavy industrial sites, and Public Service Electric & Gas Company Facilities to the north.
Surrounding land uses include the Hackensack River and vacant land to the west in Kearny;
existing out-of-district industrial development to the east and south; and the Public Service
Electric & Gas Company facilities (Jersey City Generating Station; coal storage; oil tanks; and
other ancillary uses), and the Conrail Croxton Rail Yards to the north.
Access to the Planning Area is from Route 1 & 9 via a local road system from the south and
east. There currently are no existing or proposed rail or bus mass transportation services
available to the Planning Area.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the City of Jersey City.
b. Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 1,437,480 sq. ft. of primary office space and 217,800 sq. ft.
of commercial space for this Planning Area. Also proposed are 5,500 dwelling units since there
is an absence of more suitable sites for residential uses under the Redevelopment Land
Management Alternative. In order to meet HMDC needs, a density of 110 dwelling units\acre
was required.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-2 Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: Approximately 33 acres of this
Planning Area are owned by Public Service Electric & Gas Company and, 5 acres are
27

-------
publicly owned and may not be available for development.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
a)	Highway Capacity: The road and highway system within and adjacent to the Planning
Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the impact of traffic projected from
the Planning Area. Narrow local roads with limited potential for expansion preclude road
improveir ^nts required to accommodate the projected growth.
c)	Maxirr -m Direct Impact To Local Road System: The highly restrictive vehicular
access and the related impact from the projected development of the Planning Area would
result in severe impacts to the local road system.
d)	Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: Currently there is no bus service to the Area,
although service may be available from nearby regional bus routes. There is no
opportuniiv to access rail mass transit facilities.
II-3 Incompat ie Land Use: The established pattern of land uses consisting of trucking
terminals oil storage tanks, junkyards and in particular, the expansive Public Service
Electric Gas Company Facilities in and around the Planning Area relate poorly to the
propose*.! ' md uses projected for the Area.
II-5	Lack Of nergistic Effects:
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The Planning Area exhibits extraordinarily high densities
(110 dwel ing units/acre) that would be adversely impacted by physical and market
constrain
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
III-4 Lack Of v isual Cohesiveness: The projected land uses in the Planning Are; will have a
negative v -pact on overall HMD viewsheds.
D.
As described ab< e, 1,437,480 sq. ft. of primary office space, 217,800 sq. ft. of commercial
space, and 5500 sidential units were proposed for this Area. The portion of the Planning Area
28

-------
that contains existing residential development and the immediate surrounding area (11 acres)
should be retained for residential use. That portion of the Area affected by Criteria 1-2 (38 acres)
should be eliminated from further consideration. The balance of the Area (33 acres) is not
deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary land uses to under the
Redevelopment Land Management Alternative. Therefore, the 11 acres are retained as a
Planning Area for residential uses and the 33 acres are retained as a Satellite Area for secondary
office/ warehouse uses in the Hybrid Plan.
11. Planning Area K
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Little Ferry and is 31 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by the Hackensack River on the east; existing development on the south
and west; and Route 46 to the north. The Planning Area currently is a mix of single family
residential dwellings, warehousing, marina related boat repair, maintenance, and storage
facilities and industrial uses.
The Planning Area is a narrow strip of land along the Hackensack River. Although frontage
along the river is extensive, the width of the inland area restricts development.
Surrounding land uses include warehousing and residential uses to the west; the CSX Freight
Rail Yard and the Public Service Electric & Gas Company Ridgefield Generating Facility across
the Hackensack River to the east; existing commercial/retail out-of-district development to the
north; and residential, industrial development, and the BCUA facilities to the south. Immediately
to the west and south are heavy industrial uses and marina-related uses which reflect a more
industrial environment.
Access to the Planning Area is from Washington Avenue and Industrial Avenue to the north and
west of the tract, respectively, via a local road system into the Planning Area. Currently, there
are no existing or proposed rail or bus mass transportation services available to the Area.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 3,410 residential units for this Planning Area. The designation
is made in the absence of more suitable sites in the Redevelopment Land Management
Alternative for residential development. In order to meet HMDC needs, a density of 110
dwelling units\acre was required.
C.	Planning Analysis
29

-------
The subject Plain ;ng Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITEI" ..
I-3	Current Land Development: This Planning Area currently has existing viable
development that would not meet the criteria necessary for redevelopment.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
a) Highw Capacity: The road and highway system within and adjacent to ihe Planning
Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from
the Planning Area. The extent of roadway improvements required from the north would
negative! ffect the development of the site for the projected uses.
c)	Maximum : •r-v!. Impact To Local Road System: The highly restrictive vehicular
access and the related impact from the projected development of the Planning Area would
severely mpact the local road system.
d)	Poor Transportation Opportunities: Currently there are no bus facilities or rail
mass trx- , services available to the Area and none are proposed.
n-3 Incompa^la Land Use: The established pattern of land uses in and around the Planning
Area rek : poorly to the proposed land use. Implementation of this primary land use
would be ¦. ^practical and severely limited by market conditions.
II-5 Lack of S ynergistic Effects:
a)	Comir ,ty Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The Planning Area exhibus extraordinarily high densities
(110 dwelling units/acre) that would be adversely impacted by physical aid market
constraint';
c)	Poor Jcs To Housing Linkage: The lack of possible linkages of the subje ¦ Area with
other Plai - ng Areas further limit opportunities to achieve meaningful job: co housing
linkages.
II-6 Engineering/Financial Constraints: The Planning Area is extremely long and narrow in
configurator between the Hackensack River Waterfront in the east and ;e existing
industrial lives in the west. Proper access into the Planning Area would r < suit in the
absence of sufficient land area in order to design and implement a typical residential
30

-------
development project. Therefore the engineering and financial difficulties would result in
the Planning Area thus meeting this exclusionary criteria.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-4 Lack of Visual Cohesiveness: The projected land uses in the Planning Area will have a
negative affect on overall HMD viewsheds given the permitted density in waterfront
development zones, and the existing residential development in the surrounding area.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area K should be eliminated as a Planning Area. Given the existing physical conditions
described above, the shape of the Area, and the exclusionary criteria identified, Planning Area
K should be eliminated as a Planning Area. It is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign
any other primary (office, commercial) or secondary office/warehouse land uses to this Planning
Area under the Redevelopment Land Management Alternative. Since the existing marina and
other uses are the most appropriate use of the Planning Area and would not meet the various
criteria necessary for redevelopment this Area is eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
12. Planning Area N
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 10 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by existing development on the east, north and south; and the Hackensack River on
the west. The Planning Area currently contains existing industrial development and unimproved
vacant upland.
The Planning Area currently contains a cement and concrete plant with material storage areas
and a waterfront docking facility for delivery of extractive resources.
Surrounding land uses include the Golf Driving Range and Marina across the Hackensack River
to the west; existing residential development to the east and north; and existing residential
development and unimproved vacant upland to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road which bisects the site in a
northwest/southeast direction. Currently, there are no existing or proposed rail or bus mass
transportation services available to the Area.
Water and sewer facilities are available to- the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
31

-------
The screening document proposed 1,100 residential units for this Planning Area. This
designation is mare in the absence of more suitable sites in the Redevelopment Land
Management Alternative for residential development. In order to meet HMDC needs, a density
of 110 dwelling units\acre was required.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Plannr^g Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERI
I-3	Current Land Development: The proposed extension of Meadowlands Parkway north into
Planning Area N, a road improvement deemed essential for the HMD, would bisect the
Area rendering if infeasible for higher density residential development. The extension of
Meadowland-i Parkway is identified in the "HMDC Transportation Study" which was
adopted by the Commission as part of the ongoing Master Plan Revision process. The
Meadowlands Parkway extension and the proposed crossing of the Hackensack River at
Paterson Hank Road are a component of the future transportation improvements
identified i- his EIS.
TIER II CRITER
II-3	Incompati : : c Land Use: The established pattern of land uses in and around the Planning
Area relaf- poorly to the proposed land use. Implementation of this primary land use
would be . practical and severely limited by market conditions.
II-4 Insufficient Scale: The isolation and remoteness of this Planning Area irom other
Planning Areas in the Redevelopment Land Management Alternative, cannot provide the
opportunity i achieve sufficient population densities to maximize District-wide land use
efficiencies.
II-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects:
a)	Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community replace attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areis
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The Planning Area exhibits extraordinarily hij? ¦ densities
(110 dwelling units/acre) that would be adversely impacted by physical ard market
constraints,
c)	Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: The lack of possible linkages of the subjec; Area with
other Planning Areas further limit opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs 3 housing
linkages.
32

-------
II-6	Engineerin^Financial Constraints: The extension of Meadowlands Parkway into and
through the* Planning Area would severely diminish density and development potential.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-1	Lack Of TPM/TCM Opportunities: The opportunity to institute Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs would be highly problematical given the scale of the
single land use that can be assigned to the Area.
IH-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The potential to foster the development of cultural
facilities not available. The Area is remote and virtually isolated and thus cannot be
linked to o':her Areas in this Land Management Alternative.
Ill-4 Lack of Visual Cohesiveness: The projected land uses in the Planning Area will have a
negative affect on overall HMD viewsheds.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area N should be eliminated as a Planning Area given the factors cited above -
principally the difficulties relating to the extension of Meadowiands Parkway and future highway
improvements. C » en the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary
criteria identifier, is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office,
commercial) or secondary officeVwarehouse land uses to this Planning Area under the
Redevelopment I and Management Alternative. Therefore, this Area is eliminated from funhei
EIS evaluation.
33

-------
REDEVELOPMENT LAND
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
6\1$\94
PLANNING AREAS
EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA
a FsT c i d nnn g i nTTTrnm
TIER t
[1-1 Contaminated Land
* i






X
1
1
!
ll-2 Ownership/Jurisdictional
1 x






X
X


|l~3 Current Development
x 1
X
X
X
X


X

x [x
TIER II












[ II -1 Poof Accessibility












a. Highway Capacity

X
X
X

X


K
X
X

| b. Direct Highway Impact











i c. Impact to Local Road

X






X
X
X

ci. Poor Mass Transportation

X
X





X
X
X

fl -2 Lack Of Public Services












! 11-3 Incompatible Land Uses

X
X
X
X
X
X

x
X
x J
I il—4 Insufficient Scale
1
X
.. .. i X




X
' it—5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects












a. Community of Pface
X
X
X
X
X

X

1
X
X I
b. Disproportionate Densities
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
*
c Poor Jobs/Housing Linkage
X
X

X
X

X
X


X
X
JI-6 Enaineerinq/Financial Constraints
X


*


X

X
X
TIER M
111 ~ 1 Lack of TDM/TCM Implementation t



X



1

X
III-2 Poor Relationship to Open Space,'Recreation
X
X :
X 1
*

X
X
X
X )
X


lt(—3 Capacity to Foster Cultural Facilities


X !
1
%

X



X
i!l~4 Lack of Visual Collusiveness j
i
X ,
1
1
X

X {
! * f*
xl
RECOMMENDATION *
Retain as a Primary Planning Area
X
"]' >

-Yj-PT r-]
Review as a Satellite Area

Secondary Office/Warehouse
X
r rix
X X
1 X I X i ) I
Eliminate from Further EIS Evaluation
X
X I X 1 X i X
x 1
| X j X 1 X X
* may include only a portion of a planning area
rdvcrtia.wkl

-------
UPLAND GROWTH
1. Planning Area A
A.	Existing Conditions
Planning Area A is located in the municipality of North Bergen and is generally bounded by
Bellman's Creek in the north and west; and two active Freight Rail lines in the south and east.
The Area consists of approximately 31 acres and is unimproved vacant upland.
The Area is surrounded by warehouse and heavy industrial uses both within the jurisdiction of
HMDC and outside of HMDC's jurisdiction in the municipality of North Bergen.
Access to the Planning Area is via Fairview Avenue, a two lane local road which begins at
Route 1 & 9 and runs in a westerly direction. It should also be noted that access from Route 1
& 9 is from a point outside the HMD. There currently are no existing or proposed rail or bus
mass transportation facilities available to the Planning Area. The existing rail facilities are
exclusively freight oriented and are currently active.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the North Bergen MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 3,550 residential units for this Planning Area. This designation
is made in the absence of more suitable upland sites in the Upland Growth Land Management
Alternative. In order to meet HMDC needs, a density of 50 dwelling units\acre was required.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER n CRITERIA
II-l. Poor Accessibility:
a) Highway Capacity: Access to Planning Area A is severely restricted by a local two
lane road which lies outside of the jurisdiction of the HMDC. The opportunities available
to improve this road are remote due to jurisdictional, engineering, and physical planning
factors.
34

-------
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: There are no available rail and bus mass
transportation facilities either existing or proposed.
II-3. Incompatible Land Uses: The character of land uses adjacent to Planning Area A is
dominated by heavy industrial and warehouse uses. The development of housing in this
area would be subject to difficult marketing constraints.
II-4 Insufficient Scale: The Planning Area and surrounding areas cannot achieve sufficient
population density to maximize district-wide land use efficiencies.
II-5	Lack Of S ynergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The opportunity to achieve synergism at this Planning Area is
extremely remote given the character of the surrounding land uses and the fact that only
residential u.ses can be projected for the Area. The Area is remote and virtually isolated
and thus cannotlinked to other Planning Areas in the Upland Growth Alternative.
TIER III CRITERIA
in-1 Lack Of YDM/TCM Opportunities: The opportunity to institute Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs would be highly problematic given the scale of the single
land use :hat can be assigned to the Area and the Area's isolation.
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open s, ace/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
HI-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The potential to foster the development of cultural
facilities is not available. The Area is remote and virtually isolated and thus cannot be
linked to otner Planning Areas in the Upland Growth Alternative.
D. Planning Recommendation
As described above, 1,550 residential units were projected for this Area. However, based on the
exclusionary criteria identified above, this upland area is more suitable for an expansion of
warehouse and secondary office uses unda the Satellite Area category. Given the existing
physical condition:; described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is .tot deemed
appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office, commercial) land uses to this
Planning Area under the Upland Growth Land Management Alternative. Therefore, this 31 acre
Area is retained for further EIS evaluation as a Satellite Area in the Hybrid Plan.
35

-------
2. Planning Area B
A.	Existing Conditions
The Area is located in the municipality of East Rutherford and is the site of the New Jersey
Sports and Exposition Authority (NJSEA) Arena. The Area generally is bounded on the north
by Paterson Plank Road; on the south by Route 3; on the east by the New Jersey Turnpike
western spur; and on the west by Route 120. The Area consists of 127 acres which includes the
building envelope for the Brendan Byrne Arena and its parking facilities. The NJSEA previously
has proposed commercial development on a 12 acre portion of the 127 acre site.
Surrounding land uses consist of warehousing facilities and vacant wetland to the north; the
existing Giants Stadium and the Meadowlands Race Track to the west; radio towers and Route
3 to the south; and vacant wetland east of the NJ Turnpike.
Access to the site consists of excellent regional roadways. Presently, no regularly scheduled
daily mass transportation facilities serve the site. Public bus transportation serves the site only
on days that events take place at NJSEA facilities. There currently are no existing or proposed
rail mass transportation facilities available to the Area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document land uses projected for this Planning Area reflect a proposal of the
NJSEA to construct approximately 800,000 sq. ft. of primary office space and ancillary facilities
on a 12 acre parcel within the Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-2 Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: HMDC has limited jurisdiction over
NJSEA lands. Also, the NJSEA has withdrawn a proposal to develop a 12 acre parcel
for primary office use at this time. It is anticipated that a new development plan for this
Area will be proposed in the near future which will incorporate the 12 acres of land at
the Arena site.
36

-------
TIER II CRITERIA
II-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects:
b) Disproportionate Densities: Although office space is appropriate for this Planning
Area, the Floor Area Ratio (1.5) should be adjusted to more accurately reflect existing
development patterns in the HMD and projected market conditions.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III Criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Although this Planning Area meets the Tier I, criteria 1-2 it is reasonable to retain this Planning
Area as it may ref > ! .'if-re NJSEA activities. Such uses could be linked to the sports complex
surrounding the Planning Area. Also, an adjustment to the Floor Area Ratio is deemed
appropriate in order to be consistent with existing and projected office development patterns and
market conditions in the District. Therefore, it is recommended that the 12 acres within this
Area that the NJSEA proposed to utilize should be retained as a Planning Area for further EIS
evaluation as p ut of the Hybrid Plan
3. Planrim. Area C
A.	Existin ¦ Conditions
Planning Area C is located at the eastern terminus of Paterson Plank Road along the Hackensack
River in East kutherford and Carlstadt. The Area consists of 14 acres of predominately
unimproved upland. In addition to "LT's Golf and Marina Center," which is a temporary use,
there are low intensity waterfront marina-related uses. Planning Area C is surrounded by
wetlands to the north, west, and south; and the Hackensack Rive, in the east.
The sole access to Planning Area C is via Paterson Plank Rjad, a two-lane load road which
intersects with Washington Avenue approximately one-half mile west of the Ares: Currently,
there are no existing rail or bus mass transportation cervices available to the Area however, bus
service may be available from nearby regional routes.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected land Use
The screening document proposed 700 residential units for this Planning Area. In order to meet
HMDC needs, a density of 50 dwelling units\acre was required.
37

-------
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: The opportunity to access public mass
transportation facilities is poor given the size of the Planning Area and the low intensity
of land use that reasonably can be applied.
II-4 Insufficient Scale: The Planning Area and surrounding areas cannot achieve sufficient
population density to maximize district-wide land use efficiencies.
II-5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
a)	Community Of Place: This Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
synergism and community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning
Areas.
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The projected land use in this Planning Area (50 dwelling
units/ac) is inappropriate given the existing zoning designation of 15 dwelling units/ac
and the existing residential densities in proximity to waterfront development areas.
TIER III CRITERIA
m-1 Lack Of TDM/TCM Opportunities: The opportunity to institute Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs would be highly problematic given the scale of the single
land use that can be assigned to the Area and the Area's isolation.
HI-4 Lack Of Visual Cohesiveness: The projected land use density (50 dwelling units/ac) in
the Planning Area will have a negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds.
D. Planning Recommendation
Although it is affected by Tier II criteria, it is not being recommended for elimination. Rather,
it seems prudent to combine the Area with other Planning Areas under other Land Management
Alternatives given its small size rr d soktion, if possible. In addition, the projected densities
should reflect existing residential lev.-lopment patterns in proximity to waterfront development
38

-------
areas. Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria
identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office,
commercial) or secondary office/warehouse land uses to this Planning Area under the Upland
Growth Land Management Alternative. Therefore, this Area is retained as a Planning Area for
further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
4. Plqnninp Area D
A.	foisting Conditions
The Area is located in East Rutherford and is generally bounded on the north by a commercial
strip along Paterson Plank Road; on the east by Berry's Creek; and on the west and south by
unimproved, vacant upland. The Planning Area is bisected by Murray Hill Parkway. The Area
consists of approximately 36 acres of vacant, unimproved upland.
The Area is surrounded by vacant, unimproved upland and wetland on the west and south; the
NJSEA Sports Complex to the east; and older industrial buildings in the north.
Access to the Planning Area is available from Paterson Plank Road, which connects with Route
17 and Route 120. Secondary access is from Murray Hill Parkway to Route 17 via Union Avenue.
There is no ex&ing or proposed rail mass transit service in the vicinity of the Area. However,
the Pascack Valley Branch of the NJ Transit Commuter Railroad passes within one-quarter mile
of the western boundary of the Planning Area. No existing rail station is in proximity to this
Planning Area. Passenger bus service is available on Paterson Plank Road serving urban areas
in the region an the surrounding communities.
A portion of the Planning Area, known as Universal Oil Products (UOP), is contaminated with
a variety of chemical contaminants. Remediation activities under the Federal Superfund Program
are currently underway but questions remain concerning development suitability of the site
within the 20 year planning period. Approximately 17 acres are unc'er a remediation program.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 2,352,240 sq. ft. oi primary office space for t 'is Planning
Area.
c. planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria.
39

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
1-1 Severe Land Contamination: A portion of the Planning Area is part of the UOP
Superfund site which is currently being remediated under an approved clean-up plan. In
addition, the remainder of this Area is within the NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury
Contamination Study Area for which there is no approved remediation program.
TIER II CRITERIA
H-5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects.
a) Community Of Place: This Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
synergism and community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning
Areas.
c) Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: The lack of possible linkages of the subject Area with
other Planning Areas further limit opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to housing
linkage.
TIER Iir CRITERIA
m-2 Poor Relationship To Open Soace/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Feccmmepdatiw
Planning Area D includes a portion of the Universal Oil Products Superfund site and, in
addition, is part of the NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury Contamination Study area. Given the
existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not
deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (commercial, residential) land use
to this Area. Therefore, this Area is retained as a Satellite Area for further EIS evaluation as
part of the Hybrid Plan.
5. Planning Area E
A. Existing Conditions
The Area consists of 29 acres of vacant, unimproved upland and is located in Secaucus. It
generally is bounded on the west by the Haekensack River; on the east by existing residential
development; on the north by existing industrial uses in the vicinity of Paterson Plank Road; and
in the south by commercial uses in the vicinity of Meadowlands Parkway.
Surrounding land uses include existing residential and commercial uses to the east; existing
industrial and residential uses to trt.; north; wetland to the west across the Haekensack River; and
40

-------
existing commercial, office and residential uses to the south. The Planning Area currently
consists of unimproved vacant land.
Access to Planning Area E is available from Meadowlands Parkway and Paterson Plank Road.
Currently, there are no existing or proposed rail or bus mass transportation facilities serving the
Area. Bus service presumably would be available from nearby regional routes.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Proiect o Land Use
The screening document proposed 1,450 residential units for this Planning Area. This designation
is made in the absence of more suitable sites in the Upland Growth Land Management
Alternative. In order to meet HMDC needs, a density of 50 dwelling units\acre was required.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-3	Currei -: I and Development: The proposed extension of Meadowlands Parkway north into
Planning Area E, a road improvement deemed essential for the HMD, would bisect the
Area n dering if infeasible for residential development. The extension of Meadowlands
Parkway is identified in the "HMDC Transportation Study" which was adopted by the
Commission as part of the ongoing Master Plan Revision process. The Meadowlands
Parkway extension and the proposed crossing of the Hackensack River at Paterson Plank
Road are a component of the future transportation improvements identified in this EIS.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-4	Insufficient Scale; The Planning Area and surrounding areas cannot achieve sufficient
population density to maximize district-wide land use efficiencies.
a)	Community Of Place: This Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
synergism and community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning
Areas.
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The projected land use in this Planning Area (50 dwelling
units/ac) is inappropriate given the existing zoning designation of 15 dwelling units/ac
and the existing residential densities in proximity to waterfront development areas.
41

-------
II-6	EngineeringVFinancial Constraints: The extension of Meadowlands Parkway into and
through the Planning Area would severely diminish density and development potential.
TIER HI CRITERIA
III-l	Lack Of TDM/TCM Opportunities: The opportunity to institute Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs would be highly unlikely given the scale of the single land
use that can be assigned to the Area.
III-4 Lack Of Visual Cohesiveness; The projected land use in the Planning Area will have a
negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds through high density development along the
Hackensack Riverfront
D. Plannin£ Recommendation
Planning Area E should be eliminated as a Planning Area given the factors cited above -
principally the difficulties relating to the extension of Meadowlands Parkway and future highway
improvements. Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary
criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office,
commercial) or secondary office\warehouse land uses to this Planning Area under the Upland
Growth Land Management Alternative. Therefore, this Area is eliminated from further EIS
evaluation.
6. Planning Area F
A.	Existing Conditions
Planning Area F consists of 7 acres and is located in the municipality of Secaucus. It is generally
bounded by the Hackensack River on the north; Mill Creek on the east; and wetland in the south
and west. A portion of the Area presently is being used as a minimal marina/boat launching
facility.
The Area is surrounded principally by wetlands. Approximately one-half mile south of the Area
are low density residential uses. The Area is located at the northern terminus of Mill Ridge Road
which is the sole access to the Area. Mass transportation facilities currently do not serve the
Area or areas in proximity to the Planning Area, nor are any proposed.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The small size of the Area and its poor access to mass transportation facilities render the Area
most suitable for residential development. The screening document proposed 350 dwelling units
42

-------
required-
r planning AH3&&S
*. subject Banning *- - —— " - f0l,0Wi"E C—" m,ena:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER n CRITER
I Ptqt Accesibili^-
potentiator roadway improvements.
,™,mJ size of the subject Area and the assignment of high
u-4 MffiM ¦»«¦"*»< ^ or mass requ'reme"tS'
densities to an* ^
LackQL5ifls
^ ^nnrtunitv to achieve synergism at this Planning Area is
a)	CmwO&gS %£%£«*» isolation,
remote given tne size
,.	oroiected land use in this Planning Area (50 dwelling
b)	DiaaSK*fli2M!££0^	zoning designation of 15 dwelling units/ac
uriX)5 iMPPro?^j tosities in proximity to waterfront development areas.
and the existing residential u
• v • The lade of possible linkages of the subject Area with
c)	BSHj2!»3SUi2Baf^^ opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs 
-------
facilities.
III-4 Lack Of Visual Cohesiveness: The projected land uses in the Planning Area will have a
negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds since it will be an isolated development area
surrounded by wetland and the Hackensack River.
D. Planning Recommendation
There is a basis to reject the Planning Area under the Upland Growth Alternative for the reasons
cited above. However, given the limited number of available upland sites for residential
development, Planning Area F should be retained as a lower density residential site that more
reasonably reflects both market demand and the physical constraints that prevail in the Area.
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office, commercial) or
secondary office\warehouse land uses to this Planning Area under the Upland Growth Land
Management Alternative. Therefore, this Area is retained as a Planning Area for further EIS
evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
7. Planning Area G fWEST)
A.	Existing Conditions
Planning Area G (West) is 30 acres in size and is located in the municipality of Secaucus. The
Area generally is bounded by the New Jersey Turnpike eastern spur on the west; Chromakill
Creek on the east; Harmon Meadow Access Road on the south; and extensive unimproved
wetland areas on the north.
Surrounding land uses are the Harmon Meadow and Mill Creek developments of offices and
commercial uses in the south; and unimproved wetlands in the north, east, and west.
Access to Planning Area G (West) is from Harmon Meadow Boulevard and Plaza Drive. Bus
service presently is available at the Harmon Meadow and Mill Creek complexes. There are no
existing rail mass transit opportunities however, proposals have been made.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 1,500 residential units for this Planning Area. This designation
is made in the absence of more suitable upland sites available for residential use. In order to
meet HMDC needs, a density of 50 dwelling units\acre was required.
C.	Planning Analysis
44

-------
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER 1 CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-4	Insufficient Scale: The Planning Area and surrounding areas cannot achieve sufficient
population density to maximize district-wide land use efficiencies.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendation
Planning Area G (West) should be retained as a Planning Area. The subject Area would be
appropriate for the projected 1,500 residential units described above only in the absence of other
residential sites under the Upland Growth Alternative. Planning Area G (West) would best be
developed in conformity with the already established pattern of commercial and office
development to the south, but in this development area. Therefore, this Area is retained as a
Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
8. Planning Area G (Ease)
The Area consists of 55 acres and is located in the municipality of Secaucus. It generally is
bounded by Paterson Plank Road to the south; Chromakill Creek in the east and north; and
Harmon Meadow in the west.
The Area is surrounded by existing commercial and industrial development to the south and east;
office and commercial development to the west (Harmon Meadow); and wetlands in the north.
Access to Planning Area G (East) is via Paterson Plank Road and the Harmon Meadow Access
Road. Bus service is available along Paterson Plank Road. There are no existing rail mass transit
rail facilities serving the Area however, proposals have been made.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA., respectively.
B. Projected land Uses
45

-------
The screening document proposed 1,750 residential units and 435,600 sq. ft. of commercial uses
for this Planning Area.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER J CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
IM Poor Accessibility:
c) Maximum Direct Impact To Local Road System: Given the existing traffic volumes
in proximity to the Area, the impact of the projected land uses would be significant on
Paterson Plank Road and on the local road system.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D Planning Recommendation
Planning Area G (East) should be retained and would be most suitable if developed in
conformity with the already established pattern of commercial and office development
surrounding this Area. Therefore, this Area is retained as a Planning Area for further EIS
evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
9. Planning Area H
A. Existing Conditions
Planning Area H is located in the municipality of Lyndhurst and consists of 19 acres. It
generally is bounded by the NJ Transit Rail Line to the north and east; the Kingsland Freight
Rail Line to the west; and the connecting rail spur to the south.
The Area is surrounded by warehouse and-residential uses to the north; heavy industrial uses to
the west (outside die HMD); and inactive landfill areas to the east and south. This site contains
some small buildings and outdoor storage areas for an adjacent heavy industrial use consistent
with current zoning.
46

-------
The sole access to the Planning Area is via Schuyler Avenue, a two lane collector roadway
which is outside the HMD. This access is available only through an adjacent developed site
(Standard Tool). l
-------
II-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The inability to interact with other uses in the immediate area
does not provide the opportunity for the Planning Area to achieve community of place
attributes.
c) Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: The lack of possible linkages of the subject Area with
other Planning Areas further limit opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to housing
linkage.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-4 Lack of Visual Cohesiveness: The projected land uses in the Planning Area will have a
negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds.
D. Planning Recommendation
Planning Area H should be eliminated as a Planning Area. As described above 5,161,860 sq.
ft. of primary office space is projected for this Planning Area. However, based on the
exclusionary criteria identified above, this Area is more suitable for an expansion of secondary
office/warehouse uses under the Satellite Area category. Given the existing physical conditions
described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible
to assign any other primary (commercial, residential) land uses to this Planning Area under the
Upland Growth Land Management Alternative. The ability to utilize the entire site and effect
a land use change from the existing industrial use to a primary land use is only applicable under
this Alternative and in the absence of other potential development sites. Therefore, the 24 acres
currently not utilized are retained as a Satellite Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the
Hybrid Plan and the remaining 55 acres consistent with current zoning are eliminated.
10. Planning Area J
A. Existing Conditions
The Area is located in the municipality of East Rutherford and is 6 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by the NJ Turnpike 16W interchange on the south and east; Route 3 on the north;
and existing hotel and office uses on the west.
Surrounding land uses include wetland on the south and east; the Sports Authority Complex to
the north; and the above mentioned development to the west.
Access to the Planning Area is from the Route 3 Service Road to the north of the site.
Currently, there are no existing or proposed rail mass transit services available to the Area. Bus
services are currently available to the Area.
48

-------
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 300 residential units for this Planning Area. This designation
is made in the absence of more suitable upland sites available for residential development in the
Upland Growth Land Management Alternative. In order to meet HMDC needs, a density of 50
dwelling units\acre was required.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteru appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-3 Incompatible Land Uses: As indicated above, this Planning Area is unsuitable for
residential development. Its relatively small size, its proximity to a major regional
highway system, and the incompatible existing land uses that surround the site would
negatively effect the marketability of residential development.
II-4	Insufficient Scale: The Planning Area and surrounding areas cannot achieve sufficient
population density to maximize district-wide land use efficiencies.
H-5 I^ck Of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-l	Lack Of TDMVTCM Opportunities: The opportunity to institute Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs would be highly problematic given the single land use that
can be designated for the Area and the generally low intensity of use.
III-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas, both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
m-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The potential to foster the development of cultural
49

-------
facilities is not available given the size and isolation of the Area.
D, Planning Recommendation
Planning Area J should be retained for inclusion in the hybrid plan. Given the existing physical
conditions and the exclusionary criteria identified above, it should not be considered as a
residential site. However, given the limited number of available upland sites, Planning Area J
should be considered for alternate non-residential uses that more reasonably reflect both market
demand in the area, and the existing adjacent non-residential uses. Therefore, this Area is
retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
11. Planning Area K
A.	Existing Conditions
The Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 37 acres in size. It generally is
bounded by Secaucus Road to the north and existing warehousing/outlet uses to the east, west,
and south.
The Area is in the heart of the warehouse/outlet center in Secaucus which is the dominant use
category in areas that are in proximity to Planning Area K.
Access to the Planning Area is available from Secaucus Road which is a heavily travelled four
lane collector road and through a local roadway along the southern portion of the Planning Area.
There currently are no existing or proposed rail mass transportation facilities available to the
Area. Bus services are available from nearby locations-
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Urn? Uses
The screening document proposed 2,482,920 sq. ft. of primary office space for this Planning
Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria;
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
50

-------
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility;
a) Highway Capacity; Secaucus Road is heavily travelled and is predominately used to
serve the expansive warehouse uses in the immediate area. The local road to the south
(Aquarium Drive) is inadequate in design to accommodate the anticipated traffic loadings
from the office complex.
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities; There are no mass transit facilities available,
either existing or proposed that could accommodate the projected development.
II-3 Incompatible Land Uses; The dominance of warehouse uses would have negative market
impacts on the projected land use for this area.
II-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning R^nmmendations
As described above, 2,482,920 sq. ft. of primary office space was projected for this Area.
However, based on the exclusionary criteria identified above, this Area is more suitable for an
expansion of secondary office\warehouse uses under the Satellite Area category. Given the
existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not
deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (commercial, residential) land uses
to this Planning Area under the Upland Growth Land Management Alternative. Therefore, this
Area is retained as a Satellite Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
12. Planning Area L
A. Existing Conditions
Planning Area L is located in the municipality of North Bergen and consists of 64 acres. It
generally is bounded by the Public Service Electric & Gas transmission towers on the east;
Secaucus Road on the south; the Amtrak Northeast Corridor Rail Line to the north; and existing
trucking uses on the west.
Surrounding land uses include trucking uses immediately to the west; an intermodaj rail terminal
51

-------
to the east; vacant land to the north; and wetland and the U.S. Postal Facilities to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Secaucus Road via private access into the site from the
north side of Secaucus Road. There are currently no existing or proposed rail mass
transportation facilities available to the Area. Bus service may be available from nearby
locations.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the North Bergen MUA, respectively.
B.	Protected Land uses
The screening document proposed 4,181,760 sq. ft. of primary office space for this Planning
Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER n CRITERIA
II-l Poor Accessibility:
a) Highway Capacity: Secaucus Road is heavily travelled and is predominately used to
serve the expansive industrial uses in the immediately area. The private access road is
inadequate in design to- accommodate the anticipated traffic loadings from the office
complex.
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: No potential exists to provide rail
transportation to the site despite the location of the Northeast Corridor Rail Line to the
north.
II-3 Incompatible Land Uses: The dominance of industrial uses would have negative market
impacts on the projected land use of this Area.
11-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects;
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
52

-------
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2 Pnnr Relationship Tn Onen Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
As described above 4,181,760 sq. ft. of primary office space was projected for this Area.
However, based on the exclusionary criteria identified above, this Area is more suitable for an
expansion of secondary office\warehouse uses under the Satellite Area category. Given the
existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not
deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (commercial, residential) land uses
to this Planning Area under the Upland Growth Land Management Alternative. Therefore, this
Area is retained as a Satellite Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
12. Planning Area M
A.	pvi^fing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Lyndhurst and consist of 79 acres. It
generally is bounded Berry's Creek on the east and north; vacant land on the south; and existing
warehouse development on west.
Surrounding land uses include the Bellemead Office and Warehouse Park to the west; radio
towers and wetlands to the east; Berry's Creek wetlands and the inactive Town of Rutherford
Landfill to the north; and the inactive Avon landfill to the south. As indicated below, the
Planning Area consists largely of the inactive Town of Lyndhurst landfill.
Access to the Planning Area is from Valley Brook Avenue which traverses the center of
Planning Area M. There currently are no existing or proposed rail mass transportation facilities
available to the Area. Bus service may be available from nearby locations.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the City of Jersey City and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	T^nd Uses
The screening document proposed 3,950 residential units for this Planning Area. This
designation is made in the absence of more suitable sites under the Upland Growth Land
Management Alternative. In order to meet HMDC needs, a density of 50 dwelling units\acre was
required.
53

-------
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination: This old landfill has not been studied to determine the extent
of possible hazardous material contamination. There currently is no program for closure
or clean-up activities.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: There are no existing or proposed rail mass
transit facilities. Nearby bus routes along Valley Brook Avenue could be made available
to the Area.
II-3	Incompatible Land Uses: As stated above, the Area is an inactive landfill surrounded by
contiguous landfill areas and warehousing uses.
H-5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
c) Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: The lack of possible linkages of the subject Area with
other Planning Areas further limit opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to housing
linkage.
H-6 Engineering/Financial Constraints: The development of landfills, assuming the absence
of health hazards, require extraordinary site preparation and costs.
TIER HI CRITERIA
III-l	Lack Of TDM/TCM Opportunities: The opportunity to institute Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs would be highly problematic given the scale of the single
land use that can be assigned to the Area and the Area's isolation.
IH-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
in-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The lack of possible linkages of the subject Area
with other Planning Areas further limit opportunities to foster the development of cultural
54

-------
facilities.
III-4 Lack Qf Visual Cphesivgness; The projected land uses in the Pla«mn„ a
negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds.	"m8 Area wi" h^e a
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area M should be removed from further consideration as a Plan ¦
is unsuitable for development uses at this time and until such time that f"1"8 rea' Area
that no adverse effects would result from landfill development G' if" ^ ^emonstrate£^
conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified it^60 a ex*st*n& Physical
or feasible to assign any other primary (office, commercial) or seconda^f-f^ approPriate
uses to this Planning Area under the Upland Growth Land Manaeempm a 1 • are'louse k™*
this Area is eliminated from further EIS evaluation.	tentative. Therefore,
14. Planning Area N
A. Existing Conditions
Planning Area N is located in the municipality of Carlstadt and consists of in
is bounded by Gotham Parkway on the east; Paterson Plank Road acres-** generally
warehousing and secondary office development to the north' and ¦ s?uth» existing
commercial development on the west.	' existing industrial and
Surrounding land uses include the NJSEA Sports Complex (racetrack) to th
uses similar to those indicated above.	e south; and adjoining
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road. There cu
proposed rail mass transportation services to the Area. Bus service ^avaifbj ^ CXisting
or
nearby
locations.
The Planning Area, also known as Scientific Chemical Processing, is contaminated with a
variety of chemical contaminants. Remediation activities under the Federal Superfund Program
are currently underway but questions remain concerning development suitability of the site
within the 20 year planning period.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
B. pirif?H T flnd Uses
The screening document proposed 217,800 sq. ft. of commercial space for this Planning Area.
55

-------
C. Pjanning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination: Remediation of ground water contamination, which has
migrated to surrounding land areas, is expected to be completed within 5 years.
However, this is only an interim measure and does not address the long term problems
associated with remediating severe soil and groundwater contamination. The ability to
fully "clean" the site will be determined in the future and based upon available
technologies at that time.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-4	Insufficient Scale: The Planning Area and surrounding areas cannot achieve sufficient
population density to maximize district-wide land use efficiencies.
II-5	Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
III-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The potential to foster the development of cultural
facilities is not available. The area is remote and virtually isolated and thus cannot be
linked to other Planning Areas in the Upland Growth Alternative.
D. Planning Recommendations
As described above, 217,800 sq. ft. of commercial space was projected for Planning Area N,
which is the Scientific Chemical Processing Superfund site and, in addition, is part of the
NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury Contamination Study area. Given the existing physical conditions
described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible
to assign any other primary (office, residential) land uses to this Planning Area under the Upland
Growth Land Management Alternative. Although the site is contaminated, remediation activities
are underway due to an approved clean-up plan. Therefore, the site is retained as a Satellite Area
for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
56

-------
15. Planning Area O
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and consists of 169 acres. It
generally is bounded by the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the east and south; New County Road
extension in the north; and the Hackensack River in the west.
Surrounding land uses include an inactive landfill and vacant wetlands to the east and south; the
Hackensack River to the west; and the Outlet Center and warehouse/distribution uses to the
north.
Access to the Planning Area is from New County Road and Castle Road from the north of the
tract. There currently are no existing rail or bus mass transportation services to the Area
however, proposals for both have been made.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 7,200 residential units and 544,500 sq. ft. of commercial
space for this Planning Area. In order to meet HMDC needs, a density of 50 dwelling units\acre
was required.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER n CRITERIA
H-l Poor Accessibility:
a) Highway Capacity: Existing access currently is insufficient to accommodate projected
uses under this alternative (See Planning Recommendation below).
TIER HI CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
57

-------
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area O should be retained as a Planning Area. The residential land use for this Area
appears to be appropriate, although consideration should be given to market conditions as a basis
for reduction of the housing density. With the lack of premium residential upland sites, the
commercial component could be located off the site in the nearby commerciaiUndustrial area.
Accordingly, the 7,200 residential units projected above should be adjusted to more accurately
reflect the HMD market conditions. The implementation of rail mass transit projects such as the
Secaucus Transfer Station and the proposed NJ Turnpike interchange will provide adequate rail
and roadway mass transportation improvements which will relieve the poor accessibility
problems. It is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office) or
secondary off:ce'\ ware ho use land uses to this Planning Area under the Upland Growth Land
Management Alternative. In addition, the site contains the 17 acre lock outcrop known as laurel
Hill which is eliminated from further EIS evaluation. Therefore, this Area is retained as a
Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan
16- Planning Area p
A.	Existing CPTKHtionS
This Planning Area is located in the municipality of Kearny and consists of 27 acres. It generally
is bounded by existing warehouse buildings on the east; the Boonton Rail Line on the south;
Belleville Turnpike to the north; and the Ktngsland Freight Rail Line on the west.
Surrounding land uses include existing out-of-district industrial development to the west; an
existing trucking terminal to the east; the HMDC IE landfill and baler facility to the north; and
Kearny marsh to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Belleville Turnpike along the northern boundary of the
tract. There currently are no existing or proposed tail or bus mass transportation facilities
available to the Area.
There are no municipal sewer facilities available to this Planning Area. Water is supplied by the
Passaic Valley Water Commission.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 1,764,1®} sq. ft. of primary office space for this Planning
Area.
c. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
58

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I Criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
c) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: There presently are no passenger rail
facilities in the Area and no future opportunities to make rail service available to the
Area. Bus service may be available along Belleville Turnpike.
II-2 I-ack of Efficient Public Services: No sewage facilities are currently available to service
the Planning Area.
II-3 Incompatible I^nd Uses: The site as a primary office area would be surrounded by
marginal industrial uses. The presence of the HMDC IE landfill would negatively affect
any primary land use proposed for this Area.
II-5	nf Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
c) Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: The lack of possible linkages of the subject area with
other Planning Areas further limit opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to housing
linkage.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area P should be eliminated as a Planning Area. As described above 1,764,180 sq. ft.
of primary office space was projected for this Area. However, based on the exclusionary criteria
identified above, this Area is more suitable for an expansion of secondary office\warehouse uses
under the Satellite Area category. Given the existing physical conditions described above and
the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other
primary (commercial, residential) land uses to this Planning Area under the Upland Growth Land
Management Alternative. Therefore, this Area is retained as a Satellite Area for further EIS
evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
59

-------
17. panning Area R
A.	Existing Conditions
This Planning Area is Located in the municipality of Kearny and consists of 28 acres. It generally
is bounded by the Hackensack River on the east and north; Conrail freight lines on the south;
and unimproved land, portions of which are wetlands, on the west.
Surrounding land uses include remnants of a heavily industrialized area to the west; the Public
Service Electric & Gas Jersey City Generating Station power plant across the Hackensack River
to the east; an inactive landfill across the River to the north; and existing heavy industrial uses
to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Fishhouse Road from the south of the tract and through
Route 7 between Harrison and Jersey City. There currently are no existing or proposed rail or
bus mass transportation facilities available to the Area.
Water and sewer facilities are presently not available to the Area.
B.	Projected Land Uses
Hie screening document proposed 609,840 sq. ft. of commercial space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-1 Severe Land Contamination.' The Planning Area is known to be contaminated with a
variety of cotang and processing chemical residues. There are no current plans for
remediation and clean-up activities.
I-2	Ownership DifficultiesfflMDC Jurisdictional Issues: The subject Planning Area is owned
by the Hudson County Improvement Authority and was at one time proposed for the
Hudson County Solid Waste Material Recovery facility.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	poor Accessibility:
a) Tfighwav Capacity: Access to Planning Area R is restricted by only erne access point
through an elevated rail line traversing the southern portion of the site, impairing the
ability to support the planned growth for this Area.


-------
d) Poor Mass Transportation Facilities: As indicated above there are insufficient
opportunities for rail and mass transportation facilities to serve the Area. Access to the
Area by bus would also be difficult because of physical constraints (railroad bridge
height, etc.).
II-2 Lack of Efficient Public Services: Sewer and water facilities do not directly serve the
Area.
II-3 Incompatible Land Uses: Since regional shopping facilities are projected for this Area,
the surrounding heavy industrial and railroad uses and the poor accessibility create
market impediments.
II-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects:
c) Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: The lack of possible linkages of the subject Area with
other Planning Areas further limit opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to housing
linkage.
II-6 Engineering/Financial Constraints: The development of contaminated land assuming the
absence of health hazards require extraordinary site preparation and engineering costs.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area R should be eliminated as a Planning Area based on the above analysis. This Area
is best suited for non-development uses at this time, or until such time that it can be
demonstrated that no adverse impacts would result from the development of this Planning Area.
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office, residential) or
secondary office\warehouse land uses to this Planning Area under the Upland Growth Land
Management Alternative. In addition, since there are no approved remediation plans the Area
is eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
61

-------
UPLAND GROWTH LAND
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
6\15\95
PLANNING AHEAS
EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA
|a
B
O
o
E
F
G
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
R I

WEST
EAST

TIER I
1-1 Contaminated Land



X








X
X


X
I—2 Ownership/Jurisdictional

X














K
I—3 Current Development




X



X








TIER II
11-1 Poor Accessibility

a. Highway Capacity
X




X




X
X


X

X
b. Direct Highway Impact

















c. Impact to Local Road







X
X






X

d. Poor Mass Transportation
X

X





X

X
X
X



X
II—2 Lack Of Public Services















X
X
II—3 Incompatible Land Uses
X







X
X
X
X
X


X
X
II—4 Insufficient Scale
X

X

X
X
X


X



X



II—5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects

a. Community of Place
X

X
X
X
X


X
X
X
X
X
X

X

b. Disproportionate Densities

X
X

X
X











c. Poor Jobs/Housinq Linkage



X

X


X



X


X
X
II—6 Engineering/Financial Constraints




X







X



X
TIER III















III-1 Lack of TDM/TCM Implementation
X

X

X
X



X


X




III—2 Poor Relationship to Open Space/Recreation
X


X


X
X

X

X
X
X



III—3 Capacity to Foster Cultural Facilities
X




X



X


X
X



III-4 Lack of Visual Cohesiveness


X

X
X


X



X




RECOMMENDATION *
Retain as a Primary Planning Area

x
X

1 X
X .
X

X




X
1
Review as a Satellite Area

Secondary Office/Warehouse
X


X
j


X

X
X

X

X
Eliminate from Further EIS Evaluation




x 1


X



X


| X
* may include only a portion of a planning area
upcrtia.wkl

-------
GROWTH CENTERS
1. Planning Area A (Wesrt
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Carlstadt and is 300 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by the NJ Turnpike western spur on the east; the NJSEA Sports Complex
on the south; wetland to the north; and existing development on the west. The site is currently
vacant and predominantly wetland.
Surrounding land uses include secondary office and distribution development to the west; the
NJSEA Brendan Byrne Arena to the south; vacant wetland and the Transcontinental Gas &
Pipeline Natural Gas Facility to the east; and vacant wetland to the north.
Access to the Planning Area is from Commerce Road from the west and from Paterson Plank
Road from the south. There currently are no existing or proposed rail mass transit facilities
available to the Area. Bus services are currently not available to the site however, a bus facility
is proposed.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Prejertprf Land Uses
The screening document proposed 3,005,640 sq. ft of primary office space; 1,350,360 sq. ft.
of commercial space, and 5,600 residential units for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER n CRITERIA
H-l Poor Accessibility:
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: The opportunity to access rail mass
transportation facilities is poor given the location of the Planning Area and the absence
of rail transportation opportunities.
62

-------
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area A (West) should be retained as a Planning Area. The scale and size of the Area
and projected uses achieve community of place attributes as outlined in the synergy criteria. The
implementation of regional highway improvements such as the NJ Turnpike interchange 18W
improvements will support additional growth in this area. Existing vacant land adjacent to and
surrounding the Planning Area essentially isolate the Area from nearby industrial facilities. Also,
the proximity to the Sports Complex promotes compatible land uses. Therefore, the Area is
retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
2. Planning Area A (Eastl
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Carlstadt and is 51 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by the Hackensack River on the east; Paterson Plank Road on the south; existing
development on the north; and the NJ Turnpike 18W interchange on the west. This area is
currently vacant wetland.
Surrounding land uses include wetland to the west and south; low density residential
development across the Hackensack River to the east; and the Transcontinental Gas and Pipeline
Company Natural Gas Facility to the north.
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road. Currently there are no existing or
proposed rail mass transit or bus services provided to the site although bus service would
presumably be available from facilities within Area A (West) described above.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the JBCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 2,040 residential units for this Planning Area,
c. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria;
63

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
d) PpQr Ma$$ Transportation Opportunities.; The opportunity to access *i
transportation facilities is poor given the location of the Planning Area and th mass
of rail transportation opportunities.	e absence
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area A (East) should be retained as a Planning Area. Planning Area A{Eat\
intended to be integrated with Area A (West) through the implementation of roadwav h 'S
improvements and would, therefore, achieve land use efficiencies. (See wtransit
Recommendation for Planning Area C in the Upland Growth Land Management Alte .n*n^
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria ^,mative^
it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office, comme1
uses to this Planning Area under the Growth Center Land Management Alternative Th' fland
the Area is retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the H b d
3.
A.	Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 97 acres in size. It generally
ic hounded bv the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the east; the Mall at Mill Creek on the south;
vaS wetland on the north; and Mill Creek on the west. The site is currently vacant wetland.
Cnrrmmdine land uses include residential development to the west; vacant wetland to the east
and north; and commercial and office uses to the south.
Arress to the Planning Area is from the internal road system of the Mall from the south of the
^ which can be accessed from the Route 3 Service Road. There currently are no existing rail
transit or bus services provided to the site however bus service is available from existing
Te^rS the Mall and rail facilities have been proposed nearby.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
64

-------
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 3,880 residential units for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
No Tier II criteria appear to be present.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D.	Planning Recommendations
Planning Area B (West) should be retained as a Planning Area. The proximity to office and
commercial uses adjacent to the Area promote the concept of synergy and community of place
attributes. Adjacent residential uses also establish a continuation of a residential community.
Together, the scale of development could foster TDM/TCM techniques and cultural facilities.
It is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office, commercial) or
secondary office/warehouse land uses to this Planning Area under the Growth Center Land
Management Alternative. Therefore the Area is retained as a Planning Area for further EIS
evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
4. Planning Area B (East)
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 87 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by Chromakill Creek on the east; Paterson Plank Road and Route 3 on the south;
vacant wetland to the north; and the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the west. The Area is
predominantly unimproved vacant upland. A seven acre portion of this Area, south of Paterson
Plank Road contains an existing storage facility in good condition.
Surrounding land uses include the Harmon Meadow Office Complex to the west, existing
65

-------
warehouse uses to the east, vacant wetland to the north; and commercial and warehouse uses to
the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road and the internal road system of the
Harmon Meadows Mall, which is accessible from the Route 3 Service Road. There currently are
no existing rail mass transit services provided to the site however, bus service is available from
existing services at the Mall. Rail mass transit facilities have been proposed for the Area.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 2,918,520 sq. ft. of primary office space and 566,280 sq. ft.
of commercial space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-3	Current Land Development: A 7 acre portion of this Planning Area currently has
existing viable development that would not meet the criteria necessary for redevelopment.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-l	Poor Accessibility:
c) Maximum Direct Impact To Local Road System: Given the existing traffic volumes
in proximity to the Area, the impact of the projected land uses would be significant on
Paterson Plank Road and the local road system.
TIER III CRITERIA
IH-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space\Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space\recreation areas both within the HMD and adjacent jurisdictions.
D.	Planning Recommendations
Planning Area B (East), which includes Areas G (East) and G (West) from the Upland Growth
Land Management Alternative, should be retained as a Planning Area. It is adjacent to existing
office and commercial uses and therefore, consistent with existing development. The projected
office and commercial uses are appropriate for this Planning Area and should be retained
66

-------
however, existing development consistent with current zoning on 7 acres should be eliminated.
Therefore, the 7 acres are eliminated and the remaining 80 acres are retained as a Planning Area
for further EIS evaluation of the Hybrid Plan.
5. Planning Area B (South')
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 37 acres in size. It is
generally bounded by Route 3 on the east; 1-495 on the south; Paterson Plank Road on the north;
and the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the west. The Planning Area currently contains a hotel and
vacant structures.
Surrounding land uses include residential and industrial development to the west; warehousing
and industrial uses to the east; vacant structures to the south; and Harmon Meadows Mall to the
north.
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road. There currently are no existing or
proposed rail mass transit or bus services provided to the site however, bus service may be
available from existing nearby services.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 805,860 sq. ft. of commercial space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-3 Current Land Development: The development of a warehouse outlet building has been
approved by the HMDC on 7 acres within this Planning Area and construction is
imminent for this project.
TIER II CRITERIA
No Tier II criteria appear to be present.
67

-------
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area B (South), which includes Area F from the Redevelopment Land Management
Alternative, should be eliminated as a Planning Area. As described above, 805,860 sq. ft. of
commercial space was projected for this Area. However, based on the exclusionary criteria
identified above, and the surrounding pattern of existing development, this Area may be more
suitable for inclusion in the Satellite Area category for the secondary/office warehouse
component. Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria
identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary
(commercial\residential) land uses to this Planning Area under the Growth Center Land
Management Alternative for further EIS evaluation. (See Planning Analysis for Area F in the
Redevelopment Land Management Alternative). Therefore, the 7 acres under current
development are eliminated and the remaining 30 acres are retained as a Satellite Area for
further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
6. Planning Area C
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipalities of East Rutherford and Rutherford and is 193
acres in size. It generally is bounded by the NJ Turnpike western spur on the east; Berry's
Creek on the south and west; and Route 3 on the north. The site is currently vacant wetland and
a small portion of unimproved vacant upland. In addition, the portion of this Area that lies
between the NJ Transit Bergen Rail Line and Berry's Creek includes portions of the inactive
Town of Rutherford Municipal Landfill at both the northern and southern ends.
Surrounding land uses include the Bellemead Office Park to the west; vacant wetland to the east;
the NJSEA Sports Complex to the north; and radio towers and the inactive Town Of Lyndhurst
Municipal Landfill to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Route 3 and the Route 3 Service Road. Currently no
existing rail mass transit or bus services are provided to the site however, proposals for both
have been made.
Water and sewer facilities are available to those portions of the Area adjacent to Route 3 and
the Route 3 Service Road from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA, respectively.
The remainder of the Planning Area presumably could be served by the Hackensack Water
Company and the BCUA.
68

-------
B. Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 3,880 residential units; 5,619,240 sq. ft. of primary office
space; and 217,800 sq. ft. of commercial space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination: Approximately 20 acres of this Planning Area consists of
the inactive Town of Rutherford Municipal Landfill. To date, no studies have been
undertaken to determine the extent of possible contamination. In addition, there currently
is no program for closure or clean-up activities. This criteria affects the northern and
southern "islands" that are south of the NJ Transit Bergen Rail Line.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-2	Lack Of Efficient Public Services: The majority of the Planning Area, located between
Berry's Creek Canal and Berry's Creek to the south, is currently not directly serviced
by sewer and water facilities.
II-6	Engineering/Financial Constraints: The development of landfills, assuming the absence
of health hazards, require extraordinary site preparation and infrastructure costs.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space\Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space\recreations areas both within the HMD and adjacent jurisdictions.
D.	Planning Recommendations
The portion of Planning Area C that is affected by Criteria 1-1 should be eliminated from the
Planning Area. The balance of the Planning Area should be retained for further analysis in the
hybrid plan. The central "island" (as shown on the map) between the NJ Transit Bergen Rail
Line and Berry's Creek is unaffected by Criteria 1-1 and can be accessed by the improvement
of an existing unimproved road that traverses the landfilled area to the north. Vehicular access
to Route 3 and to the local road west of Berry's Creek provide access to the Planning Area.
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified;
it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any secondary office/ warehouse land uses to
this Planning Area. Therefore, this Area is retained as a Planning Area for further EIS
evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
69

-------
7. Planning Area D
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 252 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by Penhorn Creek and the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the east and south;
the Secaucus Outlet Center on the north; and the Hackensack River on the west. The site
currently contains vacant unimproved upland and warehousing uses.
Surrounding land uses include the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area to the west across
the Hackensack River and the Castle Road Outlet Center to the west; an inactive landfill; a
PSE&G Facility; and the Conrail Croxton Rail Yards to the east; and commercial and
warehousing development to the north.
Access to the Planning Area is from New County Road which bisects the site in a north\south
direction and Castle Road which bisects the site in an east\west direction. Currently there is no
existing rail mass transit or bus service to the area but both are proposed.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed is 7,100,280 sq. ft. of primary office space and 6,760
residential units for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
a) Highway Capacity: The road and highway system adjacent to the Planning Area cannot
reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from the Planning
Area (see Planning Recommendation).
c) Maximum Direct Impact To T-ncal Road System: Given the existing traffic volumes
in proximity to the Area, the impact of the projected land uses would be significant on
70

-------
the local road system (see Planning Recommendation).
II-5	Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
b) Disproportionate Densities: The projected office use is appropriate for this Planning
Area however, the Floor Area Ratio should be adjusted to reflect existing market
conditions (see Planning Recommendation).
TIER III CRITERIA
III-4	Lack of Visual Cohesiveness: The projected high density office development would have
a negative impact on HMD viewsheds.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area D should be retained as a Planning Area. The Tier II criteria discussed above are
applicable only in the absence of the proposed mass transportation projects for the Secaucus
Transfer Station and the related NJ Turnpike interchange. As described in the Planning Analysis
for Planning Area 0 in the Upland Growth Land Management Alternative and Planning Area
H in the Redevelopment Land Management Alternative, the projected land uses are appropriate
however, the projected densities are subject to the proposed mass transportation improvements.
In addition, this Planning Area contains the 17 acre rock outcrop known as Laurel Hill.
Therefore, the 17 acres are eliminated and the remaining 235 acres are retained as a Planning
Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
71

-------
GROWTH CENTERS LAND
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
6\15\95
PLANNING AREAS
A
A
B
B
B
C
D
WEST
EAST
WEST
EAST
SOUTH

EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA
TIER 1


1-1 Contaminated Land





X

I-2 Ownership/Jurisdictional







I-3 Current Development



X
X


TIER II

11-1 Poor Accessibility

a. Highway Capacity






X
b. Direct Hiqhway Impact







c. Impact to Local Road



X


X
d. Poor Mass Transportation
X
X





II-2 Lack Of Public Services





X

II-3 Incompatible Land Uses







II —4 Insufficient Scale







II-5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects


a. Community of Place







b Disproportionate Densities






X
c Poor Jobs/Housing Linkage







n-fi Pnaineerina/Financial Constraints





X

TIFR III
111-1 Lack of TDM/TCM Implementation







III-2 Poor Relationship to Open Space/Recreation



X

X

III-3 Capacity to Foster Cultural Facilities







in -a 1 ack of Visual Cohesiveness






X
RPCOMMENDATION *
Retain as a Primary Planning Area
X 1 X
X X
Ix
X
Review as a Satellite Area

Secondary Office/Warehouse




x


Eliminate from Further EIS Evaluation



X
x
X
X
* may include only a portion of a planning area
gccrtria.wkl

-------
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS
1. Planning Area A
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Carlstadt and is 81 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by vacant wetland on the east; Barell Avenue on the south; Commerce Road to the
north; and Washington Avenue on the west. The site is currently vacant wetland.
Surrounding land uses include the Carlstadt Industrial Area to the west; vacant wetland to the
east; and existing warehouse development to the north and south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Commerce Road and Barell Avenue. Both Washington Ave.
and Commerce Rd. have been improved to accommodate 4 lanes of traffic. There currently are
no rail mass transit or bus services to the Planning Area. No rail mass transit facilities are
proposed. Bus service may be available from nearby regional routes.
Municipal water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water
Company and the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 3,240 residential units for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: Bus service is not available to the Planning
Area and there is no opportunity to access rail mass transit facilities.
II-5 I^ack Of Synergistic Effect:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
72

-------
The size and '*>lation of this plannin5 Area do not
housing and employment land uses.
tier 1» CRITERIA	•lities1 The potential to foster the development of cultural
raoa£to1^^
ffi-3 ®hnsS5-*d
aaauiBS-6164^
. sisHssSSO^	vtv of Carlstadt and is 32 acres in size. It generally
&rea is located in the	J the east; Paterson Plank Road on the south;
Ihe planning Are* Turnpike western P warehouse development on the west. The site is
vacant wcu<" t wetland.
currently vacant w	warehouse uses to the west; vacant wetland to the east
a ,i«es include existing	lQ south.
Surrounding lan	Brendan	plank Road and Michelle Place. There currently
ra the S"e- H°MVer' bUS "rto hM
are no
oroposed for w	available to the Area from the Hackensack Water
^ewer facilities are avai
Municipal water	. respectively.
Company and the
ft of primary office space for this Planning
¦ „ document proposed 1,3W.»
The screening docum
Area.
73

-------
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-5	Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
c) Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: The size and isolation of this Planning Area do not
provide sufficient linkages between housing and employment land uses.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area B should be retained as a Planning Area. (See Planning Analysis for Planning
Area A (West) in the Growth Center Land Management Alternative). Accordingly, this Area was
retained within the Growth Center Land Management Alternative as part of a larger Planning
Area which proposed commercial and office land uses for further EIS evaluation as part of the
Hybrid Plan. It is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any secondary office/ warehouse
land uses to this Planning Area under the Dispersed Development Areas or any other Land
Management Alternative.
3. Planning Area C
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipalities of Carlstadt and East Rutherford and is 58
acres in size. It generally is bounded by the Hackensack River on the east; vacant wetland on
the south and north; and the NJ Turnpike 18W interchange on the west. In addition to "LT's
Golf and Marina Center", which is a temporary use, there are low intensity waterfront marina-
related uses.
Surrounding land uses include the NJSEA Brendan Byrne Arena to the west; industrial and
74

-------
residential development to the east; vacant wetland to the south; and the Transcontinental Gas
and Pipeline Company Natural Gas Facility to the north.
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road. There currently are no existing or
proposed rail or bus mass transit services available to the site. However, bus facilities have
been proposed for nearby locations.
Municipal water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water
Company and the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 2,320 residential units for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: Bus service is not available to the Planning
Area and there is no opportunity to access rail mass transit facilities.
II-4 Insufficient Scale: The size, and projected density of this Planning Area cannot provide
sufficient population density to maximize District-wide land use efficiencies.
II-5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
b) Disproportionate Densities: The projected land use in this Planning Area is
appropriate. However, consideration should be given to adjusting the density to a level
consistent with waterfront areas in the HMD.
TIER HI CRITERIA
m-1 Lack Of TDM/TCM Opportunities: The opportunity to institute Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs would be highly problematic given the scale of the single
land use that can be assigned to the Area.
75

-------
III-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The potential to foster the development of cultural
facilities is not available due to the small size and single land use assigned to the Area.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area C should be retained as a Planning Area. Consideration should be given to
adjusting the density to reflect existing residential development adjacent to waterfront areas. (See
Planning Analysis for Planning Area C in the Upland Growth Land Management Alternative and
Planning Area A (East) in the Growth Center Land Management Alternative). Given the existing
physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed
appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office, commercial) or secondary
office\warehouse land uses to this Planning Area. Therefore, this Planning Area which also
incorporates Planning Areas retained from other Alternatives, is retained as a Planning Area for
further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
4. Planning Area D
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of East Rutherford and is 65 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by the NJ Turnpike on the east; Berry's Creek Canal on the south; Route
3 on the north; and Berry's Creek and Route 3 on the west. A portion of the Planning Area
currently has an office and hotel development.
Surrounding land uses include warehousing to the west; vacant wetlands to the south and east;
and the NJSEA Sports Complex to the north.
Access to the Planning Area is from the Route 3 Service Road to the north of the tract. There
currently are no existing or proposed rail mass transit services to the site. Bus service currently
is provided to the site.
Municipal water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water
Company and the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 2,831,400 sq. ft. of primary office space.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
76

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I Criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
b) Direct Highway Impact: The road and highway system within or adjacent to the
Planning Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic
projected from the Planning Area. New roadway access and rights-of-way are unavailable
or insufficient.
II-5	I^ack Of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area D, which includes part of Area C from the Growth Center Land Management
Alternative, should be retained as a Planning Area. The projected office use is appropriate for
this Planning Area and should be retained for further EIS evaluation. Consideration should be
given to adjusting the Floor Area Ratio to more accurately reflect existing and projected
development patterns and market demand for office space within the HMD. (See Planning
Analysis for Planning Area C in the Growth Center Land Management Alternative). Given the
existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not
deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any secondary office/warehouse land uses to this
Planning Area. Therefore, this Area is retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation
as part of the Hybrid Plan.
5. Planning Area E
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipalities of East Rutherford and Rutherford and is 90
acres in size. It generally is bounded by vacant wetland on the east and south; Berry's Creek
Canal and the Route 3 Service Road to the north; and Berry's Creek on the west. The site is
currently vacant wetland and also contains approximately 12 acres of an inactive municipal
77

-------
landfill.
Surrounding land uses include office development to the west; and vacant wetland to the east,
north, and south.
Access to the Planning Area is from the Route 3 Service Road from the north of the tract. There
currently are no rail mass transit or bus services available to the site although proposals for both
have been made.
Municipal water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water
Company and the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 3,049,200 sq. ft. of primary office space and 435,600 sq. ft.
of commercial space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination: Approximately 12 acres of the site south of the NJ Transit
Bergen Rail Line is part of an old landfill. This inactive landfill has not been studied to
determine the extent of possible contamination. There is currently no program for closure
or clean-up activity. The balance of the land within the Planning Area is not affected.
TIER H CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility;
a) Highway Capacity: The road and highway system (the Route 3 Service Road west of
Berry's Creek) within and adjacent to the Planning Area cannot reasonably be improved
to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from the Planning Area.
U-5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area and surrounding areas do not interact
sufficiently to provide the opportunity to achieve community of place attributes.
II-6 Engineerinn/Financial Constraints: The development of landfills, assuming the absence
of health hazards, require extraordinary site preparation and infrastructure costs.
78

-------
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions,
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area E, which includes part of Area C from the Growth Center Land Management
Alternative, should be retained as a Planning Area. Consideration should be given to adjusting
the Office Floor Area Ratio to more accurately reflect existing and projected development
patterns and market demand for office space within the HMD. (See Planning Analysis for
Planning Area C in the Growth Center Land Management Alternative proposing office and
residential uses). Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary
criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any secondary
office/warehouse land uses to this Planning Area. Therefore, this Area is retained as a Planning
Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
6. Planning Area F (West)
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 97 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the east; the Mall at Mill Creek on the south;
vacant wetland on the north; and Mill Creek on the west. The site is currently vacant wetland.
Surrounding land uses include existing residential development to the west; vacant wetland to
the east and the north; and the office and commercial development of the Mall at Mill Creek to
the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from the internal road system of the Mall from the south of the
tract, which can be accessed from the Route 3 Service Road. There currently are no existing rail
mass transit facilities available to the site however, proposals have been made for nearby
locations. Bus service is available from the existing development adjacent to the site.
Municipal water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water
Company and the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 3,880 residential units for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
79

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
No Tier II criteria appear to be present.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
t>- Planning Recommendations
Based on the above, Planning Area F (West), which includes Planning Area B (West) from the
Growth Center Land Management Alternative, should be retained as Planning Area. The
projected residential use is appropriate for the Area and should be considered for further
evaluation in the EIS. (See Planning Analysis for Planning Area B (West) in the Growth Center
Land Management Alternative). It is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other
primary (office, commercial) or secondary office\warehouse land uses to this Planning Area.
Therefore, this Area is retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the
Hybrid Plan.
7. Planning Area F (East)
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 50 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by Chromakill Creek on the east; Paterson Plank Road on the south; vacant wetland
to the north; and Harmon Meadows Mall on the west. The site is currently unimproved vacant
upland.
Surrounding land uses include commercial and office uses to the west; warehouse uses to the
east; vacant wetland to the north; and retail and warehouse uses to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road from the south of the tract and through
the internal road system for the Mall. There currently are no existing rail mass transit facilities
available to the site however, proposals have been made. Bus service is available from the
existing development adjacent to the Planning Area.
Municipal water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water
Company and the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
80

-------
B. Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 2,178,000 sq. ft. of primary office space for this Planning
Area.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
a) Highway Capacity: The road and highway system within and adjacent to the Planning
Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from
the Planning Area.
c) Maximum Direct Impact To Local Road System: Given the existing traffic volumes
in proximity to the Area, the impact of the projected land use would be significant on
Paterson Plank Road and on the local road system.
II-5	Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area and surrounding areas do not interact
sufficiently to provide the opportunity to achieve community of place attributes.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area F (East), which includes Planning Area G (East) from the Upland Growth Land
Management Alternative and part of Planning Area B (East) from the Growth Center Land
Management Alternative, should be retained as a Planning Area and considered for further
evaluation in the EIS. The projected office use is appropriate for this Area however, in the
development of a Hybrid Plan the designation of other primary (commercial) land uses should
be considered. (See Planning Analysis for Planning Area G (East) in the Upland Growth Land
Management Alternative and for Planning Area B (East) in the Growth Center Land
81

-------
Management Alternative). Therefore, this Planning Area which also incorporates Planning Areas
retained from other Alternatives, is retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as
part of the Hybrid Plan.
8. Planning Area G
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of North Bergen and is 92 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by the West Shore Freight Rail Line on the east; the NJ Transit Northeast
Corridor Commuter Rail Line and Penhorn Creek on the south; 1-495 to the north, and the NJ
Turnpike eastern spur on the west. The site is currently vacant wetland.
Surrounding land uses include vacant wetland to the west and south; trucking terminals to the
east; and industrial and warehousing uses to the north.
Access to the Planning Area is from 1-495. There currently are no existing or proposed rail or
bus mass transit facilities serving the site. However, bus service may be available from nearby
regional routes.
Municipal water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water
Company and the North Bergen MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 3,680 residential units for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER n CRITERIA
II-5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects;
c) Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: The size and isolation of this Planning Area do not
provide sufficient linkages between housing and employment land uses.
82

-------
TIER III CRITERIA
III-l Lack Of TDM/TCM Opportunities: The opportunity to institute Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs would be highly problematic given the scale of the single
land use that can be assigned to the Area.
III-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
III-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The size, isolation and single land use assigned
to Planning Area do not provide the opportunity to foster cultural facilities.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area G should be retained as a Planning Area and considered for further evaluation
in the EIS. The projected 3,680 residential units described above are appropriate for this Area.
However, in the development of a Hybrid Plan the designation of other primary (commercial
office) land uses should be considered. (See Planning Analysis for Planning Area O in the
Highway Corridors Land Management Alternative below). Therefore, this Area is retained as
a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
9. Planning Area H
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 169 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the east and south; New County Road
Extension to the north; and the Hackensack River on the west. The site is currently unimproved
vacant upland.
Surrounding land uses include the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area across the
Hackensack River to the west; vacant wetland and an inactive landfill to the east; warehousing
to the north; and vacant wetland to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from New County Road from the north of the tract. There
currently are no rail mass transit or bus facilities currently provided for the site. However, both
are proposed (see Planning Recommendation).
Municipal water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water
Company and the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 6,760 residential units for this Planning Area.
83

-------
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
a) Highway Capacity: The road and highway system within and adjacent to the Planning
Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from
the Planning Area (see Planning Recommendation below).
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area H should be retained as a Planning Area. The projected residential use for this
Area is appropriate and should be considered for further evaluation in the EIS. (See Planning
Analysis for Planning Area O in the Upland Growth Land Management Alternative and Planning
Area D in the Growth Center Land Management Alternative). The implementation of mass
transit projects such as the Secaucus Transfer Station and the proposed NJ Turnpike interchange
will provide adequate rail and roadway mass transportation improvements which will relieve the
poor accessibility problems. It is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary
(office, commercial) or secondary office\warehouse land uses to this Planning Area under the
Dispersed Development Areas Land Management Alternative. In addition, this Area contains the
17 acre rock outcrop known as Laurel Hill. Therefore, it is recommended to eliminate the 17
acres and retain the remaining 152 acres as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part
of the Hybrid Plan.
10. Planning Area I
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Lyndhurst and is 105 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by Berry's Creek on the east and north; vacant land on the south; and the
Bellemead Industrial Park on the west. As indicated below, the Planning Area consists largely
of the inactive Town of Lyndhurst Landfill
84

-------
Surrounding land uses include warehousing and office uses to the west; vacant wefi
east and north; and the inactive Avon landfill to the south.	'	etiand to the
Access to the Planning Area is from Valley Brook Avenue which bisects the site
direction. There currently are no existing or proposed rail or bus mass transit facil t^" east)west
to the site. However, bus service may be available from bus routes that serve nea h available
Municipal water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Jersev r- &reas'
Water and the BCUA, respectively.	y utY Dept. of
B.	prnj^ted Land Uses
The screening document proposed 2,526,480 sq. ft. of primary office space 43s Ann
commercial space, and 1,080 residential units for this Planning Area. '	sq> ft- of
C.	yenning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria-
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination; This old landfill has not been studied to det •
of hazardous material contamination. There is currently no nmaram t er,mine the extent
up activities.	' P gnun for clos^e or clean-
TIER n CRITERIA
II-l	Poor Accessibility:
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities- There are no existing
transit facilities. Nearby bus routes along Valley Brook Avenue cnni/I rail mass
to the Area.	e ma(k available
II-3 Incompatible land Uses; As stated above, the Area is an inactive landfii
contiguous landfill areas and warehouse uses.	SUrrounded by
II-6 Engineering/Financial Constraints: The ripypinpm»m of iandflUa
of health hazards, require extraordinary site preparation and infrastnTc^tur8 ^ absence
TIER III CRITERIA
in-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreating; The Area has an ineff •
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in aH?o ve relationshin
aojacent jurisdictions.
HI-4 Lack Of Visual Cohesiveness: The projected lanH ,,5fs in ^ n .
^uig Area will havea
85

-------
negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds including views from in-District locations
to areas outside the District and from areas outside the District to locations in this
Planning Area,and views across the District.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area I should be removed from further consideration as a Planning Area. (See Planning
Analysis for Planning Area M in the Upland Growth Land Management Alternative). The Area
is unsuitable for development uses at this time and until such time it can be demonstrated that
no adverse effects would result from landfill development. Given the existing physical conditions
described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible
to assign any primary or secondary office\warehouse land uses to this Planning Area under the
Dispersed Development Areas or any other Land Management Alternative. Therefore, this Area
has been eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
11. Planning Area J
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Kearny and is 37 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by Route 280 on the east and south; the Newark-Harrison Turnpike to the north; and
the Kingsland Freight Rail Line on the west. The site currently contains industrial uses.
Surrounding land uses include out-of-district existing industrial development to the west; an
inactive landfill to the east; the Kearny freshwater marsh and another inactive landfill area to
the north; and Route 280 and NJ Transit Rail Lines to the south.
Access to the site is available from the Newark-Harrison Turnpike. There currently are no
existing or proposed rail or bus mass transit facilities available to the site. However, bus service
may be available from nearby regional routes.
Municipal water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Passaic Valley Water
Commission and the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 805,860 sq. ft. of regional commercial space for this Planning
Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
86

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
a) Highway Capacity: The road and highway system west of the Planning Area, which
is outside the District, cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of
traffic projected from the Planning Area.
c) Maximum Direct Impact To Local Road System: Given the existing traffic volumes
in proximity to the Area, the impact of the projected land uses would be significant on
the local road system west of the Planning Area.
II-5	Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area J, which is included in Planning Area I in the Redevelopment Land Management
Alternative, should be eliminated as a Planning Area. Based on the above exclusionary criteria,
this Area is more suitable for inclusion in the Satellite Area category for secondary
office\warehouse development. (See Planning Analysis for Planning Area I in the Redevelopment
Land Management Alternative). Given the existing physical conditions described above and the
exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other
primary (residential) land uses to this Planning Area. Therefore, this Area is retained as a
Satellite Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
12. Planning Area K
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Kearny and is 67 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by the Hackensack River on the east and north; a NJ Transit Commuter Rail Line
on the south; and unimproved vacant land on the west. The site is currently vacant and is known
87

-------
to be contaminated with coke processing by-products.
Surrounding land uses include remnants of a heavily industrialized area to the west; the Public
Service Electric & Gas Company Jersey City Generating Station power plant across the
Hackensack River to the east; an inactive landfill across the river to the north; and existing
heavy industrial uses to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Fishhouse Road from the south of the tract and through
Route 7 between Harrison and Jersey City. There currently are no existing or proposed rail or
bus mass transit facilities available to the site.
Water and sewer facilities are presently not available to the Area.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 609,840 sq. ft. of commercial space and 1,698,840 sq. ft. of
primary office space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-1 Severe Land Contamination: The Planning Area is known to be contaminated with a
variety of coking and processing chemical residues. Currently there are no plans for
remediation and clean-up activities.
I-2	Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: The subject Planning Area is owned
by the Hudson County Improvement Authority and at one time was proposed as the site
for the Hudson County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
a)	Highway Capacity: Access to the Planning Area is restricted by the only one access
point through an elevated rail line traversing the southern portion of the site, impairing
the ability to support the projected land uses for this Area.
b)	Direct Highway Impact: The Planning Area must use the regional highway system as
its primary means of access without existing or future alternative secondary access
opportunities that can be reasonably be expected to be built.
88

-------
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: As indicated above, there are insufficient
opportunities for rail mass transportation facilities to serve the Area. Access to the Area
by bus would also be difficult because of physical constraints (railroad bridge height,
etc.)
II-2 Lack Of Efficient Public Services: Sewer and water facilities currently do not directly
serve the site.
II-3 Incompatible Land Uses: Since regional shopping facilities and primary office space are
projected for this Area, the surrounding heavy industrial uses and the poor accessibility
create market impediments.
II-5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area does not provide the opportunity to achieve
community of place attributes because it is isolated from other Planning Areas.
II-6 Engineering/Financial Constraints: The development of contaminated land, assuming the
absence of health hazards, require extraordinary site preparation and engineering costs.
D. Planning Recommendations:
Planning Area K, which includes Planning Area R from the Upland Growth Land Management
Alternative, should be eliminated as a Planning Area. (See Planning Analysis for Planning Area
R in the Upland Growth Land Management Alternative). The Area is unsuitable for development
uses at this time and until such time it can be demonstrated that no adverse effects would result
from development of contaminated land. Given the existing physical conditions described above
and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any
other primary (residential) land uses to this Planning Area under the Dispersed Development
Areas or any other Land Management Alternative. In addition, there are no remediation plans
and, therefore, the Area is eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
13. Planning Area L
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 32 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by Penhorn Creek on the east; the NJ Transit Main Line Rail Line on the south; the
NJ Transit Bergen Rail Line to the north; and New County Road on the west. The site currently
contains unimproved vacant land, wetland and existing warehousing and industrial development.
Surrounding land uses include the Castle Road Outlet Center and warehousing uses to the west;
the Conrail Croxton Yards to the east; Public Service Electric & Gas Company Facilities and
an inactive landfill to the south; and existing warehousing uses to the north.
89

-------
Access to the Planning Area is from New County Road which bisects the Planning Area in a
north\south direction. Currently no rail mass transit or bus services are provided to the site but
both are proposed. (See Planning Recommendation below).
Municipal water and sewer facilities currently do not directly serve the Area however, service
could be provided from the Hackensack Water Company and the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 4,878,720 sq. ft. of primary office space for this Planning
Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier 1 criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-l Poor Accessibility:
a)	Highway Capacity: The road and highway system within and adjacent to the Planning
Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from
the Planning Area (see Planning Recommendation).
II-2 Lack Of Efficient Public Services: Sewer and water facilities currently do not directly
serve the site.
II-5	Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
b)	Disproportionate Densities: Although office space is appropriate for this Planning
Area, consideration should be given to adjusting the Floor Area Ratio (FAR 4.0) (see
Planning Recommendation).
TIER in CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space/recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
90

-------
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area L, which is included in Planning Area D in the Growth C
Alternative, should be retained as a Planning Area. The projected ofrJ?** ^ Management
this Planning Area and should be considered for further evaluation ®USe ls aPPropriate fn
Analysis for Planning Area D in the Growth Center rInT* the ElS- (See ft!? °f
projected land use for this Area is based on implementation of	AIternative) Thg
Secaucus Transfer Station and the proposed NJ Turnpike interc h^^ Pr°Jects Such as th
adequate rail and roadway transportation improvements Given	86 Wh,ch ^7
described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it js not deem'?08 physical condition,
to assign any other primary (commercial, residential) or secondarv nfr approPriate or feasihi!
to this Planning Area. Therefore, the Area is retained as a Phn/vvareh°use land
evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.	** a Plann,ng Area for faSf U*es
91

-------
DISPERSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS
LAND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
6\15\95
PLANNING AREAS
A
en
0
lo
1	.
E I F
F
G j H 1 J
K L
EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA
TIER 1
[WEST
fcASI

1-1 Contaminated Land




X




X

X

1-2 Ownership/Jurisdictional











X

1-3 Current Development













TIER II

11-1 Poor Accessibility

a. Highway Capacity




X

X

X

X
X
X
b. Direct Highway Impact



X







X

c. Impact to Local Road






X



X


d. Poor Mass Transportation
X

K






X

X

II—2 Lack Of Public Services











X
X
II-3 Incompatible Land Uses









X

X

II-4 Insufficient Scale


X I









II-5 Lack Of Synergistic Effects

a. Community of Place
X
X

X
X

X



X
X

b. Disproportionate Densities


X









X
c. Poor Jobs/Housing Linkage
X
X





X





II -6 Engineering/Financial Constraints




X




X

X

TIER III
111-1 Lack ofTDM/TCM Implementation


X




X





lil-2 Poor Relationship to Open Space/Recreation

X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
III-3 Capacity to Foster Cultural Facilities
X

X




X





III—4 Lack cf Visua! Cohesivertess









X



RECOMMENDATION *
Retain as a Primary Planning Area
X | X I X I X | X I X | X | X | X | ! | | X
Review as a Satellite Area

Secondary Office/Warehouse

j

r




X
1
Eliminate from Further EIS Evaluation

1 .

I


X
X

* 1
* may Include only a portion of a planning area
ddacrtia.wk1

-------
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS
1. Planning Area A
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Carlstadt and is 32 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by the NJ Turnpike 18W interchange on the east; Paterson Plank Road on the south;
wetlands on the north; and existing development on the west. The Area is currently vacant
wetland.
Surrounding land uses include existing warehouse uses to the west; wetlands to the east and
north; and the NJSEA Brendan Byrne Arena to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road and Michelle Place. There currently
are no existing rail mass transit or bus services available to the site. However, bus facilities have
been proposed.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 1,280 residential units for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: There are no available rail mass
transportation facilities, either existing or proposed. However, bus transportation may be
available from nearby regional routes.
II-4 Insufficient Scale: The Planning Area and surrounding areas cannot achieve sufficient
population density to maximize district-wide land use efficiencies.
92

-------
II-5 Lack of Synergistic F.ffer^;
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area and surrounding land uses do not interact
sufficiently to provide the opportunity to achieve community of place attributes.
TIER III CRITERIA
HI-1 Lack Of TDM/TCM Implementation: The opportunity to implement TDM/TCM
programs would be highly problematic given the scale of the single land use that can be
proposedfor the Area.
111-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space/Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space\recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
ni-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The potential to foster the development of cultural
facilities is not available given the small size and single use that can be projected for the
Area.
D. Planning Recommendations
Based on the above exclusionary criteria, the projected residential use is not appropriate for this
Planning Area. However, Planning Area A should be considered for other primary (office,
commercial) land uses. (See Planning Analysis for Planning Area A (West) in the Growth Center
Land Management Alternative and Planning Area B in the Dispersed Development Areas Land
Management Alternative). Therefore, this Planning Area which also incorporates Planning Areas
retained from other Alternatives, is retained for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid
Plan.
2. Planning Area P
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipalities of Carlstadt and East Rutherford and is 78
acres in size. It generally is bounded by the Hackensack River on the east; wetlands on the south
and north; and the NJ Turnpike I8W interchange on the west. This Planning Area currently
contains vacant wetland; "LT's Golf and Marina Center", which is a temporary use; and other
low intensity waterfront related uses.
Surrounding land uses include the NJSEA Brendan Byrne Arena and wetlands to the west;
existing industrial and residential development across the Hackensack River to the east in
Secaucus; the Transcontinental Gas and Pipeline Company Natural Gas Facility to the north; and
wetlands to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Pate; son Plank Road which bisects the site in an east\west
93

-------
direction. There currently are no existing or proposed rail mass transit or bus services to the
site. However, bus facilities have been proposed for a nearby location.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
b, projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 3,120 residential units for this Planning Area.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-2	Ownership Diflkuities/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues; The southern portion of this
Planning Area, adjacent to Route 3, is not accessible. Access would require the
traversing of properties owned by the Transcontinental Gas & Pipeline Company and the
NJDEPE. The property owned by the NJDEPE was acquired through the Green Acres
Program and would preclude access rights-of-way for private development. As such,
these properties are not available. This criteria does not, however, affect the properties
adjacent to ,'aterson Plank Road.
TIER II CRITERiA
II-1	poor Accessibility;
d) Poor Mass Transportation Opportunities: There are no available rail mass
transportation facilities, either existing or proposed. Bus service may be available from
nearby regional routes.
II-5 T .ack of Synergistic Effects:
b)	Disproportionate Densities: The Planning Area exhibits high densities that do not
reflect existing residential development adjacent to waterfront areas.
c)	Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: The lack of possible linkages between the subject
Area with other Planning Areas limits opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to
housing linkages.
TIER m CRITERIA
rH-4 Tack of Visual Cnhftsiveness: The projected land use in the Planning Area will have a
94

-------
negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds since it will be an isolated development area
surrounded by wetland and the Hackensack River.
D. Planning Recommendations
Those parcels unaffected by Criteria 1-2 should be retained for further evaluation in the EIS. The
projected residential use is appropriate for this Area and consideration should be given to
adjusting the densities to reflect existing development patterns adjacent to waterfront areas. (See
the Planning Analysis for Planning Area C in the Upland Growth Land Management Alternative;
Planning Area A (East) in the Growth Center Land Management Alternative; and Planning Area
C in the Dispersed Development Areas Land Management Alternative). Those parcels affected
by the Criteria 1-2 should be eliminated from further consideration in the development of a
Hybrid Plan. Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria
identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (office,
commercial) or secondary office\warehouse land uses to this Planning Area. Therefore, the 1'/
acres affected by Criteria 1-2 are eliminated and the remaining 61 acres, which also incorporate
Planning Areas retained from other alternatives, are retained for further EIS evaluation as part
of the Hybrid Plan.
3. Planning Area C
A. Existing Conditions
The Area is located in the municipality of East Rutherford and is the site of the New Jersey
Sports and Exposition Authority (NJSEA) Arena. The Area generally is bounded in the north
by Paterson Plank Road; in the south by Route 3; in the east by the New Jersey Turnpike
western spur; and in the west by Route 120. The Area consists of 140 acres which includes the
building envelope for the Brendan Byrne Arena and its parking facilities. The NJSEA previously
has proposed office development on a 12 acre portion of the 140 acre site.
Surrounding land uses include the existing Giants Stadium to the west; vacant unimproved land
east of the NJ Turnpike; warehouse uses and vacant land to the north; and radio towers and
Route 3 to the south.
Access to the Planning Area consists of excellent regional roadways. Presently, no regularly
scheduled daily mass transportation facilities serve the site. Public bus transportation serves the
site only on days that events take place at NJSEA facilities. There currently are no existing or
proposed rail mass transit facilities available to the Area.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
95

-------
B. Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 1,800,000 sq. ft. of primary office space for this Planning
Area. This represents an increase of 1,000,000 sq. ft. above the NJSEA proposal to construct
800,000 sq. ft. of primary office space on a 12 acre site within the Planning Area (see the
Upland Growth Land Management Alternative, Planning Area B).
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-2 Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: HMDC has limited jurisdiction over
NJSEA lands. Also, the NJSEA has withdrawn a proposal to develop a 12 acre parcel
for primary office use at this time. It is anticipated that a new development plan for this
Area will be proposed in the near future which will incorporate the 12 acres of land at
the Arena site.
TIER II CRITERI A
No Tier II criteria appear to be present.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier HI criteria appear to be present.
D.	Planning Recommendations
Although this Planning Area meets the Tier I, criteria 1-2 it is reasonable to retain the proposed
land use for this fanning Area as it may reflect future NJSEA activities. Such uses could be
linked to the sports complex surrounding the Planning Area. Also, an adjustment to the Floor
Area Ratio is deemed appropriate in order to be consistent with existing and projected office
development patterns and market conditions in the District. Accordingly, primary office space
is proposed for this Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan. This
Planning Area was also reviewed and retained under the Upland Growth Land Management
Alternative Area B. Therefore, it is recommended that the 12 acres within this Area ihe NJSEA
proposed to utilize should be retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of
the Hybrid Plan.
96

-------
4. Planning Area D
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Rutherford and is 22 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by Berry's Creek on the east; Route 3 on the south; existing development
to the north; and the Route 3 Service Road on the west.
Surrounding land uses include existing warehouse uses to the west and north; the NJSEA Sports
Complex to the east; and existing office development to the south. The Planning Area currently
contains a secondary office and distribution use within a single structure.
Access to the Planning Area is from Veterans Boulevard and the Route 3 Service Road. This
Area is adjacent to the NJ Transit Bergen Rail Line but, is approximately 3/4 of a mile from the
Rutherford Station. Bus service is available from existing nearby locations. There are no existing
or proposed rail mass transit facilities available to the Area.
Water, and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
theBCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 958,320 sq. ft. of primary office space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area and surrounding land uses do not interact
sufficiently to provide the opportunity to achieve community of place attributes.
TIER III CRITERIA
IH-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space-Recreation: Hie Area has an effective relationship to
open space\recreation area-	.thin the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
97

-------
D. Planning Recommendation^
Planning Area D should be retained as a Planning Area. The projected land use for this Area
is appropriate and should be utilized in the development of a Hybrid Plan. Consideration should
be given to adjusting the projected Floor Area Ratio to more accurately reflect existing and
projected office development and market conditions in the HMD. Given the existing physical
conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is tot deemed appropriate
or feasible to assign any other primary (commercial, residential) land uses to this Planning Area.
Therefore, this A*rea is retained for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
5. Planning vrea E
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of East Rutherford and is 65 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by uie NJ Turnpike 16W interchange on the east; Berry's Creek Canal on
the south; Route 3 to the north; and Route 3 and Berry's Creek on the west. The Area consists
of vacant upland and wetland.
Surrounding land uses include the NJ Sports Complex to the north; vacant wetland to the south
and east; and war ehouse and office uses to the west. A portion of the Planning Area currently
contains an existing office building and a hotel.
Access to the Planning Area is from the Route 3 Service Road. There currently are no existing
or proposed rail <>ass transit services to the Planning Area. Bus service is available to existing
nearby development in this Area and presumably would be available to the remaining portions
of the Planning Area.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
B.	projected Und Uses
The screening document proposed 4,247,100 sq. ft. of primary office space for this Planning
Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I Criteria appear to be present.
98

-------
TIER ri CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
b) Direct Highway Impact; The Planning Area must utilize the regional highway system
as its primary means of access without existing or future alternative secondary access
opportunities that reasonably can be expected to be built.
II-5	Lack of Synergistic Effects:
b) Disproportionate Densities: The Planning Area exhibits high densities for office space
(1.5 FAR) that do not reflect existing or projected HMD market conditions.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space\Recreation: The Area has an effective relationship to
open space\recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area E should be retained as Planning Area. The projected office use is appropriate
for the Area and should be utilized in the development of a Hybrid Plan. (See Planning Analysis
for Planning Area C in the Growth Center Land Management Alternative and Planning Area D
in the Dispersed Development Areas Land Management Alternative), Consideration should be
given to adjusting the Floor Area Ratio to be more consistent with existing and projected office
development and market conditions within the HMD. Given the existing physical conditions
described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible
to assign any secondary officeNwarehouse land uses to this Planning Area. Therefore, this
Planning Area which also incorporates Planning Areas retained from other Alternatives, is
retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
5. Planning Area F
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of East Rutherford and is 216 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by the NJ Turnpike on the east; the NJ Transit Bergen Rail Line on the
south and west; and Berry's Creek Canal to the north. The Area currently is vacant wetland.
Surrounding land uses include vacant wetlands and an inactive municipal landfill to the south and
east; the NJ Turnpike 16W interchange to the north; and the Hackensack River to the east.
There currently are no rail mass tr?nsh > k bus services available to the site. However, both types
of services are proposed for the .ve~.
99

-------
Water and sewer facilities currently do not directly serve the Area. However, services could
presumably be provided from existing nearby lines operated by the Hackensack Water Company
and the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 8,640 residential units for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
n-1 Poor Accessibility;
a)	Hiphwav Capacity: The road system adjacent to the Planning Area cannot reasonably
be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from the Planning Area.
b)	Direct Highway Impact: The Planning Area must utilize the regional highway system
as its pr nary means of access without existing or future alternative secondary access
opportunities that can reasonably be expected to be built
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2 Poor Relationship To Open SoaceVRecreation: The Area has an effective relationship to
open space\recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
III-4 I^ck of Visual Cohesiveness: The projected land use In the Planning Area wiU have a
negative impact on overall HMD viewsheds.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area F, which includes part of Area C from the Growth Center Land Management
Alternative and part of Area E from the Dispersed Development Areas Land Management
Alternative, should be retained as a Planning Area. The projected residential use is appropriate
for the Area and should be considered in the development of a Hybrid Plan. However,
consideration should be given for other primary land uses. (See Planning Analysis for Planning
Area C in the Growth Center Land Management Alternative and Planning Area E in the
Dispersed Development Areas Land Management Alternative). Therefore, this Planning Area
100

-------
which also incorporates Planning Areas retained from other Alternatives, is retained as a
Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
7, Planning Area G
A.	Existing CppfltiQqS
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Rutherford and is 72 acres in size, ft
generally is bounded by the NJ Transit Bergen Rail Line on the east-, vacant wetland on the
south; Route 3 to the north; and existing office development on the west. The Area currently
consists of vacant wetland; an inactive landfill; and an existing office building. The office
building and the inactive landfill consist of approximately 25 acres. Berry's Creek also traverses
the center of the Planning Area.
Surrounding land uses include office and warehouse uses to the west and north; and vacant
wetland to the east and south. Also, to the south is an inactive municipal landfill.
Access to the Planning Area is from the Route 3 Service Road which can be accessed from both
Route 3 and Route 17, There currently are no rail mass transit or bus services available to this
site although both are proposed.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the BCUA, respectively.
B.	Froiwted TUntj Uses
The screening document proposed 740,520 sq. ft. of primary office space and 2,200 residential
units for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-1 Severe Land Contamination: Approximately 12 acres of this Planning Area consists of
an inactive municipal landfill. To date no studies have been undertaken to determine the
extent of possible contamination. There currently is no program for closure or clean-up
activities.
1-3 Current Land Development: A 13 acre portion of this Planning Area currently has
existing viable development that would not meet the criteria necessary for redevelopment.
101

-------
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
a)	Highway Capacity: The road system adjacent to the Planning Area cannot reasonably
be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from the Planning Area.
b)	Direct Highway Impact: The Planning Area must utilize the regional highway system
as its primary means of access without existing or future alternative secondary access
opportunities that can reasonably be expected to be built.
II-6	Engineering/Financial Constraints: The development of landfills, assuming the absence
of health hazards, require extraordinary site preparation and infrastructure costs. In
addition, the costs associated with razing existing structures in good condition would be
prohibitive and would qualify as a financial constraint to new development.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space\Recreation; The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space\recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area C should be retained for use in the Hybrid Plan. Planning Area G, is included
as part of Area from the Growth Center Land Management Alternative and part of Area E
from the Dispersed Development Areas Land Management Alternative. (See Planning Analysis
for Planning Area C in the Growth Center Land Management Alternative and Planning Area E
in the Dispersed Development Areas Land Management Alternative). Given the existing physical
conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate
or feasible to assign any secondary office/warehouse land uses to this Planning Area. Therefore,
the existing office building consistent with current zoning (13 acres) has been eliminated and the
remaining 59 acres are retained for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
8. Planning Area H
A. Fxisting Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 57 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by Route 3 and existing development on the east; existing development on the south;
Paterson Plank Road to the north; and the Hackensack River on the west.
Surrounding land uses include existing residential and commercial uses to the east; existing
industrial and residential uses to the north; vacant wetland to the west across the Hackensack
River; and existing commercial, office and residential uses to the south. The Planning Area
102

-------
currently consists of unimproved vacant upland, commercialXretail uses, and office uses.
Access to the Planning Area is from Meadowlands Parkway which bisects the site in a
north\south direction and Paterson Plank Road from the north. There are no existing or proposed
rail mass transit services available to the site. Bus service does access the southern portion of
this Planning Area and could presumably serve the remaining portion of the site.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
b. Projected Unci t/sss
The screening document proposed 1,524,600 sq. ft. of primary office space and 880 residential
units for this Planning Area. This Area is utilized in the absence of more suitable areas for
development that will meet HMDC need projections under the Highway Corridors Land
Management Alternative.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-2 Ownership DifficultiesV HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: A parcel located in the central
portion of the Planning Area is currently owned and utilized by the Secaucus Department
of Public Works.
I-3	Current Land Development: The northern portion of this Planning Area is affected by
the proposed extension of Meadowlands Parkway (see Upland Growth, Planning Area
E and Redevelopment, Planning Area N). In addition, the southern portion of Planning
Area H includes an office complex that was approved by the HMDC in June 1988. The
need projections and economic survey for future growth for the District was completed
in 1990. Therefore, this project which consists of 400,000 sq. ft. of office space was not
included in the economic forecasts and is outside of the HMDC growth projections. In
addition, this Area includes the 5 acres redeveloped at the initiative of the owner as
described in the analysis for Planning Area E in the Upland Growth Alternative.
TIER n CRITERIA
II-5	Lack of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area and surrounding land uses do not interact
sufficiently to provide the •pporMnity to achieve community of place attributes.
103

-------
II-6 Engineering/Financial Constraints: The extension of Meadowlands Parkway into the
northern portion of this Planning Area would severely diminish development potential.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendations
Based on the above exclusionary criteria, specifically Criteria 1-2 and 1-3, Planning Area H
should be eliminated as a Planning Area. (See the Planning Analysis for Planning Areas E and
N in the Redevelopment Land Management Alternative and Planning Area E in the Upland
Growth Land Management Alternative). Given the existing physical conditions described above
and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any
other primary (commercial) or secondary office/warehouse land uses to this Planning Area under
the Highway Corridors Land Management Alternative. Therefore, the 52 acres affected by Tier
I Criteria have been eliminated and the 3 acres described in the Redevelopment Area E analysis
are retained as a Satellite Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
9. Planning _Al£aJ
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning A >ea is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 17 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by Piaza Centre Road on the east; Paterson Plank Road and old Route 153 on the
south; and Route 3 to the north and west. The Planning Area currently consists of a mix of
viable commercial and industrial buildings in good condition. These buildings include a shopping
center and related parking, a bank, a trucking terminal, gas stations and restaurants.
Although this Planning Area is within proximity to the Route 3 corriuor, it is primarily identified
as a part of the older established portion of Secaucus. The type of existing development and
scale of the built environment is such that a small town community appearance is apparent.
Surrounding land uses include industrial uses to the west; a mix of commercial and residential
uses to the east; residential development to the north; and a mix of commercial and residential
uses to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road; Plaza Centre Road and a series of
local roads in the "Downtown" area of Secaucus. There currently are no existing or proposed
rail mass transit services to the site. The Planning Area currently has bus service available.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MTJA, respectively.
104

-------
B. Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 370,260 sq. ft. of commercial space for this Planning Area.
This Area is utilized in the absence of more suitable areas for development that will meet
HMDC need projections in the Highway Corridors Land Management Alternative.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-3	Current Land Development: This Planning Area currently has existing viable
development that would not meet the criteria necessary for redevelopment,
TIER II CRITERIA
IM Poor Accessibility:
c) Maximum Direct Impact To Local Road System: This Planning Area has access to
several roadways which are located within the downtown Secaucus business district. The
ability to increase road capacity is limited by existing buildings, on street parking and
restrictive rights-of-way.
II-5	Lack of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area and surrounding land uses do not interact
sufficiently to provide the opportunity to achieve community of place attributes. The
Planning Area consists of small scale commercial/ retail uses and adjoining residential
neighborhoods. The retail is neighborhood/community based and is not oriented to
regional shopping needs. It does not serve projected new residential or office markets and
lacks syneigy with these uses.
II-6 Engineering/Financial Constraints: This Planning Area is bisected by Paterson Plank
Road which is a County roadway accommodating significant volumes of traffic. The
opportunity to develop this site for the projected land use is severely impacted by this
physical constraint. In addition, the costs associated with razing existing structures in
good condition would be prohibitive and would qualify as a financial constraint to new
commercial development.
TIER in CRITERIA
Ifl-3 Capacity To Foster Culc ^i F nlities: The size and type of use proposed for the
Planning Area is insufficient uj t. 
-------
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area I should be eliminated as a Planning Area. Based on the above exclusionary
criteria and the physical constraints related to the local road, this Planning Area should be
removed from further consideration in the EIS evaluation. Given the existing physical conditions
described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible
to assign any other primary (office, residential) or secondary office/warehouse land uses to this
Planning Area under the Highway Corridors or any other Land Management Alternative.
Therefore, the Area is eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
10. Planning Area J
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 10 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the east; Route 3 on the south; vacant wetlands
on the north; and existing commercial and retail development on the west. The site currently
contains a temporary commercial use.
Surrounding land uses include the Mall at Mill Creek to the west; Harmon Meadows Mall to the
east; vacant wetlands to the north; and existing commercial and office development to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Route 3 and the internal roads associated with the adjacent
shopping center? . There currently are no existing or proposed rail mass transit services available
to this area however, bus service is available.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 43,560 sq. ft. of commercial space and 348,480 sq. ft. of
primary office space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
106

-------
TIER II CRITERIA
No Tier II criteria appear to be present.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2 Poor Relationship To Open SpaceNRecreation; The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space\recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
III-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The size and type of uses proposed for the
Planning Area are insufficient to foster cultural facilities.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area J should be retained as a Planning Area and developed to reflect the existing
development of the surrounding area. The projected land uses are appropriate for the Area and
should be retained for the development of a Hybrid Plan. This should reflect an adjustment to
the office Floor Area Ratio and the removal of the projected commercial space described above.
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any other primary (residential) or secondary
office/warehouse land uses to this Planning Area under the Highway Corridor Land Management
Alternative. Therefore, this Area is retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as
part of the Hybrid Plan.
11. Planning Area K (North)
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 33 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by Chromakill Creek on the east; office and commercial uses on the south; vacant
wetland to the north; and the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the west. The Area is currently
unimproved vacant upland.
Surrounding land uses include vacant wetland to the west, east and north; and the Harmon
Meadows Mall to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Route 3 and the internal road network for the shopping
center. There currently are no existing rail mass transit services provided to the site however,
proposals have been made from the Hudson Waterfront Transit Plans. Bus service is currently
available to adjacent areas and presumably would be available to the Planning Area.
Water and sewer facilities are available u the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
107

-------
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 1,320 residential units for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
No Tier II criteria appear to be present.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D.	Planning Recommendations
Planning Area K (North) should be retained as a Planning Area and used in the development of
a Hybrid Plan. The projected land use is appropriate, however, consideration should be given
to other primary {office, commercial) land uses for further evaluation in the EIS. (See the
Planning Analyse for Planning Area G (West) in the Upland Growth Land Management
Alternative and Planning Area B (East) in the Growth Center Land Management Alternative).
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign secondary office/warehouse land uses to this
Planning Area under the Highway Corridor Land Management Alternative. Therefore, this
Planning Area which also incorporates Planning Areas retained from other Alternatives, is
retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
12. Planning Area K (EasP
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 50 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by Chromakill Creek on the east and north; Paterson Plank Road on the south; and
Harmon Meadows Mall on the west. The site is currently vacant unimproved upland.
Surrounding land uses include commercial and office uses to the west; industrial uses to the east;
vacant wetland to the north; and existing retail and warehouse uses to the south.
108

-------
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road and the Route 3 Service Road. There
currently are no existing rail mass transit services provided to the site however, current
proposals are being investigated. Bus service currently provides access to the site.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 1,280 residential units and 392,040 sq. ft. of commercial
space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
No Tier II criteria appear to be present.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D.	Planning Recommendations
Planning Area K (East) should be retained as a Planning Area. Although the projected land uses
are appropriate for this Area, it is recommended that the residential uses be eliminated in the
development of a Hybrid Plan. (See the Planning Analysis for Planning Area G (East) in the
Upland Growth Land Management Alternative; Planning Area B (East) in the Growth Center
Land Management Alternative; and Planning Area F (East) in the Dispersed Development Areas
Land Management Alternative). Given the existing physical conditions described above and the
exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign any secondary
officeVwarehouse land uses to this Planning Area. Therefore, this Planning Area which also
incorporates Planning Areas retained from other Alternatives, is retained as a Planning Area for
further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
109

-------
13. flanging-Area K rwest)
A. frising Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 10 acres in s'
is bounded by Harmon Meadows Mall on the east; Route 3 on the south; existing* gfnerally
to the north; and the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the west. The site k S , °Pment
unimproved upland and wetland.	urrently vacant
Surrounding land uses include office and commercial uses to the north and
Meadows Mall to the east; and existing office and industrial uses to the south Harn50R
Access to the Planning Area is from the Route 3 Service Road and Plaza D
There currently are no existing or proposed rail mass transit services provided^? C3St'
service is currently provided to the site.	m tfle Bus
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Wat
the Secaucus MUA. respectively.	r Company and
B- Projected land Uses
The screening document proposed 1,089,000 sq. ft. of primary office soac* f u-
Area.	thls Planning
c. Pianaifig..Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria-
TIER I CRITERIA
I-2	Ownership Difficulties^. HMDC Jurisdictional	-fy, PJanni	.
owned by the NJ Turnpike Authority and may not be available for deveb^ CUrrentIy
TIES U CRITERIA
il-l fpor Accessibility;
b) arret Highway Impact; The Planning Area must utilize the regional h* k
as its primary means of access without existing or future altemativ 8 ay system
opportunities that can reasonably be expected to be built.	C secon(kiy access
II-5	T.^ck Of Synergistic Effects:
W	TV	Ana «hibi« „ extraordinaniy Meh Hoor
110

-------
Area Ratio for office space (2.5 FAR) that do not reflect HMD market conditions.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2 Poor Relationship To Open £pace\Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open spaceYrecreauon areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area K (West) should be eliminated as a Planning Area. Given the existing physical
conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate
or feasible to assign any other primary (commercial, residential) or secondary office/warehouse
land uses to this Planning Area under the Highway Corridors or any other Land Management
Alternative. Therefore, the Planning Area is eliminated from any further EIS evaluation.
14. Planning Area L
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 32 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the east and south; Paterson Plank Road to the
north; and County Road on the west. The Planning Area currently consists of residential and
industrial buildings in good condition. These uses include a senior citizens home, apartment
buildings and viable warehouse uses.
Surrounding land uses include the Meadowview County Hospital to the west; vacant wetlands
and industrial uses to the east; and existing residential and commercial development to the north
and south.
Access to the Planning Area is from County Road. There currently are no existing or proposed
rail mass transit services provided to the site. Bus service is currently available to the site.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively,
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 348,480 sq. ft. of commercial space and 696,960 sq. ft. of
primary office space for this Planning Area. The Area is utilized in die absence of more suitable
areas that will meet HMDC need projections in the Highway Corridor Land Management
Alternative.
Ill

-------
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-2 Ownership Difficulties\ HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: A two acre portion of this Planning
Area is owned by the Town of Secaucus. It currently is used for recreation purposes and
may not be available for development.
I-3	Current Land Development: This Planning Area currently has existing viable
development that would not meet the criteria necessary for redevelopment.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
a)	Highway Capacity: Both County Road and Paterson Plank Road cannot be improved
to accommodate the anticipated volume of traffic from the Planning Area. The location
of a ho".nital; severe steep sloped areas east of County Road; existing uses within the
Planning Area; and the limited right-of-way on Paterson Plank Road, would preclude
extensive improvements required by the projected land uses.
b)	Dire ^ Highway Impact: The Planning Area must utilize the regional highway system
as its primary means of access without existing or future alternative secondary access
opportunities that can reasonably be expected to be built.
II-4 Insufficient Scale: The Planning Area and surrounding areas cannot achieve sufficient
population density to maximize district-wide land use efficiencies.
II-5 Lack of Synergistic Effects:
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area and surrounding land uses do not interact
sufficiently to provide the opportunity to achieve community of place attributes. The
existing pattern of development is viable and would not be anticipated for displacement
within the 20 year planning period.
n-6 F-ngingering/Financial Constraints: This Planning Area is adjacent to County Road which
is a County roadway accommodating significant volumes of traffic. The opportunity to
develop this site for the projected land use is severely impacted by this physical
constraint. In addition, the costs associated with razing existing structures in good
condition would be prohibitive and would qualify as a financial constraint to new
commercial development.
112

-------
TIER III CRITERIA
III-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The size and type of uses proposed for the
Planning Area are insufficient to foster cultural facilities.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area L should be eliminated as a Planning Area. Given the existing physical conditions
described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible
to assign any other primary (residential) or secondary office/warehouse land uses to this
Planning Area under the Highway Corridors or any other Land Management Alternative.
Therefore, the Planning Area is eliminated from any further EIS evaluation.
15. Planning Area M
A.	Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipalities of Secaucus and North Bergen and is 37 acres
in size. It generally is bounded by Route 3 on the east; 1-495 on the south; Paterson Plank Road
to the north; and the NJ Turnpike eastern spur on the west. This Planning Area currently
consists of vacant structures and commercial and industrial uses.
Surrounding land uses include existing residential and industrial development to the west and
east; Harmon Meadows Mall to the north; and vacant wetlands to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Paterson Plank Road. There currently are no existing or
proposed rail mass transit services available to the site. Bus service currently does not access
the site but is presumably available from nearby regional routes.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 653,400 sq. ft. of primary office space and 609,840 sq. ft.
of commercial space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-3 Current Land Development: Yhc :u velopment of a warehouse/outlet building has been
113

-------
approved by the HMDC on 7 acres of the Planning Area. Construction for this project
is imminent.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-5	Lack of Synergistic Effects:
b) Disproportionate Densities: Although the office space is appropriate for this Planning
Area the Floor Area Ratio (1.5 FAR) is not compatible with existing or projected
development patterns and market conditions in the HMD.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space\Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space\recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D. Planning Recommendations
Planning Area M should be eliminated as a Planning Area. As described above, 609,840 sq. ft.
of commercial space and 653,400 sq. ft. of primary office space was projected for this Area.
However, based on the exclusionary criteria identified above, and the surrounding pattern of
existing development, this Area is more suitable for inclusion in the Satellite Area category for
the secondary/office warehouse component. Given the existing physical conditions described
above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate or feasible to assign
any other primary (commercial\residential) land uses to this Planning Area under the Highway
Corridors Land Management Alternative for further EIS evaluation. (See Planning Analysis for
Area F in the Redevelopment Land Management Alternative and Planning Area B (South) in the
Growth Center Land Management Alternative). Therefore, this Planning Area which also
incorporates Planning Areas retained from other Alternatives, is retained as a Satellite Area for
further EIS evaluation as part of the Hybrid Plan.
16. Planning Area N
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of Secaucus and is 17 acres in size. It generally
is bounded by the West Shore Line Freight Rail Line on the east; existing development on the
south; Paterson Plank Road to the north; and Route 3 on the west.
Surrounding land uses include warehouse and commercial uses to the west; heavy industrial uses
to the east; vacant unimproved land and Harmon Meadows Mall to the north; and the North
Bergen Park and Ride Facility and industrial uses to the south.
Access to the Planning Area is from Route 3 and Paterson Plank Road. There currently are no
114

-------
existing or proposed rail mass transit facilities available to the site. Bus service presumably
would be available from nearby regional routes.
Uses located within the Planning Area include an appliance retail facility and a mini-warehouse
storage operation, both developed within the past 10 years. Therefore, the condition of the
buildings and viability of other existing uses appear to be adequate. Under this land management
alternative, this planning area was selected for testing since it was proximate to Route 3.
Water and sewer facilities are available to the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the Secaucus MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document proposed 370,260 sq. ft. of commercial space for the Planning Area.
This Area is utilized in the absence of more suitable areas that will meet HMDC neea
projections in the Highway Corridors Land Management Alternative.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-3 Current Land Development: This Planning Area currently has existing viable
development that would not meet the criteria necessary for redevelopment.
TIER II CRITERIA
H-4 Insufficient Scale: The Planning Area and surrounding areas cannot achieve sufficient
population density to maximize district-wide land use efficiencies.
n-5 Lack pf Synergistic Effects;
a) Community Of Place: The Planning Area and surrounding land uses do not interact
sufficiently to provide the opportunity to achieve community of place attributes. The
existing uses in the Planning Area are viable commercial uses and are not anticipated to
convert to additional commercial space within the 20 year planning period.
H-6 Engineering/Financial Constraints: The costs associated with razing existing structures
in good condition would be prohibitive and would qualify as a financial constraint to new
development.
115

-------
TIER III CRITERIA
III-l Lack Of TDM/TCM Implementation: The opportunity to implement TDM/TCM
programs would be highly problematic given the scale of the single land use that can be
assigned to the Area.
III-2 Poor Relationship To Open Space\Recreation; The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space\recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
III-3 Capacity To Foster Cultural Facilities: The potential to foster the development of cultural
facilities is not available given the small size and single use that can be applied to the
Area.
D. Planning Recommendations
Based on the above exclusionary criteria this Planning Area N should be eliminated from further
consideration. The presence of viable uses and the costs associated with replacing these
businesses would be overly restrictive and financially unjustified. Given the existing physical
conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, it is not deemed appropriate
or feasible to assign any other primary (office, residential) or secondary office/warehouse land
uses to this Planning Area under the Highway Corridors or any other Land Management
Alternative. Therefore, the Planning Area was eliminated from any consideration for further EIS
evaluation.
17. Planning Area O
A. Existing Conditions
The Planning Area is located in the municipality of North Bergen and is 170 acres in size. It
generally is bounded by the West Shore Line Freight Rail Line on the east; the NJ Transit
Northeast Corridor Commuter Rail Line on the south; 1-495 on the north; and Penhorn Creek
on the west.
Surrounding land uses include out-of-district industrial development to the east; warehousing
uses to the west arid north; and warehouse and industrial uses to the south.
Access to this Planning Area is from 1-495. There currently are no existing or proposed rail
mass transit or bus service to the site. Bus service may be available from nearby regional routes.
Water and sewer facilities are available to- the Area from the Hackensack Water Company and
the North Bergen MUA, respectively.
116

-------
B. Projected Land Use$
The screening document proposed 6,185,520 sq. ft. of primary office space and 609,840 sq. ft.
of commercial space for this Planning Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Planning Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-2	Ownership Difficulties\ HMPC Jurisdictional Issues: The NJ Turnpike Authority, the
Port Authority of NY & NJ, and the Town of North Bergen own property in this
Planning Area totaling 78 acres.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-5	Lack Of Synergistic Effects:
c) Poor Jobs To Housing Linkage: The lack of possible linkages of the subject Area with
other Planning Areas further limit opportunities to achieve meaningful jobs to housing
linkages.
TIER m CRITERIA
III-2	Poor Relationship To Open Space\Recreation: The Area has an ineffective relationship
to open space\recreation areas both within the HMD and in adjacent jurisdictions.
D.	Planning Recommendations
Those parcels unaffected by Criteria 1-2 should be retained and utilized in the development of
a Hybrid Plan. However, based on the above exclusionary criteria, specifically the ownership
issue, those parcels subject to Criteria 1-2 should be eliminated as a Planning Area. (See the
Planning Analysis for Planning Area G in the Dispersed Development Areas Land Management
Alternative). Therefore, the 78 acres affected by Criteria 1-2 have been eliminated and the
remaining 92 acres are retained as a Planning Area for further EIS evaluation as part of the
Hybrid Plan.
117

-------
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS LAND
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
6\15\95
PLANNING AREAS
EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA
a|b|c|d|e|f|g|h|i!j
K
K
K
Trmrsi

NORTH
EAST
WEST

TIER I
1-1 Contaminated Land






K








I
t-2 Ownership/Jurisdictional

X
X




X




X
X


X
[ 1-3 Current Development





X
X
X

, .


X
X
X

TIER 11












II-1 Poor Accessibility












a. Highway Capacity





X
X






X


b. Direct Highway Impact




X
X
X





X
X


c. Impact to Local Road








K







d. Poor Mass Transportation
X
X













II—2 Lack Of Public Services
















H-3 Incompatible Land Uses

















II - 4 Insufficient Scale
X












X

X

II-5 Lack Ot Synergistic Effects

o. Community ol Place
X


X



X
X




X

X

b. Disproportionate Densities

X


X







X

X


c. Poor Jobs/Housing Linkage

X














X
II -6 Eriglneering/Financsol Cor strain!a


i


X
X
* I



X

X

TIER III
lU—l Lack of TDM/TCM implementation
X







[




X

111-2 Poor Relationship lo Open Sp-ace/Recreation
X


X
X
X
X |

*

X

X
X
X
IH—3 Capacity to Foster Guttural Facilities
X





I
%
*


X

X

Hi-4 Lack of Visual Cohesiveness

X



X
1

1






RECOMMENDATION •
Retain as a Primary Planning Area
*
x
X
X
X
X
X

1 X
X
X


1
X 1
Review as a Satellite Area

Secondary Office Warehouse

	





X
1




X 1

Eliminate from Further EIS Evaluation

X




X
X
X i


X
X
I X
* 1
* may Include only a portion of a planning are#
hccrtria.wkl

-------
IV. PLANNING ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE AREAS
Satellite Areas are locations where the needs for secondary office/warehouse uses can be met.
The secondary office/warehouse land use category is inclusive of much of the support services
for the primary uses, but also provides for the storage, distribution and assembly of a wide
variety of goods both manufactured and imported into the region. Secondary office uses provide
the administrative function for the distribution network and in most cases, are located within
close proximity to the distribution/assembly functions. This can be in the same building as the
distribution activities or in separate buildings within distribution office parks where desirable.
The Satellite Areas are drawn from several groups within the hybridization process. First,
several of the primary Planning Areas that were analyzed in each of the land management
alternatives were determined to be unsuitable for use as primary office, commercial or
residential uses. However, the analysis indicated that some of these areas should be considered
for satellite status. Therefore, several of the Satellite Areas are derived from former Planning
Areas.
In instances where wetland areas were not utilized for primary uses in the Hybrid Plan, these
sites were again reviewed to determine their suitability for secondary office/warehouse use.
Only wetland areas meeting the specific criteria established to support these uses were included
in the Hybrid Plan.
Second, Satellite Areas may consist of smaller, isolated lots or undeveloped lots within existing
subdivisions. These lots may be smaller infill lots or larger vacant parcels within the subdivision
or "park". Several lots may have both upland and wetland on them in which some wetland fill
is projected.
Where individual secondary office/warehouse sites were identified, wetland areas on these
properties were protected if they adjoined substantial wetland areas, if they constituted open
space areas on developed lots or if they adjoined future wetland preservation areas. There was
a consistent and systematic attempt to recognize the importance of sensitive wetland areas within
the District and to protect them from inclusion in the development analysis.
The third Satellite Area category consists of contaminated properties which can be utilized for
the secondary office/warehouse component. The use or non-use of contaminated properties is
an important issue with respect to realistically meeting the needs of the District. There are three
Superfund properties located within the Meadowlands. The Hybrid Plan analyzes these sites and
discusses the viability of future development of the sites. As described in previous analyses,
those sites that have an approved remediation plan have been included for further development.
Contaminated sites also include properties with area or basin wide contamination. Properties
along Berry's Creek, Peach Island Creek and Penhorn Creek have been contaminated through
basin wide activities. Potential sa; Ii ;e parcels in these areas required additional discussion to
determine whether they would re.- : "" be available for development. The Plan approach is
118

-------
to stimulate clean up of these potentially contaminated sites by encouraging development of these
upland parcels. In most cases, further site investigation is necessary in order to make final
suitability determinations. The Hybrid Plan does recommend several of these sites as potentially
usable for development.
The method of determining the suitability of the potential Satellite Areas is similar to the analysis
of the Planning Areas. A specific set of exclusionary and planning criteria was developed to
determine if individual Satellite Areas should be excluded or retained for future satellite
development.
The Criteria specify three tiers of attributes for determination. Tier I Criteria concern
environmental conditions and site availability and are identical to the Planning Area Tier I
Criteria. Tier II, Potential Costs, Logistics and Technology Exclusionary and Limiting Criteria
are similar to the Planning Area Tier II criteria. Tier III Exclusionary or Limiting Planning
Criteria relate to services and relationships of District land uses with satellite locations.
The Satellite Area Criteria include;
TIER I EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA (concerning environmental conditions and site
availability)
1-1 Severe Land Contamination: Identified locations within the Satellite Area where
reasonable certainty exists of hazardous material contamination, where no public program
for remediation exists andthe extent of contamination is suspected to preclude
development within the 20 year planning period.
1-2 Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: Land parcels within the Satellite
Area that are publicly or quasi-publicly owned and where land development may be
institutionally precluded (e.g. Teterboro Airport is under the jurisdiction of the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey). Similarly, land owned by certain entities (e.g.
New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority), where the HMDC regulatory jurisdiction
is limited, would be included in this criteria as well as any land that is deed restricted
from development.
1-3 Current Land Development: Land uses projected for the subject Satellite Area under this
Land Management Alternative are no longer available either because development is
underway or is imminent (i.e. received all government approvals) or existing
development in the Planning Area is viable and would not meet redevelopment criteria.
119

-------
TIER II POTENTIAL COSTS. LOGISTICS AND TECHNO!.OGY EXCLUSIONARV A^r>
LIMITING CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
a).	Highway Capacity: The road and highway system within or adjacent to the Satellite
Area cannot reasonably be improved to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from
the Satellite Area. New roadway access and rights-of-way are not available or sufficient.
b).	Proximate Location To Regional Highway System: The Area is not located within
close proximity to the interstate highway system. Available route to the highway system
would be circuitous and cause delay in delivery and distribution due to lack of such
access.
c).	Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located in areas where convenient
existing or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the
transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface
transportation.
II-2 Lack of Efficient Public Services: Insufficient infrastructure capacity (sewerage or water)
and the inability to support new infrastructure development within the projected 20 year
planning period.
II-3 Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area that
result from the projected costs of land preparation and building construction would render
development impractical.
II-4	Insufficient Scale: The Area consists of parcels which are of insufficient size to
accommodate secondary office/warehouse development and cannot be merged with
adjacent similarly zoned parcels in order to achieve a regional distribution facility with
minimum acceptable lot area in accordance with market demand and economic
efficiencies.
TIER III EXCLUSIONARY OR LIMITING PLANNING CRITERIA
III-l	Absence of Services: The Area is not within proximity to the services necessary to
support warehouse/distribution facilities i.e. truck/transport services, etc.
m-2 Incompatible Land Uses: The established pattern of land uses in or surrounding the Area
relate poorly to the projected land uses proposed for this Satellite Area under this Land
Management Alternative. Accordingly, implementation of secondary office/warehouse
land uses would be impractical or seriously limited by market demand.
120

-------
III-3 Scattered or Isolated Site/f^t Part of a Planned Industrial Distribution Park; The Area
is isolated and not associated with other compatible uses nor is it a component of existing
or previously planned distribution or secondary office/warehouse Satellite Area
Development.
121

-------
Planning Areas/Satellite Areas
Satellite Areas that were formerly Planning Areas in the Land Management Alternatives are
included in the following analysis;
North Bereen - Upland Growth Area A (shown as Area s on Hvbrid Plan)
This Satellite Area is located in North Bergen in an area which is accessible only from Fairview
Avenue. This road connects to Routes 1 and 9 outside the District. The surrounding land uses
are industrially oriented. Land uses outside the District boundary along Fairview Avenue are
mostly heavy industrial. The site area is 30.7 acres with no wetland fill proposed. The Satellite
Area meets the following criteria;
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
a). Highway Capacity: Only one local roadway allows access into this Satellite Area.
This road is only partially inside the HMDC District. Local business activities park
vehicles along the roadway making the ability of large volumes of traffic to traverse this
road difficult.
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: No rail facilities are available to the satellite location.
II-3	Engineering/Financial Constraints: A portion of this land area was once an
explosives/fireworks facility. A fire destroyed the facility and some questions remain
concerning the ability to develop on the site because of residual materials which may be
buried.
TIER II CRITERIA
III-l	Absence of Services: The remote location of this area does not lend itself to be easily
accommodated by support businesses.
Planning Recommendation
This Satellite Area can be retained for use as secondary office/warehouse. Although some
questions remain about the use of a poi tic-. of the property, the property may be used if properly
managed and remediated. Satellite development on this property would yield approximately
122

-------
669,000 sq. ft. of warehouse space.
T .yndhnrst - Upland Growth Area H fsh
ii
r ynrityirst - Upland Growth Area n 			
This Satellite Area is located in Lyndhurst along the western boundary of the District
to the area is from Schuyler Avenue outside the District and generally through a hT
industrialized site to the rear of the parcel where the proposed Satellite Area is sit ^
Surrounding land uses in addition to the above include the BCUA landfill site The site •
20.8 acres with no wetland fill proposed. The Satellite Area meets the following criteria^* "
tier i criteria
1-3
Current Land Development: In the Planning Area anaiysw,	rT^
20.8 acres now under consideration. It was presumed as a primary PlannlrT^A
several older industrial storage buildings would be removed, which would § th ^
if secondary office/warehouse uses are implemented here.	(*one
TIER II CRITERIA
II" 1
Poor Accessibility!
a\ F;rwfY Opacity: Access to this property is through an existing industrial facility.
No public road access exists at this time and no road has been proposed for this area.
w rjr nnt- T	Tn Regional Highway System; The location of the site is not
within close proximity to the regional highway system.
TIER HI CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present
flnnning pff^mendation
Although accessibility to the Area is somewhat difficult, it is recommended that it be retained
for use as secondary office/warehouse. Satellite development on this property would yield
approximately 453,000 sq. ft. of warehouse space.
- iipfrnH n™wth AisaXiste" m Arta ag on Hybrid Plan)
This Satellite Area is located in the Secaucus warehouse area. Access to the site is from
P tp-mrise Avenue and from Secaucus Road. Surrounding land uses include warehouse and
distribution facilities. The site area is 36.5 acres with no wetland fiU proposed. The Satellite
Area meets the following criteria,
123

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
a). Highway Capacity: Both Secaucus Road and Enterprise Avenue are heavily travelled
truck routes. The addition of approximately 800,000 square feet of space could
significantly tax the roadway system at this location.
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: No rail facilities exist to the satellite location.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present
Planning Recommendation
This Area should be retained as a Satellite Area. Secondary office/warehouse is the most
appropriate use for the Area. Satellite development on this property would yield approximately
795,000 sq. ft. of warehouse space.
North Bergen - Upland Growth Area L (shown as Area ae and af on Hybrid Plan)
This Satellite Area is located north of Secaucus Road near the eastern boundary of the District.
It consists mainly of vacant land and has access to a secondary road which is in fair to poor
condition. A PSE&G power line traverses the area. Surrounding land uses include a truck
terminal, intermodal truck/rail facility and warehouses. The site area is 60.8 acres with no
wetland fill proposed. The Satellite Area meets the following criteria;
This area currently lacks a sewerage collection system. Plans are being considered for a future
collection system in this area.
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present
TIER II CRITERIA
IM Poor Accessibility:
a). Highway Capacity: Sec- P. ,1 is a heavily travelled truck route. The addition of
124

-------
approximately 1.3 million square feet of space could significantly tax the roadway system
at this location.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present
Planning Recommendation
This Area should be retained as a Satellite Area. Secondary office/warehouse is the most
appropriate use for the Area. Satellite development on this property would yield approximately
1.3 million sq. ft. of warehouse space.
Kearnv - Uplancf Growth Area P (shown as Area ai on Hybrid Plan)
This Satellite Area consists of vacant land which is part of a early industrial subdivision. Access
is through a local cul de sac to Belleville Turnpike. Surrounding land uses include warehouse
and trucking uses in addition to the HMDC baler and landfill in Kearny. The site area is 27.1
acres with no wetland fill proposed. The Satellite Area meets the following criteria;
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: No rail facilities exist to the satellite location.
H-2 Lack of Efficient Public Services: This area currently has no public sewerage system.
Discussions are ongoing with the Kearny Municipal Utilities Authority to provide a
collection system into this area.
TIER in CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present
Planning Recommendation
This Area should be retained as a Satellite Area. Secondary office/warehouse is the most
appropriate use for the Area. Satellite development on this property would yield approximately
590,000 sq. ft. of {Warehouse space.
125

-------
North Bergen - Redevelopment Area C
This Satellite Area is located in North Bergen adjacent to Upland Growth Area A. It exhibits
the same access constraints as Upland Growth Area A. In addition, the uses in this area are
already warehouse oriented and would not meet the criteria necessary for redevelopment. The
Satellite Area meets the following criteria;
TIER I CRITERIA
I-3	Current Land Development: Existing uses within this Satellite Area are warehouse
oriented uses in reasonable condition such that redevelopment for secondary
office/warehouse uses would not be feasible.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
a). Highway Capacity. Only one local roadway allows access into this Satellite Area.
This road is only partially inside the HMDC District. Local businesses park vehicles
along the roadway making the ability of large volumes of traffic to traverse this road
difficult.
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: No rail facilities exist to the satellite location.
TIER III CRITERIA
[II-1 Absence of Services: The remote location of this area does not lend itself to be easily
accommodated by support businesses.
Planning Recommendation
It is recommended that this Satellite Area be eliminated from further consideration for secondary
office^ warehouse uses. The existing warehouse uses satisfy the criteria for current development.
North Serpen - Redevelopment Area D
This Satellite Area is located in North Bergen on West Side Avenue. It is an existing
warehouse/storage building with multiple tenants. The building is of older construction, but has
recently been upgraded. Site and building improvements are continuing at the site. Access to
West Side Avenue is available. The Satellite Area meets the following criteria;
TIER I CRITERIA
1-3 Current Land Development Existing uses within the Satellite Area are warehouse
126

-------
oriented uses in reasonable condition such that redevelopment for secondary
office/warehouse uses would not be feasible.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: No rail facilities exist to the satellite location.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-1	Absence of Services: The remote location of this area does not lend itself to be easily
accommodated by support businesses.
Planning Recommendation
It is recommended that this Satellite Area be eliminated from further consideration for secondary
office/warehouse uses. The existing warehouse use satisfies the criteria for current development.
Secaucus - Redevelopment Area E (shown as Area av on Hybrid Planl
This Satellite Area is located in Secaucus and is a small triangular area along Wood Avenue.
Wood Avenue is a short cul de sac off of Meadowlands Parkway. The area consists of several
old industrial buildings and one vacant lot with the foundation of an old building. The site area
is approximately .8 acres in size. The Satellite Area meets the following criteria;
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present
TIER II CRITERIA
II-l	Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: No rail facilities exist to the satellite location.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-l	Absence of Services: The remote location of this area does not lend itself to be easily
accommodated by support businesses.
III-3 Scattered or Isolated Site/Not Part of a Planned Industrial Distribution Park: This area
is somewhat removed from the larger warehouse areas and is essentially cut off visually
from them by the east and west lanes in Route 3 which are north and south, respectively,
127

-------
of the immediate Satellite Area.
Planning Recommendation
This Area should be retained as a Satellite Area. Secondary office/warehouse is the most
appropriate use for the Area. One of the lots included in this area has been redeveloped through
private means and no longer is available for satellite development. Although the area is not
sufficient for large scale development, it can be utilized for small to moderately sized secondary
office/1 warehouse facilities. Therefore 3 ac. has been retained which will yield approximately
65,000 sq. ft. of secondary office/distribution space.
Secaucus/North Bergen - Redevelopment Area F (shown as Area az on Hybrid Plan)
This Satellite Area, situated in the two municipalities, is basically surrounded by the New Jersey
Turnpike on the west, Route 3 on the north and 1-495 on the south. Route 3 and 1-495 converge
just east of the site. The site area is 30.6 acres will no wetland fill proposed. The Satellite Area
meets the following criteria;
TIER I CRITERIA
1-3 Current Land Development: The size of the area has been reduced from its Planning
Area size due to the construction of a commercial use. The balance of the area is
unaffected.
TIER II CRITERIA
IM Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: No rail facilities exist to the satellite location.
TIER in CRITERIA
No Tier HI criteria appear to be present
Planning Recommendation
This area should be retained as a Satellite Area. Secondary office/warehouse is the most
appropriate use for the area. Satellite development on this property would yield approximately
666,000 sq. ft. of warehouse space.
Secaucus - Redevelopment Area G (shown as Area ba on Hybrid Plan!
This Satellite Area is in Secaucus and is ocated along the north side of Secaucus Road between
the New Jersey Turnpike eastern spur ana the Northeast Corridor rail line. It consists of several
128

-------
old industrial buildings, several existing residential houses and several new industrial uses
(refuse hauler). Surrounding uses include secondary office/warehouses to the south and vacant
wetlands to the north. Access is directly to Secaucus Road. The site area is 26.4 acres with no
wetland fill proposed. The Satellite Area meets the following criteria;
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: No rail facilities exist to the satellite location.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present
Planning Recommendation
This Area should be retained as a Satellite Area. Secondary office/warehouse is the most
appropriate use for the Area. Satellite development on this property would yield approximately
575,000 sq. ft. of warehouse space.
Kearnv - Redevelopment Area I fshown as area ak on Hybrid Plan^
This Satellite Area is located in the southwest corner of the District in Kearny. It is traversed
by Newark-Jersey City Turnpike. The area uses consist of a newly constructed warehouse
facility, old industrial buildings, and publicly owned property which are former landfill sites.
The site area is 153 acres with no wetland fill proposed. The Satellite Area meets the following
criteria;
TIER I CRITERIA
1-1 Severe Land Contamination: A portion of the Area is old landfill and the disposal
materials placed in this area would make it difficult to assess the potential for
redevelopment. This subarea has been removed from further consideration.
1-2 Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: A portion of the area is publicly
owned landfill which is not environmentally closed.
1-3 Current Land Development: Existing uses within a portion of the Satellite Area are
warehouse oriented uses in reasonable condition such that redevelopment for secondary
129

-------
office/warehouse uses would not be feasible.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility;
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: No rail facilities exist to the satellite location.
Planning Recommendation
The portion of this Satellite Area not affected by any of the Tier I criteria should be retained as
a Satellite Area. Secondary office/warehouse is the most appropriate use for the Area.
Therefore, 32.3 acres have been retained which will yield approximately 703,000 sq. ft. of
warehouse space.
Jersey Citv • Redevelopment Area J (shown as Area aq on Hybrid Plan)
This Satellite Area is located in the southeast portion of the District. It has access to the Newark-
Jersey City Turnpike and a local road system within Jersey City. Uses within the area include
the expansive PSE&G Jersey City Generating Station, heavy industrial uses, trucking terminals
and several areas of residential development. The site area is 82.0 acres with no wetland fill
proposed. As previously described, 11 acres were retained for residential use in the Hybrid Plan.
The Satellite Area meets the following criteria;
TIER I CRITERIA
1-2 Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: The portion of the area which is
controlled by PSE&G (38 acres) should be removed, PSE&G retains these areas for their
own quasi-public uses.
I-3	Current Land Development: The existence of residential areas within this area precludes
them from further consideration. Approximately 11 ac. has been removed from this
satellite area for housing which is now identified as hybrid area 15. Several of the
warehouse facilities are in relatively good condition such that they would not be removed
for the construction of additional secondary office/warehouse facilities which would
account for 2 acres of land area.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
a). Highway Capacity: Only one local roadway allows access into this Satellite Area.
This road is only partially inside the HMDC District. Access to the Newark-Jersey City
Tpke. is restricted with heavy traiiic making ingress and egress from the area difficult.
130

-------
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: No rail facilities exist to the satellite location.
Planning Recommendation
The portion of this Satellite Area not affected by any of the Tier I criteria should be retained as
a Satellite Area, Secondary office/warehouse is the most appropriate use for the Area.
Therefore, 30.8 acres have been retained, which will yield approximately 671,000 sq. ft. of
warehouse space.
Carlstadt - Upland Area N (shown as area n on Hybrid Plan\
This Satellite Area is located on the north side of Paterson Plank Road just east of Gotham
Parkway. The surrounding land uses include office and industrial uses and the sports and
Exposition Authority Race Track south of Paterson Plank Road. This satellite is known as
Scientific Chemical Processing which is one of the Superfund sites in the District. A remediation
plan is in place and remediation activity has commenced on the property the site area is 10 acres
and does not include any wetland. The Satellite Area meets the following criteria:
TIER 1 CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present
TIER II CRITERIA
U-l Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: No rail facilities exist to the satellite location.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present
Planning Recommendation
Assuming that the remediation plan will be fully implemented and that the site will become fully
developable, this satellite area can be retained as secondary office/warehouse. Satellite
development on this property would yield approximately 218,000 sq. ft. of warehouse space.
Fast Rutherford - Redevelopment Area A / Upland Growth D
A discussion of this area can be found in the individual satellite area section of this report under
area i/j. This satellite area is expanded somewhat from the original designations in Planning
Areas A and D and therefore were analyzed in the individual satellite section.
131

-------
PLANNSMG AREAS ANALYZED FOR
INCLUSION AS SATELLITE AREAS
6\15\95
ALTERNATIVE
UPLAND
REDEVELOPMENT
PLANNING AREAS
EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA
A
H
K
L
N
P
C D
E
F G
1
J
TIER I
1-1 Contaminated Land






I—2 Ownership/Jurisdictional






I—3 Current Development

X




TIER II
TIER III
11-1 Poor Accessibility

a. Highway Capacity
X
X
X
X


b. Location to Regional System

X




c. Lack of Rail Access
X

X

X
X
II—2 Lack Of Public Services





X
II-3 Engineering/Financial Constraints
X





II-4 Insufficient Scale






III — 1 Absence of Support Services
X





III-2 Incompatible Land Uses






III-3 Isolated from Planned Industrial Park






RECOMMENDATION
Retain as a Satellite Area

Secondary Office/Warehouse
X
X
X
X
X
X
Eliminate from Further EIS Evaluation






* may include only a portion of a planning area
hbdcrtia.wkl

-------
The total land area retained for secondary office/warehouse use from the Planning Areas is 309
acres. This land area will support 6.7 million square feet of space.
Individual Satellite Areas
The analysis for the individual Satellite Areas identities distinct infill site locations that are
suitable for the development of secondary office/warehouse uses. This is contrasted by the
Planning Areas' analyses which review larger multiple lot locations. This individual site analysis
applies the Satellite Exclusionary and Planning Criteria to each of the potential site locations.
The individual site locations are selected as a result of a comprehensive site inventory and a
much broader assessment of individual properties to determine locations that would be most
feasible for the analysis. Individual site locations that were tested as part of an overall individual
site screening analysis were either considered for further analysis here or reserved because
their importance from an environmental perspective. In short, in the inventory of all possible
individual site locations, only those which were determined to meet planning standards for
potential development were included here.
During this screening analysis, for instance, the sites which adjoined protected wetlands were
excluded from further consideration. Sites which were in close proximity to future wetland
preservation areas were also excluded. Wetland areas included in predominately upland sites
were not filled for secondary office/warehouse use. Wetland sites directly along the Hackensack
River except where they adjoined upland or redevelopment sites were excluded. This assessment
allowai an initial selection of properties which would be important from an environmental
perspective and would not require further analysis for secondary office/warehouse potential use.
The sites remaining subsequent to this screening analysis were then measured against the Satellite
Exclusionary Criteria. This analysis is shown in the Satellite Areas Table.
The retained individual sites were then further assessed to determine the extent to which they
can support secondary office/warehouse space. The results of this analysis are shown in
the following analysis of the individual locations. The attached Table will also provide an
indication of the degree of wetland utilization anticipated in the development of these sites.
The Land Management Alternatives analyzed in the Screening Document required the efficient
utilization of a limited number of potential development areas available in the District. Given
the inherent constraints, the number of locations and type of development was a function of each
respective Alternative. This resulted in the placement of secondary office/warehouse uses in
areas where it is more appropriate for the development of primary office, commercial, and
residential uses.
Among all of the Alternatives were a otal of 45 Satellite Areas with letter designations (a)
Lugh (as). Many of these wer, n ,', Pbaning Areas and Satellite Areas w,thm the various
Alternatives. There are three Sal > A s: (1) - Hybrid Area 3; (m) - Hybnd Area 4; and (ad)
132

-------
- Hybrid Area 11; and a portion of area (aq) - Hybrid Area 15; that were retained as a Planning
Area. Therefore, they are not described here. As a result of the analyses of Areas (a) through
(aw) many were eliminated thus, creating a shortfall of land available for secondary
office/warehouse development. To meet the identified need of 15.3 million sq. ft., additional
areas were identified and are represented as Areas (at) through (bb).
Satellite Area (a)
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (a) is located in Little Ferry and is approximately 3 acres in size. It generally is
bounded by Industrial Avenue to the east; and existing development to the north, south and west.
Currently, the site is unimproved vacant upland.
Surrounding land uses include existing residential development to the west and south; and
existing industrial uses to the east and north. The BCUA Little Ferry Facility is also to the south
of the site.
Access to the Area is available from Industrial Avenue. There are no existing or proposed
freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, the site is in close proximity to Route
46 which provides access to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 65,340 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
c. Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-l Poor Accessibility:
cl.Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
133

-------
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
Ho Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (a) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, this 3 acre Area is
retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 65,340 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area fb)
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (b) is located in Moonachie and is 2 acres in size. It is generally bounded by Carol
Place to the west; Empire Boulevard to the south; State Street to the north; and existing
development to the east. Currently, the site is unimproved vacant upland surrounded by existing
development.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west, east, south, and
north. The BCUA Little Ferry Facility is also to the east.
Access to the Area is available from Carol Place. There are no existing or proposed freight rail
facilities in proximity to this Area. However, the site is in close proximity to Washington
Avenue and Moonachie Avenue which provide access to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 43,550 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
134

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (b) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, this 2 acre Area is
retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 43,560 of space.
Satellite Area Cct
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (c) is located in Carlstadt and is 9.7 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
Washington Avenue to the east; Commerce Boulevard to the south; and development to the north
and west. Currently, the site is unimproved vacant upland surrounded by existing development.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west, east, south, and
north. Also, there are scattered commercial uses in the area.
Access to the Area is available from Washington Avenue. There are no existing or proposed
freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, the sites' frontage on Washington
Avenue provides access to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
135

-------
B. Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 211,266 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present,
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility
c), I-ack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (c) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, this 9.7 acre Area is
retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 211,266 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (d) is located in Carlstadt and is approximately 4 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by Washington Avenue to the west; Commerce Boulevard to the south; Terminal Lane
to the north; and development to the east. Currently, the site is unimproved vacant land
surrounded by existing development.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development and scattered commercial uses
to the west; vacant land and existing industrial development to the east; and existing industrial
136

-------
development to the south and north.
Access to the Area is available from Washington Avenue and Commerce Road. There are no
existing or proposed freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, the sites' frontage
on Washington Avenue provides access to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B. Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 43,460 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
c. Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-2	Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: This site is currently owned by the
NJ Department of Transportation and is, therefore, unavailable for development purposes
at this time.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier IH criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (d) should be eliminated as a Satellite Area. Specifically, the TIER I ownership/
jurisdictional criteria precludes utilization of the property. Therefore, this 4 acre Area is
eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
137

-------
Satellite Area fel
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (e) is located in Carlstadt and is 12.4 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
Grand Street to the west and south; West Commercial Avenue to the north; and development to
the east. Currently, the site is unimproved vacant upland surrounded by existing development.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west, east, south, and
north. This site is located within the NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury Contamination Study Area.
Access to the Area is available from Amor Avenue and Grand Street. There are no existing or
proposed freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, the site is in close proximity
to Moonachie Avenue and Paterson Plank Road, providing access to other nearby major arterials
in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Und Uses
The screening document analysis projected 270,072 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination: It should be noted that this site is within the ongoing
NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury Contamination Study and may be subject to conclusions
of a finalized remediation plan.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-l	Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rait transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
138

-------
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (e) should be retained as a Satellite Area. Consideration of the TIER I
contamination criteria should not preclude the utilization of this site due to the unsubstantiation
of contamination. In addition, the site is compatible with current zoning and the dominant
existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby completing the development patterns
established in the area. Therefore, this 12.4 acre Area is retained for further EIS evaluation
which will yield 270,072 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area ffi
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (f) is located in Carlstadt and is 13.0 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
Berry's Creek to the east and north; the Pascack Valley rail line to the west; and Broad Street
to the south. Currently, the site is unimproved vacant land of which 7.6 ac. of wetland exists.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west and south; wetland
and the Ventron/Velsicol Superfund site to the north; and wetland and existing industrial
development to the east.
Access to the Area is available from 16th Street. The existing rail facilities in proximity to this
Area are commuter oriented and no proposals exist for freight usage. However, the site is in
close proximity to Route 17 and Paterson Plank Road, providing access to other nearby major
arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 283,140 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
139

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination: It should be noted that this site is located within the
ongoing NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury Contamination Study Area and may also be part
of an approved remediation plan for the Ventron/Velsicol Superfund site. However, there
are no finalized remediation plans to date.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
a). Highway Capacity: The road system adjacent to this Satellite Area may require new
roadway access and rights-of-way to accommodate the extent of traffic projected from
the Satellite Area. Adjacent roads are narrow and in need of repair.
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where convenient existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer
and distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface
transportation.
II-3 Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area that
result from the projected costs of roadway preparation and construction may render
complete development of this Area impractical. Also, possible contamination may
prohibit development.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (f) should be retained as a Satellite Area. Consideration of the TIER I
contamination criteria should not preclude the utilization of this site due to the unsubstantiation
of contamination. The TIER II criteria may be minimized due to the proposed redevelopment
of nearby properties. In addition, the site is compatible with current zoning and the dominant
existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby completing the development patterns
established in the area. Therefore, this 13.0 acre Area is retained for further EIS evaluation
which will yield 283,140 sq. ft. of space.
140

-------
Satellite Area (g^
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (g) is located in Carlstadt and is approximately 3 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by 20th Street to the east; Broad Street to the south; and development to the north and
west. Currently, the site is surrounded by existing development.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west, east, and north; and
existing commercial and industrial uses to the south.
Access to the Area is available from Broad Street. The existing rail facilities in proximity to
this Area are commuter oriented and no proposals exist for freight usage. However, the site is
in close proximity to Route 17 and Paterson Plank Road, providing access to other major
arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 65,340 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-3	Current Land Development: Land uses projected for the subject Satellite Area are no
longer available because development is imminent. The site has been cleared and is under
preparation for the beginning phases of construction.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where convenient existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer
and distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface
transportation.
141

-------
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D, Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (g) should be eliminated as a Satellite Area. Specifically, the TIER I current
development criteria precludes utilization of the property. Therefore, this 3 acre Area is
eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
Satellite Area
A.	Existing Condition?
Satellite Area (h) is located in Carlstadt and is approximately 18 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by Berry's Creek to the east; Broad Street to the north; 20th Street to the west; and
Paterson Plank Road to the south. Currently, the site is unimproved vacant land. Approximately
7.9 acres of this site are considered to be wetland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west and north; wetland
to the east; and commercial uses and vacant land to the south. The NJSEA Complex is also to
the south of this site.
Currently, access to the Area is available only from Broad Street however, additional access
from Paterson Plank Road may be possible. The existing rail facilities in proximity to this Area
are commuter oriented and no proposals exist for freight usage. However, the site is in close
proximity to Route 17 and Paterson Plank Road, providing access to other major arterials in the
area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 222,156 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
c. Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
142

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
1-1 Severe Land Contamination: It should be noted that this site is located within the
ongoing NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury Contamination Study Area and may also be part
of an approved remediation plan for the Ventron/Velsicol Superfund site. However, there
are no finalized remediation plans to date.
I-2	Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: A portion of this site is currently
deed restricted by the NJDEP Tidelands Resource Council. They have retained a riparian
claim that affects 8 acres of this Area which is, therefore, unavailable for development
purposes at this time.
TIER II CRITERIA
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where convenient existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer
and distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface
transportation.
II-3	Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area may
result from the projected costs of site preparation if contamination is found.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (h) should be retained as a Satellite Area. Consideration of the TIER I
contamination criteria should not preclude the utilization of this site due to the unsubstantiation
of contamination. In addition, the site is compatible with current zoning and the dominant
existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby completing the development patterns
established in the area. However, the TIER I ownership/jurisdictional criteria precludes
utilization of 8 acres of this site. Therefore, 10.2 acres of this Area are retained for further EIS
evaluation. (It should be noted that, in the various Alternatives, this Satellite Area encompassed
27 acres however, 9 acres were retained for primary land uses within Hybrid Planning Area 1).
This area will yield 222,156 sq. ft. of satellite space.
143

-------
Satellite Area (il
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (i) is located in East Rutherford and is 30.8 acres in size. It is generally bounded
by Berry's Creek to the east; existing development to the south and north; and Route 17 to the
west. Currently, the site is vacant upland and is bisected by Murray Hill Parkway. It includes
a portion of Upland Area D which was determined to be suitable for satellite usage.
Surrounding land uses include the NJSEA Complex and wetland to the east; existing industrial
uses and vacant land to the south; existing out of District industrial development to the west; and
commercial and industrial uses to the north.
Access to the Area is available from Murray Hill Parkway. The existing rail facilities in
proximity to this Area are commuter oriented and no proposals exist for freight usage. However,
the site is in close proximity to Route 17 and Paterson Plank Road which provide access to other
major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 670,824 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination: It should be noted that this site is located within the
ongoing NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury Contamination Study Area and may be subject
to conclusions of a finalized remediation plan. Also, a portion of this site is part of the
Universal Oil Products Superfund site and is currently undergoing remediation activities.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
c). Tack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where convenient existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer
and distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface
144

-------
transportation.
II-3 Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area may
result from the projected costs of site preparation due to contamination.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (i) should be retained as a Satellite Area. Consideration of the TIER I
contamination criteria should not preclude the utilization of this site due to the unsubstantiation
of contamination east of Murray Hill Parkway and the approved remediation activities west oi
Murray Hill Parkway. In addition, the site is compatible with current zoning and the dominant
existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby completing the development patterns
established in the area. Therefore, this 30.8 acre Area is retained for further EIS evaluation and
will yield 670,824 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area fi)
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (j) is located in East Rutherford and is 49.1 acres in size. It is generally bounded
by Berry's Creek to the east; existing development to the south and north; and Route 17 to the
west. Currently, the site is vacant land and is bisected by Murray Hill Parkway. Approximately
34.1 acres of this site are considered to be wetland. It includes a portion of Redevelopment
Area A which was determined to be suitable for satellite usage.
Surrounding land uses include the NJSEA Complex and wetland to the east; existing industrial
uses and vacant land to the south; existing out of District industrial development to the west; and
commercial and industrial uses to the north.
Access to the Area is available from Murray Hill Parkway. The existing rail facilities in
proximity to this Area are commuter oriented and no proposals exist for freight usage. However,
the site is in close proximity to Route 17 and Paterson Plank Road which provide access to other
major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
145

-------
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 847,895 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area. In the hybrid, the total land area was increased to add adjacent properties into the
analysis.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination: It should be noted that this site is located within the
ongoing NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury Contamination Study Area and may be subject
to conclusions of a finalized remediation plan. Also, a portion of this site is part of the
Universal Oil Products Superfund site and is currently undergoing remediation activities.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where convenient existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer
and distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface
transportation.
II-3 Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area may
result from the projected costs of site preparation due to contamination.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (j) should be retained as a Satellite Area. Consideration of the TIER I
contamination criteria should not preclude the utilization of this site due to the unsubstantiation
of contamination east of Murray Hill Parkway and the approved remediation activities west of
Murray Hill Parkway. In addition, the site is compatible with current zoning and the dominant
existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby completing the development patterns
established in the area. Therefore, this 49.1 acre Area is retained for further EIS evaluation
which will yield 1,069,398 sq. ft. of space.
146

-------
Satellite Area (k)
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (k) is located in Carlstadt and is 12.1 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
Commerce Boulevard to the south; Central Boulevard to the west; the Hackensack River to the
east; and Empire Boulevard to the north. Currently, the site is vacant land surrounded by
existing development. Approximately 5.6 acres of this site are considered to be wetland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west and north; and
vacant wetland to the east and south. The BCUA Little Ferry Facility is also to the north.
Access to the Area is available from Central Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard. There are
no existing or proposed freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, the site is in
close proximity to Washington Avenue, providing access to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 263,538 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
IM Pwr Accessibility;
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER in CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
147

-------
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (k) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, this 12.1 acre Area is
retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 263,538 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area - see Planning Analysis for Hybrid Area 3.
Satellite Area (m\ - see Planning Analysis for Hybrid Area 4.
Satellite Area Co)
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (o) is located in Caristadt and is 1.7 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
Veterans Boulevard to the west and north; Washington Avenue to the east; and development to
the south. Currently, the site is unimproved vacant upland surrounded by existing development.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west, east, and north; and
wetland and industrial uses to the south. Also, there are scattered existing commercial uses to
the east.
Access to the Area is available from Veterans Boulevard. There are no existing or proposed
freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, the site is in close proximity to
Washington Avenue which provides access to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 37,026 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
148

-------
TIER II CRITERIA
II-l Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (o) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, this 1.7 acre Area is
retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 37,026 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area fo)
A.	Easting Conditions
Satellite Area (p) is located in Carlstadt and is 10.2 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
vacant land to the west; Washington Avenue to the east; and development to the north and south.
Currently, the site is unimproved vacant land. Approximately 6.5 acres of this site are
considered to be wetland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the east, south and north; and
wetland and industrial uses to the west. Also, to the north are existing scattered commercial
uses.
Access to the Area is available from Washington Avenue. There are no existing or proposed
freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, the sites' frontage on Washington
Avenue provides access to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected iatwt Vsss
The screening document analysis projected 50,094 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area. In the hybrid, the tot J land area was increased to add adjacent properties into the
149

-------
analysis.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility.
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D.	Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (p) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, this 10.2 acre Area is
retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 222,156 sq. ft. of space. Approximately 6.5
acres of this site are considered to be wetland.
fafellite Area fql
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (q) is located in Carlstadt and is 3.1 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
Washington Avenue to the west; Michele Place to the east; Paterson Plank Road to the south;
and development to the north. Currently, the site is vacant land surrounded by existing
development. Approximately 1.8 acres of this site is considered to be wetland.
Surrounding land uses include existing industrial and commercial development to the west;
existing industrial uses and wetland to the east and north; and the NJSEA Brendan Byrne Arena
to the south.
150

-------
Access to the Area is available from Michele Place. There are no existing or proposed freight
rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, the site is in close proximity to Washington
Avenue and Paterson Plank Road providing access to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
b. Project Uses
The screening document analysis projected 67,518 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
IM Poor Accessibility;
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D.	Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (q) should be retained as a Satellite Area, In addidon, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, this 3.1 acre Area is
retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 67,518 sq. ft. of space.
151

-------
Satellite Area (r)
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (r) is located in Ridgefield and is 14.6 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
Bellman's Creek to the south and west; Pleasant View Terrace to the north; and Railroad
Avenue to the east. Currently, the site is vacant land surrounded by existing development.
Approximately 14.4 acres is considered to be wetland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing heavy industrial development to the west, east, and
south; and light industrial uses and wetland to the north.
Access to the Area is available from Pleasant View Terrace. There are existing freight rail
facilities in proximity to this Area but, no proposals allowing this site access.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Protected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 108,900 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area. In the hybrid, the total land area was increased to add adjacent properties into
the analysis
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
a. Current Land Development: Subsequent to the selection of this satellite area for
review, this site was set aside as wetland preservation in conjunction with a wetland
permitting application on another site within the District. Therefore, this satellite area is
no longer available.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
b). Proximate Locatipn To Regional Highway System: The Area is not located within
close proximity to the interstate highway system . Available routes to the highway system
would be circuitous and cause delay in delivery and distribution due to lack of such
access.
152

-------
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: Although the area is located in areas where existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area, direct access is currently
unavailable. This could require the transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be
transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified, Satellite
Area (r) should be excluded as a Satellite Area.
Satellite Area ft)
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (t) is located in North Bergen and is approximately 13 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by Bellman's Creek to the west; West Side Avenue to the east and north; and
development to the south. Currently, the site is an existing warehouse/distribution facility.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the east, south, and north;
and wetland to the west.
Access to the Area is available from West Side Avenue. The West Shore freight line is adjacent
to this Area to the east however, there currently is no direct access to the site.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the North
Bergen MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 274,428 sq. ft. of secondaiy office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-3	I .and Development: This site was evaluated for redevelopment potential
however, the analysis concluded that it is a viable operation and would not meet the
153

-------
necessary criteria for redevelopment. Therefore, the site is unavailable for development
purposes at this time.
TIER II CRITERIA
No Tier II criteria appear to be present.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (t) should be eliminated as a Satellite Area. Specifically, the TIER I current land
development criteria precludes utilization of the property. Therefore, this 13 acre Area is
eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
Satellite Area (u)
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (u) is located in North Bergen and is approximately 12 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by the Conrail line to the south and west; the West Shore line to the east; and existing
development to the north. Currently, the site is an existing warehouse/distribution facility.
Surrounding land uses consist of industrial development to the west, south, and north; and
existing out of District industrial uses to the east.
Access to the Area is available from 91st Street which lies outside the District and connects to
Routes 1&9.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the North
Bergen MUA, respectively.
b. Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 267,894 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
154

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
1-3 Current Land Development: This site was evaluated for redevelopment potential
however, the analysis concluded that it is a viable operation and would not meet the
necessary criteria for redevelopment. Therefore, the site is unavailable for development
purposes at this time.
TIER II CRITERIA
H-l Poor Accessibility.
a). Highway Capacity: The road system (91st Street) is only a two lane local road which
is utilized for parking and turning areas for the existing warehousing and commercial
uses. New rights-of-way needed to expand the road are not available. Also, there are no
secondary access points available to this site.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (u) should be eliminated as a Satellite Area. Specifically, the TIER I current land
development criteria precludes utilization of the property. Therefore, this 12 acre Area is
eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
Satellite Area (v)
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (v) is located in North Bergen and is 30.3 acres in size. It is generally bounded
by the West Shore line to the east; existing development to the north and south; and PSE&G
transmission towers to the west. Currently, the site is vacant land surrounded by existing
development. Approximately 23.3 acres of this site is considered to be wetland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the north and south; wetland
to the west; and existing out of District industrial development to the east.
Access is available from West Side Avenue, which bisects the Area. The existing freight rail
facilities may be utilized by this Area but, no proposals exist at this time. The site is in close
proximity to Routes 1&9 which provide access to other nearby major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the North
155

-------
Bergen MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 675,180 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area. In the hybrid, the total land area was decreased to reduce the amount of projected
wetland fill.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-l Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: Although the area is located in areas where existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area, direct access is currently
unavailable. This could require the transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be
transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D.	Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (v) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, 30.3 acres are retained
for further EIS evaluation which will yield 659,934 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area (w)
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (w) is located in East Rutherford and is 39.7 acres in size. It is generally bounded
by Berry's Creek to the east; Berry's Creek and Route 3 to the south ; Madison Hill Circle to
the west; and development to the north. Currently, the site is vacant land surrounded by existing
156

-------
development. Approximately 35 acres of this site is considered to be wetland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west, south, and north;
and wetland and the NJ Sports Complex to the east. The site is within the NJDEP Berry's Creek
Mercury Contamination Study Area.
Access to the Area is available from Madison Hill Circle and Murray Hill Parkway. There are
no existing or proposed freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, the site is in
close proximity to Route 17, Route 3 and Paterson Plank Road, providing access to other major
arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 790,614 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area. In the hybrid, the total land area was increased to add adjacent properties into the
analysis.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-1 Severe Land Contamination: It should be noted that this site is located within the
ongoing NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury Contamination Study Area. However, there are
no finalized remediation plans at this time and the site may be subject to any conclusions
within the study.
TIER II CRITERIA
n-1 Poor Accessibility;
c). t gov nf Ayailahle Rail Access: The area is not located where convenient existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer
and distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface
transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier HI criteria appear to be present.
157

-------
D Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (w) should be retained as a Satellite Area Consideration of the TIER I
contamination criteria should not preclude the utilization of this site due to the unsubstantiation
of contamination of the site In addition, the site is compatible with current zoning and the
dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby completing the development
patterns established in the area Therefore, this 39 7 acre Area is retained for further EIS
evaluation which will yield 864,666 sq ft of space
Satellite Area (x)
A Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (x) is located in Lyndhurst and is approximately 46 2 acres in size It is generally
bounded by Berry's Creek to the east, existing development and Route 3 to the north, Chubb
Avenue and existing development to the west, and Valley Brook Avenue and existing
development to the south Currently, the site is vacant land of which approximately 35 9 acres
is considered to be wetland
Surrounding land uses consist of existing secondary office/ warehouse development to the west
and south, wetland to the east, and primary office uses to the north
Access to the Area is available from Chubb Avenue There are no existing or proposed freight
rail facilities in proximity to this Area However, the site is in close proximity to Route 3 which
provides access to other major artenals in the area
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively
B Protected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected approximately 1 million sq ft of secondary
office/warehouse space for this Area In the hybnd, the total land area was increased to add
adjacent properties into the analysis
C Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria
TIER I CRITERIA
1-2 Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues. A portion of this site is currently
deed restricted by an agreement between the HMDC and the property owner affecting
158

-------
approximately 8 acres
TIER n CRITERIA
H-l Poor Accessibility.
c) Lack Of Available Rail Access. The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation
TIER m CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present
D Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (x) should be retained as a Satellite Area In addition, die site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing secondary office/warehouse development surrounding
it, thereby completing the development patterns established in the area The 8 acres affected
by the TIER I ownership/junsdictional cntena are eliminated from further evaluation Therefore,
46 2 acres of this Area are retained for further E1S evaluation which will yield 1*006,454 sq
ft of space
Satellite Area (y)
A Existing Conditions
Satellite Area 
-------
B. Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 596,772 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
c. planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-1 Severe Land Contamination: A 23 acre portion of this site is part of the Town of
Lyndhurst municipal landfill. Although this landfill has not accepted solid waste materials
for years, it has not been closed in accordance with NJDEPE Solid Waste Regulations.
There are no proposals to do so.
TIER II CRITERIA
IM Poor Accessibility;
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: Although the area is located in areas where existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area, direct access is currently
unavailable. This could require the transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be
transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
the landfill portion (23 acres) of Satellite Area (y) should be eliminated. However, the remainder
of the site (4 acres) is compatible with current zoning and the dominant existing industrial
development surrounding it, thereby completing the development patterns established in the area.
Therefore, 4 acres are retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 87,120 sq. ft. of
space.
Satellite Area faal
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (aa) is located in North Bergen and is approximately 17 acres in size. It is
generally bounded by the West Shore rail line to the east; West Side Avenue to the west; and
160

-------
development to the north and south. Currently, the site is vacant land surrounded by existing
development. Approximately 9.5 acres are considered to be wetland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west, south, and north;
and existing out of District development to the east.
Access to the Area is available from West Side Avenue. There are existing freight rail facilities
in proximity to this Area however, no proposals for direct access exist at this time. The sites'
frontage on West Side Avenue provides access to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the North
Bergen MUA, respectively.
b. Projects land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 370,260 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-3 Currant I .and Development: A 4 acre portion of this site was evaluated for
redevelopment potential however, the analysi concluded that it is a viable operation and
would not meet the necessary criteria for redevelopment. Therefore, the 4 acres are
unavailable for development purposes at this time.
TIER II CRITERIA
IM Poor Accessibility;
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: Although the area is located in areas where existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area, direct access is currently
unavailable. This could require the transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be
transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER in CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
161

-------
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (aa) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. However, the 4 acre portion unable
to meet the necessary redevelopment criteria is eliminated. Therefore, 13.2 acres are retained
for further EIS evaluation which will yield 287,496 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area fab)
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (ab) is located in North Bergen and is 7.5 acres in size. It is generally bounded
by the West Shore rail line to the east; West Side Avenue to the west; and development to the
north and south. Currently, the site is vacant land surrounded by existing development.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the south, and north; wetland
to the west; and existing out of District development to the east.
Access to the Area is available from West Side Avenue. There are existing freight rail facilities
in proximity to this Area however, no proposals for direct access exist at this time. The sites'
frontage on West Side Avenue provides access to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the North
Bergen MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 163,350 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
162

-------
TIER II CRITERIA
IM Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: Although the area is located in areas where existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area, direct access is currently
unavailable. This could require the transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be
transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (ab) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, the 7.5 acre Area is
retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 163,350 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area (ac)
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (ac) is located in North Bergen and is 4.4 acres in size. It is generally bounded
by the West Shore rail line to the east; West Side Avenue to the west; and development to the
north and south. Currently, the site is vacant land surrounded by existing development.
Approximately 2.9 acres are considered to be wetland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the south, and north; wetland
to the west; and existing out of District development to the east.
Access to the Area is available from West Side Avenue. There are existing freight rail facilities
in proximity to this Area however, no proposals for direct access exist at this time. The sites'
frontage on West Side Avenue provides access to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the North
Bergen MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 95,832 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
163

-------
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-l Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: Although the area is located in areas where existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area, direct access is currently
unavailable. This could require the transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be
transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (ac) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, the 4.4 acre Area is
retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 95,832 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area fad) - see Planning Analysis for Hybrid Area 11.
Satellite Area (ah)
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (ah) is located in Secaucus and is 8.1 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
Castle Road to the north; New County Road to the east; the New Jersey Transit Main line to
the south; and development to the west. Currently, the site is unimproved vacant upland
surrounded by existing development.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west, east, south, and
north.
Access to the Area is available from Castle Road. There are existing freight rail facilities in
164

-------
proximity to this Area however, no proposals for direct access exist at this time.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the Secaucus
MUA, respectively.
B. Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 176,418 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
c. planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
ii-i Poor Accessibility;
b).	Proximate Location To Regional Highway System: The Area is not located within
close proximity to the interstate highway system. Available routes to the highway system
would be circuitous and cause delay in delivery and distribution due to lack of such
access.
c).	Lack Of Available Rail Access: Although the area is located in areas where existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area, direct, access is currently
unavailable. This could require the transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be
transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier m criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (ah) should be retained as-a Satellite Area. The TIER II-lb) criteria will be
alleviated with proposed road improvements to both the local and regional system near the site.
In addition, the site is compatible with current zoning and the dominant existing industrial
development surrounding it, thereby completing the development patterns established in the area.
Therefore, this 8.1 acre Area is retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 176,418 sq.
165

-------
ft. of space.
Satellite Area (ail
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (ai) is located in Jersey City and is approximately 17 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by Penhorn Creek to the north and west; a US Postal Facility to the east; and County
Road to the south. Currently, the site is a trucking terminal surrounded by existing development.
Surrounding land uses consist of the Conrail Croxton Rail Yard to the south; the US Postal
Service Jersey City Bulk Mail Facility to the east; wetland and existing industrial uses to the
north and west.
Access to the Area is available from County Avenue. Although no existing rail facilities serve
the site directly, its' proximity to Conrail and the Postal facility create synergistic characteristics
for this area. Also, there is a proposal to develop an intermodal rail facility nearby.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the City of Jersey City.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 370,260 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
HER I CRITERIA
1-3 Current Land Development: This site was evaluated for redevelopment potential
however, the analysis concluded that it is a viable operation and would not meet the
necessary criteria for redevelopment. Therefore, the site is unavailable for development
purposes at this time.
TIER II CRITERIA
No Tier II criteria appear to be present.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
166

-------
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (ai) should be eliminated as a Satellite Area. Although the site is compatible with
current zoning and the adjacent existing industrial development, the existing business operation
is viable and would not meet the criteria necessary for redevelopment actions. Therefore, this
17 acre Area is eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
Satellite Area (al)
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (al) is located in Kearny and is approximately 19 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by the Amtrak Northeast Corridor rail line to the south; the NJ Turnpike to the west;
the Newark-Jersey City Turnpike to the north; and existing development to the east. Currently,
the site is unimproved vacant land.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development and the 1-A landfill to the
north; the 1-D landfill to the west; wetland and the New Jersey Transit rail yard to the south;
and the US Postal Service Kearny Bulk Mail Facility to the east.
Access to the Area is available from the Newark-Jersey City Turnpike. The existing rail facilities
in proximity to this Area are commuter oriented and no proposals exist for freight usage.
However, the sites' frontage on the Newark-Jersey City Turnpike provides access to other
nearby major arterials in the area.
Water facilities are available from the Passaic Valley Water Commission. There is no sewer
service in this area.
b. Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 413,820 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-2 Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: This site is currently owned by the
Town of Kearny and is, therefore, unavailable for development purposes at this time.
167

-------
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility.
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: Although the area is located in areas where existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area, direct access is currently
unavailable. This could require the transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be
transported only via truck surface transportation.
II-2 Lacy of Efficient Public Services: Insufficient infrastructure capacity (sewerage or water)
and the inability to support new infrastructure development within the projected 20 year
planning period.
II-3	Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area that
result from the projected costs of installation of public services may render development
impractical.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-3	Scattered or Isolated Site/Not Part of a Planned Industrial Distributing P^rfo The Area
is isolated and not associated with other compatible uses nor is it a component of existing
or previously planned distribution or secondary office/warehouse Satellite Area
Development.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (al) should be eliminated as a Satellite Area. Specifically, the TIER I ownership/
jurisdictional issues criteria precludes utilization of the property. Therefore, this 19 acre Area
is eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
Satellite Area (ami
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (am) is located in Kearny and is 5.0 acres in size. It is generally bounded by the
Amtrak Northeast Corridor rail line to the east; the Belleville Turnpike to the south and west;
and vacant land to the north. Currently, the site is vacant upland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development and wetland to the east; existing
heavy industrial uses to the south; radio towers and wetland to the north; and wetland and the
1-A landfill to the west. Also, near this site are; two drum dumps that have been remediated;
chromium contamination which is under an approved remediation plan; and another contaminated
site that has no approved remediation plan.
168

-------
Access to the Area is available from Belleville Turnpike. There are existing freight rail facilities
in proximity to this Area but, no proposals for direct access have been made. However, the
location of the site near Belleville Turnpike provides access to other major arterials in the area.
Water facilities are available from the Passaic Valley Water Commission. There is no sewer
service to this area.
b. Projected Uses
The screening document analysis projected 108,900 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
IM fwr Accswfoility;
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: Although the area is located in areas where existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area, direct access is currently
unavailable. This could require the transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be
transported only via truck surface transportation.
II-2	l ack of Efficient Publfc Services: Insufficient infrastructure capacity (sewerage or water)
and the inability to support new infrastructure development within the projected 20 year
planning period.
H-3 Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area that
result from the projected costs of installation of public services may render development
impractical.
TIER m CRITERIA
JH'l Absence of Services: The Area is not within proximity to the services necessary to
support warehouse/distribution facilities i,e. truck/transport services, etc.
III-J	Scattered or Isolated Site/Not Part of a Planned Industrial Distribution Park: The Area
is isolated and not associated with other compatible uses nor is it a component of existing
169

-------
or previously planned distribution or secondary office/warehouse Satellite Area
Development.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (am) should be retained as a Satellite Area. Consideration of the Tier B and Tier
111 criteria are not overriding factors for the elimination of this particular ate. Therefore, this
5.0 acre Area is retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 108,900 sq, ft. of space.
Satellite Area
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (an) is located in Kearny and is approximately 21 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by the Hackensack River to the east; the Amtrak Northeast Corridor rail line to the
north; Belleville Turnpike to the west; and existing development to the south. Currently, the site
is unimproved vacant land.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development and contaminated land to the
south; wetland and contaminated land to the east; existing industrial development, wetland, and
unimproved vacant land to the north; and existing industrial development and the 1-A landfill
to the west.
Access to the Area is available from Belleville Turnpike. There are no existing or proposed
freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, Belleville Turnpike provides access to
other major arterials in the area.
Water facilities are available from the Passaic Valley Water Commission. There is no sewer
service to the area.
b.	Ur*4 Vy?s
The screening document analysis projected 457,380 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-1 Severe Land Contamination: This site has been identified by the NJDEP as highly
contaminated from a variety of chemical constituents and there are no Finalized
170

-------
remediation plans to date.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
II-2 Lack of Efficient Public Services: Insufficient infrastructure capacity (sewerage or
water) and the inability to support new infrastructure development within the projected
20 year planning period.
II-3	Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to deveiopment in the Satellite Area that
result from the projected costs of installation of public services and remediation activities
may render development impractical.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-l	Absence of Services: The Area is not within proximity to the services necessary to
support warehouse/distribution facilities i.e. truck/transport services, etc.
III-3 Scattered or Isolated Site/Not Part of a Planned Industrial Distribution Park: The Area
is isolated and not associated with other compatible uses nor is it a component of existing
or previously planned distribution or secondary office/warehouse Satellite Area
Development.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (an) should be eliminated as a Satellite Area. Specifically, the TIER I
contamination criteria precludes the utilization of this site.Therefore, this 21 acre Area is
eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
Satellite Area fao)
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (ao) is located in Kearny and is approximately 42 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by the Hackensack River to the east; the Amtrak Northeast Corridor rail line to the
north; Belleville Turnpike to the west; and existing development to the south. Currently, the site
is unimproved vacant land.
171

-------
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the south; wetland and
contaminated land to the east; existing industrial development and contaminated land to the
north; and existing industrial development and the 1-A landfill to the west.
Access to the Area is available from Belleville Turnpike. There are no existing or proposed
freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, Belleville Turnpike provides access to
other major arterials in the area.
Water facilities are available from the Passaic Valley Water Commission. There is no sewer
service to the area.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 914,760 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination: This site has been identified by the NJDEP as highly
contaminated from a variety of chemical constituents and there are no finalized
remediation plans to date.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1	Poor Accessibility:
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
n-2 Lack of Efficient Public Services: Insufficient infrastructure capacity (sewerage or
water) and the inability to support new infrastructure development within the projected
20 year planning period.
II-3 Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area that
result from the projected costs of installation of public services and remediation activities
may render development impractical.
172

-------
TIER HI CRITERIA
HJ-3 Scattered or Isolated Siie/Not Part of a Ptanned Industrial Distribution Park- The Area
is isolated and not associated with other compatible uses nor is it a component of existing
or previously planned distribution or secondary office/warehouse Satellite Area
Development.
D- Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (ao) should be eliminated as a Satellite Area. Specifically, the TIER I
contamination criteria precludes the utilization of this site. Therefore, this 42 acre Area is
eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
Satellite Area Op.)
A. Existing Candtttons
Satellite Area (ap) is located in Kearny and is approximately 38 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by the Hackensack River to the east and north; unimproved vacant land to the west;
and existing development to the south. Currently, the site is unimproved vacant land.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the south; wetland and
contaminated land to the west; contaminated land and the Hackensack River to the north; and
existing industrial development to the east in Jersey City.
Access to the Area is available from an access road off of Fishhouse Road. There are no existing
or proposed freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area. However, Fishhouse Road provides
access to other major arterials in the area.
Water facilities are available from the Passaic Valley Water Commission. There is no sewer
service to the area.
B- Projected, Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 827,640 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
c. Flamifig Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
173

-------
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination: This site is part of the Koppers' Coke site which is
contaminated from a variety of coking residues and petroleum by-products. At this time
there are no finalized remediation plans.
II-2	Ownership Difficulties/HMDC Jurisdictional Issues: The site is currently owned by the
Hudson County Improvement Authority and was at one time proposed for the Hudson
County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility.
TIER II CRITERIA
II-1 Pppr Accessibility;
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
II-2 Lack of Efficient Public Services: Insufficient infrastructure capacity (sewerage or water)
and the inability to support new infrastructure development within the projected 20 year
planning period.
II-3	Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area that
result from the projected costs of installation of public services and remediation activities
may render development impractical.
TIER III CRITERIA
III-1	Absence of Services: The Area is not within proximity to the services necessary to
support warehouse/distribution facilities i.e. truck/transport services, etc.
III-3 Scattered or Isolated Site/Not Part of a Planned Industrial Distribution Park: The Area
is isolated and not associated with other compatible uses nor is it a component of existing
or previously planned distribution or secondary office/warehouse Satellite Area
Development.
D. planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (ap) should be eliminated as a Satellite Area. Specifically, the TIER I
contamination and ownership criteria preclude the utilization of this site. Therefore, this 38 acre
Area is eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
174

-------
Satellite Arya (art
A.	Existing CPPflfiPM
Satellite Area (ar) is located in Moonachie and is 14.9 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
Losen Slote Creek to the north and east; and Slate Street to the west and south. Currently, it is
vacant upland surrounded by existing development.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the west and south; existing
residential development and the Little Ferry Losen Slote Creek Park to the north; and the BCTJA
Little Ferry Facility to the east.
Access to the Area is available from State Street. There are no existing or proposed freight rail
facilities in proximity to this Area. Although the site is not directly accessible to any arterial
roadway, it is near enough so as not to be negatively affected or constrained by its' location.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Ures
The screening document analysis projected 324,522 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area.
c. Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
im Pwr Accessibility;
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via (ruck surface transportation.
TIER in CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
175

-------
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (ar) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, this 14.9 acre Area is
retained for further EIS evaluation which will yield 324,522 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area fas)
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (as) is located in Jersey City and Secaucus and is 81.5 acres in size. It is generally
bounded the Amtrak Northeast Corridor rail line to the west; Secaucus Road to the north; and
existing development to the east and south. Currently, the site is vacant land bisected by Penhorn
Creek and surrounded by existing development. Approximately 64.4 acres are considered to be
wetland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development, trucking facilities, and an
intermodal facility to the north; existing trucking facilities and the Conrail Croxton Yard to the
south; the NJ Turnpike eastern spur and a mix of residential and commercial development to the
west; and the US Postal Service Jersey City Bulk Mail Facility to the east.
Access to the Jersey City portion of this Area is from Secaucus Road and potentially from
County Road. The Secaucus portion is accessible from Penhorn Avenue. There are no existing
freight rail facilities currently serving the site. However, the site was identified by an applicant
as the only location available for an intermodal rail facility and was recently rezoned to reflect
this proposal.
Water facilities would be available from either the Hackensack Water Company or the City of
Jersey City. Sewer facilities would be available from either the North Bergen MUA or the City
of Jersey City.
B.	Projected Land Uses
The screening document analysis projected 217,800 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space
for this Area. This represents development associated with the intermodal rail facility which is
land intensive but does not yield a substantial building coverage for this use. In the hybrid, the
total land area was increased to add adjacent properties into the analysis.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
176

-------
HER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
No Tier II criteria appear to be present.
TIER IU CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning R^pmrngnd^ign
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (as) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area.
Due to the shortfall of space required to meet the secondary office/warehouse need (described
below), and the uniqueness of this Satellite Area (proposed for an intermodal facility), this site
has been separated in two. The Jersey City portion (81.5 acres) will remain as site (as)
incorporating the intermodal facility with 392,040 sq. ft. of associated secondary
office/warehouse space. The Secaucus portion (10 acres) will be included in the expanded
Satellite Area (aw) described in detail below.
Satellite Area (at)
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (at) is located in Carlstadt and is 1.7 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
Berry's Creek to the west and south; and Grand Street and development to the east and north,
respectively. Currently, the site is unimproved vacant upland surrounded by existing
development.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the north, east and south; and
wetland to the south and west. Also, to the west of this site is the Ventron/Velsicol Superfund
site.
Access to the Area is available from Purcell Court. The existing rail facilities in proximity to
this Area are commuter oriented and no proposals exist for freight usage. However, the site is
in close proximity to Moonachie Road providing access to other nearby major arterials in the
area.
177

-------
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
Projected for this Area is 36,808 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space.
C.	Planning: Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-1 Severe Land Contamination: It should be noted that this site is located within the
ongoing NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury Contamination Study Area and may also be part
of an approved remediation plan for the Ventron/Velsicol Superfund site. However, there
are no finalized remediation plans to date.
HER II CRITERIA
il-i Pwr Accessibility;
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: Although the area is located in areas where existing
or potential freight rail transportation can serve the Area, direct access is currently
unavailable. This could require the transfer and distribution of goods and materials to be
transported only via truck surface transportation.
n-3 Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area may
result from the any conclusion reached through an approved remediation plan for the
Superfund site rendering complete development of this Area impractical.
TIER HI CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (at) should be retained as a Satellite Area. Consideration of the TIER I
contamination criteria should not preclude-the utilization of this site due to the unsubstantiation
of contamination of the site. In addition, the site is compatible with current zoning and the
dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby completing the development
patterns established in the area. Therefore, this 1.7 acre Area is retained for further EIS
evaluation which will yield 36,808 sq. ft. of space.
178

-------
Satellite Area (aul
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (au) is located in Secaucus and is approximately 4 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by the Hackensack River to the west; the NJT Main rail lines to the south; development
to the north; and Meadowlands Parkway and development to the east. Currently, the site is
vacant land.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development and wetland to the north;
existing industrial development to the east; and wetland to the south and west.
Access to the Area is available from Meadowlands Parkway. There are no existing or proposed
freight rail facilities in proximity to this Area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the City of Jersey City and the Secaucus MUA,
respectively,
B.	Projected Land TIses
Projected for this Area is 79,061 sq. ft, of secondary office/warehouse space.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
1-3 Current Land Development: This site lies between the NJT Bergen and Main commuter
rail lines. A portion of this site will be utilized for the connection of the two rail lines
in conjunction with the proposed Allied Junction/Secaucus Transfer Station project.
Therefore, it is not available for development.
TIER II CRITERIA
ii-i Poor Accessibility;
b).	Proximate Location To Regional Highway System: The Area is not located within
close proximity to the interstate highway system. Available routes to the highway system
would be circuitous and cause delay in delivery and distribution due to lack of such
access.
c).	Lack Qf Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
179

-------
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified
Satellite Area (au) should be eliminated as a Satellite Area. Specifically, the TIER I current land'
development criteria precludes the utilization of this site. Therefore, this 4 acre Area is
eliminated from further EIS evaluation.
Satellite Area (av)
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (av) is located in Carlstadt and is 5.3 acres in size. It is generally bounded by
Berry's Creek to the west; Penhorn Creek to the south; Gotham Parkway to the east; and Grand
Street to the north. Currently, the site is vacant land surrounded by existing development.
Approximately 2.5 acres are considered to be wetland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development and wetland to the west;
existing industrial development to the north and east; and wetland and existing development to
the south. It should be noted that this site is within the NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury
Contamination Study Area.
Access to the Area is available from Grand Street. There are no existing or proposed freight rail
facilities in proximity to this Area. However, the sites' frontage on Grand Street provides access
to other major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the BCUA,
respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
Projected for this Area is 114,563 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
180

-------
TIER 1 CRITERIA
I-1	Severe Land Contamination: It should be noted that this site is located within the
ongoing NJDEP Berry's Creek Mercury Contamination Study Area however, there are
no finalized remediation plans to date.
TIER II CRITERIA
n-1 Pwr Accessibility;
c). Lack Of Available Rail Access: The area is not located where existing or potential
freight rail transportation can serve the Area. This would cause the transfer and
distribution of goods and materials to be transported only via truck surface transportation.
II-3	Engineering/Financial Constraints: Constraints to development in the Satellite Area may
result from any conclusion reached through an approved remediation plan for the
Superfund site rendering complete development of this Area impractical.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier m criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (av) should be retained as a Satellite Area. Consideration of the TIER I
contamination criteria should not preclude the utilization of this site due to the unsubstantiation
of contamination of the site. In addition, the site is compatible with current zoning and the
dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby completing the development
patterns established in the area. Therefore, this 5.3 acre Area is retained as secondary office/
warehouse development for further EIS evaluation which will yield 114,563 sq. ft. of space.
Satellite Area fowl
A. Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (aw) is located in Secaucus and is approximately 18.3 acres in size. It is generally
bounded by Penhom Creek to the east; .the Amtrak Northeast Corridor rail line to the west;
Secaucus Road to the north; and County Road to the south. Currently, the site is unimproved
vacant upland surrounded by existing development. This site includes the 10 acre Secaucus
portion of Area (as) which was transferred to area (aw).
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development and trucking terminals to the
north; trucking terminals and wetland to the south; the NJ Turnpike eastern spur and mixed
181

-------
residential and commercial development to the west; and the US Postal Service Jersey City Bulk
Mail Facility and wetland to the east.
Access to the Area is available from Penhorn Avenue. There are no existing freight rail facilities
in proximity to this Area. However, a proposal for an intermodal rail facility has been made for
adjacent property ( see analysis for area (as)). Also, the site is in close proximity to Secaucus
Road, providing access to other nearby major arterials in the area.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the Secaucus
MUA, respectively.
b. Projected Land Uses
Projected for this Area is 398,574 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space.
C. Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria:
TIER I CRITERIA
I-1 Severe Land Contamination: A portion of this site is contaminated with chromium which
has been stockpiled at one end. However, the exact extent of contamination is unknown.
There is evidence that suggests Penhorn Creek and possibly the surrounding areas may
be affected. There are no finalized remediation plans or proposed studies at this time.
TIER II CRITERIA
No Tier n criteria appear to be present.
TIER III CRITERIA
No Tier III criteria appear to be present.
D. Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (aw) should be retained as a Satellite Area. Consideration of the TIER I
contamination criteria should not preclude the utilization of this entire site due to the unknown
extent of contamination. In addition, the site is compatible with current zoning and the dominant
existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby completing the development patterns
established in the area. Therefore, this 18.3 acre Area is retained for further EIS evaluation
which will yield 398,574 sq. ft. of space.
182

-------
Satellite Area fbb)
A.	Existing Conditions
Satellite Area (bb) is located in North Bergen and is 11.5 acres in size. It is generally bounded
by Bellman's Creek to the west; West Side Avenue to the east and north; and development to
the south. Currently the site is vacant land of which 11.5 acres are considered to be wetland.
Surrounding land uses consist of existing industrial development to the east, south, and north;
and wetland to the west.
Access to the Area is available from West Side Avenue, The West Shore freight line is adjacent
to this Area to the east however* there currently is no direct access to the site.
Water and sewer facilities are available from the Hackensack Water Company and the North
Bergen MUA, respectively.
B.	Projected Land Uses
Projected for this Area is 247,856 sq. ft. of secondary office/warehouse space for this Area.
C.	Planning Analysis
The subject Satellite Area is characterized by the following exclusionary criteria;
TIER I CRITERIA
No Tier I criteria appear to be present.
TIER II CRITERIA
No Tier II criteria appear to be present.
TIER in CRITERIA
No Tier m criteria appear to be present.
D.	Planning Recommendation
Given the existing physical conditions described above and the exclusionary criteria identified,
Satellite Area (bb) should be retained as a Satellite Area. In addition, the site is compatible with
current zoning and the dominant existing industrial development surrounding it, thereby
completing the development patterns established in the area. Therefore, this 11.4 acre Area is
183

-------
C2Q£iU512fl	have a total land area of 449 acres which create
The overall individual ^""te .^dary office/distribution space. The total wetland
£Jte areas encomp^ 244 acres.
utilization o	desienated M satellite areas, the total land area for
Together with the PI™™"*	which wiU yield 1S.1 million sq. ft. of secondary office
STdevelopn^tto^S^w^^j,, ^ ^^^^
X^m«ation of the Meadowlands District.
184

-------
6\15\95
SATELLITE AREAS
EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA
8ATELUTE AREA8 ANALYZED
FOR FURTHER EIS EVALUATION
I
L
p I q
V W
1-1 Contaminated land




X
X

X
X
X








X
7-2 Ownership/Jurisdictional



X



X











I-3 Current Development






X







X
X
X


TIER II
11-1 Poor Accessibility

"a. Hiahwav Capacity





X










X


b Location to Regional System














X




c. Lack of Rail Access
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X
II-2 Lack Of Public Services



















11-3 Enaineerinq/Financial Constraints





X

X
X
X









Tl-4 Insufficient Scale



















"TTi _ 1 Ahsence of Support Services



















11-2 Incompatible Land Uses



















"Hiisolated from Planned Industrial Park



















RECOMMENDATION
pntnin as a Satellite Area

Secondary Office/warehouse
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X



X
X
"Fiiminate from Further EIS Evaluation



X


X







X
X
X


satcrtia.wkl

-------
SATELLITE AREAS ANALYZED
FOR FURTHER EIS EVALUATION
6\15\95		
SATELLITE AREAS
X
y
aa
ab
ac
ah
ai
al
am
an
ao
ap
ar
as
at
au
av
aw
bb
EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA









TIER 1









1-1 Contaminated land

X







X
X
X


X

X
X

I—2 Ownership/Jurisdictional
X






X



X







I—3 Current Development


X



X








X



TIER II










11-1 Poor Accessibility









a. Highway Capacity



















b. Location to Regional System





X









X



c. Lack of Rail Access
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X


II—2 Lack Of Public Services







X
X
X
X
X







II—3 Engineering/Financial Constraints







X
X
X
X
X


X

X


II-4 Insufficient Scale



















TIER III









III-1 Absence of Support Services








X
X

X







III—2 Incompatible Land Uses



















III-3 Isolated from Planned Industrial Park







X
X
X
X
X







RECOMMENDATION
Retain as a Satellite Area

Secondary Office/Warehouse
X
X
X
X
X
X


X



X
X
X

X
X
X
Eliminate from Further EIS Evaluation


X*



X
X

X
X
X



X



* 4 acre portion unable to meet necessary development criteria;
13.2 acres are retained
satcrtia.wkl

-------
V.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE HYBRID PLAN
Thus far, this document has analyzed the five land management alternatives described in the EIS
screening analysis. Within each of the alternatives, individual Planning Areas were assessed to
determine if they met Tier I, II, or III of the exclusionary and limiting planning criteria. These
individual planning areas were then retained as Planning Areas in the Hybrid Plan, relegated to
Satellite Areas to be further assessed for secondary office/warehouse utilization or eliminated
from further consideration for any development.
The Areas that were retained were then reassessed according to the results of the screening
analysis. This portion of the analysis resulted in merging and assembling the individual Planning
Areas into a Hybrid Plan. Table IV-1 indicates the Planning Areas from each of the land
management alternatives that were retained and that are to be incorporated into the Hybrid Plan.
Each of these Planning Areas will then be assessed in the Environmental Impact Statement
evaluation.
Other Planning Areas not retained for primary uses (i.e. office, commercial or residential uses)
were further analyzed as secondary office/warehouse areas.
Finally, some Planning Areas were excluded from any further consideration based on their
identification of Tier I Planning Criteria. These Planning Areas are either contaminated with no
approved remediation program, outside the jurisdiction of the HMDC, owned by public entities,
or were in the process of constructing uses not anticipated by the planning analysis which would
render them unavailable for further review.
In the process of merging the individual Planning Areas, decisions were made concerning the
use of the Areas as they related to other Planning Areas, compatible surrounding land uses, and
to the principals of comprehensive planning. Several Planning Areas were included in more than
one land management alternative and different land use designations were given to them in each
of the land management alternatives. Some degree of reconciliation with the basic planning
criteria was necessary to select the most feasible use in development of the Hybrid Plan. These
decisions, in part, were a function of how the land management alternative is perceived in its
contribution toward achieving a comprehensive plan for the District. The other consideration
concerned how the use selected for the individual Planning Area related to the surrounding uses
and developed environment
Contaminated lands and Superfund sites have been extensively reviewed. Where final
remediation plans are expected within the 20 year planning period, possibly allowing site
development, they have been included in the Hybrid Plan. However, many of the known landfill
sites were eliminated based on costs, logistics and technology constraints that make their reuse
impractical.
One of the long-term goals of the Environmental Improvement Program is to remediate the
orphan landfills in the District. However, the successful remediation of these sites will not
185

-------
result in an increase in the developable land reserve. The remediation of these landfills does not
render the sites clean. In fact, the landfills will continue to produce methane gas and leachate
for the life of the landfills.
The depth of solid waste at the orphan landfills varies between 20 and 120 feet; the area of the
sites vary between 40 and 120 acres. The geology beneath the sites consists of a layer of
meadowmat underlain by sands and silts underlain by a thick layer of impervious varved clay.
The clay is present at depths between 20 and 45 feet. The ground water table at all of these sites
is essentially at the surface. The methodology used to place the solid waste at these sites was
also similar. In the 1950's and 60's as the landfills expanded horizontally into the marshland,
a backhoe would excavate the meadowmat and use it for daily cover for the day's waste, which
was being pushed into the trench. This technique resulted in waste sometimes being placed 15
feet below the elevation of the ground water table.
Once placed, these landfills produced leachate plumes from the infiltrating precipitation, as well
as the lateral movement of the ground water through the waste. In addition to the leachate, the
wastes above the ground water table decompose releasing methane and carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. Finally, as these landfills digest, they experience large differential settlements which
exacerbate ponding and erosion problems on the landfill.
There remains today tens of millions of tons of uncontrolled solid waste in these orphan
landfills. Each year millions of gallons of leachate and millions of cubic feet of gas are released
into the District's ecosystem. It should also be noted that these landfills were filled at a time
when hazardous and solid waste were routinely disposed of together. Many of the orphan
landfills were privately operated and accepted waste from one of the most industrialized areas
in the region. Historically, the waste stream in this area is comprised of fifty (50) percent
industrial and commercial waste. The probability of uncovering hazardous waste during the
excavation of utility trenches or driving piles is very high. The unknown characteristic of the
waste coupled with the enormous volume eliminates total excavation as a method of remediating
the sites.
Therefore, since the threat from these landfills cannot be eliminated, they must be controlled
instead. The best available technology is a two-pronged approach which couples active methane
collection with the creation of a hydraulic liner around the perimeter of the site. The hydraulic
liner is possible due to the unique geologic and hydrogeologic conditions found in the District.
The liner consists of an impervious clay bentonite wall, which is constructed around the
perimeter of the site. The wall extends from the existing surface to the clay layer 20 to 40 feet
below. The bentonite wall is keyed three feet into the clay to insure a water tight seal.
Once completed, the landfill sits inside a bathtub filled with leachate. To prevent the bathtub
from overflowing, a leachate collection pipe is constructed parallel to the inside face of the wall
at a depth several feet below the elevation of the ground water. The leachate is then collected
and sent to a treatment plant. By maintaining the elevation of the leachate below that of the
ground water, gravity will force the ground water into the bathtub. Therefore, the purpose of
186

-------
the impervious wall is not to keep leachate from exiting the site but to keep the ground water
out of the leachate collection system. This hydraulic liner and collection system has been used
successfully in the District since 1985. As long as the leachate level in the pipe remains below
the elevation of the ground water, leachate cannot escape from the site.
Although the landfill is now environmentally secure, it is still unavailable for development.
Driving piles through the waste and the underlying natural clay layer would short circuit the
hydraulic system described earlier. Additionally, driving the hundreds of piles necessary for
development would be tantamount to punching holes in the bottom of a lined landfill. Structures
and utilities must be supported on piles because of the enormous settlement rates experienced
in the District. Although the buildings are supported on piles, the infrastructure supporting the
building is not. This will result in broken utilities, buckled parking lots and a constant battle to
maintain the grade around the building as the landfill settles. Landfills have settled more than
fifty (50) feet in a ten-year period. It is because of these settlements that even park uses jh
as Sky Mound and portions of DeKorte Park had to be put on hold.
It is not a lack of technology in the field of building construction which inhibits development on
landfills. Rather, it is the inability to prevent the decomposition and settlement of the
surrounding landfill that precludes successful development. The financial liabilities associated
with these sites is measured in hundreds of millions of dollars. No private developer would ever
assume these massive liabilities in order to construct a commercial project . Even if a developer
were interested, it is unlikely that a lending institution would ever loan the money for the project
knowing that it might end up with the responsibility for the clean-up and long-term maintenance.
The highest and best use for these landfills is as passive upland habitat. Access to this habitat
will be limited for man, yet our studies to date indicate that wildlife usage will be significant.
This is based upon the fact that very little isolated uplands habitat exists adjacent to large
expanses of wetlands. These landfills, if properly remediated and revegetated, represent an
uplands habitat reserve which will become increasingly rare and for which no real alternative
exists.
Through the exclusionary and limiting criteria, the development of the Hybrid Plan sought to
be sensitive to the environmental character of the District. To this extent, the use of upland and
redevelopment land areas was highly scrutinized in order to maximize their usage. All possible
upland and redevelopment areas suitable for primary land uses were utilized. Several areas met
Tier II criteria and were determined to be unsuitable for primary uses but not necessarily
unsuitable for secondary office/warehouse uses. Those upland and redevelopment areas that were
not considered suitable for primary uses were again analyzed for use as secondary
office/warehouse locations. The principal objective in conducting this rigorous analysis was to
avoid the use of wetlands to the greatest extent possible in meeting the growth and development
needs of the District.
In initially reviewing wetland areas within the District, wetland areas that have received some
level of protection and wetland locations that were considered to be highly valuable to the
187

-------
Meadowlands ecology were not included in the initial selection of wetland areas for
development. Areas such as the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area, Kearny Marsh, and
wetland areas immediately adjacent to the Hackensack River were excluded from screening
analysis review and remained as open space/wetland preservation areas. This narrowed the
availability of wetland locations where the development needs of the District could be
implemented.
Density factors and intensity of individual uses was discussed early in the process. The initial
land management alternatives included densities that were extremely high in some instances, this
being necessary because of the scarcity of available land in the alternatives. Housing densities
of over 100 dwelling units per acre and floor area ratios of 1.0 to 5.0 were utilized in the
Screening Analysis.
In development of the Hybrid Plan, these factors were adjusted to reflect current and historical
development patterns in the District and projected market conditions, with the intent of
increasing the intensity of use to maximize the utilization of upland and minimizing the degree
to which wetlands needed to be displaced. For office intensity, the hybrid floor area ratio of
0.75 was reassessed to determine if planning area intensities could be increased, thereby further
increasing the intensity of this use in upland locations and reducing wetland fill. In some cases
an expanded FAR of 1.0 was utilized.
Housing densities were tiered at 15 units per acre, 20 units per acre and 40 units per acre. The
lower density was determined to be utilized for housing development principally along the
Hackensack River to incorporate open space and recreational requirements relative to the
physical environment in these areas.
Housing densities of 20 units acre were utilized in large scale housing developments in order to
permit housing diversity and appropriate scale within these areas. A greater amount of housing
development was planned at a density of 40 units per acre, the highest density permitted by
HMDC regulation and the most difficult to implement. This was done in order to provide a
housing program that would promote well planned affordable and market based communities
within the District and maximize the use of available land areas, both upland and wetland.
The housing need was also revisited in the hybrid process. Initially, housing need was premised
upon the rehabilitation and construction of low and moderate income housing units outside the
District in Jersey City. Market based residential construction would finance the development of
the affordable housing in conformance with the N.J. Council on Affordable Housing guidelines.
A HMDC study found that potential in-District rehabilitation and new construction of affordable
housing in Jersey City within the District was possible and that this approach would be the basis
for market based units, rather than Out-of-District housing development. It was concluded that
the in-District construction of 450 new dwelling units and 80 rehabilitated units was achievable
in the HMDC portion of Jersey City. This new estimate reduced the total housing need in Jersey
City from 4800 units to 2200 market units in the District. This analysis also resulted in the
development of hybrid area 15 in Jersey City.
188

-------
Similarly, the Satellite Areas analyzed for use as secondary office/warehouse locations were
tested using exclusionary and limiting criteria. The Satellite Areas are derived from two separate
analyses. Planning Areas that were eliminated for commercial and residential uses were
reconsidered in this category. Many of the former Planning Areas are retained for satellite use.
In addition, individual site locations throughout the District were measured against the
exclusionary criteria to determine their acceptance as Satellites. These sites are predominantly
smaller in nature and privately owned parcels which essentially reflect infill development in built
up areas of the District and completion of subdivisions and industrial parks previously approved
by the HMDC.
These Satellite Areas are incorporated into the Hybrid Plan and reflect those needs previously
established in the Needs Document. This plan, which includes both the Planning Areas and
Satellite Areas, will be utilized to determine direct and indirect environmental impacts in the
SAMP Environmental Impact Statement.
The Planning Areas retained for the Hybrid Plan are described below. The total development
potential of these areas generally meet the development objectives and needs of the HMDC as
discussed in the "Needs Assessment Document". Table 1V-1A provides information concerning
the identification of each Hybrid Planning Area and the type and amount of growth assigned to
each of the Areas.
Hybrid Area 1 - Paterson Plank Road/Carlstadt-E. Rutherford
This Planning Area consists of portions of Redevelopment Area A and Upland Growth Area D
and is situated along Paterson Plank Road in Carlstadt and East Rutherford. The Area was
designated in the Screening document for office and commercial use. The commercial use was
retained for use in the Hybrid Plan. This is due to the location of the Planning Area in proximity
to major warehouse/distribution employment centers and the major service roadway bisecting
it (Paterson Plank Road.)
Of the total of 86 original acres in this Planning Area, portions were eliminated because of
contaminated lands with no apparent remediation program and the absence of blight criteria
necessary for redevelopment status. There is also an isolated wetland area of approximately 2.3
acres in size which is impacted in this Planning Area.
In order to maximize the utilization of upland areas, a coverage factor of 50% was projected in
this Planning Area. Therefore, as described in the analysis a total of 40 acres was retained for
development. This results in 871,000 square feet of commercial space being projected for this
Area.
Hybrid Area 2 - Old Mill/ Secaucus
This Planning Area is derived from the Upland Growth Alternative Area F and is situated at the
189

-------
terminus of a local unimproved road along the Hackensack River in inorthern Secaucus. The
Area was designated in the Screening document for residential use. The total land area of seven
is unchanged from the original Screening analysis. In order to ma*m.K the usage of
S»d a density of 15 dwelling units per acre is projected for th.s Area^ Therefore, 105
reSSniBte planned for this Planning Area. No wetlands are impacted by th.s Area.
Hybrid Art? 3 " C^fktadt North/CarlStaflt
T1(. nnincr a rea is derived from the Dispersed Development Area A and Growth Center Area
I W^t It is l^ated at the eastern end of Empire Boulevard west of the New Jersey Turnpike
A West. It is loca ^ designated in the Screening document for residential use. The
western spur	Area A called for the utilization of 220 acres of land for 7,700 housing
Growth Center PI A bridization pr0cess, this acreage was reduced to 166 acres. This was
accomplished^wough implementation of HMDC's open space criteria, through the maximization
housing density within portions of the project of 40 dwell,ng umts per acre and through a
reduction in total housing need.
, o1W(,H a reduction in acreage to 166 acres to 5,240 housing units. Of the
^Tac^TS acres are planned at a residential density of 40 units per acre and 70 acres are
total acreage w	^ ^ for a diversity of housulg types and densities which
^o^ tent with^resent HMDC zoning regulations and maximize the density of housing
whereverpossible. This approach also minimizes the total wetland area disturbed.
Hybrid An-jj 4 - rarlscylt ^nyrarlstadt
TOs Planning Area is derived from merging the Growth Center Area A west, Dispersed
rT i™™™. A«a B and Highway Corridor Area A. It is located on the north side of Paterson
S Zd us west of the New Jersey Turnpike western spur. Und uses identified in the
I	included office, residential and commercial uses which are maintained in
SbridMan The total area of this Planning Area was originally 154 acres of wetland and
the Hybnd ylan- onnrnximatelv 3 million square feet of office space and approximately 1.3
isr^e5r0?^	^ fl°°r »»ratios °f 075 for "»
mdlion	° commerciai USe are consistent with HMDC zoning regulations and current
^velo^CTt ex^rienw;^ the District. However, the commercial FAR was increased to 1.0
which permitted wetland fill reduction of 30 acres.
rTn.. . th(, nlannine of multiple office and commercial land uses, in this case, which
™ t op^rtSy o minimize the displacement of wetland areas. THe office
provided the opponuauy	oarkine area thus reducing the total amount of parking
commercial facilities	parking« arrangement cannot be accomplished in areas where
required for the site. s™r P 8	significantly more impervious area for
P&Te SXr approach. Thwefore, S» land area utilized in Hybrid area 4
totals 124 acres.
190

-------
Hybrid Area 5 - Paterson Plank Road East/Carlstadt
This Planning Area is derived from the Growth Center Planning Areas A East, Dispersed
Development Area C, Upland Growth Area C and Highway Corridor Area B. It is located both
North and South of Paterson Plank Road just east of the New Jersey Turnpike western spur and
west of the Hackensaek River. Land Uses designated in the Screening document for this area
included residential uses which are retained in the Hybrid Plan. The total area of this Planning
Area is 31 acres of which 15 areas are classified as wetland. Only 10 wetland acres are included
for development due to the housing need adjustment. This Planning Area actually consists of
several marinas, a restaurant (currently closed), a golf driving range, open vacant upland and
15 acres of wetland.
The Planning Area is projected to support 715 residential units. Of the total acreage, 10 acres
is planned at a residential density of 40 units per acre and 21 acres is planned at 15 units per
acre in order to allow for a diversity of housing types and densities and to reflect waterfront
development sensitivity along the Hackensaek River which requires more open space and public
areas. This is also consistent with present HMDC existing land use and development trends
providing for a maximum housing density of 15 units per acre along the waterfront. The
residential development in wetland areas is planned at 40 units per acre to maximize the density
of housing and avoid additional wetland fill.
Hybrid Area 6 - New Jersey Sports Authority/East Rutherford
This Planning Area is derived from the Upland Growth Area B and the Highway Corridor Area
C. It is located on the south side of Paterson Plank Road between the New Jersey Turnpike
western spur and Route 120 and is the site of the Brendan Byrne Arena. Because of the existing
development on the site, 12 acres of upland were calculated to be available for development
purposes. This acreage was determined to be available from extensive discussions with the New
Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority. This area was designated in the Screening document for
office development. The screening analysis projected an FAR of 0.75. The hybrid plan
anticipates a FAR of 1.0 for this site which would yield 522,720 square feet of office space. A
13 acre wetland parcel on the Arena property is not utilized for development purposes in this
plan.
Hybrid Area 7 - Kinqsland North/East Rutherford
This Planning Area is derived from the Growth Center Area C, Dispersed Development Areas
D and E, Highway Corridor Areas E, F and G and Upland Growth Area J. It is located on the
south side of Route 3 north of the New Jersey Transit Bergen Line. Land uses identified in the
Screening document included office, residential and commercial uses. The discussion in the
Hybrid Analysis documentation suggests that residential uses may not be appropriate considering
the location^ criteria for non-residential uses.
Therefore, this Planning Area has been designated for office land uses in the Hybrid Plan. The
191

-------
• Atea is 115 acres of	s^Tfltr
total area of this "^'"o support approximate)ly 3.1s^nt with HMDC zoning regulations
Planning Areas allow 6	,h th, exception of a small area adjacent to Route
• .rea is dominated by «elland w'th ' Berge!1 Line Rail. The identification of 115
This Planning Area	^ area south of the a g .:rements for growth and open space
3 at the northern mosi ^ results from fulfilling ni ^ significant portion of wetland area
acr« of'la™>' f^iremenU and FAR tocr^sj2ning analysis will remain as wetland in the
of wetland in this ptem,ng Area'
Hyhrid-AlgaJ^-^-^-	c piSpersed Development Area
• Area is derived from the Growth ^	so'uth of the New Jersey Transit
This Planning A ,d Area G alternatives. -d tified in the alternatives included both
E, and Highway C°™d°W* Creek. ^	both office and resident
Bergen Une and ^ ^ in this Area. The	^ originally designated in the Hybrid
officeand reside	te for ^ Planning A ^ ^ difficult t0 locate because of the
uses *°u^ePP	within the DlstrJC. t oment patterns of infrastructure and utility
Plan. Resl^non„residential uses and hist0^dwas determined to be suitable for residential
^	above uses in the general vicinity of the
development	isolated location.
site and gener y	4Q acres of wetland and is protected to support
t . area of the Planning Area consUt	^ the use of approximately 70 to 90 acres
T^ ^tial units. The Screening analys, *M However> due t0 the reduction in housing
1,16 fwhich was subsequently reduced b eliminated from the hybrid plan. A reduction of
:irdi-SSve,	t£rid area is not proposed for development.
2600 total units was necessary,
Corridor Area D alternative. It is located on
. „ a rea is derived from the _g J . an(J north 0f Route 3. office use was
This pl!"m'n®, t service road just west of W	the total land area is 15 acres
«* *°tl forand is ^»£ ?£o{ office space. This Planning Analysis
destgnated	^ support 653,400 sq o{ wefland located between buildings on the site.
WU^y included the displKement oH ^ ^ enabled elimination of all wetland in this
However, a FAR increase
Planning Area.	rmined that the current use would be displaced during
Although the site is developed, it was ee
1Q2

-------
the 20 year planning period. This site was not determined to be eligible for redevelopment since
it does not exhibit blight conditions, however, it is projected that market conditions will support
the conversion to office. The use of this site as a Planning Area also supports the efforts to
minimize the use of wetland areas for the implementation of the HMDC's growth and
development needs.
Hybrid Area 10 - Mill Creek/Secaucus
This Planning Area is derived from the Growth Center Area B west, Dispersed Development
Area F west, and Highway Corridor Area J Alternatives. It is located north of Route 3 and to
the west of the New Jersey Turnpike eastern spur. Land uses designated for this area included
residential and office uses which are affirmed in the Hybrid Plan. The total land area is 75
acres, of which 65 acres are considered wetland. The 10 acres of upland is located within the
Mill Creek development and currently has temporary uses. It is projected that approximately
435,000 square feet of office space can be accommodated in this Area at an increased FAR of
1.0. The balance of the Planning Area consists of wetland area north of the Mill Creek
development also known as IR-2. A total of 97 acres of development was originally proposed
for this area. The Hybrid Plan has reduced the land area utilized to 65 acres which will support
2,015 residential units at 31 units per acre.
Upland areas were maximized by using the 10 acres of upland within the Mill Creek
development which have been marginally developed. However, HMDC determined that these
use could be displaced by uses consistent with the surrounding office and commercial
development. In addition, the use of wetland areas is minimized as reflected by the permit
deliberations for IR-2 with the Federal agencies. These discussions have resulted in the proposed
wetland fill on this site being reduced from 97 acres to 65 acres. The total residential units in
the permit discussions have been used and the housing density adjusted appropriately to 31 units
per acre. This is consistent with HMDC's requirement for development of this area between 15
and 40 dwelling units per acre.
Hybrid Area 11 - Harmon Meadow/Secaucus
This Planning Area is derived from the Growth Center Area B east, Dispersed Development
Area F east, Upland Growth Area G and Highway Corridor Area K Alternatives. It is located
north of Route 3 and to the east of the New Jersey Turnpike eastern spur. Land uses designated
for this area included office, residential and commercial uses. Two distinct subareas comprise
the Planning Area. One area is located adjacent to the New Jersey Turnpike eastern spur and
is 30 acres in size. This area has for the most part been recommended for office development
and is affirmed as such in the Hybrid Plan. A total of 980,000 square feet of space is supported
by this subarea.
The other area is located along the east side of the existing Harmon Meadow office park and just
to the west of West Side Avenue in North Bergen. This Area has been proposed for office,
commercial and residential uses in various alternatives. An analysis of this Area concluded that
193

-------
residential uses should not be further considered and that non-residential uses would be most
appropriate because of the dominance of non-residential uses on the adjacent site and industrial
development to the east. This subarea has been projected to support approximately 435,000
square feet of commercial space and 980,000 square feet of office area.
The intensity of use in the Planning Area also supports the objective of maximizing the
utilization of upland areas. As discussed above the projection of 0.75 FAR for office
development and 0.50 for commercial development is higher than development trends in the
District.
Hybrid Area 12 - Special Use Area 2/North Bergen
This Planning Area is derived from the Highway Corridor Area O alternative. It is located south
of Route 1-495, west of the Northeast Corridor Rail Line and east of the New Jersey Turnpike
eastern spur. The land use identified for this Area is office which is maintained in the Hybrid
Plan. The total area of this Planning Area is 50 acres of wetland and is projected to support
approximately 1.6 million square feet of office space. The acreage of this Area was reduced
from the Screening document because of public land ownership and open space requirements in
conformity with HMDC zoning regulations. The floor area ratio of Q.75 is consistent with
HMDC zoning regulations and higher than current development experience in the District.
The reduction of the wetland acreage in this Planning Area is a result of maximizing the use of
upland locations outside this Planning Area and an attempt to utilize only the degree of wetland
necessary to achieve the developmental needs of the District. The reduction of this Planning
Area from 92 acres to 50 acres directly reflects this effort. Utilizing the Floor Area Ratio of
0.75 also supports the objective of developing within the District at the highest practicable
densities.
Hybrid Area 13 - Secaucus Transfer/Secaucus
This Planning Area is derived from the Redevelopment Area H, Dispersed Development Area
L and the Growth Center Area D alternatives. It is located south of County Road and east of
New County Road. The Planning Area also includes the intersecting rail lines from Northeast
Corridor, New Jersey Transit Main Line and Bergen Line. Office use was designated for the
Area and is affirmed in the Hybrid Plan. A total land area of 53 acres includes 20 acres within
the intersection of the rail lines and 33 acres of surrounding land area within proximity to the
rail facilities. Of the total land area, 9.1 acres is considered to be wetland. The wetland area is
within the property encompassing the intersection of the rail lines. A total of approximately 5.8
million square feet of office space is proposed for this Area. Within the immediate area of the
rail lines, a floor area ratio of 5.4 was utilized to reflect the special locational and land use
advantages of this site. In the balance of the Planning Area a more conventional, but still
increased 0.75 FAR was utilized.
The development of the 33 acres of surrounding land will be accomplished as a result of
194

-------
redevelopment of this area. This is upland area and to a large extent, development will be
created through private efforts related to the construction of the rail station in this Area.
Utilizing the FAR of 0.75 was determined to be reasonable and the maximum FAR possible
based on the potential impact of the overall development in this Area to the road and
infrastructure systems. It was determined that use of a higher FAR would result in unacceptable
impacts to these facilities. In addition, the development of Hybrid Area 14 will also impact these
same facilities supporting the concern that the infrastructure would be overtaxed by an increased
FAR.
Hybrid Area 14 - Laurel Hill/Secaucus
This Planning Area is derived from the Upland Growth Area O, Dispersed Development Area
H and the Growth Center Area D alternatives. It is located at the southern terminus of New
County Road just west of the New Jersey Turnpike eastern spur and along the east side of the
Hackensack River. Residential uses were designated for this Area and are affirmed in the Hybrid
Plan. A total land area of 152 acres is projected to support 5405 residential units. The housing
density is established by utilizing densities consistent with HMDC zoning and design regulations.
There are no wetlands proposed to be utilized in the Planning Area.
This Planning Area was reduced in size from the Screening Analysis from 169 acres to 152
acres. The difference in the acreage results from an analysis of the rock outcrop area and
extremely steep slopes on the geologic formation known as Snake Hill. The graduated housing
densities projected in this Area result from HMDC's regulations and planning objectives of
housing diversity and scale of development, particularly along the Hackensack River. Directly
adjacent to the River, housing would be planned at 15 dwelling units per acre. Further from the
River an increased density of 20 units per acre would be planned. The higher density of 40 units
per acre would be reserved for the balance of the site and for the majority of the Planning Area.
This allows the maximum use of this upland area and also permits a sensitivity to the planning
and visual objectives to be maintained.
Hybrid Area 15 - St. Pauls AveAJersev Citv
This built up area of Jersey City, within the District, had initially been included in the screening
analysis as a portion of Redevelopment Land Management Area J. Existing housing in this area
was planned to be removed and was consistent with the current zoning plan for the District.
During the hybrid analysis, additional analyses and field investigations indicated that this housing
should be retained and that additional infill housing would be possible within this neighborhood.
It was determined that approximately 80 existing dwelling units were present which could qualify
for rehabilitation status. Between these smaller neighborhoods, an additional 440 new infill low
and moderate income or affordable units could be realized at a density of 40 units per acre.
Therefore, a total of approximately 11 acres are available for meeting the total District housing
need, which would equate to 440 new residential units. There is no wetland area within this
195

-------
Planning Area.
Conclusion
The hybrid plan has a total of 15 hybrid planning areas. The total land acreage consumed by the
planing areas totals 931 acres of which 498.S acres are considered to be wetlands. The hybrid
land use projections based on this acreage now equates to 17.7 million sq. ft. of office space,
2.7 million sq. ft. of commercial space and 13,920 residential units, litis Plan reflects the
documented needs requirements for the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission.
The hybrid plan will be used in the environmental impact statement analysis to determine the
impacts of this development scenario on the Meadowlands area.
196

-------
PLANNING AREAS
All*
HYBRID 1
HYBRID 2
HYBRID a
HYBRID 4
HYBRID S
HYMBPa
HYBRID 7
HYBRID ¦
HYBRID «
HYBRID 10
HYBRID 11
HYBRID 12
HYBRID 13
hvm'P i*
HYBRID IB
Location
Cari«/E. ffath r
A era apa FAB/
Danaitv •
Sacucm P
g- Ifcith
E. Ifcith.
ttotwrtart
E. Ruth
Sacaucua
Saeaucm
c
44 0 1
OMl
Offica
(aq. ft->
Cammareial Raiidantial Watiand
M
(aq. ft.l tdwMng unto) (acraa>
171.300 I
I
7.0 !
16^01
I
I
106
1131
t.OO | 123,7201
1 11S.0I
0.75 1 3.7»T0«01
0.0 I
40.001
I
| 18.0 1 1.001 e»3,4O0T

Cart*tadt
96.0
40.00


3.840
98.0

70.0
20.00


1.400
70.0

92.0
0.76
3.006.840

-•
97.8

32.0
1.00

1,393.920

32.0
Carti/E. Ruth
14.0
16.00


210
6.0

10.0
40.00


400
10.0
7.0
16.00


106

an
01 001
"ool
10.0
1.00
436,900



89.0
31.00


2.016
98.1
30.0
0.78
990.100



20.0
0.60

439.800


30.0
0.79
990,100



Worth Baton
60.0 1 0.75 I 1,633,5001 I 1 49.7 |
SaCaUa"
20.0
9.40
4,704.490


9.1
33.0
0.76
1.079.110



19.0
16.00


229

19.0
20.00


300

122.0
40.00


4,990

JfMVdlY I 11.0 1 *0.00 1	I	I	440|	|
PLANNING AREA SUBTOTAL
931.0
AC.
17.790.700 1 2.700.7201 13.920
499.6
SATELLITE AREA SUBTOTAL
797.9
AC.
Saa tibia 4-21
291.3
PLANNING AND SATELLITE TOTAL
1899.9
AC.

749.9
* FAR " Floor Art* Ratio for offlea A commercial uw. Density la In dwaWng units par acra for rasMantial uaa.

-------
SATELLITE AREAS

•
b
e
¦
I
h
I
I
k
•
P
4
v
w
X
1
MuniriPrtiw
umt/EHlff
MOOWACHIt
CAKtSTAPT
CABL5TAQT
CAJI1STACT
CAHLSTAOT
UmUSBEOBB
tBUTHWflaO
CAIMTAOT
«•*¦» «T*"T
CAWt«TAflT
CAWLTTABT
N. KHQtW
e.WtWttBBBO
LVWDHUMT
LVMPHUWT
wwwm
HJEBOtH
MfBOtM
StTAimiS
KEAWMV
ttOOHACMt
JBOEY.tm
CAIMTAOI
CABL8TAQI
sgrAuruy
Propoaad
for
Projected
Facility Siia
Wetland
Fid
Development
(aciatl
0.5 FAR
IM. ft )

3.0
>3.340
0.0

2.0
43.530
0.0

1.7
2U.2M
0.0

12.4
270.072
0.0

13.0
2B3.140
7.1

10.2
222.1M
7.>

30.il
>70,>24
0.0

4».1
1.0W.3M
37.3

12.1
2S3.&3S
3.)

1.7
37.QM
0.0

10.2
222.1M
>.8

3.1
>7.S1)
1.3

30.3
8(3,334
23.3

3*.7
M4.MC
3S.0

4t.2
1.008.2M1
35.3

4.0
>7.120
0.0

13.2
2>7.4M
>.s

7.8
133.330
0.0

4.4
38,>32
2.*

>.1
17>,41>
0.0

50
108,300
0.0

14.3
324.822
0.0

31.5
392.040
>4.4

1.7
37.02)
0.0

>.J
115.434
2.1

1».j
3M.B74
O.C

11.1
230.47C
11.1

•UfTOTAi
L
M—jmi

ABCA
n
•
i
aa/af
•o
•I
ak
aq
¦¥
U
ba
PLANNING AREAS RETAMGD AS SATEUiTE AREAS
MuniciMlitv
etwartfrf
(upland am N)
u
(upland am* A|
LYMiMUwrr
(upland area HI
MJEflOOl
(upland «M U
KCAUCUi
fi^and ana K)
SWttCC
(upland am P>
rt^iujy
UlOVVVQ^mini |)
jgMijvenv
(ndaalQ^fliifll 4
afCAticm
(radamalapniia £)
StC/W.KWflfM
(ndanatopnm* p)
SECAUCUS
(radt»nlopm«n< 0)
3U»TOTAL
SATIUJTE ABEA SU1T0TAL
PONNtNO AREA SOSTOTAt
plANNINQ ANO 5ATILUTI TOTAL
PropoMd
for
D«vak>pmant
tattaal
Projected
FacSty Sin
0.5 FAR
c
10.01
(eg. ft.)
:»ie
"»*r
•Ml
3>.#J
27.1 1
31.3]
30.H
JOJ
30.JJ
ImT
303.0 I
217,M0j
WatStnd
f»
laoaal
MIW 1
~63.01* 1
1.324.224 I
734,370'
S30.233 I
703. *>*1
>70.324 I
>3,340 |
W.Wll
374.3321
>.730.0201
1 f*prwant» the
		 of ^ W«H»odt. »* «ae»V "*	war^ouM .«c
0 01
0.01
o.ol
0.0)
0.01
051
Tol
ool
"o.ol
"on
To]
1 787 ¦' 1
13.124.0321 ~
281.1
!il-

438.80
t 1M>.> 1
I	
743.80

-------
TABLE IV-1
ORIGIN OF HYBRID PLANNING AREAS
lixhtiLhisaJl-
HxbiisLAtsaJ -
HuliriiAisaJ-
B^uidLAisa-S -
HjjjrisLAi^i -
gjdzrid-AisaJ-
ftrea 10 ~
HidyasLAnall-
Hybrid Area 12 ¦
Hyfrrid ^rea 13"
HybfllArea 14 -
^vbrid^isaJi -
Redevelopment area "A* / Upland Growth area "D"
Upland Growth area "F"
Growth Centers area "A (west)" / Dispersed Development Areas area "A"
Growth Centers area "A (west)" / Dispersed Development Areas area
"B7 Highway Corridors area "A"
Upland Growth area "C" / Growth Centers area "A (east)" / Dispersed
Development Areas area "C" / Highway Corridors area "B"
Upland Growth area "B" / Highway Corridors area "C"
Upland Growth area "J" / Growth Centers area "C7 Dispersed
Development Areas areas "D", "E" / Highway Corridors areas "E","F",
"G"
Highway Corridors area "D"
Growth Centers area "B (west)" I Dispersed Development Areas area F
(west)" / Highway Corridors area "J"
Upland Growth areas "G" / Growth Centers area "B (east)" / Dispersed
Development Areas area "F (east)"/ Highway Corridors areas "K
(north)", "K (east)"
Dispersed Development Areas area "Gn / Highway Corridors area "O"
Redevelopment area "H" / Growth Center area "D" / Dispersed
Development Areas area "L"
Upland Growth area "O" / Growth Center area *D" / Dispersed
Development Areas area "H"
Redevelopment area-"J"
197

-------
Appendix
M

-------
APPENDIX M
INDICATOR VALUE ASSESSMENT METHOD FIELD TESTING STUDY REPORT
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SAMP/EIS
Appendix Prepared by:
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
FEBRUARY 1995

-------
PROJECT REPORT
INDICATOR VALUE ASSESSMENT METHOD
FIELD TESTING STUDY
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT, NEW JERSEY
Camp Dresser & McKee
Edison, NJ
February 1995
"DRAFT**

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
CONTENTS
List of Figures	iv
List of Tables	 v
1.0 Project Background	 1
1.1	Project Setting 			1
1.2	Memorandum of Understanding		2
1.3	Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs)		2
1.4	EPA/USACE Memorandum of Agreement		3
1.5	Indicator Value Assessment Method Field Testing Study		3
2.0 Objectives 	 5
2.1	Study Objectives	 5
2.2	Data Quality Objectives	 6
3.0 Study Area Description 	 7
3.1	Site 1 (AVID Assessment Area 2-V)	 7
3.2	Site 2 (AVID Assessment Area 2-T)	 8
3.3	Site 3 (AVID Assessment Area 201) 	 8
3.4	Site 4 (AVID Assessment Area 2-M) 	 9
3.5	Site 5 (AVID Assessment Area 39) 	 10
3.6	Reference Site R1 (Hartz Mitigation Site,
AVID Assessment Area 301)	 10
3.7	Reference Site R2 (Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area,
AVID Assessment Area 2-8) 	 11
4.0 Data Collection Methods and Materials	 12
4.1	Wetland Evaluation	 12
4.2	Fish Sampling 	 13
4.2.1	Seines		 13
4.2.2	Fish Traps	 13
4.3	Bird Surveys	 13
4.3.1	Visual Avifauna Survey	 13
4.3.2	Circular-plot Songbird Counts	 13
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
5.0 Results and Discussion		15
5.1	Wetland Evaluation Results		15
5.1.1	Evaluation Methods		15
5.1.2	Differences Among Field Responses			17
5.1.3	Field Responses Different from AVID 		28
5.1.4	Differences Among Subsamples		39
5.2	Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) Results		43
5.2.1	Site 1 			43
5.2.2	Site 2 		45
5.2.3	Site 3 		48
5.2.4	Site 4 		50
5.2.5	Site5 		52
5.2.6	Reference Site R1 				55
5.2.7	Reference Site R2		56
5.2.8	Comparison of BPJ to AVID Baseline IVA Scores 		57
5.3	IVA Results and Comparisons			57
5.3.1	Wildlife Habitat (WH) Attribute		59
5.3.2	Water Quality Improvement (WQ) Attribute 		63
5.3.3	Social Significance (SS) Attribute 			68
5.4	Bird Survey Results 				70
5.4.1	Site 1 				70
5.4.2	Site 2 		71
5.4.3	Site 3 		71
5.4.4	Site 4 		71
5.4.5	SiteS 		72
5.4.6	Reference Site R1 		72
5.4.7	Reference Site R2		72
5.5	Fish Survey Results 		72
5.5.1	Site 1 		72
5.5.2	Site 2 		72
5.5.3	Site 3 				73
5.5.4	Site 4 		73
5.5.5	Site 5 		73
COM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995	H

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations	 74
6.1	Differences Between Current Data and AVID Data		74
6.2	Variability Among Individual Evaluators 		74
6.3	Geographic Variability		75
6.4	Verification of IVA Method Using Best Professional Judgement ....	75
6.5	Additional Habitat Quality Data 		76
Attachment 1	Resumes for Field Team Members
Attachment 2	QA/QC Plan for IVA Field Study
Attachment 3	Wetland Evaluation Form
Attachment 4	Daily Bird List Form
Attachment 5	Circular Plot - Bird Density Measurement Form
Attachment 6	Linear Regression Statistics
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28,
1995
ill

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Figure	Page
Figure 1 Study Area Locations 	 7
Figure 2 Differences Among Field Responses	 17
Figure 3 Field Responses Different from AVID			 28
Figure 4 Differences Among Subsamples 	 39
Figure 5 BP J Values vs. AVID Baseline IVA Scores;
Wildlife Habitat Attribute 		 57
Figure 6 BPJ Values vs. AVID Baseline IVA Scores;
Water Quality Improvement Attribute 	 57
Figure 7 BPJ Values vs. AVID Baseline IVA Scores;
Social Significance Attribute	 57
Figure 8 Field IVA Scores vs. AVID Baseline IVA Scores;
Witdlife Habitat Attribute 			 62
Figure 9 Field IVA Scores vs. Average BPJ Values;
Wildlife Habitat Attribute 			 ^ 		 62
Figure 10 Field IVA Scores vs. AVID Baseline IVA Scores;
Water Quality Improvement Attribute 	 66
Figure 11 Field IVA Scores vs. Average BPJ Values;
Water Quality Improvement Attribute 		 66
Figure 12 Field IVA Scores vs. AVID Baseline IVA Scores;
Social Significance Attribute	 69
Figure 13 Field IVA Scores vs. Average BPJ Values;
Social Significance Attribute	 69
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995	iv

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
LIST OF TABLES
Following
Table			Page
Table 1 BPJ Values and IVA Scores 	 43
Table 2 Bird Species Identified 	 70
Table 3 Bird Densities	 71
CDM Camp Dresser Si McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
v

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The wetland field investigation was conducted in support of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the development and implementation of a Special Area
Management Plan (SAMP) for the Hackensack Meadowlands District. The SAMP will
be a comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection and reasonable
economic growth in the District. The purpose of the EIS is to determine the
environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the SAMP. The purpose of
this study is to collect field data, specifically regarding wetland indicators and
functions, to support the environmental impact measurement methods used in the
EIS, as well as implementation mechanisms to be used in the SAMP.
Implementation of the SAMP is expected to result in changes to regulatory processes
for fill and construction activities under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These regulations are administered by
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as the permitting authority and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the Section 404 oversight agency. Some of
the regulatory changes being considered include: general permits (under Section
404(e) of the CWA), abbreviated permit processes, and establishment of permanent
prohibitions on activities in certain wetland areas. These products would increase
predictability in acquiring federal permits, reduce burdens upon developers and
regulators, and restrict development or ensure proper mitigation measures in
important wetland areas.
Given the nature of the action, the EIS has been prepared using a programmatic
format. As such, it addresses regional issues, and the analysis is conducted at a
regional scale. The function of the EIS for the SAMP is to identify management plan
alternatives, assess the potential environmental, social, and economic consequences of
each alternative, and identify the preferred alternative.
1.1 PROJECT SETTING
The Hackensack Meadowlands District (District) is located less than five miles west of
Manhattan, in Bergen and Hudson Counties. The Meadowlands District contains
approximately 8,000 acres of wetlands, and 12,000 acres of upland. Most of the
upland areas are developed, and host primarily industrial, institutional, and
commercial land uses.
The District includes portions of 14 municipalities in Bergen and Hudson Counties,
New Jersey. Within the District, HMDC is responsible for land use planning, zoning
decisions, issuance of building permits, regional solid waste management, and
protection of the environment. Remaining undeveloped areas within the District are
primarily wetlands, and these areas are under intense developmental pressure.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
1

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
The wetlands system which exists in the Meadowlands District today has evolved in
response to hydrologic alterations over time. The construction of the Oradell dam
across the Hackensack River (north of the District) in 1922 impeded fresh water flow,
and promoted salt water intrusion. By the mid-1920's common reed (Phragmites
australis) dominated the remaining marshes once covered by Atlantic white cedar (US
EPA, 1989).
In 1969, the 32-square mile Meadowlands region laid substantially abused and under-
utilized. The development and ecological preservation potential of this area was
visibly and regularly undermined. The result was a rapid quantitative and qualitative
erosion of some of the most significant tidal wetlands in the Metropolitan region.
At present, HMDC is preparing to revise its Master Plan and the regulations through
which it controls the use of land in the District. Revisions to the Plan must seek to
resolve a number of policy issues, the most important of which is identifying the
proper balance among the goals of economic development, wetland preservation, and
solid waste disposal in the public interest.
1.2	MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
In recognition of the environmental and economic needs of the District, and the need
for additional coordination of regional planning and regulatory process, EPA and
USACE entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on September 14, 1988
with HMDC, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that calls for the
preparation and implementation of a SAMP for the District. The SAMP facilitates
compliance of future development activities with applicable environmental statues
and regulations. In particular, certain regulatory presumptions for future activities,
including those identified in the MOU, result from the SAMP and will be used by the
EPA and USACE in administering their authorities pursuant to Section 404 of the
CWA. As noted previously, the SAMP is invaluable to the HMDC's ongoing effort to
revise its Master Plan.
1.3	SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS (SAMPs)
The Hackensack Meadowlands District is located within New Jersey's Coastal Zone.
The 1980 Amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act define a Special Area
Management Plan as a "comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection
and reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth containing a detailed and
comprehensive statement of policies, standards and criteria to guide public and
private uses of lands and waters; and mechanisms for timely implementation in
specific geographical areas within the coastal zone". The USACE provides additional
detail and guidance regarding the development of SAMPs in Regulatory Guidance
Letter (RGL) No. 92-03, issued August 19, 1992. (RGL 92-03 extended RGL 86-10,
originally issued October 2, 1986.)
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
2

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
A SAMP also establishes an area-wide basis for regulatory actions, founded on an
understanding of the cumulative effects of changes in the environment. A SAMP can
conclude with definitive regulatory products that include streamlined permit
processing procedures and Section (404)c restrictions for undesirable activities.
All the factors that motivate preparation of a Special Area Management Plans are
present for the Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP: the extensive wetlands in the
District are under significant development pressure; a regional planning agency
(HMDC) is present to coordinate the local needs elements and to help implement the
plan; the SAMP/EIS includes a full public participation process; and the SAMP/EIS
Memorandum of Understanding commits all participants to implementing regulatory
enhancements. Furthermore/ the Advanced Identification (AVID) of wetlands
(conducted by USACE and EPA, in concert with NOAA, USFWS, NJDEP and HMDC,
between 1986 and 1991), has been integrated into the SAMP and the EIS. The data
collected during the AVID study has been invaluable in the evaluation of potential
impacts to wetlands, as well as potential gains to the quality of the wetland ecosystem
through enhancement of existing wetlands.
1.4	EPA/USACE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
The EPA and USACE signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in February 1990
that provides clarification and general guidance regarding the level of mitigation
necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines. To achieve this goal the MOA interprets and provides guidance and
procedures for the USACE and EPA in implementing existing Section 404 regulations.
The MOA is significant in that it mandates a sequential review for most project
evaluations, starting with avoidance of impacts, minimization of impacts, and finally
the requirement that compensatory mitigation be provided for unavoidable impacts.
The MOA also recognizes that mitigation consistent with an EPA- and USACE-
approved comprehensive plan, such as a SAMP, is considered to satisfy the
avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation requirements. The overall
goal of the MOA is to achieve no net loss of wetland values in the United States.
1.5	INDICATOR VALUE ASSESSMENT METHOD FIELD TESTING STUDY
In support of the EIS, a method has been developed, based on previous work
conducted in the District (the AVID conducted by EPA between 1986 and 1991),
which computes a relative score for wetlands in the District for three wetland
attributes: water quality improvement, wildlife habitat, and social significance. This
method, termed the indicator value assessment (IVA) method, is based on assigning
importance to specific indicators of wetland quality, and calculating a "score" for each
wetland based on the indicators present in that wetland. The IVA method, while
based on professional judgement, provides a mechanism to systematize that
professional judgement, along with empirical data, into an estimate of the relative
value of a wetland. The IVA method is used in the EIS to determine the existing
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
3

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
condition of wetlands in the District, to assess direct and indirect wetland impacts
from development, and to determine appropriate mitigation actions to ensure no net
loss of wetlands value.
This study consists of field testing that was conducted to gain additional information
on selected representative wetland areas that may potentially be impacted under
HMDC's hybrid development plan (the "preferred alternative" for the EIS). Wetlands
with less than 15 acres of direct fill, but more than 5 acres, were targeted, because
larger sites typically have more complicated ecosystems. One major purpose is to
compare the "value" obtained for these areas using the IVA against the field team's
best professional judgement (BPJ) of wetland quality. This comparison is being done
to assess the differences between the two methods of estimating existing conditions:
using the IVA method and using best professional judgement.
Because wetland areas might be permanently lost due to development, this
assessment will help to determine if the value predicted to be lost (by using the IVA
to assess impacts) agrees with best professional judgement of the wetland quality.
The information on the quality of wetlands impacted will ultimately aid in selecting
appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures to assure no net loss of wetland
values in the District.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
4

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
2.0 OBJECTIVES
2.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES
This study has five basic objectives. These objectives are discussed below.
¦	Collect data on habitat quality in more accurate, site-specific detail to support the
issuance of a general permit (GP). A GP may be issued as part of the SAMP
for fill activities of less than 15 acres that are consistent with the SAMP.
Because larger sites typically have more complex ecosystems/ this study
targeted SAMP Preferred Alternative development sites with between 5
and 15 acres of fill proposed in wetlands.
¦	Use best professional judgement (BPJ) assessments of wetland quality to verify use
of the indicator value assessment (IVA) method to relatively score wetland
impacts. The IVA method computes the "score" of a wetland for three
important wetland attributes—water quality improvement (WQ), wildlife
habitat (WH), and social significance (SS)—on a scale of 0 to 100, based on
a semi-quantitative ranking of the importance of many wetland indicators.
While the "baseline" IVA scores obtained to date agree with professional
judgements of overall distributions of wetland quality in the District,
additional testing of the method needed to be performed to gauge the
effectiveness of the method at site-specific levels.
¦	Collect data to provide a quality control check on the WET/AVID field data
collected in 1986. The measure of existing wetland value and impacts to
existing wetlands are based on data collected during the AVID (Advanced
Identification of Wetlands). These data were collected in the form of
answers to a questionnaire, which was based on the contemporaneous
WET (Wetland Evaluation Technique) questionnaire. One objective of this
study is to review whether any differences exist between the field
responses to the AVID questionnaire and the responses collected as part of
this field investigation, and to assess the reasons for any differences.
¦	Collect data at subsample locations within an impact area to test for geographic
variability. It may be important to assess impacted wetlands by looking at
specific sites within the wetland, and by evaluating only the areas that are
to be impacted. Data were collected in this study at various locations
throughout the projected impact area to determine the efficacy of looking
at only the impacted area, and the importance of looking at several
locations within the site.
« Determine the variability introduced by individual evaluators, by having
independent evaluators respond to wetland questionnaire individually, rather than
COM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
5

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
via consensus. Another objective of this study was to determine how
differently individual evaluators would respond to the WET questionnaire,
and how these differences would effect the IVA score.
2.2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Two forms of data were collected, measurements of site conditions and evaluation of
site characteristics. Evaluation of site characteristics comprised the majority of the
data collected in this wetland study. These data were, by their nature, subjective,
because they rely on interpretations of field conditions, rather than simple
observation. The objective measurements taken were of general site conditions, such
as ambient air temperature, weather, and species presence. Quality review of this
limited objective data consisted of a review for obvious errors.
Because of the subjective nature of the majority of data collected in this study, specific
data quality objectives are difficult to quantify. Data collected, and specific measures
taken to assure data quality include:
¦	Answers to wetland questionnaire. The field team consisted of five wetland
professionals who, to the extent practical, independently responded to the
wetland questionnaire. Resumes for the individuals comprising the field
team are included as Attachment 1. This data collection effort was made to
confirm previous data collection for the site, and to try to determine the
variability introduced by having different persons answering the
questionnaire. Also, the field team visited two or three different locations
in each wetland site to assess the effects of spatial variability on previous
wetland valuation, and assure that the project data set accurately
represents the subject wetland.
¦	Determination of avian resources of the wetland site. A survey of birds was
taken at each site. Where sufficient data were collected, estimates of bird
densities were calculated. For all sites, data on species observations were
tabulated. The purpose of this effort was to determine the species present
at each site.
¦	Determination of aquatic resources of the wetland site. For wetland sites that
include open water, a survey of fish usage was conducted. Where
sufficient open water was present, fish sampling was conducted. The fish
captured were identified and counted. The purpose of this effort was to
determine the species present at each site.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
6

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
3.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The study area consists of five wetland "test" sites potentially subject to fill (under the
Preferred Alternative), all less than 15 acres in size, and two high-quality "reference"
wetlands. The selected sites range from 1.8 to 9.5 acres. Figure 1 shows the locations
of the five "test" sites and the two "reference" sites in the District. Issues such as
accessibility, known contamination and ability to sample a variety of wetland habitats
influenced the selection of the wetland test sites. In addition, in order to accurately
characterize each test site, two or more locations (termed "subsample" locations) were
visited at each site. Figure 1 also shows the locations of the subsample locations.
The purpose of sampling multiple points in each wetland was to ensure that
characteristics that may be exhibited only locally within a wetland are measured, and
to help confirm that the AVID answers to the "overall" wetland questions, such as the
spatially dominant hydroperiod, and the primary water depth, can be verified to be
appropriate for the entire wetland. Sampling points were selected prior to the field
visits, based on aerial photography and knowledge of the sites. However, the survey
teams were given the latitude to revise recommended sampling locations merited by
field conditions; any changes made to the sampling locations, and the circumstances
and reasons dictating these changes, were documented in detail by the field
personnel. Anticipated reasons for changing sampling sites in the field included lack
of access, lack of visibility, or similarity of the selected site to other sites within the
same wetland. The various sampling sites were selected to capture all significant
habitats and hydrologic regimes across the site.
Following is a description of the sites and subsample locations investigated in this
study.
3,1 SITE 1 (AVID ASSESSMENT AREA 2-V)
Site 1 is approximately 6 acres in size, and is bounded by a driving range to the east,
the Hackensack River to the south, and Cedar Creek to the west and north. Neither
the river nor the creek are within the study area. Two points were evaluated within
this wetland. Originally, three points were identified for subsampling. However,
during the field inspection it was determined that only two observation points were
necessary to adequately represent the site.
The first point, subsample 1-2, is located north of the Hackensack River and east of
Cedar Creek. The wetlands in the area of subsample 1-2 are characterized by a strip
of Phragmites which borders the river and widens as it extends north along Cedar
Creek, During the field visit, several piles of debris (tires, wood, steel, clothing,
mattresses, etc.) as well as rats (Ratus norvegieus) were observed throughout the area.
The adjacent upland area is disturbed and contains an abandoned boat house and dirt
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
7

-------
Legend

Wetland Impact Sites
ma
Reference Sites
A.
Subsampla Location*
/\'
HMDC Boundary
/V
Roads
/ V
Surface Water
/V
Railroads
DRAFT*
October 26, 1994
CDM
Figure 1
Study Area Locations
IVA Method Field Testing Study

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
roadway. The area around subsample 1-2 is representative of approximately half of
the 6 acres included in site 1.
The second point, subsample 1-3, is located south of the driving range and north of
the Hackensack River, and is a disturbed area dominated by a somewhat diverse
herbaceous layer with small areas of open standing water. The topography of the
area is relatively flat with a slight slope to the west. During the field visit, small
deposits of sand were noted at the upland /wetland boundary. The origin of these
deposits is believed to be from the adjacent dirt roadway. The area around
subsample 1-3 was felt to be directly representative of approximately 25 percent of the
site. The remaining 25 percent of the site (not directly represented by subsamples 1-2
and 1-3) possessed similar characteristics present at location 1-3, but contained more
open water. This area was not evaluated further since it was agreed by the field team
that the additional open water would not be represented any differently in an
evaluation than it was in location 1-3. Thus, subsample 1-3 was used to represent half
of the 6 acres of site 1.
3.2	SITE 2 (AVID ASSESSMENT AREA 2-T)
Site 2 is approximately 9.4 acres in size and borders Bashes Creek to the north and
east, the driving range to the west, and the Hackensack River to the south. Two
points were evaluated within these wetland. Originally, this site was to have four
subsample locations. However, during the site inspection it was determined that two
points would adequately represent the different cover types within the site.
The first point, subsample 2-2, is located approximately in the center of the wetland
and is densely vegetated with Phragmites. There is no plant diversity and surface
water was only observed within the adjacent Bashes Creek (outside the study area).
The topography of the area is relatively flat with a slight slope to the northeast
toward Bashes Creek. Subsample 2-2 is representative of approximately 90 percent of
the 9.4 acre area of site 2.
The second point, subsample 2-4, is located along a seasonally flooded channel fed by
stormwater and controlled further downstream by an outlet structure. The channel is
approximately 20 feet wide, and at the time of inspection, filled with approximately
10 inches of standing water. The bank of the channel is moderately sloping with no
undercuts observed. Bordering the channel to the north and south is an emergent
wetland dominated by Phragmites with small areas of standing water scattered
throughout. Subsample 2-4 is representative of approximately 10 percent of the 9.4
acre area of site 2.
3.3	SITE 3 (AVID ASSESSMENT AREA 201)
Site 3 is approximately 1.8 acres in size and is surrounded by industrial properties.
The site can be described as a small irregularly shaped pond, approximately 1 acre in
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
8

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
size, bordered by a fringe of Phragmites to the north and west, and a broad-leaved
deciduous forested wetland to the east. The site has no inlet but has an outlet.
During times of heavy storm flow, water is carried to catch basins located in the
adjacent road and flow to the southeast. Two points were evaluated within the site.
The first point, subsample 3-1, is located in the northwest corner of the site. The area
surrounding this subsample location includes a portion of the pond and a thin strip of
Phragmites which borders the open water. The upland/wetland boundary is an
abrupt transition from a Phragmites swamp to a well-manicured grassy area. During
the field visit, a painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) was observed approximately 30 feet
from the water's edge. Subsample 3-1 is representative of approximately half of the
1.8 acre area of site 3.
The second point, subsample 3-2, is located along the southern boundary of the site.
The area surrounding this subsample includes part of the pond and the wooded area
to the east. The pond has moderately sloping banks, undercuts, and protruding
branches with diverse emergent vegetation and an abrupt wetland/upland edge. The
wooded area adjacent to the pond contains a diverse herbaceous shrub and tree layer.
No surface water was observed within the wooded swamp. Subsample 3-2 is
representative of approximately half of the 1.8 acre area of site 3.
3.4 SITE 4 (AVID ASSESSMENT AREA 2-M)
Site 4 is approximately 9 acres in size and is bordered by an industrial area to the
south, the Conrail right-of-way to the east, and Bellman's Creek to the north and west.
The site is tidally influenced and contains several small channels which drain the
wetland towards Bellman's Creek during an outgoing tide. Three points were
evaluated within the site. Originally, this site was to have four subsample locations.
However, during the field visit it was determined that three points would adequately
represent the different cover types within the site.
Subsample 4-1 is located approximately 300 feet west of Bellman's Creek, The area
around subsample 4-1 is an emergent marsh with exposed mud flats and diverse
vegetation. The mud flats are sparsely vegetated with salt marsh cordgrass (Spartitia
alterniflora) and bU«'k grass (Juncus gerardii) and border a Phragmites wetland mixed
with sparse woody shrubs. There is a distinct break in topography at this edge. The
bank which separates these two cover types is approximately two to four feet high
with deep undercuts. The Phragmites swamp contains small channels, which at the
time of the inspection was flowing in a westerly direction toward Bellman's Creek.
Subsample 4-1 represents approximately 25 percent of the 9 acre area of site 4.
Subsample 4-2 is located in the eastern portion of the site, approximately 500 feet
from the road and the adjacent railroad. This area is small in size, less than 1 acre,
but contains a diverse herbaceous layer and a homogeneous shrub layer. At the time
of the inspection, there was no evidence that the area was regularly inundated by
COM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
B

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
water. The elevation appeared to be much higher at this point than anywhere else on
this site. Subsample 4-2 is representative of approximately 5 percent of the 9 acre area
of site 4.
Subsample 4-3 is located in the southern portion of the site. The area surrounding
subsample 4-3 can be described as a densely vegetated Phragmites intertidal wetland.
At the time of the field visit, the majority of the site was inundated with water to a
depth of 3 to 6 inches. Small pockets of open water were scattered throughout the
area. These depressions held approximately 8 to 10 inches of water and contained
stunted Phragmites, interspersed with a diverse herbaceous understory. Subsample 4-3
is representative of approximately 70 percent of the 9 acre area of site 4.
3.5	SITE 5 (AVID ASSESSMENT AREA 39)
Site 5 is approximately 9.5 acres in size, and is surrounded by an industrial area
which is highly populated, roadways which are heavily travelled, and railroads. Two
sites were evaluated within this wetland. Originally, this site was to have four
evaluation points. However, during the site visit it was determined that two points
would adequately represent the different cover types within the site.
Subsample 5-1 is located in the northern portion of the site, and is characterized by a
densely vegetated Phragmites swamp with areas of open water. The Phragmites within
this area are approximately 6 to 8 feet tall with little diversity in vegetation and a
gradual upland/wetland boundary. Subsample 5-1 is representative of approximately
half of the 9.5 acre area of site 5.
Subsample 5-2 is located towards the center of the site, and contains channels, areas of
ponded open water, and a Phragmites swamp. The Phragmites within this area are
dense and approximately 8 to 12 feet tall. Little to no plant diversity exists within
this emergent swamp. There are distinct wetland edges between the resources
identified. This area seems to be experiencing impacts from the surrounding human
activities. Subsample 5-2 represents approximately half of the 9.5 acre area of site 5.
3.6	REFERENCE SITE R1 (HARTZ MITIGATION SITE, AVID ASSESSMENT AREA
301)
Reference site R1 is a tidally influenced salt-marsh which was enhanced by human
activities, and occupies approximately 58 acres. It is bounded by the eastern spur of
the New Jersey Turnpike to the east, Chromakill Creek to the north, and Mill Creek to
the west and south. There are several meandering stream channels throughout the
site ranging in size from 10 to 30 feet wide. Only one point was evaluated within this
reference site, which was chosen to best represent the entire reference wetland.
The field evaluation occurred at a point located just east of Mill Creek. The area
surrounding the sample location can be described as salt marsh vegetated with
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
10

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Spartina and Phragmites. The area is regularly flooded and contains small intermittent
channels, approximately 3 to 6 feet wide, which are connected to Mill Creek. At the
time of the field visit, mud flats were exposed during an incoming tide. Upgradient
of the marsh are areas of scattered shrub-scrub wetland and small isolated upland
islands. The upland islands are sparsely vegetated with evergreen and broad-leaved
deciduous saplings. The interspersion of different cover types, irregular edges, and
recreational access points makes this site ecologically diverse and highly valued
among the wetlands in the District.
3.7 REFERENCE SITE R2 (SAWMILL CREEK WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA,
AVID ASSESSMENT AREA 2-8)
Reference site R2 is a tidally-influenced salt-marsh, approximately 870 acres in size.
Several stream channels were observed throughout the site, ranging in size from 20 to
50 feet wide. Only one point was evaluated, and can be described as a salt marsh
vegetated with salt marsh cordgrass and Phragmites. The area is regularly flooded
and contains small intermittent channels with exposed mud flats at low tide.
Upgradient of the marsh are small areas of scattered scrub-shrub wetland. Thus, in
many ways, reference site R2 is similar to reference site Rl. The major differences
between the two sites are: (1) site R2 is much bigger than Rl; (2) conditions at R2
have evolved through unplanned human-induced changes to regional hydrology
while Rl has been intentially directly altered by humans (through a carefully planned
mitigation effort); and (3) no upland islands were visible at site R2, where many
islands were present at Rl.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
11

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
4.0 DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND MATERIALS
The field testing occurred between May 16 and 18, 1994. The field team visited a
number of locations at each wetland site (as described above), and answered a subset
of questions from the WET (excluding all "generic" District-wide questions and
wetland size-related questions) for each of the sampling points in each wetland. Each
field team member was provided with a copy of the QA/QC plan developed for this
study (see Attachment 2), which detailed the data collection methods anticipated for
this project, as well as the quality assurance and quality control methods to be
employed.
An attempt was made to answer all relevant questions in the Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET), in order to determine whether any questions not answered in the
initial WET assessment might influence the way in which the wetland is valued.
Surveys of wetland fauna (including birds and fish) were conducted.
In addition to visiting each wetland test site, the field team also visited two "refer-
ence" wetlands, in order to give a reference point for developing the individual BPJ
value estimates. This step is necessary because the IVA method measures values
relative to high quality wetlands in the District. One of the reference wetlands was
the Hartz mitigation site, which, when scored using the IVA method based on its
mitigated set of wetland indicators, scored the highest among the wetlands in the
District. The other reference wetland was the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management
Area, which is considered a valuable natural resource, and scored highly in the IVA.
There is a substantial amount of existing data for these sites, thus the detailed
investigations of fauna (fish netting and bird surveying) were not conducted at these
sites. Data from existing studies were used, where necessary, to characterize the
fauna at the Hartz mitigation site and the Sawmill Creek Wildlife Management Area.
The field team prepared a BPJ evaluation of the quality/value of each test wetland for
the three wetland attributes (wildlife habitat, water quality improvement, and social
significance), relative to the reference wetlands. This assessment was, of necessity,
qualitative in nature, but were be supported by detailed comments as to reasoning
behind the quality judgement, as well as the answers to the WET questions (especially
level 3 and 4 questions).
4.1 WETLAND EVALUATION
Field personnel responded to a series of questions about each wetland sampling
location (see Attachment 3). These questions were culled from the WET
questionnaire, and supplemented by additional questions aimed at guiding the BPJ
estimate toward the desired result—an estimate of relative wetland value (compared
to the reference wetland) for each of the three wetland attributes (water quality
improvement, wildlife habitat, and social significance). Data was collected from each
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
12

-------
Project Report
iVA Method Field Testing Study
member of the field team, for each wetland sampling location. The field team were
provided with the relevant sections of the WET method, to assist in responding to the
WET questions.
4.1.1 FISH SAMPLING
Field personnel collected, identified, and counted fish populations at evaluation sites
that exhibited sufficient open water to support fish. At each site where fish were
collected, species collected were identified, counted, and released in the field.
Representative samples were preserved for storage and future reference. Based on
specific site conditions, one of the following fish collection methods were used.
4.2.1	Seines
Seines were used to collect fish in open water areas which are relatively deep, with
stable bottom sediment, and relatively free of debris and large boulders. The seine
net was approximately 30 feet long, 8 feet high, and constructed of 3/16-inch mesh.
Seining was conducted in an upstream direction for approximately 25 feet (or the
length of the channel, whichever is smaller}. Two hauls were performed for each
sampling location.
4.2.2	Fish Traps
Fish traps were used to collect fish in open water areas where seining was not feasible
(because of soft bottom sediment or presence of debris), and where there was
sufficient space and flow for the fish trap. The fish trap was approximately 3 feet by
6 feet, with 20 foot-long wing walls, and constructed of 1/2-inch mesh. The fish trap
was placed in the channel so that netting is perpendicular to the direction of flow.
Fish traps were set for approximately 24 hours.
4.3 BIRD SURVEYS
4.3.1	Visual Avifauna Survey
Whenever field teams were visiting a study site, notations of bird sightings were
taken on the "Daily Bird List" {see Attachment 4).
4.3.2	Circular-plot Songbird Counts
In addition to the general avifauna surveys noted above, the 60-meter radius circular
plot method was used to estimate densities of songbirds. Sampling occurred at each
subsample location. This method consisted of standing at a sampling point foT a ten-
to twenty-minute period, and recording all visual and vocal observations during that
time. The bird species and numbers were recorded on a "Circular Plot - Bird Density
Measurement" form (see Attachment 5).
CJDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
13

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
The data collected were analyzed to determine an estimate of bird density within each
site. The number of breeding pairs was calculated by first assuming that only
territorial males were vocalizing and recorded. The number of observed birds during
each ten- to twenty-minute survey was converted to pairs per hectare for each species,
using the size of the 60-meter radius circular plot (2.8 acres or 1.13 hectares), or
portion thereof. For all but one subsample location {subsample 3-2, which was very
close to subsample 3-1), two recordings (one ten-minute and one twenty-minute) were
made at each sampling location.
COM Camp Dresser &. McKee DRAFT • February 28, 1995
14

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 WETLAND EVALUATION RESULTS
The answers to the WET questions collected on the wetland evaluation form were
entered into a computer database and analyzed with several different tests, to
determine differences in responses among evaluators, differences in responses among
subsample locations, and difference in responses from the previous WET data
collection effort (collected during the 1987 AVID study).
The data collected on wetland indicators consisted of the field evaluators responses to
167 different yes/no questions. Due to the nature of the WET questionnaire, these
167 questions represent 84 different wetland indicators, because several groups of
yes/no questions are used to identify indicators with more than two possibilities (for
example, there are three different questions for the one category of "vegetation/water
interface"—solid, intermediate, or checkerboard, and there are 13 questions on the
data form for the one category of "dominant vegetation"). In most cases, the
questions in a "group" are mutually exclusive. However, certain "groups" are not
mutually exclusive (for example, a single wetland can have more than one "secondary
water depth"). Thus, it is possible for one questionnaire to have more than 84 "yes"
answers. In counting differences among questionnaire results, all WET questions that
were not part of a group were counted as one "question" each, questions within a
mutually exclusive group were treated as one "question", and questions in a non-
mutually exclusive group that at least one evaluator answered "yes" to were counted
as individual "questions". Therefore, not all samples have the same number of
"questions", but all samples have between 85 and 96 "questions".
5.1.1 Evaluation Methods
Data collected during the field study were analyzed in two primary ways: they were
compared among the five different evaluators conducting the field work for this
study, and they were compared against the data collected during the previous WET
data collection effort conducted in 1987 during the AVID study.
Differences Among Field Responses
Comparisons among evaluators were made in two steps. The first step was to
tabulate the number of similar responses to each question. For this analysis, any
response that was not a "Yes" was treated as a "No". (Many questions were
responded to with "Inappropriate", "Unknown", or simply left blank. All of these
non-positive results were treated as "No"s in this analysis.) For each question, four
different cases resulted:
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
15

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
All the same - all evaluators responded similarly (either all "Yes" or all "No");
4 the same - one evaluator responded differently from the other four;
3 the same - two evaluators responded differently from the other three;
2 the same - for questions consisting of at least three mutually exclusive
choices, two evaluators responded one way, two evaluators
responded another way, and the fifth evaluator responded a
third way.
The second step in analyzing differences among evaluators was to tabulate how many
questions had all the same, 4, 3, and 2 of the same answers from the five evaluators.
These results were then presented graphically. Locations that have more "All the
same" questions represent locations that all evaluators characterized similarly, while
locations that have more "3 (or more) the same" questions represent locations that a
majority of the evaluators characterized similarly. The results of this analysis are
discussed in Section 5.1.2.
Field Responses Different from AVID
The analysis reported in Section 5.1.3 compares the data collected in this field study
with that collected during the 1987 AVID study. It must be noted that the data
collected during the AVID study was for an entire "assessment area", which in all but
one case is larger than the study area identified for this study. It must also be noted
that in that one case (site 3, which is AVID assessment area 201), a WET assessment
was not performed in 1987.
The analysis comparing data collected during this study to the AVID data was
conducted similarly to the analysis of difference among evaluators discussed above.
As discussed above, to simplify the analysis, all "non-positive" responses were treated
as a "No" answer. Similar to the above analysis, this analysis consisted of tabulating
the number of questions responded to the same as the AVID responses by either all
five, four, three, two, one, or none of the evaluators.
"Composite" Site Evaluations
In addition to comparing the raw data collected for each of the subsamples, the
subsamples were "composited" to attempt to characterize the entire site. Subsample
data from each individual evaluator were combined (e.g., for each evaluator, a
"composite" evaluation for site 1 was obtained by combining the evaluations for
subsamples 1-2 and 1-3). For WET questions which asked about presence or absence
(e.g., presence of a permanent inlet, or presence of a channel), or the presence of
"secondary" features (e.g., secondary vegetation or secondary water depths), a "yes"
response for any subsample was taken as indicative of presence for the entire site.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28,1995
18

-------
Project Report
iVA Method Field Testing Study
However, for other questions pertaining to dominant, or primary features (e.g.,
dominant vegetation, wetland classification, or peak flow velocity), data pertaining to
the representativeness of each subsample (in terms of percentage of the whole site,
presented above in Section 3) was used to guide the selection of the appropriate
response for the entire site. For example, if the response of one evaluator to WET
question 12 ("What is the dominant vegetation of the site?") was "emergent and
persistent" at subsample 2-2 (which represents approximately 90 percent of site 2),
while the same evaluator characterized the dominant vegetation at subsample 2-4
(which represents the remaining 10 percent of the site) as "aquatic bed and floating
vascular/' then the dominant vegetation at site 2 should be "emergent and persistent,"
The results of this compositing (the "composite" result for the site) were also
compared among evaluators, and with the previous AVID results.
Differences Among Subsamples
To characterize the variability of wetland conditions across a single site, the responses
to the wetland questions for the different subsamples were compared to each other.
Similar to the analyses described above, this analysis consisted of comparing each
evaluator's responses among the two or three subsample locations in each site. The
number of questions receiving the same responses across subsample locations, and the
numbers with one difference (the only other possibility for sites with only two
subsamples) or two differences (only for site 4 which had three subsamples) were
calculated and graphed. The results of this analysis are discussed in Section 5.1.4
.Consensus Questionnaire
In order to compare one data set for each subsample location, an "artificial consensus'
questionnaire was built. Although no actual discussion occurred among evaluators to
arrive at this consensus, the results of the differences in responses among the five
evaluators (see Section 5.1.2) were used to derive a "consensus answer to each
question. The consensus answer was that which the most evaluators answered
similarly. Where no clear majority was evident, an attempt was made to "split the
difference" between conflicting responses, or to arrive at a "conservative" consensus
(that which indicated higher functions for the wetland). The results of the consensus
questionnaires weiv compared among subsample locations as described above.
5.1.2 Differences Among Field Responses
Figure 2 presents the results of the analysis of differences among field responses for
the subsample locations and the composite evaluations for the five test sites and the
two reference sites. For most of the subsample locations, all five evaluators gave
identical responses to approximately half of the questions. For an additional twenty
to thirty percent of the questions, four of the five evaluators responded the same (i.e.,
one evaluator responded differently from all the others). For the remaining twenty to
thirty percent of the questions, only two or three of the evaluators gave the same
CDM Camp Dresser & McfCee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
17

-------
100
I I ! I i	I i I ] T
1-2 1-3 Comp 2-2 2-4 Comp 3-1 3-2 Comp
Site 1	Site 2	Site 3
Number of
Respondents
Answering each
Question the Same
m
2
3
All
5-1 5-2 Comp
Site 5
R1 R2
Figure 2
Differences Among
Field Responses

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
response. For the most part, the composite evaluations show results that fell between
the results from the individual subsample locations. Specific results for the individual
sites are discussed below.
Site 1
As is shown in Figure 2, subsample 1-3 was evaluated more consistently among the
evaluators than subsample 1-2. Almost sixty percent (52 of 90) of the questions for
subsample 1-3 received the same responses from all five evaluators. Examples of
these questions include:
¦	wetland classification of estuarine,
¦	no islands present,
¦	a dominant vegetation type of emergent and persistent,
¦	a vegetation class of solid,
¦	a spatially dominant hydroperiod type of irregularly flooded tidal,
¦	no fish cover,
¦	buffer zone slopes less than 5 percent.
Approximately twenty percent (20 of 90) of the questions for subsample 1-3 received
the same responses from only 2 or 3 evaluators. Examples of these different
responses include:
¦	three evaluators responded that there was an intermittent inlet and an
intermittent outlet, while the other two responded that neither was present;
¦	three evaluators responded that the vegetation/water interface was solid,
while one evaluator responded that the interface was intermediate, and one
evaluator responded that the vegetation/water question was
"inappropriate" to this wetland;
¦	two evaluators characterized the percentage of emergent in zone B as
between 1% and 30% of zones B and C, while two others responded that
the percentage was between 61% and 99% and one evaluator responded
that the percentage was between 31% and 60%;
¦	three evaluators responded that the permanent hydroperiod was regularly
flooded tidal, while two evaluators responded that the permanent
hydroperiod was irregularly flooded tidal.
Less than half (41 of 86) of the questions for subsample 1-2 received the same
responses from all five evaluators. Examples of these questions include:
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
18

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	a dominant vegetation type of emergent and persistent (and covering
between 61% and 99% of the emergent and open water areas),
¦	no islands present,
¦	a peak flow velocity less than 10 centimeters per second (cm/s),
¦	no nearby impoundments,
¦	no permanent inlets or outlets,
¦	a wetland classification of estuarine.
Less than 25 percent (19 or 86) of the questions for subsample 1-2 received the same
responses from only three out of the five evaluators. Examples of these different
responses include:
¦	two evaluators responded that the vegetation/water interface was a solid
form, while three indicated that the interface was intermediate;
¦	two evaluators responded that the wetland contained a channel, while
three responded that it did not;
¦	three evaluators responded that the predominant substrate was mud, while
one indicated that it was muck and one indicated that it was peat.
The results of the comparison of differences among evaluators for the composite
questionnaire for site 1 were somewhat mixed. Although fewer questions received
the same responses from all five evaluators than at either individual subsample
location, more questions had one or fewer differences among evaluators for the
composite than for either subsample. Thus, allowing one "outsider" of the five
evaluators, the field team appears to agree more on the overall condition of the site
than at either discrete subsample location. This result could indicate that some
evaluators were responding more "holistically" to the entire site, while others were
responding more "discretely" to the immediate area around each subsample location.
Site 2
As is shown in Figure 2, subsample 2-2 was evaluated more consistently among the
field team than subsample 2-4. More than 45 percent (39 of 84) of the questions for
subsample 2-2 received the same responses from all five evaluators. Examples of
these questions include:
¦	primary source of sediment is sheetflow,
¦	no permanent inlet,
¦	a dominant vegetation type of emergent and persistent,
¦	a vegetation class of solid,
¦	no islands present,
¦	no significant open water,
¦	buffer zone slopes less than 5 percent.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
19

-------
Project Report
SVA Method Field Testing Study
Less than 20 percent (16 of 84) of the questions for subsample 2-2 received the same
responses from only 2 or 3 evaluators. Examples of these different responses include:
¦	two evaluators responded that there was an intermittent inlet, while the
other three responded that no intermittent inlet was present;
¦	three evaluators responded that the average width of erect vegetation in
zones A and B was greater than 500 foot, while the other two responded
that this indicator was not present;
¦	two evaluators characterized the percentage of emergent in zone B as
between 61% and 99% of zones B and C, while two others responded that
the percentage was 100% and one evaluator responded that the percentage
was between 1% and 30%;
¦	three evaluators indicated that the plant productivity was greater than 1500
grams per square meter per year, while the other two did not.
Less than 40 percent (34 of 89) of the questions for subsample 2-4 received the same
responses from all five evaluators, Examples of these questions include:
¦	a solid form vegetation to water interface,
¦	no islands present,
¦	a peak flow velocity less than 10 cm/s,
¦	a solid vegetation class,
¦	a permanent inlet but no permanent outlet,
¦	no riffles present.
More than 40 percent (38 or 89) of the questions for subsample 2-4 were responded
the same by only two or three out of the five evaluators. Examples of these different
responses include*.
¦	two evaluators responded that the area was channelized, while three
evaluators responded that the area was not channelized;
¦	three evaluators responded that there was a nutrient source in the buffer
zone, while two responded that there was no nutrient source;
* two evaluators responded that emergents in zone B represented between
1% and 30% of zones B and C, while two evaluators responded that the
percentage was between 31% and 60%, and one evaluator responded that
the percentage was between 61% and 99%;
COM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - Febiuaty 28, 1995
20

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	two evaluators responded that the permanent and spatially dominant
hydroperiod were semipermanently flooded nontidal, while two evaluators
responded both hydroperiods were saturated nontidal, and one evaluator
responded that both hydroperiods were seasonally flooded nontidal.
The results of the comparison of differences among evaluators for the composite
questionnaire for site 2 were similar to the results from subsample 2-4, which
indicates that many of the discrepancies from subsample 2-4 were carried into the
composite, even though subsample 2-4 represents only 10 percent of site 2. Thus, the
composite questionnaire for site 2 may not be entirely representative of site 2.
Site 3
As is shown in Figure 2, the two subsamples at site 3 were nearly identical in terms of
the number of differences among the evaluator's responses. Approximately 40 percent
(36 of 88) of the questions for subsample 3-1 received the same responses from all five
evaluators. Examples of these questions include:
¦	palustrine wetland classification,
¦	no islands present,
¦	consisting of, or part of, a fringe or island wetland,
¦	no channels present,
¦	spatially dominant hydroperiod type is permanently flooded nontidal,
¦	area of zone B more than 10 percent of the area,
¦	average width of erect vegetation in zone B less than 500 feet.
Less than 30 percent (26 of 88) of the questions for subsample 3-1 were responded the
same by only 2 or 3 evaluators. Examples of these different responses include:
¦	three evaluators responded that the physical habitat interspersion was
uniform, while two responded that it was intermediate;
¦	three evaluators responded that the predominant substrate type was muck,
while one evaluator responded that it was mud, and one that it was sand;
¦	three evaluators characterized the percentage of emergents in zone B as
between 1% and 30% of zones B and C, while the other two responded that
the percentage between 31% and 60%;
¦	two evaluators indicated that the area had been directly altered, while
three indicated that it had not;
¦	two evaluators classified the vegetation/water interface as intermediate,
while one classified it as solid and one as intermediate;
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
21

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	three evaluators identified the dominant vegetation type as forested and
broad-leaved deciduous, while the other two responded that the dominant
vegetation type was emergent and persistent.
More than 40 percent (38 of 90) of the questions for subsample 3-2 received the same
responses from all five evaluators. Examples of these questions include:
¦	palustrine wetland classification,
¦	no islands present,
¦	no permanent or intermittent inlet,
¦	no channels present,
¦	a dominant vegetation type of emergent and persistent,
¦	spatially dominant hydroperiod type of permanently flooded nontidal,
¦	emergents in zone B between 1% and 30% of zones B and C,
¦	average width of erect vegetation in zone B less than 500 feet.
Approximately 30 percent (29 of 90) of the questions for subsample 3-2 received the
same responses from only 2 or 3 evaluators. Examples of these different responses
include:
¦	three evaluators responded that the physical habitat interspersion was
intermediate, while two responded that it was uniform;
¦	three evaluators responded that the predominant substrate type was muck,
while one evaluator responded that it was mud, and one did not indicate a
predominant substrate type;
¦	three evaluators responded that the area of zone A was more than 10
percent of zones B and C, while two responded that it was not more than
10 percent;
¦	two evaluators indicated that the area had been directly altered, while
three indicated that it had not;
¦	three evaluators indicated that a permanent outlet was present, while two
indicated that no permanent outlet was present.
The results of the comparison of differences among evaluators for the composite
questionnaire for site 3 were very similar to the results from both subsamples. This is
most likely reflective of the small area of site 3 (1.8 acres).
COM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
22

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Site 4
As is shown in Figure 2, subsample 4-2 had the most consistent responses. Also,
subsamples 4-1 and 4-3 were very similar in the number of questions answered
differently. Approximately 40 percent (37 of 91) of the questions for subsample 4-1
received the same responses from all five evaluators. Examples of these questions
include:
¦	estuarine wetland classification,
¦	no islands present,
¦	area of zone B greater than zone A, and greater than 10 percent of the total
area,
¦	no local impoundments,
¦	spatially dominant and permanent hydroperiod types of regularly flooded
tidal,
¦	predominant substrate type is muck,
¦	migrating or wintering geese, black duck, and group 1 waterfowl present.
Less than 30 percent (25 of 91) of the questions for subsample 4-1 were responded the
same by only 2 or 3 evaluators. Examples of these different responses include:
¦	two evaluators responded that the physical habitat interspersion was
intermediate, while one responded that it was uniform, and one responded
that it was mosaic;
¦	three evaluators responded that the dominant water depth was between 40
and 59 inches, while one responded that the dominant depth was between
21 and 39 inches, and one responded that the dominant depth was between
5 and 8 inches;
¦	three evaluators characterized the percentage of emergents in zone B as
between 31% and 60% of zones B and C, while the other two responded
that the percentage between 61% and 99%;
¦	two evaluators indicated that the area had been directly altered, while
three indicated that it had not;
¦	three evaluators classified the vegetation/water interface as intermediate,
while two classified it as solid;
¦	two evaluators identified that the peak flow velocity was less than 10
cm/s, one indicated that the peak flow velocity was greater than 30 cm/s,
and the other two that the peak flow velocity was between 10 and 30 cm/s.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995	23

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
More than 50 percent (45 of 86} of the questions for subsample 4-2 received the same
responses from all five evaluators. Examples of these questions include:
¦	buffer zone slopes less than 5 percent,
¦	no islands present,
¦	no permanent or intermittent inlet or outlet,
¦	no channels present,
¦	no local impoundments,
¦	not subject to frequent human disturbance,
¦	no substantial open water,
¦	area of zone A and zone B greater than zone C.
Approximately 25 percent (23 of 86) of the questions for subsample 4-2 received the
same responses from only 2 or 3 evaluators. Examples of these different responses
include:
¦	two evaluators responded that the dominant vegetation type was scrub-
shrub and broad-leaved deciduous, one responded that it was scrub-shrub
and needle-leaved deciduous, one that it was emergent and persistent, and
one that it was emergent and non-persistent;
¦	three evaluators responded that the vegetation/water interface was solid,
while two responded that it was intermediate;
¦	two evaluators responded that the emergents in zone B were 0% of zones B
and C, one responded that it was between 1% and 30%, one that it was
between 31% and 60%, and one that it was 100% of zones B and C or not
present;
¦	two evaluators indicated that the area had been directly altered, while
three indicated that it had not;
¦	two evaluators indicated that the average width of erect vegetation in
zones A and B was greater than 500 feet, while the other three indicated
that the average width was less than 500 feet.
Approximately 40 percent (35 of 89) of the questions for subsample 4-3 received the
same responses from all five evaluators. Examples of these questions include:
¦	estuarine wetland classification,
¦	dominant vegetation type of emergent and persistent,
¦	area of zone B greater than zone A, and greater than 10 percent of the total
area,
¦	no local impoundments,
¦	vegetation class is solid,
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
24

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	zone B not shaded,
¦	no intermittent outlet.
Less than 25 percent (22 of 89) of the questions for subsample 4-3 received the same
responses from only 2 or 3 evaluators. Examples of these different responses include:
¦	three evaluators responded that the physical habitat interspersion was
uniform, while the other two responded that it was intermediate;
¦	three evaluators responded that the primary source of toxics was channel
flow, while the other two responded that the primary source was
sheetflow;
¦	two evaluators indicated that the area was channelized, while three
responded that it was not channelized;
¦	two i evaluators indicated that the area was part of a fringe or island
wetland, while three indicated that it was not;
¦	three evaluators responded that the plant productivity was greater than
1500 grams per square meter per year, while the other two responded that
it was not this high, or that they were unsure.
The results of the comparison of differences among evaluators for the composite
questionnaire for site 4 were similar to the results from subsamples 4-1 and 4-3, but
different from subsample 4-2. This may be indicative of the rather small area that
subsample 4-2 represents (approximately 5 percent of the entire site 4).
Site 5
As is shown in Figure 2, subsample 5-1 was evaluated more consistently than
subsample 5-2. More than half (45 of 86) of the questions for subsample 5-1 received
the same responses from all five evaluators. Examples of these questions include:
¦	estuarine wetland classification,
¦	dominant vegetation type of emergent and persistent,
¦	no islands present,
¦	vegetation class is solid,
¦	nutrient and toxic sources in buffer zone,
¦	area of zone B more than zone A, and more than 10 percent of the area,
¦	low local impoundments,
¦	no special habitat features.
COM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
25

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Less than 25 percent (21 of 86) of the questions for subsample 5-1 received the same
responses from only 2 or 3 evaluators. Examples of these different responses include:
¦	three evaluators indicated that the spatially dominant hydroperiod type
was irregularly flooded tidal, while one indicated that it was irregularly
exposed tidal, and one indicated that it was regularly flooded tidal;
¦	three evaluators responded that the plant productivity was greater than
1500 grams per square meter per year, while the other two responded that
it was not this high, or that they were unsure.
¦	two evaluators responded that the emergents in zone B were 100% of zones
B and C, while two responded that it was between 61% and 99%, and one
responded that is was between 31% and 60%;
¦	three evaluators indicated that the primary source of toxics was sheet flow,
while the other two indicated that the primary source of toxics was channel
flow;
¦	two evaluators indicated that the area contains a channel, while three
indicated that it did not;
¦	three evaluators responded that the outlet was less than one-third the
average width of the wetland, while two responded that it was greater
than one-third the average width (or not present);
¦	three evaluators indicated that the buffer zone slopes were less than 5
percent, while the other two indicated that the buffer zone slopes were
greater than 5 percent.
Less than 40 percent (33 of 88) of the questions for subsample 5-2 received the same
responses from all five evaluators. Examples of these questions include:
¦	estuarinc wetland classification,
¦	no islands present,
¦	zone B not shaded,
¦	toxic source in buffer zone,
¦	area of zone A less than 10 percent of zones B and C,
¦	no local impoundments,
¦	no special habitat features,
¦	average width of erect vegetation in zone B less than 500 feet.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
26

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
More than 35 percent (32 of 88) of the questions for subsample 5-2 received the same
responses from only 2 or 3 evaluators. Examples of these different responses include:
¦	three evaluators responded that the physical habitat interspersion was
uniform, while two responded that it was intermediate;
¦	two evaluators responded that the area has significant cover for fish, while
two responded that it did not, and one indicated that the question was
"inappropriate";
¦	two evaluators indicated that the dominant water depth was between 9
arid 20 inches, while two indicated that the dominant depth was between 5
and 8 inches, and one indicated that the dominant depth was between 1
and 4 inches;
¦	two evaluators indicated that the area had been directly altered, while
three indicated that it had not;
¦	two evaluators indicated that a permanent (and no intermittent) inlet and
outlet were present, while two indicated that an intermittent (and no
permanent) inlet and outlet were present, and one evaluator did not
indicate the presence of any inlets or outlets.
The results of the comparison of differences among evaluators for the composite
questionnaire for site 5 fell between the results from both subsamples.
Reference Site R1
As is shown in Figure 2, site R1 was evaluated very consistently among the
evaluators. In fact, almost 85 percent (79 or 94) of the questions for site R1 received
the same responses from all five evaluators, and only three percent (3 of 94) of the
questions were responded to differently by 2 or 3 evaluators. These three questions
were:
¦	two evaluators indicated that the plant productivity was less than 500
grams per square meter per year, while the other three indicated that the
productivity was greater than this, or unknown;
¦	three evaluators indicated that scrub-shrub and broad-leaved deciduous
was a secondary vegetation type, while the other two did not;
¦	only two evaluators responded that the area contained a sinuous channel.
CDM Camp Dresser &l McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
27

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
The reason for this apparent agreement among the evaluators may stem from the fact
that this site was the first site visited, and, in order to make sure that all of the
evaluators understood the questions being asked in the questionnaire, there was
substantial discussion regarding the appropriate responses. This type of discussion
was encouraged for the reference site in order to make sure that all evaluators
understood the questions, but was discouraged for the remaining sites. Thus, this site
should not be used to reach conclusions about evaluator variability.
Reference Site R2
As is shown in Figure 2, site R2 was not evaluated as consistently as site Rl. The
reason for the apparent consistency among answers for site Rl was discussed above.
For site R2, more than 40 percent (39 of 91) of the questions received the same
responses from all five evaluators. Approximately 25 percent (24 of 91) of the
questions received the same responses from only 2 or 3 evaluators. Some of the
questions responded to differently include:
¦	two evaluators indicated that significant fish cover was present, while one
indicated that fish cover was not present and two indicated that the
question was "inappropriate" to this area;
¦	three evaluators indicated that the dominant water depth was between 6.5
and 26 feet, while one indicated that the dominant depth was between 5
and 6.5 feet, and one indicated that the dominant depth was between 1 and
4 inches;
¦	three evaluators indicated that the vegetation class was intermediate, while
the other two responded that the vegetation class was solid;
¦	three evaluators indicated that the vegetation/water interface was
checkerboard, while two indicated that it was intermediate.
It appears from an analysis of the disparity between the answers that most of the
differences can be explained by the fact that site R2 was supposed to reflect the
Sawmill Wildlife Management Area, and some people responded to the questionnaire
for the entire area, while others responded to the questionnaire for the area
immediately surrounding the field location. Another related reason for the disparity
may be differences in familiarity of the evaluators with both on-site and off-site
conditions.
5.1.3 Field Responses Different From AVID
Figure 3 presents the results of the analysis of differences between data collected
during this study for the various sites and data collected during the AVID study for
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
28

-------
Number of
Respondents
Answering the
Same as AVID
( | None
B 4
I All
2-2 2-4 Comp
Site 2
1-2 1-3 Comp
Site 1
4-1 4-2 4-3 Comp
Site 4
5-2 Comp	R1 R2
Site 5	Figure 3
Field Responses Different
from AVID

-------
Project Report
JVA Method Fiefd Testing Study
the corresponding AVID assessment areas. On average, approximately one-third of
the questions were answered the same by all five evaluators as was reported in the
AVID study. Approximately one-half were answered the same as AVID by at least
four evaluators, and approximately two-thirds of the questions were responded to the
same as AVID by at least three of the five evaluators. Thus, for approximately one-
third of the questions, only two or fewer of the evaluators responded the same as
AVID. Results for the individual sites are discussed below.
Site 3
As discussed in Section 3, site 1 is part of AVID Assessment Area 2-U. One possible
conclusion from Figure 3 is that the conditions found at subsample 1-3 were more
similar to the conditions found during the AVID assessment. This observation,
however, could be also caused by the fact that subsample 1-3 was evaluated more
similarly among the five evaluators {as is shown in Figure 2).
Nonetheless, almost 45 percent of the questions (40 of 93) received the same responses
from all five evaluators at subsample location 1-3 as during the AVID study. For
subsample 1-2, less than 30 percent of the questions (27 of 94) received the same
responses from all five evaluators as during the AVID study. Examples of similar
responses at subsample 1-3 include:
¦	no sheet flooding,
• emergent and persistent dominant vegetation,
¦	solid vegetation class,
¦	uniform physical habitat interspersion and buffer zone slopes less than 5
percent.
Examples of similar responses at subsample 1-2 include:
¦	estuarine wetland classification,
¦	no islands present,
¦	zone B larger than zone A,
¦	no strong education opportunity.
Furthermore, for subsample 1-3, nearly 60 percent of the questions (54 of 93) received
the same responses from three or more evaluators, while only slightly more than 50
percent of the questions (50 of 94) met the same criteria at subsample 1-2.
Conversely, for nearly twenty percent of the questions (18 of 93), all five of the
evaluators responded differently at subsample 1-3 from the AVID study; for
subsample 1-2, almost 25 percent of the questions (23 of 94) had all five evaluators
responding differently from the AVID study. Examples of questions responded to
differently by all five evaluators at subsample 1-3 include;
COM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
29

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	AVID reported a secondary vegetation type of aquatic bed and rooted
vascular, while this was not found in this study;
¦	AVID reported a permanent outlet, while none was reported at subsample
1-3;
¦	AVID reported the spatially dominant hydroperiod type as regularly
flooded tidal/ while this study characterized the spatially dominant
hydroperiod type as irregularly flooded;
* AVID reported the dominant water depth was between 6.5 and 26 feet,
while one evaluator responded that it was between 9 and 20 inches, two
responded that it was between 1 and 4 inches, and two responded that it
was less than 1 inch;
¦	AVID reported the predominant substrate type to be muck, while two of
the evaluators responded that it was mud and three that it was peat.
Examples of questions responded to differently by all five evaluators at subsample 1-2
include:
¦	AVID reported that the primary source of nutrients and toxics was channel
flow, while none of the evaluators responded that channel flow was the
primary source of nutrients or toxics;
¦	AVID reported that the emergents in zone B represented between 1 and 30
percent of zones B and C while all five evaluators responded that this
percentage was between 61% and 99%;
¦	AVID reported the peak flow velocity as above 30 cm/s, while all five
evaluators responded that the peak flow velocity was below 10 cm/s.
Most, if not all of the questions with all five different answers can be explained by the
fact that assessment area 2-U, of which site 1 is a part, includes a portion of the
Hackensack Rivar, while site 1 doesn't include the river. Thus, for example, while the
spatially dominant hydroperiod type for the entire assessment area 2-U may be
regularly flooded tidal (because the river is tidal), the spatially dominant hydroperiod
type for the 6 acre site 1 probably is not. This conclusion suggests another reason
why subsample 1-3 is more similar to the AVID results—subsample 1-3 is located
closer to the river than subsample 1-2, and thus subsample 1-3 may be more
representative of the entire assessment area. However, for this study, it is only
representative of approximately half of site 1.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
30

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Site 2
As discussed in Section 3, site 2 is part of AVID Assessment Area 2-T. No strong
conclusions can be drawn from Figure 3 for site 2. Approximately 30 percent of the
questions (30 of 91) received the same responses from all five evaluators at subsample
location 2-2 as during the AVID study. For subsample 2-4, less than 30 percent of the
questions (27 of 92) received the same responses from all five evaluators as during the
AVID study. Examples of similar responses at subsample 2-2 include:
¦	area of zone A and B greater than zone C,
¦	no significant open water,
¦	no immediate education opportunity, research resource, or recreation access
point,
¦	no islands present.
Examples of similar responses at subsample 2-4 include:
¦	not part of a fringe or island wetland,
¦	no significant open water,
¦	no immediate education opportunity, research resource, or recreation access
point,
¦	no islands present.
However, for subsample 2-2, more than 60 percent of the questions (58 of 91) received
the same responses from three or more evaluators, while nearly 70 percent of the
questions (63 of 92) met the same criteria at subsample 2-4.
Conversely, for more than twenty percent of the questions (20 of 91), all five of the
evaluators responded differently at subsample 2-2 from the AVID study; for
subsample 2-4, less than 15 percent of the questions (13 of 92) had all five evaluators
responding differently from the AVID study. Examples of questions responded to
differently by all five evaluators at subsample 2-2 include:
¦	AVID reported the presence of a permanent inlet, while none was reported
at subsantple 2-2;
¦	all five evaluators responded that subsample 2-2 was subjected to sheet
flooding, while AVID reported that AA 2-T was not subjected to sheet
flooding;
¦	AVID reported a vegetation class of intermediate, while all five evaluators
responded that the vegetation class at subsample 2-2 was solid;
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
31

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	AVID reported the primary source of sediment was channel flow, while all
five evaluators responded that the primary source of sediment at
subsample 2-2 was sheetflow;
¦	AVID reported that the dominant water depth for AA 2-T was between 9
and 20 inches, while four evaluators responded that the dominant water
depth was less than 1 inch, and one responded that the dominant depth
was between 1 and 4 inches.
Examples of questions responded to differently by all five evaluators at subsample 2-4
include:
¦	AVID reported that AA 2-T had an intermittent outlet, but not a permanent
outlet, while all five evaluators reported that subsample 2-4 had a
permanent outlet and not an intermittent outlet;
¦	AVID reported that the vegetation class of AA 2-T was intermediate, while
all five evaluators classified the vegetation class at subsample 2-4 as solid;
¦	AVID reported that the emergents in zone B were 0% of Zones B and C,
while the reported percentage of emergents in zone B during this study
varied from 1% to 99%.
Most, if not all of the questions with all five different answers can be explained by the
fact that assessment area 2-T, of which site 2 is a part, includes a much larger area
than just site 2. Thus, for example, while the vegetation class for the entire
assessment area may be intermediate, as reported in the AVID, the vegetation class
for site 2 was reported in this study as solid.
Site 3
Site 3 is the same as AVID assessment area 201, however, AA 201 was not assessed
during AVID, so a comparison to the AVID data is not possible.
Site 4
As discussed in Section 3, site 4 is part of AVID Assessment Area 2-M. Although
none of the subsamples are very consistent with the AVID data, subsamples 4-1 and
4-3 are substantially more consistent with the AVID data than subsample 4-2. This is
probably due to the fact that subsample 4-2 represents only a small portion of site 4,
and is most likely even less representative of the entire AA 2-M. It should also be
noted in Figure 3 that the composite sample is generally more consistent with the
AVID data than any of the individual subsamples.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
32

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Only approximately 30 percent of the questions (30 of 94 for subsample 4-1 and 4-2,
and 29 of 93 for subsample 4-3) received the same responses from all five evaluators
at subsample location 4-1 as during the AVID study. Examples of similar responses
at subsample 4-1 include:
¦	buffer zone slopes less than 5 percent,
¦	no local impoundments,
¦	no immediate education opportunity, or recreation access point,
¦	area of zone B greater than zone A, and greater than 10 percent of the area,
¦	no islands present.
Examples of similar responses at subsample 4-2 include:
¦	buffer zone slopes less than 5 percent,
¦	not part of a fringe or island wetland,
¦	no intermittent inlet or outlet,
¦	no immediate education opportunity, or recreation access point,
¦	no islands present.
Examples of similar responses at subsample 4-3 include:
¦	area of zone B greater than zone A, and greater than 10 percent of the area,
¦	vegetation class is solid,
¦	no intermittent outlet,
¦	no immediate education opportunity, or recreation access point,
¦	no islands present.
However, for subsample 4-1, more than 70 percent of the questions (66 of 94) received
the same responses from three or more evaluators, and for subsample 4-3, nearly 70
percent of the questions (63 of 93) met the same criteria. However, for subsample 4-2,
only slightly more than half (51 of 91) of the questions received the same responses
from three or more evaluators.
Conversely, for approximately ten percent of the questions (10 of 94), all five of the
evaluators responded differently at subsample 2-2 from the AVID study; for
subsample 4-4, less than 15 percent of the questions (12 of 93) had all five evaluators
responding differently from the AVID study; and for subsample 4-3, nearly 30 percent
(27 of 94) of the questions had completely different responses from the AVID study.
Examples of questions responded to differently by all five evaluators at subsample 4-1
include:
¦	AVID reported that AA 2-M was an important research resource, while
none of the evaluators reported this at subsample 4-1;
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
33

-------
Project Report
!VA Method Field Testing Study
¦	AVID reported that the area of zone A in AA 2-M was greater than 10
percent of zones B and C, while all five evaluators responded the
percentage of zone A in subsample 4-1 was less than 10 percent of zones B
and C;
¦	AVID reported a permanent hydroperiod of irregularly exposed tidal,
while all five evaluators classified the permanent hydroperiod of
subsample 4-1 as regularly flooded tidal;
¦	AVID reported that the predominant substrate material was peat, while all
five evaluators reported it to be muck at subsample 4-1;
¦	AVID reported that no plants of waterfowl value existed in AA 2-M, while
all five evaluators indicated that they existed at subsample 4-1.
Examples of questions responded to differently by all five evaluators at subsample 4-2
include:
¦	AVID reported that AA 2-M was an important research resource, while
none of the evaluators reported this at subsample 4-2;
¦	AVID reported that AA 2-M had an permanent inlet and outlet, while all
five evaluators reported that subsample 4-2 had no inlets or outlets;
¦	AVID reported that AA 2-M performed channel flow spreading, while all
five evaluators indicated that this function was not performed at
subsample 4-2;
¦	AVID reported that AA 2-M had a sinuous channel, while all five
evaluators reported that subsample 4-2 did not have a channel.
Examples of questions responded to differently by all five evaluators at subsample 4-3
include:
¦	AVID reported that AA 2-M was an important research resource, while
none of the evaluators reported this at subsample 4-3;
¦	AVID reported that the area of zone A in AA 2-M was greater than 10
percent of zones B and C, while all five evaluators responded the
percentage of zone A in subsample 4-3 was less than 10 percent of zones B
and C;
¦	AVID reported a permanent hydroperiod of irregularly exposed tidal,
while four evaluators classified the permanent hydroperiod of subsample
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
34

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
4-3 as regularly flooded tidal, and one classified the permanent
hydroperiod as irregularly flooded tidal;
¦	AVID reported that the vegetation/water interface for AA 2-M was
intermediate, while four evaluators described it as solid for subsample 4-3,
and one described it as checkerboard.
Most of the questions with all five different answers can be explained by the fact that
assessment area 2-M, of which site 4 is a part, includes a much larger area than just
site 4. Thus, for example, while the entire AA might be an important research
resource, as reported in the AVID, the area represented by site 4 may not be, as was
answered by the evaluators in this study.
Site 5
As discussed in Section 3, site 5 is part of AVID Assessment Area 39. Figure 3 shows
that the two subsamples at site 5 are, to some extent, comparable to the AVID data,
and that the composite questionnaire is even more similar to the AVID data than
either subsample.
More than 40 percent of the questions (37 of 89) received the same responses from all
five evaluators at subsample location 5-1 as during the AVID study. For subsample
5-2, less than 35 percent of the questions (30 of 89) received the same responses from
all five evaluators as during the AVID study. Examples of similar responses at
subsample 5-1 include:
¦	estuarine wetland classification,
¦	dominant vegetation type of emergent and persistent,
¦	area of zone B greater than zone A, and greater than 10 percent of the area,
¦	no significant open water,
¦	no immediate education opportunity, research resource, or recreation access
point,
¦	toxic and nutrient sources in the buffer zone.
Examples of simiia: responses at subsample 5-2 include:
¦	estuarine wetland classification,
¦	toxic source in the buffer zone,
¦	no significant open water,
¦	j\o immediate education opportunity, research resource, or recreation access
point,
¦	average width of erect vegetation in zones A and B less than 500 feet.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
35

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
For subsample 5-1, more than 65 percent of the questions (59 of 89) received the same
responses from three or more evaluators, and more than 65 percent of the questions
(60 of 89) met the same criteria at subsample 5-2.
Conversely, for approximately 15 percent of the questions (14 of 89), all five of the
evaluators responded differently at subsample 5-1 from the AVID study; for
subsample 5-2, slightly more than 5 percent of the questions (6 of 89) had all five
evaluators responding differently from the AVID study. Examples of questions
responded to differently by all five evaluators at subsample 5-1 include:
¦	AVID reported a secondary vegetation type of aquatic bed and algal, while
no aquatic bed or algal vegetation was reported at subsample 5-1;
¦	AVID reported a vegetation class of intermediate, while all five evaluators
classified it as solid;
¦	AVID reported that the area of zone A was more than 10 percent of zones
B and C, while all five evaluators responded that the area of zone A was
less than 10 percent of zones B and C;
¦	AVID reported that the permanent hydroperiod was irregularly exposed
tidal, while four of the evaluators responded that it was irregularly flooded
tidal, and one responded that it was regularly flooded tidal;
¦	AVID reported that AA 39 had plants of waterfowl value, while none of
the five evaluators reported this at subsample 5-1.
Examples of questions responded to differently by all five evaluators at subsample 5-2
include:
¦	AVID reported a secondary vegetation type of aquatic bed and algal, while
no aquatic bed or algal vegetation was reported at subsample 5-2;
¦	AVID reported that the area of zone A was more than 10 percent of zones
B and C, while all five evaluators responded that the area of zone A was
less than 10 percent of zones B and C;
¦	AVID reported that the physical habitat interspersion at site 39 was mosaic,
while three of the evaluators classified the physical habitat interspersion at
subsample 5-2 as uniform, while two classified it as intermediate.
Unlike the other sites, most of site 5 is coincident with its "parent" assessment area
(AA 39). This might explain why fewer questions have all five evaluators giving a
different answer from the AVID study. However, the reason for the differences is not
readily apparent. Some of the differences may be explained by changing site
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
36

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
conditions between 1986 and 1994, and others might be explained by differing
interpretations of the WET questions.
Reference Site Rl
As discussed in Section 3, site R1 is part of AVID Assessment Area 301. Because the
AVID study was conducted prior to the completion of mitigation conducted at this
site, the AVID data has been modified using existing data on the mitigation plans and
results at this site. Figure 3 shows that approximately two-thirds of the questions
were answered in this study similarly to the modified AVID data. The predominance
of either all five or none of the respondents answering the same as AVID can be
explained by the previous discussions of the similarity of all five evaluator's responses
to questions for site Rl.
More than 55 percent of the questions (54 of 95) received the same responses from all
five evaluators at site Rl as the modified AVID data. Examples of similar responses
at site Rl include:
¦	estuarine wetland classification,
¦	dominant vegetation type of emergent and persistent,
¦	permanent inlet and outlet, no intermittent inlet or outlet,
¦	channel flow spreading,
¦	vegetation class of mosaic,
¦	nutrient and toxic source in the buffer zone,
¦	dense understory edge,
¦	buffer zone slopes less than 5 percent,
¦	special habitat features,
¦	area of zone B greater than zone A, and greater than 10 percent of the area,
¦	plants of waterfowl value.
For site Rl, more than 65 percent of the questions (63 of 95) received the same
responses from three or more evaluators.
Conversely, for almost than 30 percent of the questions (27 of 95), all five of the
evaluators responded differently at site Rl from the modified AVID data. Examples
of questions responded to differently by all five evaluators at site Rl include:
¦	all five evaluators indicated that site Rl had immediate education
opportunity and a recreation access point, while the modified AVID data
did not include these;
¦	the modified AVID data assumed that sheet flooding would be present at
the mitigation site, while none of the five evaluators reported this at site
Rl;
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
37

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	all five evaluators indicated that site R1 is a fringe or island wetland, while
the modified AVID data did not include this;
¦	AVID reported that the vegetation/water interface at the mitigation site
was checkerboard, while all five evaluators indicated that it was
intermediate;
¦	the modified AVID data indicated that the primary source of toxics was
sheetflow, while all five evaluators reported that channel flow was the
primary source of toxics;
¦	the modified AVID data indicated that the permanent hydroperiod was
irregularly exposed tidal, while all five evaluators indicated that the
permanent hydroperiod was regularly flooded tidal;
¦	the AVID data reported that the predominant substrate type was peat,
while all five evaluators indicated that the predominant substrate material
was muck.
Most of the differences between the data collected during this study and the modified
AVID data can be explained by the fact that the modified AVID data was based on
the original WET data collected during 1986, while the mitigation area was still
evolving. While the AVID data has been modified using available data on the
evolving conditions at the mitigation site, the modifications have not been confirmed
in the field. The rest of the differences might be explained by the fact that the field
visit lasted for only a few hours, and only visited one site in the mitigation area. It
should also be noted that all five evaluators responded that site R1 had been directly
altered. However, this response was not used in the following IVA analysis, as the
"direct alteration" indicator was intended to be an indicator of reduced functioning,
not of mitigation efforts.
Reference Site R2
As discussed in Section 3, site R2 is part of AVID Assessment Area 2-8. Figure 3
shows that approximately three-quarters of the questions were answered in this study
similarly to the AVID data for AA 2-8.
More than 35 percent of the questions (34 of 93) received the same responses from all
five evaluators at site R2 as in the AVID study. Examples of similar responses at site
R2 include:
¦	estuarine wetland classification,
¦	dominant vegetation type of emergent and persistent,
¦	permanent inlet and outlet,
¦	channel flow spreading,
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
38

-------
Project Report
!VA Method Field Testing Study
¦	wave protection,
¦	toxic source in the buffer zone,
¦	area contains a channel,
¦	area of zone B greater than 10 percent of the area,
¦	spatially dominant hydroperiod type of regularly flooded tidal
¦	plants of waterfowl value.
For site R2, more than 75 percent of the questions {70 of 93) received the same
responses from three or more evaluators.
Conversely, for less than 10 percent of the questions (8 of 93), all five of the evaluators
responded differently at site R2 from AVID study. Examples of questions responded
to differently by all five evaluators at site R1 include:
¦	all five evaluators indicated that warm freshwater fish were present at site
R2, while the AVID data did not;
¦	AVID reported that the dominant water depth was between 21 inches and
39 inches, while three evaluators indicated that the dominant water depth
was between 6.5 feet and 26 feet, one evaluator indicated that the dominant
depth was between 5 feet and 6.5 feet, and one evaluator indicated that the
dominant depth was between 1 and 4 inches;
¦	all five evaluators indicated that site R2 has a recreation access point, while
the AVID study did not.
Many of the differences between the data collected during this study and the AVID
data can be explained by the fact that the evaluation team visited only one area of the
Sawmill Creek Wildlife Mitigation Area.
5.1.4 Differences Among Subsamples
Figure 4 presents the results of the analysis of differences among subsamples. For
each site, the range of similarity among subsamples for each evaluator is shown,
along with the siuuiarity among the artificial consensus evaluations determined for
each subsample. For the sites with only two subsamples (sites 1, 2, 3, and 5), the two
consensus subsamples were approximately 80% similar (with the similarity for
individual evaluators ranging from 75% to 99%). For the site with three subsamples
(site 4), the similarities were much lower. The results for each of the individual sites
are discussed -below.
SiisJL
For the five different evaluators, responses to questions for subsamples 1-2 and 1-3
were between 75% (67 similar of 89 questions) and 88% (75 similar of 85 questions)
COM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
39

-------
100%
90%-
ft 80%
70% —


X
60%-
50%-
c
CD
I
(S 40%
if
J 30% -
E
CO 20% f
X
10% -
o%
Site 1
High Value
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
^ Consensus
. Low Value
Figure 4
Differences Between Subsamples

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
similar. For the consensus questionnaires, subsamples 1-2 and 1-3 were 80% similar
(69 of 86 questions). Some examples of the between 12 and 25 percent of the
questions with different responses for subsamples 1-2 and 1-3 include:
¦	all five evaluators responded that the vegetation class found at subsample
1-3 was solid, while at subsample 1-2, four of the five responded that the
vegetation class was intermediate;
¦	four of the five evaluators responded that subsample 1-2 had plants of
waterfowl value, while only one evaluator responded that similar plants
were found at subsample 1-3;
¦	four of the five evaluators responded that subsample 1-2 experienced sheet
flooding, while all five responded that subsample 1-3 did not experience
sheet flooding;
¦	four of the five evaluators responded that subsample 1-3 was included in,
or comprised a fringe or island wetland, while only one evaluator
responded that subsample 1-2 was a fringe or island wetland.
Site 2
For the five different evaluators, responses to questions for subsamples 2-2 and 2-4
were between 76% (65 of 86 questions) and 89% (74 of 83 questions) similar. For the
consensus questionnaires, subsamples 2-2 and 2-4 were 78% similar (67 of 86
questions). Some examples of the between 11 and 24 percent of the questions with
different responses for subsamples 2-2 and 2-4 include:
¦	four of the five evaluators responded that a permanent outlet was present
at subsample 2-4, while only one responded that a permanent outlet was
present at subsample 2-2;
¦	all five evaluators responded that a charmel was present at subsample 2-4,
while only one responded that a channel was present at subsample 2-2;
¦	three of the five evaluators responded that subsample 2-4 experienced
flooding due to a downslope impoundment, while only one responded that
subsample 2-2 experiences flooding due to a downslope impoundment;
¦	three of the five evaluators responded that warm freshwater fish were
present at subsample 2-4, while only one evaluator responded that warm
freshwater fish were present at subsample 2-2.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
40

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Site 3
For the five different evaluators, responses to questions for subsamples 3-1 and 3-2
were between 83% (68 of 82 questions) and 99% (87 of 88 questions) similar. For the
consensus questionnaires, subsamples 3-1 and 3-2 were 83% similar (73 of 88
questions). The similarity between subsamples can be explained by the small size (2.8
acres) of site 3. Some examples of the between 1 and 17 percent of the questions with
different responses for subsamples 3-1 and 3-2 include:
¦	all five evaluators responded that the vegetation/water interface at
subsample 3-2 was solid, while two evaluators responded that the
vegetation/water interface at subsample 3-1 was intermediate, one
responded that it was mosaic, one responded that it was solid, and one did
not provide a vegetation/water interface for subsample 3-1;
¦	three of the five evaluators responded subsample 3-1 provided upland
habitat wind shelter, while only two of the five evaluators responded that
subsample 3-2 provided upland habitat wind shelter;
¦	all five evaluators responded that the area of zone B at subsample 3-1 was
more than 10 percent of the total wetland area, while only two evaluators
responded that are area of zone B at subsample 3-2 was more than 10
percent of the total wetland area.
Siie_i
For the five different evaluators, responses to questions for subsamples 4-1, 4-2 and
4-3 were between 49% (44 of 90 questions) and 61% (54 of 88 questions) similar. For
the consensus questionnaires, subsamples 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 were 55% similar (48 of 87
questions). Most of the differences among subsample responses can be attributed to
the physical dissimilarities between subsample 4-2 and subsamples 4-1 and 4-3. Some
examples of the between 39 and 45 percent of the questions responded to differently
among subsamples 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 include:
¦	four of the five evaluators responded that a permanent inlet and outlet
were present at subsample 4-1, and four of the five responded that a
permanent inlet and outlet were present at subsample 4-3, while none of
the evaluators indicated that a permanent inlet or outlet were present at
subsample 4-2;
¦	all five evaluators indicated that the wetland classification at subsamples
4-1 and 4-3 was estuarine, while four of the five evaluators indicated that
the wetland classification at subsample 4-2 was palustrine;
COM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	all five evaluators responded that the vegetation class at subsample 4-3 was
solid, and three of the five evaluators responded that the vegetation class
at subsample 4-1 was solid, while three of the five evaluators responded
that the vegetation class at subsample 4-2 was mosaic;
¦	all five evaluators responded that migrating or wintering geese were
present at subsample 4-1, while only one evaluator indicated the presence
of migrating or wintering geese at subsamples 4-2 and 4-3.
Site 5
For the five different evaluators, responses to questions for subsamples 5-1 and 5-2
were between 76% (66 of 87 questions) and 81% (73 of 90 questions) similar. For the
consensus questionnaires, subsamples 5-1 and 5-2 were 71% similar (62 of 87
questions). Some examples of the between 19 and 29 percent of the questions with
different responses for subsamples 5-1 and 5-2 include:
¦	four of the five evaluators responded that the vegetation/water interface at
subsample 5-1 was solid, while four of the five evaluators responded that
the vegetation/water interface at subsample 5-2 was intermediate;
¦	all five evaluators responded that the vegetation class at subsample 5-1 was
solid, while three of the five evaluators responded that the vegetation class
at subsample 5-2 was intermediate;
¦	four of the five evaluators responded that the primary source of sediment
at subsample 5-1 was sheetflow, while four of the five evaluators
responded that the primary source of sediment at subsample 5-2 was
channel flow;
¦	four of the five evaluators responded that the permanent and spatially
dominant hydroperiod type at subsample 5-2 was regularly flooded tidal,
while four of the five evaluators responded that the permanent
hydroperiod and three of the five responded that the spatially dominant
hydroperiod type at subsample 5-1 was irregularly flooded tidal;
¦	four of the five evaluators indicated that the predominant substrate
material at subsample 5-1 was peat, while four of the five evaluators
indicated that the substrate at subsample 5-2 was muck.
Reference Site R1
No subsamples were taken at site Rl.
COM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
42

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Reference Site R2
No subsamples were taken at site R2.
5.2 BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT (BPJ) RESULTS
The remaining portion of the wetland evaluation form asked for best professional
judgement (BPJ) assessment of the value of each wetland site for a variety of wetland
functions and attributes. The evaluators were requested to rate each wetland
subsample location, on a scale of 0 to 10 (with 0 representing no value, and 10
representing the value of the reference wetland) for ten wetland functions and three
wetland attributes. The desired result of this data collection effort was a BPJ
valuation of each subsample for the three wetland attributes (wildlife habitat—WH,
water quality improvement—WQ, and social significance—SS). The requested BPJ
valuations for the wetland functions that make up each attribute were intended to
guide the evaluator toward the BPJ valuation for the three attributes. In some cases,
BPJ valuations were made for the related functions, but not for the overall attribute.
In these cases, an average of the BPJ valuations for the related functions was used for
the attribute BPJ value.
In order to present a single BPJ value for each subsample, the average of all five
evaluator's BPJ estimates was used. In order to present a single set of "aggregate" BPJ
values for each site, the two or three subsample values were combined, according to
the percent of the total site that each subsample represented (see Section 3). Each
evaluator's BPJ estimates for the two or three subsamples were combined to obtain an
aggregate BPJ value for each evaluator for each site. The results for each subsample
and site are listed on Table 1, and discussed in the subsections below. Table 1 also
presents the baseline IVA scores, calculated using the WET data collected during the
1986 AVID study.
5.2.1 Site 1
Aggregate values and scores for site 1 were calculated from the individual subsamples
using the percentages of the entire site that each subsample represented—subsamples
1-2	and 1-3 each represented 50% of the entire site (see Section 3.1). Using the WET
data collected in the AVID study, the baseline IVA scores for site 1 (Assessment Area
2-U)	were 59 for WH, 31 for WQ, and 48 for SS.
Wildlife Habitat (WH) Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the WH attribute for site 1 ranged from 2.0 to 3.5, and
averaged 2.7. This is somewhat lower than would be expected from the IVA baseline
score of 59. However, the IVA baseline score includes a substantial portion of the
Hackensack River and shoreline wetlands, which most likely have a higher value than
the 6 acre area of site 1.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
43

-------
TABLE 1
BPJ RATINGS AND IVA SCORES
Evalu-
Sub-
BPJ Ratings

IVA Scores

Percentage Method
AANO Site ator
Sample
WH
WQ
SS
WH
WQ
SS
WH
WQ SS
2 U 1 AVID
Entire



59
31
48


DS
1-2
3.0
3.0
3.0
29
53
40


KRS
1-2
3.0
2.0
3.0
49
110
40


KSN
1-2
4.0
4.0
4.0
44
108
40


MAT
1-2
4.0
4.0
4.0
33
77
48


WW
1-2
2.5
4.0
3.0
19
61
40


Avg
1-2
3.3
3.4
3.4
35
82
42


Consensus
1-2



26
82
40


DS
1-3
1.0
3.0
1.0
19
37
40


KRS
1-3
2.0
2.0
2.0
61
79
40


KSN
1-3
3.0
3.0
3.0
38
56
40


MAT
1-3
2.0
2.0
2.0
33
51
48


WW
1-3
2.0
5.0
3.0
16
37
40


Avg
1-3
2.0
3.0
2.2
33
52
42


Consensus
1-3



27
46
40


DS
COMP
2.0
3.0
2.0
29
49
40
24
45 40
KRS
COMP
2.5
2.0
2.5
69
108
40
55
95 40
KSN
COMP
3.5
3.5
3.5
44
82
40
41
82 40
MAT
COMP
3.0
3.0
3.0
41
84
48
33
64 48
WW
COMP
2.3
4.5
3.0
20
63
40
18
49 40
Avg
COMP
2.7
3.2
2.8
41
77
42
34
67 42
Consensus
COMP



35
80
40
27
64 40
2 T 2 AVID
Entire



36
52
17


DS
2-2
0.5
1.0
1.0
13
60
17


KRS
2-2
1.0
1.0
1.0
22
83
17


KSN
2-2
1.0
2.5
2.0
19
64
17


MAT
2-2
1.0
0.0
1.0
26
85
17


WW
2-2
1.0
1.0
2.0
18
57
17


Avg
2-2
0.9
1.1
1.4
20
70
17


Consensus
2-2



17
77
17


DS
2-4
3.0
2.0
2.0
24
58
17


KRS
2-4
3.0
2.0
2.0
45
75
17


KSN
2-4
2.5
2.0
2.0
36
71
17


MAT
2-4
5.0
4.0
4.0
51
86
17


WW
2-4
5.0
3.0
4.0
41
63
17


Avg
2-4
3.7
2.6
2.8
39
71
17


Consensus
2-4



53
82
17


DS
COMP
0.8
1.1
1.1
25
60
17
14
60 17
KRS
COMP
1.2
1.1
1.1
46
100
17
24
82 17
KSN
COMP
1.2
2.5
2.0
30
69
17
21
65 17
MAT
COMP
1.4
0.4
1.3
51
93
17
29
85 17
WW
COMP
1.4
1.2
2.2
41
70
17
20
58 17
Avg
COMP
1.2
1.3
1.5
39
78
17
22
70 17
Consensus
COMP



42
81
17
21
79 17

-------
TABLE 1
BPJ RATINGS AND IVA SCORES
(continued)
Evalu-
Sub-
BPJ Ratings

IVA Scores

Percentage Method
AANO Site ator
Sample
WH
WQ
SS
WH
WQ
SS
WH
WQ SS
201 3 AVID
Entire



na
na na



DS
3-1
3.0
3.0
3.0
31
44
0


KRS
3-1
6.0
6.0
6.0
50
76
0


KSN
3-1
4.0
5.0
5.0
37
54
0


MAT
3-1
5.0
7.0
6.0
35
66
0


WW
3-1
4.0
2.5
3.0
22
39
0


Avg
3-1
4.4
4.7
4.6
35
56
0


Consensus
3-1



34
67
0


DS
3-2
3.0
3.0
2.5
30
43
0


KRS
3-2
4.0
5.0
6.0
40
69
0


KSN
3-2
4.0
6.0
4.0
32
58
0


MAT
3-2
5.5
8.0
6.0
35
58
0


WW
3-2
3.0
4.0
1.0
22
39
0


Avg
3-2
3.9
5.2
3.9
32
53
0


Consensus
3-2



38
62
0


DS
COMP
3.0
3.0
2.8
32
48
0
31
44 0
KRS
COMP
5.0
5.5
6.0
46
77
0
45
73 0
KSN
COMP
4.0
5.5
4.5
40
64
0
35
56 0
MAT
COMP
5.3
7.5
6.0
38
70
0
35
62 0
WW
COMP
3.5
3.3
2.0
22
39
0
22
39 0
Avg
COMP
4.2
5.0
4.3
36
60
0
33
55 0
Consensus
COMP



40
72
0
36
6$ 0
2 M 4 AVID
Entire



77
81
18


DS
4-1
6.0
8.0
5.0
45
55
17


KRS
4-1
7.0
7.0
7.0
70
56
17


KSN
4-1
7.5
7.0
4.0
84
71
17


MAT
4-1
7.0
9.0
4.0
63
77
17


WW
4-1
4.0
3.0
4.0
34
33
17


Avg
4-1
6.3
6.8
4.8
59
58
17


Consensus
4-1



63
65
17


DS
4-2
5.0
1.0
2.0
18
49
17


KRS
4-2
1.0
1.0
1.0
24
43
17


KSN
4-2
2.0
2.0
2.0
38
42
17


MAT
4-2
5.0
2.0
3.0
39
65
17


WW
4-2
1.0
1.0
1.5
10
28
17


Avg
4-2
2.8
1.4
1.9
26
45
17


Consensus
4-2



15
60
17


DS
4-3
3.5
7.5
3,0
45
52
17


KRS
4-3
3.0
5.0
3.0
33
78
17


KSN
4-3
7.0
8.0
4.0
63
77
17


MAT
4-3
6.0
9.0
4.0
68
92
17


WW
4-3
1.5
2.5
3.0
36
58
17


Avg
4-3
4.2
6.4
3.4
49
71
17


Consensus
4-3



47
82
17


DS
COMP
4.2
7.3
3.5
51
73
17
44
53 17
KRS
COMP
3.0
5.3
3.9
71
102
17
42
71 17
KSN
COMP
6.9
7.5
3.9
81
79
17
67
74 17
MAT
COMP
6.2
8.7
4.0
75
108

65
87 17
WW
COMP
2.1
2.6
3.2
47
57
17
34
50 17
Avg
COMP
4.7
6.2
3.7
65
84
27
50
67 17
Consensus
COMP



69
87
17
49
77 17

-------
TABLE 1
BPJ RATINGS AND IVA SCORES
(continued)

Evalu-
Sub-
BPJ Ratings

IVA Scores

Percentage Method
AANO
Site ator
Sample
WH
WQ
SS
WH
WQ
SS
WH
WQ SS
39
5 AVID
Entire



67
86
0



DS
5-1
1.0
3.5
1.0
29
64
0



KRS
5-1
1.0
4.0
1.0
28
80
0



KSN
5-1
2.0
4.0
3.0
31
80
0



MAT
5-1
3.0
7.0
1.0
38
98
0



WW
5-1
1.0
2.5
1.0
16
37
0



Avg
5-1
1.6
4.2
1.4
28
72
0



Consensus
5-1



23
94
0



DS
5-2
2.0
8.0
2.0
39
44
0



KRS
5-2
2.0
4.0
2.0
48
99
0



KSN
5-2
4.0
7.0
3.0
46
74
0



MAT
5-2
4.0
6.0
2.0
48
76
0



WW
5-2
2.5
3.5
2.5
31
31
0



Avg
5-2
2.9
5.7
2.3
42
65
0



Consensus
5-2



48
71
0



DS
COMP
1.5
5.8
1.5
42
58
0
34
54 0

KRS
COMP
1.5
4.0
1.5
53
111
0
38
90 0

KSN
COMP
3.0
5.5
3.0
50
83
0
39
77 0

MAT
COMP
3.5
6.5
1.5
49
96
0
43
87 0

WW
COMP
1.8
3.0
1.8
36
53
0
24
34 0

Avg
COMP
2.3
5.0
1.9
46
80
0
35
68 0

Consensus
COMP



56
92
0
36
83 0
301
R1 AVID
Entire



103
105
92



DS
R1
10.0
10.0
10.0
88
71
48



KRS
R1
10.0
10.0
10.0
84
60
48



KSN
R1
9.0
10.0
10.0
84
60
48



MAT
R1
10.0
9.5
10.0
87
65
48



WW
R1
10.0
10.0
10.0
85
62
48



Avg
R1
9.8
9.9
10.0
86
64
48



Consensus
R1



85
62
48


28
R2 AVID
Entire



92
80
92



DS
R2
10.0
10.0
10.0
62
51
53



KRS
R2
10.0
10.0
10.0
116
82
100



KSN
R2
9.0
10.0
10.0
90
85
100



MAT
R2
9.5
9.0
10.0
109
90
103



WW
R2
10.0
10.0
10.0
70
69
48



Avg
R2
9.7
9.8
10.0
89
75
81



Consensus
R2



95
76
100



-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
For subsample 1-2, the wildlife habitat BPJ range was from 2.5 to 4.0, and averaged
3.3. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	site consists of dense Phragmites very infrequently inundated by tides,
providing habitat for only a few species of passerines and perhaps a few
small mammals.
¦	very little fish habitat
¦	small areas of stagnant water provide habitat for feeding, loafing and
perhaps nesting for mallards only
¦	lack of habitat diversity precludes significant use by wildlife
¦	vegetative diversity relatively high but probably little diversity and
abundance of aquatic invertebrates
¦	supports nesting sandpipers and passerines
¦	substantial human disturbance limits wildlife habitat
For subsample 1-3, the wildlife habitat BPJ range was from 1.0 to 3.0, and averaged
2.0. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	dense Phragmites with little standing water
¦	not tidal except during spring tides
¦	has some value for passerines and edge is ok for waders and shorebirds
¦	mostly dense Phragmites and substantial amounts of trash, but edge has
interspersed Spartina
Water Quality Improvement (WQ) Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the water quality improvement attribute for site 1 ranged
from 2.0 to 4.5, and averaged 3.2. These numbers are consistent with the baseline IVA
WQ score of 31. It is possible that the disparity between BPJ and baseline IVA scores
that appears in for the WH attribute doesn't appear for the WQ attribute because the
wetlands in AA 2-U that perform water quality improvement functions are similar to
site 1.
For subsample 1-2, the water quality improvement BPJ range was from 2.0 to 4.0, and
averaged 3.4. Kc-asons for these ratings included:
¦	site is somewhat bermed from sheet flow.
¦	heavy growth of Phragmites and infrequent tidal flux contribute to rather
high potential for both sediment and toxicant retention
¦	high marsh with little tidal contact
For subsample 1-3, the water quality improvement BPJ range was from 2.0 to 5.0, and
averaged 3.0. Reasons for these ratings included:
COM Camp Dresser &. McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
44

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	sheet flow and occasional channel overflow can carry nutrients from dense
vegetation
¦	sediments and toxicants from adjacent golf course and roadway can be
retained in wetland
¦	poor tidal connection, too high in elevation
¦	some functioning at edge, filters some runoff
Social Significance fSS^ Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the social significance attribute for site 1 ranged from 2.0 to
3.5, and averaged 2.2. As with the WH attribute, this is somewhat lower than would
be expected from the baseline IVA score of 48 for AA 2-U. But also as with the WH
attribute, this disparity is most likely due to the fact that the assessment area includes
a large part of the river, which has more social significance value than site 1.
For subsample 1-Z the social significance BPJ range was from 3.0 to 4,0, and averaged
3.4. Reasons for these ratings included;
¦	no hunting or fishing, perhaps a little trapping
¦	access physically easy but posted, many people visit adjacent golf range
¦	little to look at for birders or nature photographers
m high disturbance factor, with substantial noise from NJ Turnpike
¦	absorbs and retains tidal/storm overflow from Cedar Creek and /or
Hackensack River
¦	low conservation potential due to poor quality wildlife habitat and
recreation use
¦	possible future public access
For subsample 1-3, the social significance BPJ range was from 1.0 to 3.0, and averaged
2.2. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	no hunting or trapping potential, little potential for fishing
¦	boating potential high but little to see or do if not fishing
» birdwatching/nature photography potential low as there is little to see
¦	highly disturbed, much trash and debris
¦	probably helps in curbing flooding on golf driving range, but reduced
functioning because of narrow configuration
¦	conservation potential low in its current state.
5.2.2 Site 2
Aggregate values and scores for site 2 were calculated from the individual subsamples
using the percentages of the entire site that each subsample represented—subsample
2-2 represented 90% of the site and subsample 2-4 represented 10% of the entire site
COM Camp Dtesset & McK« DRAFT - February 28, 1995
45

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
(see Section 3.2). Using the WET data collected in the AVID study, the baseline IVA
scores for site 2 (Assessment Area 2-T) were 36 for WH, 52 for WQ, and 17 for SS.
Wildlife Habitat (WH) Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the WH attribute for site 2 ranged from 0.8 to 1.4, and
averaged 1.2. This is somewhat lower than would be expected from the IVA baseline
score of 36. However, the IVA baseline score includes a substantially larger area,
including Bashes Creek and shoreline wetlands, which most likely have a higher
value than the 9.4 acre area of site 2.
For subsample 2-2, the wildlife habitat BPJ range was from 0.5 to 1.0, and averaged
0.9. Reasons for these low ratings included:
¦	site inundated during only the highest of tides, thus no aquatic habitats
¦	solid Phragmites, no habitat diversity
¦	no open areas that might provide feeding, resting, or nesting habitat for
birds
¦	limited use by passerine birds (primarily red-winged blackbirds)
¦	limited use by muskrats and other mammals
For subsample 2-4, the wildlife habitat BPJ range was from 2.5 to 5.0, and averaged
3.7. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	regularly flooded area with an immediately adjacent area that is less
regularly flooded provides fairly good habitat diversity for aquatic
organisms
¦	relatively high diversity of plants
¦	much exposed substrate at low tides
¦	good fish habitat due to regular tidal flux of creek, but suitable only for
species tolerant of low IX) and high turbidity
¦	tide gate restricting inflow, limiting fish habitat
¦	regularly flooded tidal creek provides fairly good habitat for feeding and
loafing for several species of waterfowl
¦	bird nesting possible along edge of creek and on berms
¦	much evidence of use by muskrats
¦	much of area outside berms is fairly dry and provides little habitat for
most birds
Water Quality Improvement (WCfl Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the water quality improvement attribute for site 2 ranged
from 0.4 to 2.5, and averaged 1.3. These numbers are lower than would be expected
from the baseline IVA WQ score of 52. However, the water quality improvement
functioning of AA 2-T most likely occurs in the upper reaches of the assessment
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
46

-------
Project Repori
IVA Method Field Testing Study
area—site 2 is at the lower end of the AA along the Hackensack River and is isolated
from tidal flow.
For subsample 2-2, the water quality improvement BPJ range was from 0.0 to 2.5, and
averaged 1.1. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	no means of transport of nutrients, sediments, or toxics into or out of site
except for overland flow (relatively infrequent)
¦	non-tidal—little opportunity for removal of nutrients
¦	dense vegetation will uptake some toxics and hold sediments, but little
opportunity
¦	Phragmites can trap sediment from nearby peat berms on highway
¦	no water present
For subsample 2-4, the water quality improvement BPJ range was from 2.0 to 4.0, and
averaged 2.6. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	area not regularly flooded
« ponded water restricted to ditch, tidal area unvegetated, very little water
contact with vegetation
¦	sediments and toxics brought in via creek will settle out because of slow
velocity of flow, however, input via creek may be small
¦	no source of toxics entering wetland
Sofia) Significance fSS> Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the social significance attribute for site 2 ranged from 1.1 to
2.2, and averaged 1.5. These numbers are consistent with the baseline IVA SS score of
17.
For subsample 2-2, the social significance BPJ range was from 1.0 to 2.0, and averaged
1.4. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	no opportunity for consumptive use—monoculture of Phragmites
¦	birders and other non-consumptive users have little to attract them to this
site
¦	no boating or fishing
* access is good—close to marina and restaurant
¦	could be effective at reducing flood flow during significant storm events—
flow over berms would be trapped on site, but small size of area limits
capacity
¦	very low conservation potential in current state
¦	good area to serve as mitigation/enhancement
¦	serves as open space/urban wetland
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
47

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
For subsample 2-4, the social significance BPJ range was nearly twice that of
subsample 2-2, ranging from 2.0 to 4.0, and averaging 2.6. Reasons for these ratings
included:
¦	some trapping potential but no other consumptive use
¦	access very poor
¦	usually probably little to see for birders and nature photographers
¦	creek too shallow for boating/fishing
¦	open to river for floodflow alteration potential, much of creek area not
inundated by normal high tides so additional capacity available
¦	wetland functions here can, for the most part, be duplicated elsewhere
5.2.3 Site 3
Aggregate values and scores for site 3 were calculated from the individual subsamples
using the percentages of the entire site that each subsample represented—subsamples
3-1 and 3-2 each represented 50% of the entire site (see Section 3.3). Using the WET
data collected in the AVID study, the baseline IVA scores for site 3 (Assessment Area
201) were not calculated, because the AVID assessment was not performed for AA
201.
Wildlife Habitat (WH) Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the WH attribute for site 3 ranged from 3.0 to 5.3, and
averaged 4.2. This area was not assessed during AVID, so a comparison to the AVID
baseline score is not possible.
For subsample 3-1, the wildlife habitat BPJ range was from 3.0 to 6.0, and averaged
4.4. For subsample 3-2, the wildlife habitat BPJ values were similar, ranging from 3.0
to 5.5, and averaged 3.9. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	good interspersion of trees, emergent vegetation, and open water, but small
in size
¦	slightly greater diversity of vascular plants at subsample 3-1 than at 3-2
¦	shallow pond, probably experiences high changes in temperature and high
changes in DO
¦	provides good fish habitat if stocked
¦	isolated from other wetlands, close to human disturbance
¦	supports a few species of waterfowl and aquatic invertebrates
¦	connected intermittently to other water via ditch
¦	dense understory
¦	good for songbirds, some waterfowl, and terrapins
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
4a

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Water Quality Improvement (WQ) Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the water quality improvement attribute for site 3 ranged
from 3.0 to 7.5, and averaged 5.0. This area was not assessed during AVID, so a
comparison to the AVID baseline score is not possible.
For subsample 3-1, the water quality improvement BPJ range was from 2.5 to 7.0, and
averaged 4.7. For subsample 3-2, the water quality improvement BPJ values were
similar, ranging from 3.0 to 8.0, and averaged 5.2. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	good fringe of emergents increases nutrient uptake and sediment/toxicant
retention capability
¦	forest vegetation decreases nutrient uptake and sediment/toxicant retention
capability
¦	site has curbing reducing sheet flow into wetland
¦	algae beds remove nutrients from fertilizer used on surrounding lawns
¦	intermittent outlet increases retention time
¦	small size limits volume of removal
¦	may act as detention facility accepting nonpoint source (stormwater runoff)
pollution and sediment from adjacent impervious areas
¦	presence of mineral soils lowers sediment/toxicant retention capability
Social Significance (SS) Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the social significance attribute for site 3 ranged from 2.0 to
6.0, and averaged 4.3. This area was not assessed during AVID, so a comparison to
the AVID baseline score is not possible.
For subsample 3-1, the social significance BPJ range was from 3.0 to 6.0, and averaged
4.6. For subsample 3-2, the social significance BPJ values were similar, ranging from
1.0 to 6.0, and averaged 3.9. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	close to human habitats, easily accessible
¦	only good for passive recreation uses, such as birdwatching and wildlife
observation by local office workers
¦	probably receives storm drainage from surrounding impervious surfaces,
and acts as detention/retention basin
¦	downslope flooding from non-tidal storms events are not a problem
¦	uncertain conservation potential due to infill location (small size and
isolated from other wetlands, but only kind in the vicinity)
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
49

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
5.2.4 Site 4
Aggregate values and scores for site 4 were calculated from the individual subsamples
using the percentages of the entire site that each subsample represented—subsamples
4-1 represented 25 percent of the site, subsample 4-2 represented 4 percent of the site,
and subsample 4-3 represented 70% of the entire site (see Section 3.4). Using the WET
data collected in the AVID study, the baseline IVA scores for site 4 (Assessment Area
2-M) were 77 for WH, 81 for WQ, and 18 for SS.
Wildlife Habitat (WH^ Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the WH attribute for site 4 ranged from 2.1 to 6.9, and
averaged 4.7. These results are somewhat lower than the IVA baseline WH score of
77. However, as with most of the other sites, the baseline WH score is calculated for
a larger assessment area (AA 2-M), and the 9 acre site 4 may not be completely
representative of the wildlife habitat available elsewhere in the larger assessment area.
For subsample 4-1, the wildlife habitat BPJ range was from 4.0 to 7.5, and averaged
6.3. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	stressed water quality limits aquatic diversity and abundance
¦	spike rush growing on mudflat scrub-shrub berm good nesting habitat
¦	good diversity of cover increases wildlife habitat
¦	open water—fish, aquatic, and waterfowl habitat
¦	tidally flowed
¦	mudflats good shorebird and invertebrate habitat
¦	emergents and shrubs good passerine habitat
¦	part of large wetland system
For subsample 4-2, the wildlife habitat BPJ range was from 1.0 to 5.0, and averaged
2.8. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	no water except during storms—high elevation
¦	no connection to estuarine system
¦	high nature of ground provides limited habitat for nesting
¦	some habitat for "upland" edge species of passerines and mammals.
¦	small size/small opening
For subsample 4-3, the wildlife habitat BPJ range was from 1.5 to 7.0, and averaged
4.2. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	no permanent water, tidal flux very limited, little habitat diversity
(Phragmites monoculture), therefore little habitat for aquatic invertebrates
¦	tidal range appears insufficient to support fish, no open areas or channels
¦	very limited waterfowl habitat due to lack of open areas
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
50

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	stressed water quality (upstream treatment plant)
¦	limited value for wrens, sparrows, rails, red-winged blackbirds, etc.,
muskrats
Water Quality Improvement (WQ1 Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the water quality improvement attribute for site 4 ranged
from 2.6 to 8.7, and averaged 6.2. These results are somewhat lower than the IVA
baseline WQ score of 81. However, as discussed above, the baseline WQ score for the
entire assessment area may not be represented by the 9 acre site 4.
For subsample 4-1, the water quality improvement BPJ range was from 3.0 to 9.0, and
averaged 6.8. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	upstream wastewater treatment plant
¦	Phragmites marsh high value for retention of sediment/toxics
¦	good Phragmites/water interspersion
¦	regular tidal flushing
¦	part of large wetland system
For subsample 4-2, the water quality improvement BPJ range was from 1.0 to 2.0, and
averaged 1.4. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	frequency of tidal flush very limited
¦	little vegetation to uptake nutrients/trap sediments
¦	little source of sediment/nutrient/toxics
For subsample 4-3, the water quality improvement BPJ range was from 2.5 to 9.0, and
averaged 6.4. Reasons for these ratings included:
upstream wastewater treatment plant—source of nutrients
no through-flow of fresh water and limited tidal flux limit export of
nutrients
possible retention of toxics from adjacent paved areas
Phragmites excellent for sediment/toxicant retention
very low sediment retention—no source of sediment
Social Significance (SS) Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the social significance attribute for site 4 ranged from 3.2 to
4.0, and averaged 3.7. These numbers are all substantially higher than the baseline
IVA score of 18.
For subsample 4-1, the social significance BPJ range was from 4.0 to 7.0, and averaged
4.8. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦
¦
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
51

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	limited access, good birdwatching location
¦	limited floodflow alteration potential due to tidal system
¦	good conservation potential due to diversity of wildlife habitats (rare
mudflat habitat for shorebirds) and water quality benefits
¦	lower conservation potential due to proximity to industrial area
For subsample 4-2, the social significance BPJ range was from 1.0 to 3.0, and averaged
1.9. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	can be seen from road, but parking is not permitted
¦	no hunting/fishing/trapping due to poor habitat for target species
¦	little birdwatching potential due to limited avifauna
¦	visibility from boat or vehicle obscured by tall Phragmites
¦	limited conservation potential—provides different habitat in otherwise "sea"
of Phragmites
For subsample 4-3, the social significance BPJ range was from 3.0 to 4.0, and averaged
3.4. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	no public access
¦	little potential for fishing, hunting, birdwatching, photography, or trapping
¦	has potential of absorbing flood waters from overflow of Bellman's Creek
¦	dense vegetation enhances potential to slow velocity of flood waters
¦	some conservation potential because it is part of a relatively large wetland
area, fairly undisturbed, and near already enhanced wetland
5.2.5 Site 5
Aggregate values and scores for site 5 were calculated from the individual subsamples
using the percentages of the entire site that each subsample represented—subsamples
5-1 and 5-2 each represented 50% of the entire site (see Section 3.5). Using the WET
data collected in the AVID study, the baseline IVA scores for site 5 (Assessment Area
39) were 67 for WH, 86 for WQ, and 0 for SS.
Wildlife HabiLat (WH) Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the WH attribute for site 5 ranged from 1.5 to 3.5, and
averaged 2.3. These results are substantially lower than the IVA baseline WH score of
67. Unlike most of the other sites, however, site 5 encompasses most of its "parent"
assessment area (AA 39). Thus, the lower BPJ estimate may indicate that either:
¦	the current field study did not represent all of the wildlife habitats found
at site 5;
¦	the previous AVID assessment over-estimated the number of wildlife
habitat indicators present in the assessment area;
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
52

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	the wetland has degraded substantially between 1986 and 1994; or
¦	the IVA method is placing undue emphasis on a wildlife habitat indicator
that may be present in this wetland, but may not be as important as the
IVA method has assumed, or the IVA method is missing a "negative"
indicator that would reduce the reported score at this wetland.
For subsample 5-1, the wildlife habitat BPJ range was from 1.0 to 3-0, and averaged
1.6. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	no permanent water and no or very little tidal flux
¦	poor water quality
»	little hydrologic connection to other wetlands
¦	dense monoculture of Phmgmites
¦	no real food source for food chain
¦	no suitable edge for nesting
¦	no use by waterbirds and little use by passerines due to lack of habitat
diversity
¦	very highly disturbed by traffic and loud noise
For subsample 5-2, the wildlife habitat BPJ range was from 2.0 to 4.0, and averaged
2.9. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	shallow, non-permanent water, brief tidal inundation
¦	low plant diversity
•	poor water quality
•	food source limited
m limited foraging habitat for waterfowl due to small size of opening in
Phragmites
•	nesting of one or two pairs of ducks possible along edge of tidal flat
9 limited use by shorebirds, passerine use limited to red-winged blackbird,
grackle, and few other species
¦	some use by muskrats and other mammals
•	small area
¦	highlv disturbed, stressed area
Water. Quality. Improvement-tWO) Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the water quality improvement attribute for site 5 ranged
from 3.0 to 6.5, and averaged 5.0. These results are somewhat lower than the IVA
baseline WQ score of 86. However, they are closer to the IVA results than for the
WH attribute. The remaining difference could be the result of any of the reasons
discussed above.
For subsample 5-1, the water quality improvement BPJ range was from 2.5 to 7.0, and
averaged 4.2. Reasons for these ratings included:
COM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
S3

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	probably serves as moderately high retainer of runoff from adjacent roads,
railroads, urban land uses and stormwater discharge points
¦	curbing may reduce some overland flow
¦	Phragmites marsh provides good retention of sediment/toxics
¦	restricted tidal flow decreases nutrient removal potential
For subsample 5-2, the water quality improvement BPJ range was from 3.5 to 8.0, and
averaged 5.7. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	sediment deposition on tidal flat likely from channel flow
¦	toxics/sediment/nutrients enter via sheet flow from adjacent roads,
railroad tracks, urban land uses, and via channel
¦	toxics may be likely to leave site via channel
¦	Phragmites marsh good for retention
Social Sifinificanrp Attribute
Aggregate BPJ values for the social significance attribute for site 5 ranged from 1.5 to
3.0, and averaged 1.9. These numbers are all slightly higher than the baseline IVA
score of 0.
For subsample 5-1, the social significance BPJ range was from 1.0 to 3.0, and averaged
1.4. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	no consumptive use possible
¦	nothing to see for non-consumptive users
¦	very high disturbance factor
¦	dangerous access
¦	low floodflow alteration potential because connected to Chromakill Creek
by a very small connection
¦	may serve as backwater area during unusually high tides and storms
¦	low conservation potential due to overall low quality and undesirable
location, not close to other large wetlands
For subsample 5 -2, the social significance BPJ range was from 2.0 to 3.0, and averaged
2.3. Reasons for these ratings included:
¦	extremely limited and dangerous access
¦	no consumptive use possible
¦	some birding potential from roadway
¦	may absorb some storm tides from Chromakill Creek
¦	receives stormwater from adjacent impervious area
¦	limited conservation potential due to stressed area
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
64

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
5.2.6 Reference Site R1
Using the WET data collected in the AVID study, the baseline IVA scores for
reference site R1 (Assessment Area 301) were 103 for WH, 105 for WQ, and 92 for SS.
Wildlife Habitat (WH) Attribute
BPJ values for the WH attribute for reference site R1 ranged from 9.0 to 10.0, and
averaged 9.8. These results agree with the IVA baseline WH score of 103. Reasons
for these ratings included:
¦	tidal flux provides some pools for aquatic species, permanent water
¦	emergent vegetation and limited shade in areas
»	inlerspersion of habitat types: open water, emergent intertidal zone,
mudflats, islands, Phmgmites, Spartina
¦	permanent tidal regime
¦	large area of tidal open water provides good fish and waterfowl habitat
¦	diversity of zones B and C provides good waterfowl habitat
¦	high diversity of habitat
¦	high diversity of species usage
*
¦	areas for overwintering/breeding/migration
¦	one of the best wildlife habitats in the Meadowlands
Water Quality Improvement (WO) Attribute
BPJ values for the water quality improvement attribute for reference site R1 ranged
from 9.5 to 10.0, and averaged 9.9. These results agree with the IVA baseline WQ
score of 105. Reasons for these ratings include:
¦	Phragmites and Spartina provide high nutrient removal and sediment/toxic
retention
¦	high nutrient removal/transformation opportunity due to regular tidal
flooding
•	sources nf nutrients/sediments/toxics
•	vegetated mudflats and other zone B areas provide sediment/toxic
retention
Social Significance (SS) Attribute
BPJ values for the social significance attribute for reference site R1 for all evaluators
equalled 10.0. These results agree with the IVA baseline SS score of 92. Reasons for
these ratings included:
COM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
SS

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	high recreation potential in regards to public viewing of preservation
efforts
¦	limited access in some areas
• close to marina—boating access
¦	high quality habitat for passive recreation: birding, nature photography,
etc.
¦	high conservation potential—deed restricted
5.2.7 Reference Site R2
Using the WET data collected in the AVID study, the baseline IVA scores for
reference site R2 (Assessment Area 2-8) were 92 for WH, 80 for WQ, and 92 for SS.
Wildlife Habitat (WH) Attribute
BPJ values for the WH attribute for reference site R2 ranged from 9.0 to 10.0, and
averaged 9.7. These results agree with the IVA baseline WH score of 92. Reasons for
these ratings included:
¦	high diversity of interspersed habitats and microhabitats
¦	lacks some vegetative diversity
¦	regularly tidally influenced
¦	excellent habitat for fish, diversity of aquatic invertebrates
¦	abundance of food
¦	good water quality
¦	large areas of open water, great diversity of water depth
¦	exposed mudflats, islands, aquatic vegetation
¦	good habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, passerines
¦	good hunting habitat for hawks
¦	good species diversity
¦	little disturbance from humans
Water Qualify Improvement (WQ) Attribute
BPJ values for the water quality improvement attribute for reference site R2 ranged
from 9.0 to 10.0, and averaged 9.8. These results are slightly higher than the IVA
baseline WQ score of 80. Reasons for these ratings include
¦	strongly tidal and highly productive system
¦	many acres of Spartim and Phragmites with good interspereion with water
provides excellent sediment/toxic retention
¦	nutrient and toxic sources
¦	mudflats with benthic invertebrates provide nutrient
removal / transformation
¦	good oxygen production transport to Hackensack River
GDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
56

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Social Significance (SS) Attribute
BPJ values for the social significance attribute for reference site R2 for all evaluators
equalled 10.0. These results agree with the IVA baseline SS score of 92. Reasons for
these ratings included:
¦	much open water available for canoeing, boating, fishing
¦	opportunities for hunting, trapping
¦	high bird diversity attracts birdwatchers
¦	salt marsh with many acres of vegetation provides good flood buffering
capacity
¦	little disturbance from humans
¦	large, urban wetland
¦	performs all wetland functions (except floodflow alteration) to a high
degree
¦	is part of conservation/management area
5.2.8 Comparison of BPJ to AVID Baseline IVA Scores
The regressions for the three attributes for the AVID baseline against the average BPJ
for each site gave good results—all regressions show a positive relationship between
the average BPJ value and the AVID baseline for the assessment area. Figures 5, 6,
and 7 present the AVID baseline IVA scores and corresponding BPJ values for each
attribute for all of the sites. The "error bars" on these graphs represent the range of
aggregate BPJ values (for all of the evaluators) for each sites. The straight line on
each graph is the least-squares regression line that best fits the data. (The slope,
intercept, and r2 (the coefficient of determination, with a value of 0 indicating no
correlation between variables and a value of 1 indicating 100% correlation between
variables) values for all linear regressions in this report are included in Attachment 6.)
In almost all cases, the BPJ value is less than would be expected from the AVID
baseline (either by dividing the AVID score by 10 or multiplying the BPJ value by 10).
This is most likely due to the fact that the BPJ value was only for a subarea (in many
cases an area of lower value than the site as a whole) of a larger assessment area
evaluated by AVID. It may also be likely that the IVA method results in a slightly
higher, more conscivative value for a wetland than a best professional judgement
value.
Thus, the AVID baseline score and the BPJ values for all three attributes are
comparable, and the IVA method, using the AVID baseline WET data, appears to
value wetlands similarly to using best professional judgement to value the wetlands.
5.3 IVA RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
The responses to the 167 WET questions included on the form were used to calculate,
using the Indicator Value Assessment (IVA) method, indicator scores for the three
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
67

-------
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
i	r
40 50 60 70
AVID Baseline IVA Score
11
BPJ Values vs. AVID Baseline IVA
Wildlife Habitat A

-------
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
I
4
3
2
1
0
<
R?





/



m

r2 = 0.59
—i	1	1	1	rz	1	r~
10 20 30 40 50 60	70
AVID Baseline IVA Score
80	90 100 11
BPJ Values vs. AVID Baseline IV
Water Quality Improvement

-------
11
9
8

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
attributes. For wetland indicators not included on the wetland evaluation form, or for
unknown or missing results, the response from the AVID WET data collection was
used. Indicator scores were calculated for each attribute for each subsample for each
evaluator. The newly calculated indicator scores were compared against the indicator
scores calculated using only the data collected during the 1987 AVID study (these
indicator scores are termed "baseline" scores, as they were used to describe existing, or
baseline, conditions in the EIS) and the BPJ estimates collected in the present study
(see Section 5.2).
IVA results were combined into an aggregate score for each evaluator for each site, by
using two different methods. The first method (the "percentage" method) combined
the indicator scores for the two or three subsamples by using the percent of the total
site that each subsample represented (see Section 3). The second method of creating
an aggregate IVA score (the "composite" method) was to score the "composite"
questionnaire (described in Section 5.1) using the IVA method. The "percentage"
method implies that each subsample represents a distinct subsection of the site, and
that the presence of wetland indicators in one distinct portion of the site do not
necessarily influence the functioning of other distinct portion(s) of the site. The
"composite" method implies that wetland indicators present in either subsample
influence the value of the site as a whole. One IVA score for each attribute for each
site was then calculated by averaging the five evaluator's scores.
An IVA score was also calculated for each subsample by using the "consensus"
questionnaire described in Section 5.1. This analysis was conducted to simulate the
more-often used approach to wetland evaluation, whereby several wetland
professionals reach a consensus as to the presence of indicators at each site. It should
be noted again that this artificial consensus was not necessarily representative of a
"true" consensus among the five evaluators, because in a true consensus, the opinion
of one person, presumably more knowledgeable about a particular wetland or
indicator, could convince the other four evaluators to change their minds about a
particular answer. In the artificial consensus used in this study, the majority "rules."
The "true" consensus approach, if used in this study, would have been likely to
influence the results, because some evaluators had much greater familiarity with the
sites apd knowledge of surrounding areas, while other evaluators were more familiar
with the WET questions and methodology. As with the individual evaluator
questionnaires, aggregate scores for each site for the consensus questionnaire were
calculated using the "percentage" and "composite" methods as discussed above.
Thus, there are four possible IVA scores for each site for each attribute. There are two
ways of combining evaluations among evaluators, either averaging or determining a
consensus. There are also two ways of combining subsamples, either using the
percentage method or the composite method. Thus, the four possible IVA scores have
been given the following terms:
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
58

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
¦	Average percentage—individual subsamples were combined for each
evaluator using the percentage method, and then averaged for all
evaluators;
¦	Average composite—individual subsamples were combined for each
evaluator using the composite method, and then averaged for all
evaluators;
¦	Consensus percentage—a consensus among evaluators for each subsample
was determined and scored, and then subsamples were combined using the
percentage method;
¦	Consensus composite—a consensus among evaluators for each subsample
was determined and scores, and then subsamples were combined using the
composite method.
The results for each subsample and site are listed in Table 1, and discussed, by
attribute, in the subsections below. In addition, the results of regression analyses
between the various methods of calculating field IVA scores and both the baseline
IVA scores and the BPJ scores are presented and discussed.
5.3.1 Wildlife Habitat (WH) Attribute
Site 1
For the composite method for scoring site 1, the IVA wildlife habitat scores ranged
from 20 to 69, and the average composite score was 41. The consensus composite
score for site 1 was 35. For the percentage method, the IVA wildlife habitat score
ranged from 18 to 55, and the average percentage score was 34. The consensus
percentage score for site 1 was 27. These numbers are approximately the same as
(though slightly higher than) the average BPJ value of 2.7 (see Section 5.2.1). As with
the BPJ values the field IVA scores are all lower than the baseline IVA score of 59,
most likely due to the fact that the baseline IVA score is for the efttire AA 2-U.
For subsample 1-2, the IVA method resulted in WH scores ranging from 19 to 49, and
averaged 35. The consensus WH score for subsample 1-2 was 26. For subsample 1-3,
the IVA method resulted in WH scores ranging from 16 to 61, and averaged 33. The
consensus score for subsample 1-3 was 27. For all but one evaluator (the score of 61
for subsample 1-3), the WH scores for subsample 1-3 were slightly lower than the WH
scores for subsample 1-2. However, the consensus WH score for subsample 1-3 is
slightly higher than the consensus WH score for subsample 1-2. This result is due in
large part to the larger disparity in answers in subsample 1-3 than in subsample 1-2
(see Section 5.1.1).
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
59

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
The composite scores for each evaluator are somewhat higher than the percentage
scores. Although the individual subsamples scored similarly, different indicators were
present in each subsample (see section 5.1.1 above). The percentage scores are, by
definition, between the individual subsample scores. The composite scores, however,
can be substantially higher than the individual scores if different indicators are
present at each subsample location, that add together for a higher overall site score.
The consensus WH scores (26 for subsample 1-2, 27 for subsample 1-3, 27 for the
percentage method for site 1, and 35 for the composite method for site 1) are
consistently lower than the average scores (35 for subsample 1-2, 33 for subsample
1-3, 34 for the percentage method for site 1, and 41 for the composite method for site
1). This can be explained by the difference between the two methods—the average
method simply takes the arithmetic average of the indicator scores for each evaluator,
while for an indicator to be included in the consensus method, at least three of the
evaluators need to have agreed on the presence or absence of each indicator. Thus,
the one high score (61 for subsample 1-3, and 69 for the composite scores) that is
included in the average score is not really represented in the consensus score.
Site_2
For the composite method for scoring site 2, the IVA wildlife habitat scores ranged
from 25 to 51, and the average composite score was 39. The consensus composite
score for site 2 was 42. For the percentage method, the IVA wildlife habitat score
ranged from 14 to 29, and the average percentage score was 22. The consensus
percentage score for site 2 was 21. The percentage scores are all slightly higher than
the average BPJ value of 1.2 (see Section 5.2.2), and the composite scores are
substantially higher than the BPJ valuations. The composite scores, however, are
more in line with the baseline IVA score for this AA (36), but the percentage scores
are substantially lower than the baseline IVA score. For site 2, the percentage method
seems to give a better estimate of the wildlife habitat value of the test site, while the
composite method seems to give a better estimate of the wildlife habitat value for the
larger assessment area. This may be because subsample 2-4, while representative of
only 10 percent of site 2, is more representative of the remainder of AA 2-T. In the
composite method, subsample 2-4 gets substantially more weight than the 10% that it
receives in the percentage method.
For subsample 2-2, the IVA method resulted in WH scores ranging from 13 to 26, and
averaged 20. The consensus WH score for subsample 2-2 was 17. For subsample 2-4,
the IVA method resulted in WH scores ranging from 24 to 51, and averaged 39. The
consensus score for subsample 2-4 was 53. For all of the evaluators, the WH scores
for subsample 2-4 were substantially higher than the WH scores for subsample 2-2.
However, subsample 2-4 is only representative of approximately 10 percent of the
entire site.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
60

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Site 3
For the composite method for scoring site 3, the TVA wildlife habitat scores ranged
from 22 to 46, and the average composite score was 36. The consensus composite
score for site 3 was 40. For the percentage method, the IVA wildlife habitat score
ranged from 22 to 45, and the average percentage score was 33. The consensus
percentage score for site 3 was 36. The percentage scores and the consensus scores
are nearly equal, most likely because the two subsamples are not very different, due
to the small size of the site (2.8 acres). Both sets of scores are very similar to the
average BPJ value of 4.2 (see Section 5.2.3).
For subsample 3-1, the IVA method resulted in WH scores ranging from 22 to 50, and
averaged 35. The consensus WH score for subsample 3-1 was 34. For subsample 3-2,
the IVA method resulted in WH scores ranging from 22 to 40, and averaged 32. The
consensus score for subsample 3-2 was 38. For all of the evaluators, the WH scores
for subsample 3-1 were the same, if not slightly higher than the WH scores for
subsample 3-2. Again, the two subsamples are so similar because of the small size of
the site.
Site 4
For the composite method for scoring site 4, the IVA wildlife habitat scores ranged
from 47 to 81, and the average composite score was 65. The consensus composite
score for site 4 was 69. For the percentage method, the IVA wildlife habitat scores
were slightly lower, ranging from 34 to 67, and the average percentage score was 50.
The consensus percentage score for site 4 was 49. The percentage scores are very
similar to the average BPJ values of 4.7 (see Section 5.2.4), and the composite scores
are more similar (but slightly lower) to the baseline IVA WH score of 77. As with site
2, this may be because the less-representative subsamples within site 2 may be more
representative of the diversity found elsewhere in the assessment area.
For subsample 4-1, the IVA method resulted in WH scores ranging from 34 to 84, and
averaged 59. The consensus WH score for subsample 4-1 was 63. For subsample 4-2,
the IVA method resulted in WH scores ranging from 10 to 39, and averaged 26. The
consensus score for subsample 4-2 was 38. For subsample 4-3, the IVA method
resulted in WH scores ranging from 33 to 68, and averaged 49. The consensus score
for subsample 4-3 was 47. For all of the evaluators, the WH scores for subsample 4-2
were substantially lower than the WH scores for subsamples 4-1 or 4-3. However,
subsample 4-2 is representative of only 5 percent of the entire site.
Site 5
For the composite method for scoring site 5, the IVA wildlife habitat scores ranged
from 36 to 53, and the averaged composite score was 46. The consensus composite
score for site 5 was 56. For the percentage method, the IVA wildlife habitat scores
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
61

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
were slightly lower, ranging from 24 to 43, and the average percentage score was 35.
The consensus percentage score for site 5 was 36. The percentage scores are more
similar (but slightly higher) to the average BPJ value of 2.3 (see above), and the
composite scores are more similar (but slightly lower) to the baseline IVA WH score
of 67.
For subsample 5-1, the IVA method resulted in WH scores ranging from 16 to 38, and
averaged 28. The consensus WH score for subsample 5-1 was 23. For subsample 5-2,
the IVA method resulted in WH scores ranging from 31 to 48, and averaged 42. The
consensus score for subsample 5-2 was 48. For all of the evaluators, the WH scores
for subsample 5-1 were slightly lower than the WH scores for subsample 5-2.
Reference Site R1
Using the data collected during this field study, the IVA wildlife habitat scores ranged
from 84 to 88, and averaged 86. The consensus score for reference site R1 was 85.
Because only one sample was taken at this site, the percentage and composite
methods result in the same scores, and thus the average percentage score and the
average composite score for site R1 are both 86, and the consensus percentage score
and the consensus composite score for site R1 are both 85. These results are
somewhat lower than the average BPJ value (9.8) and the IVA baseline WH score
(103). This may be due to the fact that only one location in the mitigation site was
visited during this field study, and thus a complete list of wildlife habitat indicators
may not have been collected.
Reference Site R2
Using the data collected during this field study, the IVA wildlife habitat scores ranged
from 62 to 116, and averaged 89. The consensus score for reference site R1 was 95.
Because only one sample was taken at this site, the percentage and composite
methods result in the same scores, and thus the average percentage score and the
average composite score for site R3 are both 89, and the consensus percentage score
and the consensus composite score for site R2 are both 95. These results are
consistent with the average BPJ value of 9.7 and the baseline IVA WH score of 92.
Comparison of Wetland Valuation Results
The results of the various methods of calculating a field IVA WH score for each site
were compared against both the average BPJ value and the baseline IVA score for
each site. Linear regressions were performed to evaluate the strength of any
correlations. The results of these regressions for the WH attribute are presented
graphically in Figures 8 and 9. Important points about these regressions are discussed
below.
COM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT ' February 28, 1995
62

-------
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
is

0
1
©
2
i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
AVID Baseline IVA Score
-E3— Avg Percent —A— Avg Compos - o Consens Percent S- Consens Compos
r2= 0.87	r2 = 0.84	r2 = 0.84	r2 = 0.78
Figure 8
Field IVA Scores vs. AVID Baseline IVA Scores
Wildlife Habitat Attribute

-------
110
100
90
80
£ 70
W 60
£
- 50
.92
^ 40
30
20
10
0
£
R2
!	r : !	!	i	i	i	i	i	;	;
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10 11
Avg BP J Value
-B- Avg Percent -A- Avg Compos - o Consens Percent S- Consens Compos
r2 = 0.96	r2 = 0.86	r2 = 0.96	r2=0.77
Figui
Field IVA Scores vs. Average BPJ Vali
Wildlife Habitat Attrib

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Field IVA Scores versus AVID Baseline. The results of the regressions between the
various field IVA scoring methods and the AVID baseline IVA score for the WH
attribute are presented in Figure 8. All of the methods for calculating a single score
from the field data collected by five evaluators and two or three subsamples resulted
in good correlations with the AVID baseline scores, with r1 values between 0.78 and
0.87. However, as is shown in Figure 8, all of the correlations indicate that all
methods of calculating a single field IVA score result in lower values than the AVID
baseline scores. The regression of consensus composite scores against AVID baseline
scores, while having the lowest r* value, resulted in the highest field IVA scores. The
average percentage method, while resulting in slightly lower field IVA scores, had the
best correlation with the AVID baseline scores (the r2 value of 0.87 was the highest).
Thus, for the WH attribute, the data collected in the field resulted in IVA scores that
were comparable to, although slightly lower than, the baseline IVA score.
Field IVA Scores versus Average BPT values. The results of the regressions between
the various field IVA scoring methods and the average BPJ values for each site are
presented in Figure 9. All of the methods for calculating a single score from the field
data collected by five evaluators and two or three subsamples resulted in good
correlations with the AVID baseline scores, with r2 values between 0.77 and 0.96. The
average percentage method appears to result in both the closest match between IVA
scores and BPJ values (i.e., IVA scores are approximately 10 times the BPJ values), and
the best correlation (the r2 value of 0.96 was the highest). Although the consensus
composite method resulted in the highest IVA scores, these appear to be over-
estimates of the wildlife habitat value at the sites, based on the BPJ values. Thus, for
the WH attribute, the data collected in the field results in IVA scores that were
comparable to the BPJ values assigned by the five evaluators.
5.3.2 Water Quality Improvement (WQ) Attribute
Sii£_l
For the composite method for scoring site 1, the IVA water quality improvement
scores ranged from 49 to 108, and the average composite score was 77. The consensus
composite score for site 1 was 80. For the percentage method, the IVA water quality
improvement score ranged from 45 to 95, and the average percentage score was 67.
The consensus percentage score for site 1 was 64. These numbers are substantially
higher than both the baseline IVA score (31) and the average BPJ value (3.2). It
would appear that the answers to the WET questions collected during this field study
do not adequately characterize the water quality improvement indicators at site 1.
For subsample 1-2, the IVA method resulted in WQ scores ranging from 53 to 110,
and averaged 82. The consensus WQ score for subsample 1-2 was also 82. For
subsample 1-3, the IVA method resulted in WQ scores ranging from 37 to 79, and
averaged 52. The consensus score for subsample 1-3 was 46. For each evaluator, the
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
63

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
WQ scores for subsample 1-3 were substantially lower than the WQ scores for
subsample 1-2.
As with the WH scores, the composite WQ scores for each evaluator are somewhat
higher than the percentage scores. Unlike the WH scores, however, the consensus
WQ scores are not always lower than the average scores (the composite-average WQ
score was 77, while the composite-consensus score was 80).
Site 2
For the composite method for scoring site 2, the IVA water quality improvement
scores ranged from 60 to 100, and the average composite score was 78. The consensus
composite score for site 2 was 81. For the percentage method, the IVA water quality
improvement score ranged from 60 to 85, and the average percentage score was 70.
The consensus percentage score for site 2 was 79. These numbers are substantially
higher than the average BPJ value of 1.3, and slightly higher than the baseline IVA
score (52). This result is similar to site 1. As mentioned in the discussion for site 1, it
would appear that the answers to the WET questions collected during this field study
do not adequately characterize the water quality improvement indicators at site 2.
For subsample 2-2, the IVA method resulted in WQ scores ranging from 57 to 85, and
averaged 70. The consensus WQ score for subsample 2-2 was 77. For subsample 2-4,
the IVA method resulted in WQ scores ranging from 58 to 86, and averaged 71. The
consensus score for subsample 2-4 was 92. For each evaluator, the WQ scores for
subsample 2-2 were approximately the same as the WQ scores for subsample 2-4.
Site 3
For the composite method for scoring site 3, the IVA water quality improvement
scores ranged from 39 to 77, and the average composite score was 60. The consensus
composite score for site 3 was 72. For the percentage method, the IVA water quality
improvement score ranged from 39 to 73, and the average percentage score was 55.
The consensus percentage score for site 3 was 65. These numbers are all slightly
higher than the average BPJ value of 5.0; the average percentage score comes the
closest to matching the average BPJ value.
For subsample 3-1, the IVA method resulted in WQ scores ranging from 39 to 76, and
averaged 56. The consensus WQ score for subsample 3-1 was 67. For subsample 3-2,
the IVA method resulted in WQ scores ranging from 39 to 69, and averaged 53. The
consensus score for subsample 3-2 was 62. For each evaluator, the WQ scores for
subsample 3-1 were approximately the same as the WQ scores for subsample 3-2.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
64

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Site 4
For the composite method for scoring site 4, the IVA water quality improvement
scores ranged from 57 to 108, and the average composite score was 84. The consensus
composite score for site 4 was 87. For the percentage method, the IVA water quality
improvement scores ranged from 50 to 87, and the average percentage score was 67.
The consensus percentage score for site 4 was 77. These numbers are all comparable
to the AVID baseline IVA score of 81, and are slightly higher than the average BPJ
value of 6.2; as at site 3, the average percentage score comes the closest to matching
the average BPJ value.
For subsample 4-1, the IVA method resulted in WQ scores ranging from 33 to 77, and
averaged 58. The consensus WQ score for subsample 4-1 was 65. For subsample 4-2,
the IVA method resulted in WQ scores ranging from 28 to 65, and averaged 45. The
consensus score for subsample 4-2 was 60. For subsample 4-3, the IVA method
resulted in WQ scores ranging from 52 to 92, and averaged 71. The consensus WQ
score for subsample 4-3 was 82. As with the wildlife habitat attribute, for each
evaluator, the WQ scores for subsample 4-2 were substantially lower than the WQ
scores for subsamples 4-1 and 4-3.
Site 5
For the composite method for scoring site 5, the IVA water quality improvement
scores ranged from 53 to 111, and the average composite score was 80. The consensus
composite score for site 5 was 92. For the percentage method, the IVA water quality
improvement scores ranged from 34 to 90, and the average percentage score was 68.
The consensus percentage score for site 5 was 83. These numbers are all comparable
to the AVID baseline IVA score of 86 (except for the average percentage score), but
are substantially higher than the average BPJ value of 5.0.
For subsample 5-1, the IVA method resulted in WQ scores ranging from 37 to 98, and
averaged 72. The consensus WQ score for subsample 5-1 was 94. For subsample 5-2,
the IVA method resulted in WQ scores ranging from 31 to 99, and averaged 65. The
consensus score for subsample 5-2 was 71.
Reference Site R1
Using the data collected during this field study, the IVA water quality improvement
scores ranged from 60 to 71, and the average score was 64. The consensus score for
reference site R1 was 62. Because only one sample was taken at this site, the
percentage and composite methods result in the same scores, and thus the average
percentage score and the average composite score for site Rl are both 64, and the
consensus percentage score and the consensus composite score for site Rl are both 62.
As with the WH attribute at site Rl, these results are lower than the average BPJ
value (9.9) and the IVA baseline WQ score (105). Again, this may be due to the fact
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
65

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
that only one location in the mitigation site was visited during this field study, and
thus a complete list of water quality improvement indicators may not have been
collected.
Reference Site R2
Using the data collected during this field study, the IVA water quality improvement
scores ranged from 51 to 90, and the average score was 75. The consensus score for
reference site R2 was 76. Because only one sample was taken at this site, the
percentage and composite methods result in the same scores, and thus the average
percentage score and the average composite score for site R2 are both 75, and the
consensus percentage score and the consensus composite score for site R2 are both 76.
These results are slightly lower than the IVA baseline WQ score (80) and also lower
than the average BPJ value (9.8). Again, this may be due to the fact that only one
location in the reference site was visited during this field study, and thus a complete
list of water quality improvement indicators may not have been collected.
Comparison of Wetland Valuation Results
The results of the various methods of calculating a field IVA WQ score for each site
were compared against both the average BPJ value and the baseline IVA score for
each site. Linear regressions were performed to evaluate the strength of any
correlations. The results of these regressions for the WH attribute are presented
graphically in Figures 10 and 11. Important points about these regressions are
discussed below.
Field TV A Scores versus AVID Baseline. The results of the regressions between the
various field IVA scoring methods and the AVID baseline IVA score for the WQ
attribute are presented in Figure 10. None of the methods for calculating a single
score from the field data collected by five evaluators and two or three subsamples
resulted in good correlations with the AVID baseline scores, with r2 values between
0.01 and 0.18. These low r2 values mean that very little of the variability in field IVA
scores among sites is attributable to the variability in AVID baseline scores. As
pointed out in the discussion of each site above, the field IVA scores for sites 1 and 2
were substantially higher than the AVID baseline scores, while the field IVA scores
for sites R1 and R2 were substantially lower than the AVID baseline scores. For sites
4 and 5, however, the field IVA scores were comparable to the AVID baseline scores.
The reasons for the apparent discrepancies are not apparent from the data; however,
similar results were observed in comparing the field IVA scores to the BPJ values, and
possible reasons are discussed below.
Field IVA Scores versus Avfrage BPT values. The results of the regressions between
the various field IVA scoring methods and the average BPJ values for each site are
presented in Figure 11. As with the comparison to AVID baseline scores, none of the
methods for calculating a single score from the field data collected by five evaluators
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
66

-------
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
X
X
—i	r~	1	1	1	1	i	i	i	i
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
AVID Baseline IVA Score
-Eg- Avg Percent -a- Avg Compos o Consens Percent S- Consens Compos
r2= 0.03	r2 = 0.18	r2=0.01	r2=0.09
Figure 10
Field IVA Scores vs. AVID Baseline IVA Scores
Water Quality Improvement Attribute

-------
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
I	i	I	~!	I	I	I	!	!	i
23456789	10	11
Avg BPJ Value
Avg Percent -A- Avg Compos o Consens Percent s- Consens Compos
r2 = 0.02	r2=0.10	r2=0.05	^=0.25
Figure 11
Field IVA Scores vs. Average BPJ Values
Water Quality Improvement Attribute

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
and two or three subsamples resulted in good correlations with the BPJ values, with r2
values between 0.02 and 0.25. These low r2 values mean that very little of the
variability in field IVA scores among sites is attributable to the variability in BPJ
values. As pointed out in the discussion of each site above, the field IVA scores for
sites 1, 2, and 5 were substantially higher than the BPJ values, while the field IVA
scores for sites R1 and R2 were substantially lower than the BPJ values. For sites 3
and 4, however, the field IVA scores were comparable to the average BPJ values.
Thus, for the water quality improvement (WQ) attribute, although a consistent and
positive relationship was found between the AVID baseline IVA scores and the BPJ
values (see Section 5.2.8), no consistent relationship was found between the field IVA
scores and the AVID baseline data or the BPJ values. There are two probable reasons
behind this apparent problem with the results of the field study for the WQ attribute.
The first reason is that the value of a wetland for water quality improvement is
strongly influenced by factors peripheral to an individual wetland site, while the data
collected during this field study focused on the individual potential disturbance
locations. Thus, the wetland questionnaire collected in this field effort may not
accurately reflect the water quality improvement indicators important to each of the
sites. On the other hand, based on discussions with the field evaluators, the WET
data collected in 1986 for the AVID study is more reflective of the "external" indicators
of water quality improvement value.
The second reason can be found by examining the expertise of the evaluators that
participated in this study. Because it was thought to be imperative to collect
additional information on the wetland flora and fauna during this field study, the
field team consisted mostly of wetland biologists and wildlife experts. Thus, it is
likely that the hydrologic features of the wetland sites, and thus the scores for the
water quality improvement for the sites, were under-represented in this field study.
However, the 1986 WET/AVID data collection effort strongly emphasized the
hydrology of the District. The difficulty in comparing the BPJ estimates to the field
IVA scores appears to arise from the evaluators inadequately (or inaccurately)
responding to individual WET questions dealing with water quality improvement
indicators, possibly due to unfamiliarity with local and regional conditions, or because
of inconsistent familiarity with the WET questions. Thus, while the evaluators' best
professional judgement of the water quality improvement value of each site agreed
with the AVID baseline IVA scores, their evaluation of individual water quality
improvement indicators did not match their "overall" understanding of the value of
the site for water quality improvement
On these lines, it is interesting to examine the data presented in Table 1 by comparing
the field IVA scores and BPJ estimates for the WQ attribute for each site. It appears
that some sites (for most evaluators), and some evaluators (for most sites) showed
more consistent relationships between the field IVA scores and the BPJ estimates than
was found by looking at all evaluators and all sites. Site 3 appears to have been the
"easiest" site to evaluate for the WQ attribute—site 3 is small, relatively isolated
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
67

-------
Project Report
!VA Method Field Testing Study
hydrologically, and rather "common." In fact, for four of the five evaluators, using the
field IVA scores for site 3 were very similar to the BPJ values. Similarly, the field IVA
scores and BPJ values of one evaluator (one of the members of the field team most
familiar with the hydrology and water quality improvement functioning of the District
wetlands) were very similar for four of the five sites.
Thus, although the results of the regression analyses between the field IVA scores and
both the AVID baseline scores and BPJ values suggest that the field IVA scores are
not related to either the AVID baseline scores or the BPJ values, this does not indicate
a failing of the IVA method. The strongest indicator of this conclusion is that the
AVID baseline IVA scores do show a significant and strong relationship to the BPJ
values {see Section 5.2.8).
5.3.3 Social Significance (SS) Attribute
For the composite method for scoring site 1, the IVA social significance scores ranged
from 40 to 48, and the average composite value was 42. The consensus composite
score for site 1 was 40. For the percentage method, the results were identical. This is
because the social significance values for each evaluator for the two subsamples were
identical. This results from the substantially fewer number of indicators included in
the IVA method of calculating the IVA score, and the fact that the responses to each
subsample were identical.
The field test IVA scores are in agreement with the baseline IVA score of 48. Both
scores are somewhat higher than the average BPJ value (around 2.8).
Site 2
The IVA social significance scores for all evaluators for all subsamples of site 2 was
17. This is in agreement with the average BPJ value of 1.5 and the baseline IVA SS
score of 17.
Site 3
The IVA social significance scores for all evaluators for all subsamples of site 3 was 0.
This is substantially lower than the average BPJ value of 4.3. The IVA score of 0 is
because none of the recreation or floodflow alteration indicators were reported present
in site 3 during the field study. This site was not evaluated during the 1986 AVID
study, so a comparison to the AVID baseline score is not possible.
COM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
68

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Field IVA Scores versus AVID Baseline. The results of the regressions between the
various field IVA scoring methods and the AVID baseline IVA score for the SS
attribute are presented in Figure 12. All of the methods for calculating a single score
from the field data collected by five evaluators and two or three subsamples resulted
in good correlations with the AVID baseline scores, with r2 values between 0.78 and
0.86. However, as is shown in Figure 12, all of the correlations indicate that all
methods of calculating a single field IVA score result in lower values than the AVID
baseline scores (except for very low scoring wetlands, where the field IVA score is
predicted to be slightly higher than the AVID baseline score). Thus, for the WH
attribute, the data collected in the field resulted in IVA scores that were comparable
to, although slightly lower than, the baseline IVA score.
Field IVA Scores versus Average BPT values. The results of the regressions between
the various field IVA scoring methods and the average BPJ values for each site are
presented in Figure 13. All of the methods for calculating a single score from the field
data collected by five evaluators and two or three subsamples resulted in similar
correlations with the AVID baseline scores, with r2 values between 0.59 and 0.61.
However, the correlations between field IVA scores and average BPJ values are not as
strong as the correlations between field IVA scores and AVID baseline scores. Thus,
for the WH attribute, the data collected in the field results in IVA scores that were
roughly comparable to the BPJ values assigned by the five evaluators.
5.4 BIRD SURVEY RESULTS
Table 2 presents the results of the bird inventory conducted at each site (five test sites
and two reference sites). A total of 41 species of birds were observed during the field
visits. The species found at the most sites were: red-winged blackbird (6 of the 7
sites), mallard (5 sites), spotted sandpiper (5 sites), least sandpiper (4 sites), marsh
wren (4 sites), yellow warbler (4 sites), common yellowthroat (4 sites), and European
starling (4 sites). Some of the more infrequently encountered species (found at only
one site) were: Virginia rail, laughing gull, eastern kingbird, great egret, and double-
crested cormorant.
The results of the circular-plot bird density measurements show that the most
common bird at almost all of the sites was the red-winged blackbird. Common
yellowthroats and marsh wrens were also frequently encountered.
The following subsections present a discussion of the bird resources at each individual
site.
5.4.1 Sitel
Seven species were identified during the field visits to site 1, including three
shorebirds and four passerine species. Among the five test sites, site 1 had the least
number of species found. Most of the species at site 1 were found at subsample 1-2—
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
70

-------
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
52
R2
ZS
Avg BPJ Vaiue
¦B- Avg Percent —A— Avg Compos - o Consens Percent -K- Consens Compos
r2 = 0.6D	r2 = 0 59	r2=0.61	1^=0.61
Figure 13
Field IVA Scores vs. Avarage BPJ Values
Social Significance Attribute

-------
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
53
R2
es

5	6
Avg BPJ Value
8
10
11
-E3— Avg Percent
r2 = 0.60
—A- Avg Compos
r2 = 0.59
o Consens Percent
r2= 0.61
S- Consens Compos
i2 = 0.61
Figure 1
Field IVA Scores vs. Average BPJ Value
Social Significance Attribut

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Field IVA Scores versus AVID Baseline. The results of the regressions between the
various field IVA scoring methods and the AVID baseline IVA score for the SS
attribute are presented in Figure 12. All of the methods for calculating a single score
from the field data collected by five evaluators and two or three subsamples resulted
in good correlations with the AVID baseline scores, with r2 values between 0.78 and
0.86. However, as is shown in Figure 12, all of the correlations indicate that all
methods of calculating a single field IVA score result in lower values than the AVID
baseline scores (except for very low scoring wetlands, where the field IVA score is
predicted to be slightly higher than the AVID baseline score). Thus, for the WH
attribute, the data collected in the field resulted in IVA scores that were comparable
to, although slightly lower than, the baseline IVA score.
Field IVA Scores versus Average BPT values. The results of the regressions between
the various field IVA scoring methods and the average BPJ values for each site are
presented in Figure 13. All of the methods for calculating a single score from the field
data collected by five evaluators and two or three subsamples resulted in similar
correlations with the AVID baseline scores, with r2 values between 0.59 and 0.61.
However, the correlations between field IVA scores and average BPJ values are not as
strong as the correlations between field IVA scores and AVID baseline scores. Thus,
for the WH attribute, the data collected in the field results in IVA scores that were
roughly comparable to the BPJ values assigned by the five evaluators.
5.4 BIRD SURVEY RESULTS
Table 2 presents the results of the bird inventory conducted at each site (five test sites
and two reference sites). A total of 41 species of birds were observed during the field
visits. The species found at the most sites were: red-winged blackbird (6 of the 7
sites), mallard (5 sites), spotted sandpiper (5 sites), least sandpiper (4 sites), marsh
wren (4 sites), yellow warbler (4 sites), common yellowthroat (4 sites), and European
starling (4 sites). Some of the more infrequently encountered species (found at only
one site) were: Virginia rail, laughing gull, eastern kingbird, great egret, and double-
crested cormorant.
The results of the circular-plot bird density measurements show that the most
common bird at almost all of the sites was the red-winged blackbird. Common
yellowthroats and marsh wrens were also frequently encountered.
The following subsections present a discussion of the bird resources at each individual
site.
5.4.1 Site 1
Seven species were identified during the field visits to site 1, including three
shorebirds and four passerine species. Among the five test sites, site 1 had the least
number of species found. Most of the species at site 1 were found at subsample 1-2—
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
70

-------
TABLE 2
BIRD SPECIES IDENTIFIED
Taxonomic
Order Scientific Name
Common Name
Site
2 3 4 5 R1 R2
Pelecaniformes
Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant
Ciconiiformes
Butorides striatus green-backed heron

a
Egretta thula
snowy egret
x
llll
x
X
Anseriformes
Anas rubripes black duck
Branta canadensis Canada goose	"
Still:
*1
¦I

X

X
¦i
X
X
x
X.
Falconiformes
	Circus cyaneus
northern harrier
Gruiformes
Gallinula chloropus
common moorhen
Charadriiformes
kallus loiigirostJs^ ' dapper'rail
x
x
Actitis macularia	spotted sandpiper
%	* if *
killdeer ^
laughing gull
X

Charadrius vociferus
La^s^ncJHa^
Sterna antillarum

x
..
i ¦¦
X
A&4K&

X
x
X
X
least tern
Piciformes
Colaptes auratus	northern flicker
Passeriformes
Carpodacus mex/cant/^hou^e finch ^ ^
Dendroica coronata yellow-rumped warbler
Dumeielia carolinensis gray catbird
*
X
X
X
ill
.X
:,X
5 ^
x
Columbiformes
Zenaida macroura
mourning dove

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
during the ten-minute bird survey conducted on March 17, no birds were found at
subsample 1-3, and during the twenty-minute survey conducted on June 8, only one
bird was observed (a red-winged blackbird). Subsample 1-3 is a small dry
monoculture of Phragmites—not a good habitat for birds. However, there is most
likely some use of the shoreline sections near subsample 1-3 (but not visible due to
the dense Phragmites) by shorebirds. It was noted in the field that red-winged
blackbirds, marsh wrens, and spotted sandpipers (and possibly swamp sparrows) nest
around subsample 1-2.
Bird densities were calculated for six species at subsample 1-2. A total of 3 red-
winged blackbirds and 3 common yellowthroats were identified during the two
surveys at subsample 1-2, covering an area of approximately 0.8 hectares (2 acres),
leading to an average density of approximately 75 pairs of each species per 40
hectares, or approximately 2 pairs of each species in the 3 acres of site 1 that
subsample 1-2 represents. One spotted sandpiper was identified during each survey,
and one killdeer, one marsh wren, and one mourning dove were identified during the
June 8 survey. Thus, the average density for each of these species is approximately 50
pairs per 40 hectares, or between 1 and 2 pair of each species in the 3 acres of site 1
that subsample 1-2 represents. As was mentioned above, only one red-winged
blackbird was identified at subsample 1-3 during either of the surveys, so no bird
densities were calculated for subsample 1-3.
5.4.2	Site 2
A total of 19 bird species were identified during the various visits to site 2. These
species include the double-crested cormorant, shorebirds (spotted sandpiper and least
tern), waterfowl (mallard and Canada goose), and 14 species of passerines (e.g.,
American goldfinch, yellow warbler, swamp sparrow, song sparrow, American
redstart). Many of these birds were observed in the circular-plot bird surveys at
subsample 2-4 (which represents approximately 10 percent of the site), but not at
subsample 2-2 (which represents approximately 90 percent of the site). Calculated
bird densities (pairs per 40 hectares) are presented in Table 3.
5.4.3	Site 3
A total of 12 bird species were identified during the various visits to site 3. These
species include shorebirds (great egret and killdeer), mallard, and nine species of
passerines (e.g., yellow-rumped warbler, gray catbird, common grackle, and American
robin). Calculated bird densities in Table 3 are presented for the two subsamples 3-1
and 3-2 combined, because of the small size of the site.
5.4.4	Site 4
A total of 21 bird species were identified during the various visits to site 4 (the largest
diversity among the sites in this field study). These species include shorebirds (e.g.,
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995
71

-------
TABLE 3
BIRD DENSITIES
(pairs per 40 hectares)

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
green-backed heron, Virginia rail, least sandpiper), waterfowl (mallard, gadwall, and
Canada goose), northern flicker, and 11 species of passerines (e.g., marsh wren, barn
swallow, song sparrow, tree swallow, American goldfinch). Calculated bird densities
for each subsample (pairs per 40 hectares) are presented in Table 3.
5.4.5	Site 5
Only 6 species of birds were identified during the various visits to site 5. These
species are: spotted sandpiper, least sandpiper, killdeer, red-winged blackbird,
common grackle, and European starling. Calculated bird densities for each subsample
are presented in Table 3.
5.4.6	Reference Site R1
During the one visit to reference site Rl, 17 species of birds were identified, including
northern harrier, shorebirds (e.g., common moorhen, least sandpiper, and least tern),
waterfowl (mallard, black duck, gadwall, and Canada goose), and seven species of
passerines (e.g., marsh wren, northern mockingbird, eastern kingbird). Bird densities
were not calculated for the reference sites.
5.4.7	Reference Site R2
During the one visit to reference site R2, 10 species of birds were identified, including
northern harrier, shorebirds (e.g., snowy egret, common moorhen, herring gull,
laughing gull), waterfowl (mallard, black duck, and gadwall), and only one species of
passerine (marsh wren). Bird densities were not calculated for the reference sites.
5.5 FISH SURVEY RESULTS
5.5.1	Site 1
No fish were sampled at site 1, as there was not significant open water to support fish
or fish sampling techniques.
5.5.2	Site 2
Fish sampling was performed in the tidal creek at subsample 2-4. A fish trap was set
on March 24, but the leader line that directs the fish into the trap was missing. After
24 hours, the fish trap was still empty, and there wasn't enough water to reset the fish
trap. Seines were used to sample the fish at this time. The catch included three
species: three bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), 28 banded killifish (Fundulus
diaphanus), and 13 mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus).
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
72

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
5.5.3	Site 3
A fish trap was set in the pond at site 3. After 24 hours, the trap was retrieved, and
found to contain one snapping turtle, and no fish. In all likelihood, the snapping
turtle ate whatever fish were captured in the trap. Small killitraps were set, but they
also did not yield any catches. An attempt was made to use a seine net, but the
substrate was full of stumps and logs, which made seining impossible.
5.5.4	Site 4
No fish were sampled at site 1, as there was not significant open water to support fish
or fish sampling techniques.
5.5.5	Site 5
No fish were sampled at site 1, as there was not significant open water to support fish
or fish sampling techniques.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
73

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As was stated in Section 2, this study had five basic objectives. The results of the data
presented in Section 5 support the following conclusions and recommendations for
each objective.
6.1	DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CURRENT DATA AND AVID DATA
Based on the results presented in Section 5.1.1, the current data collection effort
produced the same responses (by a majority of the evaluators) as were reported in
1986 to approximately two-thirds of the questions on the wetland evaluation
questionnaire. As was discussed in Sections 5.3, using the IVA method on both the
1986 AVID data and the current data produced very similar scores for both the
wildlife habitat (WH) and social significance (SS) attributes. Many of the differences
in responses and differences in water quality improvement (WQ) attribute scores can
be attributed to inadequate (or potentially inaccurate) responses to water quality
improvement indicators, caused by an insufficient representation of wetlands
hydrology expertise amongst the field team, a lack of consistent familiarity with the
WET questions, and incomplete knowledge of local and regional conditions..
Thus, it is recommended that future data IVA-related data collection efforts pay
particular attention to the experience, training, and expertise of the field team
members, with an attempt to cover hydrologic, wildlife, vegetation, and social
significance aspects. It is also important (especially for the water quality
improvement attribute) to obtain accurate definitions of the "assessment area" to
which the method is being applied. Training the field team in responding to the WET
questionnaire (or providing a refresher course where appropriate) is important to the
reliable application of the FVA method.
6.2	VARIABILITY AMONG INDIVIDUAL EVALUATORS
Based on the results presented in Section 5.1.2, only approximately half of the
questions received the same responses from all five evaluators. The remaining half of
the questions were responded to differently by at least one evaluator. This leads to
significant variability in IVA scores among evaluators, as was reported in Section 5.3.
While determining an "artificial consensus" after the data was collected appeared to be
an acceptable way of resolving differences, it would be more effective and more
reliable to have the field team discuss the various indicators, and develop a true
consensus.
Thus instead of collecting individual responses to the wetland questionnaires (as was
done in this study to determine the consequences of so doing), in future IVA-related
data collection efforts, the field team should develop a consensus as to the presence or
absence of each indicator, and develop one set of indicators for each wetland site.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
74

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
Additionally, as was recommended above, attention should be focused on assembling
enough wetland professionals with experience in all facets of wetland ecosystems,
with knowledge of local and regional conditions, and with experience answering the
WET questions, to ensure a productive dialogue in reaching a consensus, instead of
merely yielding to one "expert" for each question.
6.3	GEOGRAPHIC VARIABILITY
Based on the results presented in Section 5.1.3, there may be substantial differences
between "microenvironments" present on a site. For four of the five sites evaluated in
this field study, two subsample locations were determined to be sufficient to
characterize the site. For these sites, the two subsample locations were approximately
80% similar. For one site, three subsample locations were required, and these
locations were only approximately 55% similar. Thus, it is important to visit several
locations within each site in order to fully characterize each site.
Additionally, under the category of geographic variability, it appears to be important
to develop a consensus among the evaluators as to the physical boundaries to be used
to interpret the WET questions. Some of the variability among evaluators and
between the data collected for this study and the 1986 AVID study was due to
differing interpretations of the extent of the evaluation area. It is recommended that
in future IVA-related data collection efforts, the entire wetland area (as determined by
the assessment area delineations performed for the AVID) be evaluated for
determining impacts to portions thereof. This is particularly important for accurate
assessment of the water quality improvement attribute.
6.4	VERIFICATION OF IVA METHOD USING BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT
Based on the results presented in Sections 5.2.8 and 5.3, the IVA method appears to
provide an adequate indication of the relative value of a wetland for the three
wetland attributes examined (wildlife habitat (WH), water quality improvement (WQ),
and social significance (SS)). Comparing the best professional judgement (BPJ) values
for all three attributes with the IVA scores developed using the 1986 AVID data
("AVID baseline IVA scores") resulted in good correlations for all three attributes,
indicating that using the IVA method to develop relative scores for wetlands provides
a good measure of their relative value. Comparisons to best professional judgement
are appropriate, as wetland science has not yet developed any other more objective
quantitative measures by which to value wetlands.
Using the data collected during this field study to develop IVA scores for each site,
however, was somewhat problematic. As is discussed above, the problems
encountered dealt with obtaining appropriate responses to water quality improvement
indicators (particularly, hydrologic characteristics of the individual sites). However,
good correlations were obtained for the other two attributes (WH and SS) between
IVA scores using the current field data and both AVID baseline IVA scores and BPJ
CDM Camp Dresser Si McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
75

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
values. Thus the problems encountered are most likely not problems with the IVA
method, but with the data collected during this field study.
Based on the results of this field study, the IVA method is therefore appropriate to
continue to use for impact assessment and mitigation planning for the SAMP.
6.5 ADDITIONAL HABITAT QUALITY DATA
Based on the results presented in Sections 5.4 and 5.5, the additional habitat data
collected do not conflict with the AVID baseline IVA scores which indicate wildlife
habitat quality. No usually or unexpectedly high wildlife habitat characteristics were
found in any of the field sites that were not already indicated by the results of the
baseline IVA wildlife habitat attribute score. Thus, using the IVA method to
determine wetland impacts and compensating mitigation seems to be warranted.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee DRAFT - February 28, 1995
76

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
ATTACHMENT 1
RESUMES FOR FIELD TEAM MEMBERS
CDM Camp Dresser &. McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995

-------
KATHRYN S. NADEAU
Environmental Scientist
Camp Dresser & McKee
Summary
Experience
Ai an environmental scientist with 6 years' experience, Ma. Nadeau specializ-
es in environmental Impact assessments, wetland and wildlife habitat restora-
tlc n, environmental permitting, wetland delineations, and resource evalua-
tlc ns. Ms. Nadeau's work has included conducting feasibility 6tudies,
developing protocols for the evaluation of habitats fo** species of special
co icorn, and designing and monitoring wetland restoration programs in
ac x>rdance with the Massachusetts, New York and Now Jersey wetland laws.
M s. Nadeau is currently involved in several projects «it CDM. These include
a and feasibility study for the placement of a residual sludge facility in New
Bedford, revising the "State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental
M magemcnt Rules and Regulations Governing the Administration and
Gr forcement of the Freshwater Wetlands Act", and w-etland and wildlife
irr pact evaluations for the Wading River Water Supply project In Mansfield,
M issachusetts.
Mi,
tic
Yc
P
-------
Kathryn S. Nadesu
Pag* 2
Mk Nadeau has been responsible for various wetland delineations within
N<[w England and evaluating, designing, constructing planting, and monitor-
ing numerous wetland restoration and replication plans for Riparian swamp,
herbaceous marshas, stream banks, and floodplaln areas.
Education B.$. - Biology, Southeastern Massachusetts University/1987
i LLSU Wy6S:6 fr66T '8T AfcW
CjDM Camp Dresser & McKcc
TS8A S22 806
OE
-------
KENNETH R. SCARLATELLI
Wetlands Specialist, Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
EDUCATION AND SPECIALIZED TRAINING
M.A. Environmental Management, Montclair State University, 1994
B.S. Wildlife Biology, University of Massachusetts, 1983
USEPA Wetland Evaluation Training Certification Course 1994
O.S.H.A. 40 Hour Hazardous Materials Safety Training, 1989
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
The Wildlife Society
Society of Wetlands Scientists
Society for Conservation Biology
Society for Ecological Restoration
National Association of Environmental Professionals
APPOINTMENTS
NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program Biomonitoring Work Group & Scientific
and Technical Advisory Committee
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection/New Jersey
Recreation and Parks Association Wetlands Committee
Interagency Panel for Scientific Review of Proposed Revisions to
the Federal Manual for Identification and Delineation of
Jurisdictional Wetlands. 1991
Hackensack Meadowlands Flood Control Committee
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission; Lyndhurst, New
Jersey; Wetlands Specialist; 1991 - Present;
President, Northeast Environmental Management Systems; Lodi, NJ;
1988 - Present;
Woodward-Clyde Consultants; Wayne, New Jersey; Assistant Project
Scientist; 1989-90;
Lynch, Carmody, Guiliani & Karol, Brick, New Jersey; Director of
Environmental Studies; 1987-88;
Hillside School, Malborough; Massachusetts; Science Department
Instructor and Curriculum Developer; 1985-86;
Louis Berger & Associates; East Orange, New Jersey; Wetlands
Biologist; 1983-84;

-------
REPRESENTATIVE HISTORY INCLUDES:
Wetlands Studies and Permitting:
Wetlands delineations and for all ACOE jurisdictional
determinations along the proposed route for a 150 mile gas
pipeline between Buffalo and Syracuse, NY. Qualitative
analyses of all NYSDEC wetlands along the same route,
including a comparison of proposed and alternate routes with
respect to their potential impacts on existing DEC wetlands.
Presentation of results to NYSDEC.
Wetlands delineation and functional assessments for all wetlands
affected by a proposed 20 mile extension of Interstate Highway
287 in northern New Jersey. First use and refinement of
Federal Highway Administration Wetland Functional Assessment
methodology.
Wetlands delineation and site selection studies on a 860+ acre site
for a proposed landfill in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Studies included analyses of vegetative cover types, wildlife
habitat, and wetlands. Potential impacts were quantified and
tabulated, and a comparison of the proposed sites was
discussed. Results to were presented to meet the regulatory
requirements of ACOE, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, and Maryland Department of the Environment.
Secured NJDEPE Freshwater Wetlands General Permit No. 6 for an EPA
Priority Wetland in Mahwah, New Jersey. Involved aggressive
lobbying, filing of appeals with New Jersey's Division of Law
and interagency negotiations, all of which resulted in
persuading the EPA to revise their Priority Wetlands Listing
for isolated wetlands within the Passaic River Basin.
Permitting strategy support for several proposed electric power
cogeneration facilities and their related fuel delivery and
waste removal systems. Provided field analyses, permitting
logistics support, and analysis of alternatives for proposed
facilities in Salem and Gloucester Counties in New Jersey and
Staten Island, New York.
NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands permitting for the construction of an
interim collection and containment device to prevent discharge
of hazardous materials into the Passaic River.
Preliminary wetlands survey and vegetative inventory on the site of
proposed U.S. Navy Command Center in the metropolitan
Washington, D.C. area. Wetlands permitting strategies were
outlined; and an assessment of drainage, topography, wildlife
habitat, streams, and exceptional features were provided.
Wetlands functional assessment for a proposed recreational park on
an 11 acre site in Brewster, New York.

-------
Preliminary wetlands survey and wetlands delineation on a 100 acre
site in Thorofare, NJ, for a proposed electric power
cogeneration facility, including coal delivery and waste
removal systems.
Numerous wetlands delineations and jurisdictional confirmations
from the US Army Corps, NJDEP, Pinelands Commission, NYSDEC,
PADER, and regulatory agencies from other states throughout
the northeast.
Wetlands permitting for a variety of commercial, residential,
industrial, recreational, school, utility, transportation,
and hazardous materials cleanup projects.
Environmental site Assessment:
Survey of existing habitat and breeding populations of the least
tern, an endangered species, along the proposed crossings of
the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers by the proposed Panhandle
Gas Pipeline.
Survey of site in New Brunswick for suitable habitat for the barred
owl, a State threatened species.
Site evaluation studies for a proposed hazardous waste incineration
facility in Granville County, North Carolina.
Environmental Site Assessment for a proposed residential
development in Ramsey, NJ.
Field and laboratory studies for an estuarine toxicology study in
the Hackensack Meadowlands for Rutgers University.
Evaluation of wildlife habitat suitability for a variety of species
on abandoned and active landfills in the Hackensack
Meadowlands, to determine post-closure habitat management
feasibility.
Impact Assessment:
Assessment of impacts to the aquatic and wildlife community
resulting from a 200,000 gallon kerosene spill in Orange
County, Virginia.
Fish and wildlife receptor survey for the solid waste management
facility on the Shell Wood River Refining Complex near St.
Louis, Missouri.
Dam restoration impact studies, involving assessment of interaction
of dam with existing forest and wetland community, Cranberry
Lake, NJ.

-------
Environmental Impact Statement, woodland management plan inventory,
wetlands delineation and permit applications for Briarcrest
East, a proposed residential development in Howell Twp., NJ.
CAFRA environmental impact statement, wetlands delineation, and
permit applications for Brookville Manor, a proposed
residential development in Barnegat, NJ.
Environmental impact statement, woodland management plan inventory,
wetlands delineation and permit applications for Ramtown
Knolls, a proposed residential development in Howell Twp, NJ.
Environmental impact statement and wetlands delineation, permit
applications for an 80 acre residential development in
Flemington, NJ.
Wildlife and fisheries inventory, water quality and aquatic benthic
community sampling, ecological portions of environmental
impact statement for a proposed retail center in Weymouth, MA.
Regulatory Review:
Coordinates HMDC environmental review and represents the HMDC in
the interagency regulatory review of all projects requiring
regulatory approval from the Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission, including:
Allied Junction, a proposed railway transfer station, retail
center, and wetlands mitigation plan in Secaucus, New Jersey;
Meadowlands Town Center, a proposed 730 acre mixed use
development and wetlands mitigation plan in Carlstadt, New
Jersey;
Kearny Connection railway improvements and transfer station in
Kearny, New Jersey;
Vince Lombardi Park & Ride Facility and endangered species
mitigation for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority in North
Bergen, New Jersey;
Bergen Generating Station Repowering Project of Public Service
Electric and Gas Company; Ridgefield, New Jersey;
Drafted proposed revisions to the language for the NJDEP
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act General Permit No. 19,
which are currently being considered for adoption by NJDEP.
Drafted and negotiated interagency mitigation agreements for a $2.5
million wetlands mitigation project for Consolidated Railway
Corporation (Conrail) and a $1.2 million mitigation project
for Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.. Currently
supervising project design and implementation.

-------
DOHALD J, SMITH
syj-A Ramapo vallay Road
Oakland, New Jersey "07436
(201) 460-8300 office (201) 337-7697 home
B&WXKEXt E18T0SLX
¦ 3/72- Present Haokena*ck Headowland* Development Commission, One DeKorte
Park Place, Lyndhurst, New Jersey. Staff KmtvraU.*t
Observe and document aquatic end torre#trial life, forma In
the ttaokensack Meadows* Review development plans for
possible negative iapact en wetlands. Assiet Federal aiul
State Agencies on wetland mitigation work. Serve aa ataff
liaison with N.J. Division of Pish fi wildlife. Conduct
Environmental Education seminars in conjunction with the
ttaokensack Maadowlanda Environment Center*
10/68- 3/72 Bronx Zoological Park, Bronx, N.Y. Sookeeper. Worked in
the Avian Department. Responsiblities included feeding,
oaring for, and observing the *ao'a aquatic bird
collection, Worked with breeding rare end endangered
,•pedes.
2/61-2/65	Ghited States Air force.
boqcatzom a
SBUlBSS
8PBCZAL
PROJWCT8
REPORTS
High School Diploma. Coaatal Eafcuarine Fcology#
Jersey Marine Sciences Consortiua, 1981.
New
Inventoried colonial bird nesting in Hackensaok
MaadewXands and ;Shoot«rs Xalaad, New ttrnrk »•*> *°r Mow
Jersey Audubon tjoolety, 1978.
HHDC Bioaone Report, 1075* updated i960. Wetland
Vegetation Maps. Contributed to numerous Commission
documents including the Ha a tar Plana for DeKovt* Park,
Meadows Path, and Losen Slots Creik Park.
lIBrafUflNCBS
Available upon request.

-------
HMDC
ID •" 2014601722

MAY 18*94 11:30 No.005 P.03
TO
Hacfcensack Meadouifands Deuelopmenf Ccmmi$$icn
Memorandum
Anthony Scardino
FROM Chester Matta^fplVfictor
. EnViromnental Programs & PI annlno " , ^	~
Subject Don Smith ~ Annual Review {effective April - 10B"	
Date	June 23,
I have written r.t length 1n previous memoranda about Don Smith's value to
the agency as Staff Naturalist.
Don has been with the HMDC for 9 years. He 1s one of the people 1 regard
as central and vital to the Commission's ability, over those years, to bring-
ing the Hackensack River and Its wetlands back to life. More than any other
among us, he understands and teaches us about the Riveri he knows every nook arid
cranny of its wetlands; he knows both its capacity to support life and where
Its many critters actually live; he remembers the River from a lifetime spent
upon 1t; he loves the River and has taught us how to do the same. The River was
the .center of his Master Man long before there was a Conmisslon to make it the
center of Its Raster Plan.
He has, 1n addition to his extensive duties as Staff Naturalist:
. worked on dozens of water pollution cases, at all hours of the day and
night;
. held the responsibility 1n the field for leading our many all-night, or
all week-end, or all-week fights against chemical and oil slicks;
. served as our liaison to all the Federal and State people, 1n the Coast
Guard, the EPA, the U.S.FIsh and Wildlife service, the DEP. the Bergen County
Mosquito Commissi on,etc. who also show up when a typical environmental disaster
occurs. They all know him and respect him. In a circle of people with a tough
problem to solve, or with tough and jealous jurisdictional Issues to solve
before the work can begin, Don emerges as a calm, strong leader.
It was Don who organized nearly the
sUchi;rherC™t sm xjmmm
together; he knows that so well.
r.rtn ij.ifj ug raoeatedly. to local people 1n Inestimably valuable Mays.
He c.^.1tad"; r V«k-. d .Hh . to.t md of •nvlro-.-.t.mt,.
public officials, reporters, visiting scientists, etc.
Don.	«. t.05«*
the Netherlands to the	so long ugly and environmentally disastrous, Is
bX£	„
-------
pieniu .u	«... ID:2014601722
I tC'IW I U a	All tllVKJ WMWI M ttltP*
From:	Chester Mattson'
Subject:	Don Smith - Annual Review
Page 2
MHY 18'y4 11:^1 NO.UUb K.ua
June 23, 1981
that they saw stretching out before them. They were fascinated and Impressed;
and they complimented us both on our technical abilities and our vision.
These examples demonstrate his human values.
His professional abilities abound, as well.
Don knows the birds of the Meadowlands better than any person alive —
by sight, name, by wlngbeat, by habitat* by season, and by instinct. It's his
desire for wore knowledge, however, that gives him an aver greater capability,
each year, "^understand the dynamics of the Hackensack Estuary as It changes
around us while we, changing, watch 1t. When Dr. John T$al of Woods Hole Oceano-
graphlc Institute Is visiting us, sharing his world-renowned knowledge with us,
Don, too, is 1n the boat, learning from Teal, while showing John Teal what Don,
too, understands. They are like people, those two who, to ny observations, have
like abilities.
Don also knows the vegetation, the aquatic organisms and mammals, and where
they, too, live. When we, as an Environmental Staff can collect and analyze
3,300 samples in one year from this estuary's complement of animals and plants,
soils and waters. It 1s Don who will have been one of the crew 1n the boat, -
staking the sampling areas, setting the traps, pulling the plankton net, helping
choose the points of frequent and Infrequent tidal penetration, driving the
corer Into the mud; setting the seines, and, above all, interpreting the results
of this constant scientific watch we keep on our estuary.
Don's duties, these drawn by me to match his skills, relate to our Depart-
ment of Environmental Programs and Plannlng's responsibilities as follows:
I	ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, INVENTORY, MONITORING AND ANALYSIS: AND
II	OPEN SPACE PLANNING
As Staff Naturalist, Don 1s a core and vital member of the environmental
team that keeps track of the estuary's resources. He works regularly In this
regard with Paul Galluzzl, N1ck V&llarlo, J1m Kods, and myself. He has also
be«n of great value In teaching Mary Kay Murphy and Dawn Pompeo how best to
understand the special environmental resources that they must be protected on the
Sports Complex site.
He helps devise strategies (such as that.Incorporated Into the Wastewater
Findings for the Berrys Creek Center Decision) for sewage treatment plant
locations and sl20, as keyed to water quality analysis, understanding and plan-
ning.
Don devises wetland productivity programs ~ such as those now In effect In
Sawmill Crook Wildlife Management Area, In the Kearny Meadows, 1n the Anderson
Creek Marsh (Harmon Cove), 1n the R1dgef1eld Marsh (see Public Service Decision),
1n the New Jersey Turnpike's upcoming wetland nutur# study and observation area
at the Y1nce Lombard 1 Center which he helped design; for the Berrys Creek
continued.

-------
HMLIL
t-rom:
Subject:
Page 3
uie»Lc. J,S.l2bPo^601?22
Don Smith - Aimual Review
MAY 18'y4 ll-'^ NO.UUb H.(Jb
June 23, 1981
Center's preserved marshes, for which he prepared the vegetation maps Inserted
1n that Decision; for the nature trail and education- system designed by
HMDC staff for Losen Slote Creek State Park; for the environmental features
to be incorporated Into the Stelner project; for the high marsh preserved,
through his efforts, adjacent to the Mall Landfill site; for the Lyndhurst
high marsh; for the 11 acre marsh adjacent to the Arena; for the tide pool
area within Snipes Park.
Don Is preparing, with Susan An1afield, Maryjude Haddock and Cassandra
Gates, a series of park designs along Meadows Path, as part of the Coastal Zone
Grant.
Don has been the driving force at the Commission.for the preservation of
the Kearny Fresh Water Marsh; and has taken countless visitors to and through
these marshes as part of the public education process.
Don makes regular boat runs throughout the estuary, keeping a watch not
only for new and old pollution sources, midnight dumping patterns, etc., but,
as well, for new species (such as New Jersey's first marsh hawk 1n 35 years,
whose nest was spotted and photographed by Don),and .for returning species —
such as blue claw crabs and stripped bass and blueflsh.
Don prepares the Commission's B1 ozone Reports, with the July lgso update
the latest system-wide report; and the Berrys Creek Center vegetation and
wildlife Inventory of this June, the latest s1te-spedf1c report.
Don works on the preparation of Corps of Engineers permits, and with the
field Investigators associated with the Corps of Engineers, the U. S, F1sh
and Wildlife Service, the EPA, the U.S.Marine Fisheries Service, the Coastal
Zone Management Office, etc.
Once we 1n Environmental Programs and Planning had completed the Master
Plan for DeKorte State Park, a three year project which Don contributed ex-
tensively to, field Inspections became essential on park planning grounds
(as well as on landfill Inspection grounds, of course). When Engineering was
unable to supply field Inspectors for the landfills, I asked Don to do this on
a temporary basis. This has lasted over two years, with Don providing the
critical field presence (especially In conversations with the field landfill
operators, 1n determining each day, in the field, what should be done next to
achieve each stage of the park's shape,
III SEWAGE TREATMENT PUNNING
Don's knowledge of the River and Its localized flushing patterns have pro-
vided us Invaluable field knowledge 1n the preparation of our Sewage Treatment
Management Plans.
continued...

-------
HMDC
rusuHj iu.
From:
Subject:
Page 4
ID:2014601?22
MIIVIIWMjr o\,aiuiuv
Chester Mattson
Don Smith - Annual Review
MAY 18'94 11:52 No.00b K .Ob
June 23, 1981
IV	LAND PLANNING IN SPECIALLY PLANNED AREAS
The first critical land use planning exercise In all Specially Planned
Areas 1s the identifying of valuable wetlands and waterways, such that the
devising of land use patterns for the built environment will respect and enhance
those ecological values. Don 1s expert at this. He has helped Susan and me
extensively with these layouts over the years, In fact, 1n the Commission's
Ecological and Resource Management Plan, we have laid out such land use scenario
for almost every Specially Planned Area with high wetland area or value.
Examples include the Kearny Special Use Areas, the Island Residentlal-1 (Harmon
CovejSPA, Park side Residential^ -- planning ongoing; Parkslde ResldentlaT-3 —
planning ongoing: Island Res1dent1al-Z (Mill creek) — advanced planning com-
pleted.
V	HMOC ENVIRONMENT CENTER - See Below
VI	PARK PLANNING, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
As noted above. Don has been the field manager, on a day-to-day basis for
two years, for the Incredibly diff1culF"an
-------
Mary Anne Thiesing, Ph.D.
RR 3, ttox &22A
Monroe, New York 10950
(934) 783-1797
EDUCATION
5/89	Ph. £>., Ecology, Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y. Dissertation: The Comparative Ecology of
a guild of minnows (Pisces: Cyprinidae) in a southeastern New York stream.
2/80	fa Biology, Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y.
ty78	B.S. in Biology, College of Ml, St. Vincent,
Bronx, N.Y.
9/74 -1/76	Attended Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1/91 - present	Environmental Scientist, Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Responsibilities include evaluation nf permit applications for compliance with the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines, wetland delineation and characterization for enforcement actions; contracts
administration nnrir.r PA It; evaluation of grant applications and administration of awarded
grants; trainer of agency personnel in Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) procedure.
Projects of interest include preparation of a case for an action undor 404(c) for Hurts'
Mountain, including documents for national level review; development of documents for
removal of a 404(c) action. Vjrva as divisional representative for the preparation of a Special
Area Management Plan for the Hackensack Meadowlands, including developing an
interagency mitigation banking agreement, assisted in developing a wetlands quality
assessment methodology, developed proposed mitigation standards for the Meadowlands
District. Developed wetlands evaluation and delineation course for NYCDEP pttjauwneJ,
8/89-2/91	Area manage*, Regulatory Branch, N,Y. Distiict Aimy Curp& uf Engineer*. Responsibilities
include review and approval of wetlands delineation, coordination of District comments on
Federal wetland* manual and related issues, endangered species coordination under the
Endangered Species Act, coordination of historic properties issues under the National Historic
Preservation Act of J.960, etc.; training of new personnel in wetlands identification and
delineation, permit processing and resolution of sensitive public interest issues.
8/84 - 6/66	Full - time Instructor of Biology, Dominican College of Blauvclt, Orangeburg, N.Y,
Responsibilities include teaching, advisement, committee work, supervision of student
research, and consulting on development of biology major program.
9/80 - 5/84	Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y. Teaching fellow in general biology, botany, microbiology,
marine biology, graduate Ichthyology, Curator of Fordham fish collection for a period of time.
1/79 - 5/80	Teaching assistant in biology.
1/80 • 8/82	College of New Rochelle, New Rochelle. New York. Professional Staff. Learning Resources
Center. Responsibilities included design, implementation and analysis of ongoing self-study for
Title III grant; training of peer tutors and duties ss a senior tutor in science and math.
9/79 - 5/81
6/79 - 8/81
College of New Rochelle. Adjunct instructor in HEOP program; taught developmental
science biology and chemisUry courses.
Rockland Community College, Suffern, N.Y. Laboratory Instructor in biology and anatomy.

-------
Mary Anne Thieslng
RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
ProGont
1980 ¦- present
1979
1978
Assessment methodologies for wetlands cvolualion, wclldjid values of impacted urban
ecosystems; assessment of cumulative impacts of watershed development on fish species
Feeding ecology of freshwater fishes, Ecology of Nol i mm
Culture and nutrition of Proioeoceus from Panamanian sloth
Salt marsh establishment on the Hudson River
Comparative surveys of roacroinvertcbrate
communities In sewage stressed areas of the Hudson RiverJ977	Nutrient loading and
plankton species composition m sewage-stressed areas of the Hudson River
TECHNICAL SKJLLS
PAPERS PRESENTED
Performed and approved over 100 wetland delineations, using both the 1989 interagency and
1987 Corpa delineation manual; wetlands characterization; plant identification; certified EPA
enforcement officer, certified in WET.
Identification of freshwater and marine fishes and invertebrates; curalion of ichtbyologica)
material; transmission electron microscopy; preparation of biological photographs for
technical presentation; algal and protistological culture; word processing, graphics, SPSS on
IBM/PC and Vax mainframe.
Thicsing, MA, and G. Dale, 1990. Spatial preference and feeding habiu of Notroni*
amoenus: a test for competition. Presented at the New York Natural History Conference
Albany, N.Y. June 20-22,1990.
Thicsing, M. A. and O. Dale. 1990. Aspects of the life history of the comely shiner, Notrnpjf
nmnenns. In a sncthftasfern Np.w York Sfrf.MW, Prftsr.ntrH al (be annual meeting of the N.Y.
chapter of the African Fisheries Society, Owcgo, N.Y. January 26-27,1990.
Thicsing, M. A. 1989. Feeding habits of four species of Notropis. with a new method for food
habits analysis.
Presented at the 45th annual meeting of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Society, Ellcnville,
N.Y. May 7 10, 1989.
Thicsing, M. A. and G. Dale. 1989. Feeding habits of four species of Notropia with a new
method for food habit* analysis. Presented at the annual meeting of the N.Y. S. chapter of
cite American Fisheries Society. Jan. 26-28,1989.
PUBLICATIONS
Thieslng, MA. 1978. A Comparative Survey of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Sewage
stressed and Unstressed areas of the Hudson River. 5ci. Mcdla;3:2;i-13.
OTHER RJEUJVANT TRAINING
USEPA Courses: Contracts Administration, Field Health and Safety, Enforcement Officer
Certification, Enforcement Negotiation, Administrative Trials and hearings, hirst Aid, CPR,
Ethics. USACE Courses: Wetland Delineation workshop, Regulatory J, Regulatory IV.
Interagency Wetland Delineation course, Fundamentals of Dredging.

-------
Mary A*ne ThleslBg
AWARDS AND HONORARIA
1989	Roger Reed Memorial oword Tor Beet Student Papor, Northeast chapter of the AFS,
1989	Alan J. McCarthy, S. J. Award, Fordham University
1989	Beat Paper Award, N. Y, S. chapter of the American Fiiluiwea Society
1989	Best Student Paper Award, N. Y. S. Chapter of the American Fisheries Society
1968	Invited delegate to Citizen Ambatibadur Progratn delegation CO U.S.S.R. on Solid Waste
Management
1981-84	Teaching Fellow, Fordham University
1979-81	Graduate Assiitantshlp, Fordham University
1978	AIBS National Undergraduate Research Award
MACUB Undergraduate research award
AJBS chapter research award
1974	Cornell University Dean's Scholarship
Abbott Foundation Scholarship
N.Y. State Regents Sdtolarship
1973	NSF Science Honors Program, Columbia University; NSF program Boycc Thompson Institute
for Plant Research
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
American Fisheries Society, Sigma Xi, New York Academy of Sciences; listed in Who's
Who in Science and Technology.
Member, Bogota Zoning Board of Adjustment 1983-87
Available on request.
COMMUNITY
REFERENCES
TOTAL P.04

-------
Wander Ecological consultants
Qualifications of Principals
Wade Wander
M.Sc. in Ecology, Rutgers University, 1980. Thesis topic: Temporal Distribution, Age
Separation, and Feeding Habitat Preference as Factors in the Ecological Segregation of Migrating
Shorebirds at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, New York City.
B.S. in Wildlife Ecology, Cook College, Rutgers University, 1976
•	Former Research Associate of the NJ Audubon Society
•	Science Advisor to NJ Breeding Bird Atlas Project
•	Member of the Check-list Committee of the New York City Butterfly Club
•	Certified wetland delineator #WDCP93MD0910074B by die U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers
•	Certified wetland professional #0103 by the NJ Association of Environmental Professionals
Mr. Wander has more than 25 years of zoological and botanical field experience throughout North,
Central and South America, as well as East Africa, and Australia. He has been an independent
environmental consultant since 1974 and since 1980 has been on retainer as a Senior
Environmental Scientist at Louis Berger Associates. He has conducted research on New Jersey
Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species funded by the state Nongame and Endangered Species
Program, and has conducted many T&E surveys in New Jersey and other states. Since 1986, Mr.
Wander has conducted more than 700 wetland delineations and inspections throughout New
Jersey. He is very experienced in dealing with various state and federal regulatory agencies, and in
presenting expert testimony before municipal boards and in court. He is on the faculty of the Cook
College Office of Continuing Professional Education, in which capacity he teaches courses on
wetland plant identification. Mr. Wander, along with his wife, has taught wetland awareness
courses to employees of the Port Authority of NY&NJ.
Mr. Wander was principal investigator for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service project that
documented the international importance of the Delaware Bayshore as a migration stop for
hundreds of thousands of shorebirds. He has written dozens of articles for both technical and
popular publications, has taught classes in ornithology and herpetology, and has lectured
extensively on a variety of natural-history topics. Mr. Wander has been qualified as an
ornithologist by the NJDEP.
Professional Affiliations: The Society of Wetland Scientists, The Association of State
Wetland Managers, the Society for Ecological Restoration and Management, the Wildlife Society,
and the Natural Areas Association. Mr. Wander is a founding member of the NJ Association of
Environmental Professionals.

-------
Wander Ecological Consultants
List of Representative Projects
•	Advisor to the Newark Museum on the preparation of dioramas on the natural history of the
Highlands Physiographic Province of New Jersey
•	Review of Wildlife section of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Impact Statement for proposed
expansion of Goethals Bridge between New Jersey and Staten Islands, New York. For The Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey through Louis Berger & Associates, East Orange, NJ.
•	Wildlife survey (including Threatened & Endangered species) for the proposed expansion of
the Monmouth County Regional Landfill and Reclamation Center. For Monmouth County
Municipal Utilities Authority through Birdsall Engineering, Belmar, NJ.
•	Environmental review of Hawk Hill subdivision. For Boonton Township Planning Board.
•	Environmental Review of River Walk development For Pohatcong Township Planning Board.
•	Evaluation of Bird Control Unit at JFK International Airport, New York. For The Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, through Louis Berger & Associates.
•	Biological assessment of habitat for Peregrine Falcon in the Hackensack Meadowlands. For
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission through Camp, Dresser & McKee, Edison
NJ.
•	Endangered & Threatened species survey along parkways in Nassau and Suffolk counties,
Long Island, NY. For New York State Department of Transportation through Blauvelt Engineers!
East Orange, NJ.
•	Preparation of a natural resource inventory. For the Borough of Bernardsville, NJ (in
progress).
•	Avifauna survey of Mashipicong Bogs, Sussex County, NJ. For The Nature Conservancy.
Preparation of alternatives analysis for Environmental Impact Statement for gull hazard control
program at John F. Kennedy International Airport. For U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, through Louis Berger & Associates.
•	More than 700 wetland delineations and inspections for proposed residential and commercial
developments throughout New Jersey.
•	Preparation of a multi-year ecological management plan for properties adjacent to Jamaica Bay.
For the New York City Audubon Society and New York City Parks Department.
•	Wildlife inventory of 1200-acre Delaware Bayshore property in Sea Breeze, Cumberland
County. For Wildlife Preserves, Inc.
•	Natural resource inventory of proposed school expansion site in The Bronx, New York City.
For Allee, King, Rosen & Fleming.
•	Restoration of 6-acre Palustrine deciduous forest wetland in Morris County, NJ. For Mt. Hope
Rock Products, Inc. (in progress)

-------
•	Numerous freshwater wetland restoration plans in New Jersey; most in response to Notices of
Violation issued by the NJDEP.
•	Critical review of wetland delineation and Environmental Impact Statement for proposed
development of Schiff Reservation, Mendham Township, Morris County. For Schiff Reservation
Preservation, Inc., and Citizens for Controlled Development.
•	Threatened and Endangered species search along a 4.3-mile proposed sewer line route,
Manchester Township, Ocean County, NJ. For Ocean County Municipal Utilities Authority
through Birdsall Engineering.
•	Avifauna study for EIS for the proposed widening of a 13-mile section of U.S. Route 6, Cape
Cod, M A. For Massachusetts Highway Department through Louis Berger & Associates.
•	Avifauna study for EIS for the proposed widening of the Delaware Turnpike. For Delaware
Department of Transportation through Louis Berger & Associates.
•	Avifauna and Endangered species survey for EIS on proposed widening of the NJ Turnpike
(including assessments of impacts on wildlife by the project and proposals for mitigating adverse
effects on Endangered species and wetlands). For the NJ Turnpike Authority through Louis Berger
& Associates.
•	Biological inventory (including Endangered species survey), habitat assessment, wetland
functional assessment, and habitat restoration plan for two Superfund sites in Burlington County,
NJ. For Environmental and Energy Consultants, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
•	Wetland delineation and Endangered species survey along a 7-mile length of proposed pipeline
expansion in Morris County, NJ; and preparation of an Individual Freshwater Wetlands Permit
application. For Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Company, Houston, Texas.
•	Avifauna inventory, impact study, and mitigation proposals for proposed development on
lands of Stewart Airport, Newburgh, NY. For New York State Department of Transportation
through Louis Berger & Associates.
•	Preparation of "An Assessment of the Birdlife of the Pinelands National Reserve/Pinelands
Area," a 90-page report for the New Jersey Pinelands Commission that was utilized in developing
the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan.
•	Numerous surveys of Threatened and Endangered species of birds, herptiles, and plants in the
Pinelands Natural Reserve/Pinelands Area and CAFRA zone.
•	Teaching seminars in wetland identification and protection to various personnel groups. For
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
•	Environmental constraints mapping and analysis for funding proposal for sewerage
improvements. For Pequannock River Basin Regional Sewerage Authority.
•	Environmental review of plans and supporting documents for the proposed Black Bear Golf
course. For the Borough of Franklin, Sussex County, NJ.
•	Individual Freshwater Wetlands Permit application, Endangered species search, and wetland
restoration plan. For Elizabethtown Gas Company, Union, NJ.

-------
•	Phase 1 Environmental Assessment. For JRF Magnetic Sciences, Green Township, Sussex
County, NJ.
•	Avifauna survey of 60-acre tract on the Manasquan River, Monmouth County, NJ. For
American Timber Co., through Maser Sosinski Associates, Matawan, NJ.
•	Preparation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protection Plans (portion of DPCC Plan) for:
Fabricolor, Inc., Paterson, NJ, through Vectre Corporation, Lafayette, NJ
The Okonite Company, Paterson, NJ, through EEC, Inc., Philadelphia, PA
Exxon-Linden Technology Center, Linden, NJ, through ERM-Northeast, Woodbury, NY
Courtauld Coatings, Union, NJ, through EEC, Inc., South Orange, NJ
Van Doren Oil Co., White House, NJ, through Bell Environmental Consultants, Dover, NJ
Spartan Oil Company, Dover, NJ, through Bell Environmental Consultants
H&N Chemical Co., Totowa, NJ, through Bell Environmental Consultants
Polychrome Corporation, Clark, NJ
•	Environmental review of plans and supporting documents for proposed championship golf
course. For Township of Bernards, Somerset County, NJ.
•	Wetland delineations and endangered species surveys on numerous county bridge-replacement
and road-widening projects. For Pickering, Corts & Summerson, Inc., Trenton, NJ, and Cherry,
Weber & Associates, Phillipsburg, NJ.
•	Endangered species survey along a proposed gas pipeline route in Somerset County, NJ. For
Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Company.
•	Critical review of technical reports and mitigation proposals for potential ecological impacts of
a proposed baseball stadium in the Hackensack Meadowlands. For the NJ Sports and Exposition
Authority through Malcolm Pimie, Inc., White Plains, NY.
•	Vegetation and wildlife subtasks of an EIS for the proposed expansion of the Squibb
pharmaceutical complex, Hamilton Township, Mercer County, NJ; and for the proposed
conversion to residential development of Grossinger's Resort, Sullivan County, NY. For Allee,
King, Rosen & Fleming, Inc., New York City.
•	Intermediate site investigation (ecological inventory) of proposed prison sites in Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Nevada. For the Federal Bureau of Prisons through Louis Berger & Associates!
•	Avifauna survey, Habitat Evaluation Procedure, and mitigation proposal for proposed
commercial development/mitigation sites in Edison and New Brunswick, Middlesex County, NJ,
For Schmid & Company, West Chester, PA.
•	Numerous natural resource inventories and endangered species surveys for residential and
commercial developers and citizens' groups in New Jersey.
•	Preparation of numerous Environmental Impact Statements for residential and commercial
projects in New Jersey.
•	Natural resource inventory for proposed expansion of Goethals Bridge between New Jersey
and Staten Island, New York. For The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey through
Louis Berger and Associates.

-------
Mr. Wander, a former research associate of the New Jersey Audubon Society, has
also conducted the following ornithological research projects:
•	Survey of breeding birds of Sandy Hook, NJ, 1976. Independent research funded by the
National Park Service.
•	Survey of breeding birds of southern New Jersey cedar swamps (including Bear Swamp
[Cumberland County] and other Delaware Bayshore sites), 1980. Independent research funded by
the New Jersey Audubon Society and the Frank F. Chapman Fund of the American Museum of
Natural History.
•	Distributional study of grassland birds in New Jersey, 1981 and 1982. For State of New
Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Endangered and Nongame Species Project.
•	Aerial and ground survey of migrant shorebirds on the Delaware Bayshore, NJ, 1981 and
1982. For U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This was the original study documenting the
hemispherical importance of the Bayshore to the survival of many species of migrating shorebirds.
•	Aerial survey of shorebirds on Raritan Bay, NJ, 1982. For State of New Jersey, Department
of Environmental Protection, Endangered and Nongame Species Project.
Mr. Wander's Master's thesis research was a year-long field study of the temporal and spatial
distribution of shorebirds and other waterbirds in Jamaica Bay, New York City.

-------
4
Publications
Wander, W. 1977. Breeding birds of Sandy Hook—1976. Occasional Paper No. 129. NJ
Audubon 3(5&6):83-90.
	. 1979. Waterbird concentrations at Assunpink fish and wildlife management area, 1974-
1978. Occasional Paper No. 136. NJ Audubon VI(3):34-37.
	, and S.A. Brady. 1980. Summer Tanager and Red-headed Woodpecker in the Pinelands.
NJ Audubon VI(3):34-37.
Wander, W. 1981. Breeding birds of southern New Jersey cedar swamps. Occasional Paper No.
138. NJ Audubon VI(4):51-65.
	. 1981. Red Phalarope eating carrion. Wilson Bulletin 95:557.
	, and P. Dunne. 1981. Species and numbers of shorebirds on the Delaware Bay shore of
New Jersey—Spring 1981. Occasional Paper No. 140. NJ Audubon VII(4):59-64.
Wander, W. 1981. An Ornothological Agenda for New Jersey. NJ Audubon VII (4):58.
Wander, W. 1982. Species accounts of Red-headed Woodpecker, Cliff Swallow and Hooded
Warbler in, New Jersey's Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals, William J. Cromartie,
Ed. Stockton State College, Pomona, NJ. 385 pp.
Dunne, P., D. Sibley, C. Sutton, and W. Wander. 1982. Aerial surveys in Delaware Bay:
confirming an enormous spring staging area for shorebirds. Wader Study Group Bulletin 35:32-
33.
Leek, C.F., S.A. Brady, and W. Wander. 1982. The effects of canopy opening on breeding and
migrant birds at Hutcheson Memorial Forest. The William F. Hutcheson Memorial Forest Bulletin
6:20-23.
Wander, W. 1982. Breeding status of grassland birds in New Jersey. NJ Audubon VIII(l):2-4.
Burger, J., and W. Wander. 1983. Jamaica Bay Studies:4. Abiotic factors affecting abundance of
Brant and Canada Geese on an East Coast estuary. Wilson Bulletin 95:384-403.
Wander, W. 1984. Techniques for aging selected species of shorebirds in the field. NJ Audubon
Records of New Jersey Birds X(3):49-55.
Burger, J., J.R. Trout, W. Wander, and S. Ritter. 1984. Jamaica Bay Studies VII: factors
affecting die distribution and abundance of ducks in a New York estuary. Estuarine, Coastal, and
Shelf Sciences 19:673-689.
Wander, S.A., and W. Wander. 1985. Observations at a Northern Waterthrush nest. Journal of
Field Ornithology 56(1):69.

-------
Project Report
IVA Method Field Testing Study
ATTACHMENT 2
QA/QC PLAN FOR IVA FIELD STUDY
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
DRAFT - February 28, 1995

-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
INDICATOR VALUE ASSESSMENT METHOD
FIELD TESTING STUDY
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DISTRICT, NEW JERSEY
Camp Dresser & McKee
Edison, NJ
May 1994
FINAL

-------
QA/QC, Plan
IVA Method Field Testing Study
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The proposed wetland investigation is being conducted in support of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the development and implementation of a Special Area Management Plan
(SAMP) for the Hackensack Meadowlands District. The SAMP will be a comprehensive plan
providing for natural resource protection and reasonable economic growth in the District. The
purpose of the EIS is to determine the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of
the SAMP. The purpose of this study is to collect field data, specifically regarding wetland
indicators and functions, to support the environmental impact methods used in the EIS, as well
as implementation mechanisms to be used in the SAMP.
Implementation of the SAMP is expected to result in changes to regulatory processes for fill
and construction activities under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These regulations are administered by the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) as the permitting authority and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) as the Section 404 oversight agency. Some of the regulatory changes being
considered include: general permits (under Section 404(e) of the CWA), abbreviated permit
processes, and establishment of permanent prohibitions on activities in certain wetland areas.
These products would increase predictability in acquiring federal permits, reduce burdens upon
developers and regulators, and restrict development or ensure proper mitigation measures in
important wetland areas.
Given the nature of the action, the EIS has been prepared using a programmatic format. As
such, it addresses regional issues, and the analysis is conducted at a regional scale. The
function of the EIS for the SAMP is to identify management plan alternatives, assess the
potential environmental, social, and economic consequences of each alternative, and identify
the preferred alternative.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Hackensack Meadowlands District (District) is located less than five miles west of
Manhattan, in Bergen and Hudson Counties. The Meadowlands District contains
approximately 8,000 acres of wetlands, and 12,000 acres of upland. Most of the upland areas
are developed, and host primarily industrial, institutional, and commercial land uses.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee FINAL - May 31, 1994
1

-------
QA/QC Plan
IVA Method Field Testing Study
The District includes portions of 14 municipalities in Bergen and Hudson Counties, New
Jersey. Within the District, HMDC is responsible for land use planning, zoning decisions,
issuance of building permits, regional solid waste management, and protection of the
environment. Remaining undeveloped area within the District arc primarily wetlands, and
these areas are under intense developmental pressure.
The wetlands system which exists in the Meadowlands District today has evolved in response
to hydrologic alterations over time. The construction of the Oradell dam across the
Hackensack River (north of the District) in 1922 impeded fresh water flow, and promoted salt
water intrusion. By the 1920's common reed (Phragmites australis) dominated the remaining
marshes once covered by Atlantic white cedar (US EPA, 1989).
In 1969, the 32-square mile Meadowlands region laid substantially abused and under-utilized.
The development and ecological preservation potential of this area was visibly and regularly
undermined. The result was a rapid quantitative and qualitative erosion of some of the most
significant tidal wetlands in the Metropolitan region.
At present, HMDC is preparing to revise its Master Plan and the regulations through which it
controls the use of land in the District. Revisions to the Plan must seek to resolve a number
of policy issues, the most important of which is identifying the proper balance among the
goals of economic development, wetland preservation, and solid waste disposal in the public
interest.
1.2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
In recognition of the environmental and economic needs of the District, and the need for
additional coordination of regional planning and regulatory process, EPA and USACE entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on September 14, 1988 with HMDC, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEPE), and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that calls for the preparation and implementation of a
SAMP for the HMD. The SAMP facilitates compliance of future development activities with
applicable environmental statues and regulations. In particular, certain regulatory presumptions
for future activities, including those identified in the MOU, result from the SAMP and will be
used by the EPA and USACE in administering their authorities pursuant to Section 404 of the
CWA. As noted previously, the SAMP is invaluable to the HMDC's ongoing effort to revise
its Master Plan.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee FINAL - May 31, 1994
2

-------
QA/QC Plan
IVA Method Field Testing Study
1.3	SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS (SAMPs)
The Hackensack Meadowlands District is located within New Jersey's Coastal Zone. The
1980 Amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act define a Special Area Management
Plan as a "comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection and reasonable
coastal-dependent economic growth containing a detailed and comprehensive statement of
policies, standards and criteria to guide public and private uses of lands and waters; and
mechanisms for timely implementation in specific geographical areas within the coastal zone".
The USAGE provides additional detail and guidance regarding the development of SAMPs in
Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) No. 92-03, issued August 19, 1992. (RGL 92-03 extended
RGL 86-10, originally issued October 2, 1986.)
A SAMP also establishes an area-wide basis for regulatory actions, founded on an
understanding of the cumulative effects of changes in the environment. A SAMP can
conclude with definitive regulatory products that include streamlined permit processing
procedures and Section (404)c restrictions for undesirable activities.
All the factors that motivate preparation of a Special Area Management Plans are present for
the Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP: the extensive wetlands in the District are under
significant development pressure; a regional planning agency (HMDC) is present to coordinate
the local needs elements and to help implement the plan; the SAMP/EIS includes a full public
participation process; and the SAMP/EIS Memorandum of Understanding commits all
participants to implementing regulatory enhancements. Furthermore, the Advanced
Identification (AVID) of wetlands (conducted by USACE and EPA, in concert with NJDEPE
and HMDC, between 1986 and 1991), has been integrated into the SAMP and the EIS. The
data collected during the AVID study has been invaluable in the evaluation of potential
impacts to wetlands, as well as potential gains to the quality of wetland ecosystem through
enhancement of existing wetlands.
1.4	EPA/CORPS OF ENGINEERS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
The EPA and USACE signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in February 1990 that
provides clarification and general guidance regarding the level of mitigation necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. To achieve
this goal the MOA interprets and provides guidance and procedures for the USAGE and EPA
in implementing existing Section 404 regulations. The MOA is significant in that it mandates
a sequential review for most project evaluations, starting with avoidance of impacts,
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee FINAL - May 31, 1994
3

-------
QA/QC Plan
IVA Method Field Testing Study
minimization of impacts, and finally the requirement that compensatory mitigation be provided
for unavoidable impacts. The MOA also recognizes that mitigation consistent with an EPA-
and USACE-approved comprehensive plan, such as a SAMP, is considered to satisfy the
avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation requirements. The overall goal of the
MOA is to achieve no net loss of wetland values in the United States.
1.5 INDICATOR VALUE ASSESSMENT METHOD FIELD TESTING STUDY
In support of the EIS, a method has been developed, based on previous work conducted in the
District (the AVID conducted by EPA between 1986 and 1991), which computes a relative
score for wetlands in the District for three wetland attributes: water quality improvement,
wildlife habitat, and social significance. This method, termed the indicator value assessment
(IVA) method, is based on assigning importance to specific indicators of wetland quality, and
calculating a "score" for each wetland based on the indicators present in that wetland. The
IVA method is used in the EIS to determine the existing condition of wetlands in the District,
to assess direct and indirect wetland impacts from development, and to determine appropriate
mitigation actions to ensure no net loss of wetlands value.
This study consists of field testing that will be conducted to gain additional information on
selected representative wetland areas that may potentially be impacted under HMDC's hybrid
development plan (the "preferred alternative" for the EIS). Wetlands with less than 15 acres of
direct fill, but more than 5 acres, will be targeted, because larger sites typically have more
complicated ecosystems. One major purpose is to compare the "value" obtained for these
areas using the IVA aga