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











                                                        AL
                                                              LU

        US Army Corps
        of Engineers                                     PRO



                           Agency RE-view Draft
                              February 1995


           Draft. Environmental Impact Statement
                                on the
                Special Area Management Plan
                               forthe
           Hackensack -Meadowlands District, NJ

                 txecutive bummala.1y,



                              Prepared by:

                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                       U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers
            National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
              New Jersey Department of Environmental Pr'otection
             Hackensack Meadowlands Development Com 7mis sion

                          Camp Dresser & McKee




     Execut ive
     Summary








                                                                              Executive Summary


                This Executive Summary (ES) provid    es a synopsis of the Hackensack Meadowlands District
                Special Area Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (SAMP/EIS). The SAMP is a
                comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection, remediation of pollution, and
                reasonable economic growth in the District. It presents a comprehensive statement of policies
                and criteria to guide future land use and environmental management in the District, including
                preservation, restoration, and enhancement of the District's natural resources. More specifically,
                the SAMP proposes a balanced plan for managing the District's environmental resources and
                meeting economic and social needs.

                In preparing this Executive Summary, the information presented in the Draft SAMP/EIS has
                been reorganized, as follows:

                     Chapter 1 of this ES condenses the findings of Section 1 and Section 2 of
                     the SAMP/EIS. Section 1 of the SAMP/EIS describes the need t      'o prepare
                     a SAMP/EIS in the Hackensack Meadowlands District; and identifies the
                     objectives of the SAMP/EIS. In Section 2 of the SAMP/EIS the need for
                     environmental improvement in the District is presented, together with a
                     program, proposed by HMDC, for extensive environmental
                     improvements in the District.

                     Chapter 2 of this ES summarizes the results of Section 4 of the SAMP/EIS.
                     In Section 4 of the SAMP/EIS a range of land management alternatives for
                     the District are compared, and other alternatives, including out-of-District
                     growth, are examined. Section 4 of the SAMP/EIS concludes with the
                     identification of a Preferred Alternative plan for the District.

                     Chapter 3 of this ES highlights the findings of Section 3 and Section 5 of
                     the SAMP/EIS. In Section 5 of the SAMP/1EIS the environmental effects
                     of the Preferred Alternative are evaluated. The current environmental
                     conditions in the Hackensack Meadowlands are reviewed in Section 3.


                     Chapter 4 of this ES outlines the recommendations of Section 6 of the
                     SAMP/EIS. Section 6 of the SAMP/EIS presents the mechanisms for
                     implementation of the SAMP and the proposed regulatory enhancements
                     that result from the SAMP.


                For additional information the reader is directed to the Draft SAMP/EIS, and Appendices AN
                that accompany the SAMP/EIS. (The Appendices provide supporting technical information
                about the evaluations and analyses that were conducted for the EIS.)





                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                    February 21, 1995                                      ES-1








                                                                                                       Executive Summary


                Chapter 1
                Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action


                1. 1 Description of EPAICORPS of Engineers Action

                The "action" addressed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the development and
                implementation of a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the Hackensack Meadowlands
                District. The SAMP is a comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection,
                remediation of pollution, and reasonable economic growth in the District. It presents a
                comprehensive statement of policies and criteria to guide future land use and environmental
                management in the District, including preservation, restoration, and enhancement of the
                District's natural resources. The SAMP also fosters compliance of future development with
                environmental laws and regulations, including the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.

                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
                (ACE) as the permitting authority and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the
                Section 404 oversight agency. Because of the potentially significant environmental consequences
                of the SAMP, ACE and EPA agreed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
                SAMP. The process adopted by EPA and USACE to prepare a programmatic EIS on the SAMP
                is consistent with the federal regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality as well as the
                regulations of each of the lead federal agencies for an EIS.

                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 Hackensack Meadowlands District. The purpose of the SAMP is to facilitate
                compliance of future development activities with applicable environmental statutes and
                regulations.

                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".



                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                     February 21, 1995                                        ES-2









                                                                                                  Executive Summaty


               A SAMP provides predictability to development interests, and environmental interests are
               assured that individual and cumulative impacts are analyzed in the context of broad ecosystem
               needs. 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.

               Consistent with the Regulatory Guidance Letter and the MOU, regulatory products that guide
               land use management in the Hackensack Meadowlands District will be implemented pursuant
               to SAMP/EIS process:

                 ï¿½ appropriate local/state approvals, and ACE, general permit (GP) and/or abbreviated
                    processing procedure (APP) for activities in specifically defined situations; and,

                 ï¿½ local/state restrictions and EPA 404(c) restrictions for undesirable activities.

               Individual permit reviews are available for activities that do not fall into either category and are
               inconsistent with the SAMP. SAMP implementation actions and regulatory enhancements
               selected for the Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP are discussed in Section 6 - Implementation of
               the SAMP.


               1.4 Description of the Hackensack Meadowlands District
               The Hackensack Meadowlands District (District) is a 32 square mile area located in Bergen and
               Hudson Counties in New Jersey, less than five miles from New York City. The Hackensack
               River, which is tidal in this area, travels through the middle of the District in a north-south
               direction, roughly dividing the District in half. The District includes portions of 14
               municipalities, ten in Bergen County and four in Hudson County. Covering almost 20,000 acres,
               the District contains approximately 11,500 acres of upland, and 8,500 acres of wetland. The
               wetlands in the Meadowlands District are mapped in Figure ES-1. Most of the upland areas are
               developed, and the principal land uses in the uplands are industrial, institutional, and
               commercial. Undeveloped areas within the District are largely wetlands, and these areas are
               under intense development pressure.

               The District is a governmental jurisdiction, with-in which the Hackensack Meadowlands
               Development Commission (HMDC) is responsible for land use planning, zoning, issuance of
               building permits, regional solid waste management, and protection of the environment. HMDC
               is one of only two planning and environmental management agencies in NJ with regional
               authority. T he existing HMDC Master Plan, used by HMDC to make development decisions,
               was adopted by the State of New Jersey in 1972--prior to the enactment and implementation of
               various environmental statutes, including Section 404 of the CWA. As part of the SAMP effort,
               HMDC is revising its Master Plan and the regulations regarding land use in the District, in
               accordance with applicable environmental statutes.

               The District is the cross-roads for several major turnpikes and highways, carrying vehicles to
               destinations throughout New Jersey, New York., and New England. Both the eastern and
               western spurs of the NJ Turnpike cross the District, as do NJ Route 3, Route 17, and Route 7.

               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                     ES-3




















                                           FEET





                                          W7ERS





































                                                      A,





                                                                                                                                       Legend

                                                                                                                                     Wetlands Evaluated for AVID


                                                                                                                                     Wetlands Not Evaluated
                                                                                                                                     for AVID

                                                                                                                                     HIVIDC Boundary
                                                                                                                              /V     Roads

                                                                                                                                     Surface Water

                                                                                                                                     Railroads







                                   D R A F T

                                Source: USEPA. Functional Assessment Report 1990.
                                February 21, 1995                                                                                         Figure ES-1
                                                                                              Wetland Assessment Areas
                                CDM
                                                                                                       Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS









                                                                                                Executive Summary


               Because of the proximity of sizable vacant tracts in the District to major highway and rail
               systems, and because of the nearness of these lands to New York City and major residential and
               employment centers in northern New Jersey, the economic value of vacant and redevelopable
               lands is very high. The population and employment growth projected for the region indicates a
               need for additional housing and work spaces in the District.

               A broad range of problems affecting the quality of the air, water, and land are present
               throughout the District. These problems significantly affect the ability of the District's
               environment to sustain wildlife, and also affect the potential for economic growth. The
               unregulated use of the District lands as disposalsites for solid and industrial waste for more
               than 150 years led to the use of over 2,500 acres of land as landfill in 1969. (Only one 20-acre
               landfill is operating today.) Many of these landfills were never properly closed, and the ongoing
               decomposition of wastes within the landfills results in the release of millions of gallons of
               leachates to the environment. Water quality continues to be impacted by the uncontrolled
               leachate discharges-leachates with typical "landfill" pollutants (e.g., BOD, COD) and hazardous
               pollutants that affect both water quality and aquatic life. These orphan landfills also discharge
               significant volumes of methane into the atmosphere. The historical dumping practiced in the
               District has resulted in the creation of over 200 contaminated sites within the District that
               require hazardous waste remediation. While existing federal wetland regulations direct growth
               to upland locations, the wildlife habitats in these terrestrial sites are becoming increasingly
               scarce in the District, reducing the diversity of habitat in the District. These long-standing
               environmental problems in the District are, for the most part, beyond the scope of existing
               regulatory programs. The SAMP provides an opportunity to identify specific mechanisms and
               actions that will improve the natural environment of the District.

               1.5 Need for Environmental Improvement in the Meadowlands District
               As noted above, the environmental problems facing the District today result from centuries of
               modifications to the environment. Such modifications have resulted from natural processes
               (such as sea level rise and sediment erosion and transport), and from man-induced changes,
               (such as impoundment of the Hackensack River for water supply purposes, a long history of use
               of marsh areas for waste disposal, and changes related to early attempts to settle the
               Meadowlands, during which extensive diking and ditching occurred).

               The cedar swamps were the prevailing habitat type in the Meadowlands until Dutch and
               English colonists decimated the forest using land reclamation projects, fire, lumbering, diking,
               and ditching. In the mid-nineteenth century, land companies drained the marshes in the north,
               particularly in the areas around Berrys, Creek. 1[n the early twentieth century, the local mosquito
               control agencies diked and drained the remaining areas of cedar bog and emergent marsh, and
               put in tide gates. By the 1920's, common reed (Phragmites australis) dominated the remaining
               marshes once covered by Atlantic white cedar (EPA, 1989). The Atlantic white cedar wetland
               ecosystem is no longer present in the Meadowlands.

               The wetland systems that exist today have also evolved in response to hydrologic alterations
               over time. The construction of the Oradell dam across the Hackensack River (upstream of the
               District) in 1922 impeded fresh water flow, and advanced tidal influence.


               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                    ES-4








                                                                                                      Executive Summafy


               By 1969 (the year HMDC was formed), the 32-square mile Meadowlands region lay substantially
               degraded. The development and ecological preservation potential of this area was visibly and
               regularly undermined. The fact that the area was constantly encroached upon is indicative of
               then-prevailing attitudes toward and perception of wetlands. Transportation arteries of all
               types were laid out haphazardly, without consideration of the District's environmental
               resources; the need to connect two points external to the Meadowlands by the shortest possible
               route was the controlling highway and rail planning strategy.

               Most municipalities within a radius of 50 miles or more (some out of State), as well as regional
               industries, relied on the Meadowlands to serve as the dumping grounds for their waste. The
               Hackensack Meadowlands, before the intensification of environmental regulation in the late
               1960's, contained scores of active landfills. Random, unregulated disposal of waste products
               was commonplace. The low-lying marshland that characterized the area served as an open
               invitation for continued abuse. Vacant areas were filled sporadically for low-intensity
               uses-predominantly goods distribution. The result was a rapid quantitative and qualitative
               erosion of some of the most significant tidal wetlands in the Metropolitan region. The 1969
               action of the New Jersey State Legislature, creating the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
               Commission, was recognition that this situation represented an ecological and economic
               disaster.


               Over the years 1,600 acres of wetlands were filled as a result of sanitary landfilling practices,
               mostly prior to 1972 (see Figure ES-2). Additionally, 148 acres were filled by the New Jersey
               Sports and Exposition Authority and 92 acres by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, both
               outside the jurisdiction of HMDC. In addition, approximately 525 acres have been filled as a
               result of more recent development activity.

               The long history of industrial and household waste disposal (dumping) activities in the District
               have caused significant soil and water contamination in the lower Hackensack River Basin.
               HMDC inventories indicate over 200 waste discharge and disposal sites in need of investigation,
               remediation, and/or management. The pollution and environmental degradation, together
               with hydrologic alteration, have compromised the quality of the extensive freshwater wetland
               environments historically present in the District. Environmental losses in the District, for the
               most part, were brought under control for the first time with the creation of the Hackensack
               Meadowlands Development Commission in 1969.

               Current water quality impacts to both the Hackensack River and adjacent wetlands result from:
               discharges from five sewage treatment plants with varying levels of treatment; approximately 50
               permitted industrial sources; cooling water from three major power plants; non-point source
               runoff (including runoff from three Superfund sites and six hazardous waste sites); raw sewage
               and storm water from 10 combined sewer overflows; and runoff and leachate from
               approximately 1,000 acres of (mostly abandoned) landfills which have not been properly closed.

               In order to restore and enhance the existing environment of the District, HMDC, with input
               from the state and federal SAMP agencies, has developed an Environmental Improvement
               Program (EIP). The EIP is an integral component of the SAMP and the revised HMDC Master
               Plan, and would provide a centrally-managed approach to environmental remediation and


               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                     February 21, 1995                                        ES-5





















                             FEET





                            AETERS





















                                                               V,













                                                                                              Legend

                                                                                             Solid Waste Facility

                                                                                             HMDC Boundary

                                                                                             Roads

                                                                                             Surface Water

                                                                                             Railroads









                      D R A F T



                    February 21, 1995                                                           Figure ES-2
                                                                            Historic Solid Waste
                    CDM                                              Activities (before 1970)
                            W-ftm ad-ftm
                    pWVWj & fl,"Vwx" @$.Um                             Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/ElS








                                                                                                   Executive Summafy


               natural resource protection projects throughout the District. The EIP proposes specific
               environmental objectives and improvements, remediation programs, and enhancements that
               will have a significantly positive impact not only on the District's environment, but on
               surrounding regions as well. The components of the EIP include solid waste management,
               water resource protection, environmental enforcement, air and land quality improvements,
               natural resource management, and development of park, educational, and recreational
               opportunities. To accomplish the goal of remediating past environmental impacts and
               managing'an urban estuary of national significance, the various program elements must be
               implemented in concert. Each piece is integral, and together they provide a dynamic
               opportunity for restoration of District environments.

               The Environmental Improvement Program establishes and implements state-of-the-art
               management techniques for cleanup and/or prevention of pollution of the air, water, and soil.
               Coordination of programs affecting all Meadowlands District environments, together with
               vigorous monitoring and enforcement are key to success. Environmental research and
               monitoring provides for the systematic appraisal of the extent of pollution and the information
               and technical basis for environmental management decisions. Priorities of the EIP will be
               formally established and revised annually by a SAMP-appointed committee (the EIP Advisory
               Committee) as tasks are completed, new funding sources are identified, or additional
               opportunities for environmental improvements arise.

               Implementation of the EIP will include the following mechanisms:

                 ï¿½  coordinating implementation of the numerous proposed environmental improvement
                    projects, thereby maximizing environmental benefit,

                 ï¿½  collecting and targeting funding to pay for District-sponsored environmental
                    improvements,

                 ï¿½  developing monitoring programs to measure attainment of SAMP environmental goals,

                 ï¿½  inspecting critical environmental resources in the District, preventing degradation, and
                    identifying parties responsible for impacts, and,

                 ï¿½  applying and coordinating existing regulations and laws relating to environmental
                    protection innovatively to increase effectiveness, and to reduce delay and overlap.

               However, the substantial cost of environmental remediation has not been within the resources of
               HMDC, nor is it projected to be under existing funding mechanisms. Funding mechanisms are
               proposed in the SAMP that rely on the enhanced value of projects that are consistent with the
               SAMP/HMDC Master Plan (see following section).

               1.6 Need for Growth in the Meadowlands District
               One of HMDC's legislated goals is to "promote orderly, comprehensive economic development"
               within the District. To fulfill this goal, HMDC has conducted an extensive analysis of the
               developmental needs of the District.

               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                      ES-6









                                                                                                       Executive Summary


                Need for Residential Growth in the Meadowlands District
                Sustainable growth is being planned by HMDC to meet basic social needs for housing,
                employment opportunity, environmental protection, and recreation. Regional growth promotes
                the principles of enhancing individual welfare, opportunity, and equity. HMDC has addressed
                the need for housing from a social perspective-proceeding toward a goal of meeting at least
                part of the housing need expressed by all income groups.

                The growth in the number of households and the growth in jobs that is projected for the region
                and District create a need for housing, because new workers that are employed in the region,
                and new households that are formed, require a place of residence. To serve this need,
                opportunities must be made available to add to the housing stock. The need for residential
                growth is also a function of replacement of obsolescent housing, and the need to maintain
                appropriate vacancy rates.

                A six-county region has been identified that generally represents a commuting range between
                the Meadowlands District and out-of-District jobs and housing, and includes Bergen, Essex,
                Hudson, Passaic, Union and the northern portion of Middlesex Counties. A review of land use
                patterns in the six-county region indicates that most of the existing land has been developed.
                The principal exception to this rule is in the periphery of the region, where efforts have been
                underway by many local governments and the Office of State Planning to maintain the less
                developed character of such locations, and to discourage extension of infrastructure to exurban
                areas.


                The analyses conducted for this EIS indicate a housing need in the Meadowlands District for at
                least 14,000 residential housing units, based on fulfillment of low/moderate income housing
                needs and regional need for new housing opportunity.

                Need for Office Growth in the Meadowlands District
                The need for additional office development in the District is a function of: (1) the need to
                provide space to accommodate anticipated employment growth, and (2) the need to fund
                environmental improvements in the District. Public policy articulated in the State Development
                and Redevelopment Plan directs growth to areas of the state with existing infrastructure, and
                recommends growth occur in "centers" that feature mixed land uses. Center-based
                development, found to be the most efficient form of growth in recent HMDC planning studies
                for the District, reduces auto dependence and related air emissions and maximizes use of
                existing infrastructure capacity in built areas.

                Another significant need for office growth in the District is the need to provide a funding source
                and system for environmental remediation and natural resource preservation programs in the
                District, only a small part of which is fundable under existing government programs. (Please
                note that wetland mitigation performed as compensation for projects that may receive permit
                approvals in the future is separate from, and not included in, the identified need for
                environmental improvement in the District.)




                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                     February 21, 1995                                        ES-7








                                                                                                    Executive Summafy


                Planning for the future of the District must provide for the creation of funding mechanisms to
                remediate the long-standing and cumulative environmental degradation of the District. The
                office growth projected in the District has been identified as one of the major sources of funding
                for environmental improvements. The total cost of the EIP, implemented over the planning
                period, has been estimated to be approximately $1 billion.

                Need for Commercial Sector Growth in the Meadowlands District
                As increases in population, households, and employment occur in the region, and as the needs
                of area businesses expand, demand is exerted for goods and services to support household,
                recreational, and economic activities. The need for commercial facilities results from these
                growth-related demand factors, and the need to integrate commercial activity with other
                growth, in fulfillment of HMDC's Master Plan policy of mixed use centers. Regional,
                community, and neighborhood commercial centers are essential components of economic and
                population growth within a region.

                The total demand for regional commercial space in the District is based on the following
                components: (1) the unfulfilled commercial needs of the existing regional population, (2) the
                needs of the existing (1990) in-District employment base of 72,000, (3) the needs of the projected
                primary and secondary employment increase of 100,000 workers, and (4) the needs of a
                projected increase of 40,000 new residents in the District.

                Summary of Growth Needs in the District
                The needs for growth in the District are summarized in Table ES-1, below. The need for growth
                is based on analyses conducted by HMDC for the EIS, as discussed in the preceding sections.

                                                          TABLE ES-1
                                               HMDC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS




                DEVELOPMENT TYPE                                  NEED

                Residential                                       14,000 units
                Primary Office                                    18 million square feet
                Secondary Office                                  6.3 million square feet
                Warehouse/Distribution                            9 million square feet
                Commercial                                        2.5 million square feet



                1. 7 Need for Transportation System Improvements
                The existing transportation system was started in the early 1900's and was built largely to
                traverse, but not necessarily to service, the District. This system has not kept pace with growth,
                in the region or the District. Today, traffic exceeds the capacity of roadways and taxes rail and


                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                       ES-8









                                                                                                 Executive Summary


               bus transit operations. Seven commuter rail lines traverse the District, including New Jersey
               Transit routes and Amtrak's Northeast Corridor line. Yet, there are only three rail stations in the
               District, two serviced by one limited line and one serviced by three northeast lines. Direct rail
               access from central and southern New Jersey is non-existent. Direct access by Amtrak or PATH
               service is also not provided. Bus lines cross the'District, the majority on major State highways
               destined to New York City. Local bus service is often limited and time-consuming. Arterial
               roads to the District approach capacity daily. A 1976 survey of morning rush hour traffic
               indicated virtually every Interstate and State road in the area was at or was marginally close to
               capacity. Traffic continues to increase 1.5% to 2cVO each year, and highway capacity is often
               exceeded on Routes 3,17,46, 1&9, and 1-495.









































               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                    ES-9








                                                                                                   Executive Summary


               Chapter 2
               Analysis of Alternatives


               The analysis of alternatives as part of the EIS for the SAMP derives from the need to examine
               reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (including the no action alternative and
               alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency), as described in the Council on
               Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations on Implementing the National Environmental Policy
               Act (NEPA)'. In addition, the SAMP MOU specifically provides for the consideration of
               out-of-District alternatives in the EIS.


               The alternatives analysis addresses three gro=s of alternatives that must be assessed to
               understand possible alternatives to the SAMP. Each group of alternatives consists of a number
               of specific alternatives that have been analyzed.

                1 . Out-of-District alternatives analysis. This analysis evaluates the degree to which upland
                    locations-presumed to have lesser environmental impacts-may be available outside the
                    District boundaries that would accommodate the growth anticipated in the District, and
                    allow HMDC to meet the goals of the SAMP. The potential to redirect market forces for
                    development that are present in the District to out-of-District upland locations in a six-
                    county metropolitan region is assessed.

                2.  In-District alternatives analysis. This analysis assesses the comparative environmental effects
                    of five representative land management scenarios within the District (and a No Action
                    alternative, as described below); and concludes with the creation of a hybrid alternative for
                    growth and environmental management. This hybrid alternative combines growth
                    elements from the five representative land management scenarios (so as to minimize
                    impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources), and includes transportation improvements in
                    the District. The No Action alternative is also defined and reviewed. The No Action
                    alternative is defined as a "No SAMP" alternative. In other words, if a SAMP and new
                    Master Plan are not implemented for the District, the growth pressures and patterns
                    traditionally present in the District are projected to continue, per the zoning created under
                    the 1970 District Master Plan.


                3.  Environmental Improvement Program alternatives. The EIP is a key element of the SAMP, and
                    provides (1) coordination of environmental remediation and enhancement in the District,
                    and (2) a plan for implementing a full range of specific environmental improvements.
                    Alternatives to the EIP are considered, specifically (a) No Action, and (b) partial
                    implementation.

               The alternatives analysis will allow projects that are consistent with the SAMP to be eligible for
               streamlined permitting processes, in part because alternatives for projects consistent with the
               SAMP will have been addressed by this analysis.


               1 CEQ Regulations on Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508)

               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                     ES-1 0









                                                                                                      Executive Summary


                The availability of alternative sites, both within and outside the District, was best evaluated,
                given the programmatic nature of the EIS, by assessing representative locations that exhibit high
                potential to function as alternative locations for growth. Sites have been selected for review that
                are representative of the forms of growth and the scale of growth anticipated to occur in the
                District, and that address project needs.

                A central principle of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines is that:

                      No discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a
                      practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less
                      adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does
                      not have other significant adverse environmental consequences.

                Note, however, that non-aquatic environmental impacts are also taken into account. If an
                alternative that is less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem would have other significant adverse
                envir6nmental consequences, then the Section 4134 discharge may be allowed despite the
                existence of a practicable alternative. These other significant adverse environmental
                consequences of alternatives are of particular importance in the Meadowlands, because of the
                need to repair the extensive damage to the natural environment that has occurred in the District
                as a result of historical land use and waste disposal practices, and the need to implement
                environmental controls to reduce discharges of pollutants (such as landfill leachates) to the
                District's waters from historical waste disposal practices.

                The pollution and environmental degradation, together with the hydrologic alteration, have
                compromised the quality of the extensive wetland environments present in the District. More
                importantly, many of these sources of pollution will continue to degrade the aquatic ecosystem,
                aquatic food web, and possibly'human health if they remain unaddressed. Substantial
                environmental improvements are proposed in tlie Environmental Improvement Program to
                offset the significant pollution, environmental degradation, and hydrologic alteration that has
                resulted from past land use practices. Consequently, any alternative that does not include
                mechanisms to implement these components of the EIP would not meet the environmental
                needs of the District, and would result in continued, cumulative degradation to the District.

                Inability to implement the EIP would result in net environmental loss, because leachate and
                pollutants will continue to contaminate the District's wetlands and waterways, as well as the air,
                soils, and wildlife. Consequently, alternatives Chat do not allow implementation of these critical
                components of the EIEP, or alternatives that reduce EIP funding for these components are likely
                to have other significant adverse environmental consequences in the District, resulting in greater
                impacts than actions proposed under the SAMP.

                2.1 Out-of-DistrictAltemativesAnalys,is

                Methodologies for analysis of out-of-District alternatives have been applied that are appropriate
                at the regional scale, and that are appropriate for supporting "program-level" decisions, in this
                case involving selection of land management plans, environmental management plans, and
                regulatory enhancements for the District that best meet the goals of the SAMP and MOU. The


                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                    February 21, 1995                                       ES-1 1








                                                                                                 Executive Summafy


               out-of-District alternatives analysis is conceptually equivalent to a "no build" alternative for the
               District, because meeting social, economic, and environmental needs outside the District would
               supplant the need for such activities in the District.

               The analysis of out-of-District alternatives focuses on sites outside the District that are
               comparable to those in the HMDC-identified Planning Areas. 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.

               The criteria used to select representative out-of-District sites for analysis reflect the concepts
               advanced in the State Plan, which are intended to steer New Jersey toward less sprawling forms
               of development. The State Plan advocates that growth be directed to "centers" that have high
               levels of accessibility, provide a diversity of land uses and varying intensities of land use,
               enhance the efficient delivery of public services, and contribute to a perceived sense of place. In
               this analysis, preference is given to sites that share with in-District locations the ability to
               accommodate both housing and employment (i.e., mixed uses), providing adequate and
               affordable housing sufficiently adjacent to places of employment to minimize travel needs.

               Accordingly, sites are preferred that offer the potential for achieving synergistic effects in
               meeting different needs. Mixed-use development can provide for economic activity, delivery of
               public services, living space, and environmental protection, all in a coordinated way that
               encourages interaction and mutual support among all these facets of the community. Such
               synergism is necessary for the built environment to achieve what the state plan calls
               11 communities of place"--that is, communities that are dynamic, diverse, compact, and efficient.

               The preliminary screening of potential out-of-District alternative sites reveals that within the
               closer-in areas of the SAMP region, cities such as Jersey City, Newark, and Elizabeth appear to
               offer the most substantial space for growth and also have the potential to promote the urban
               redevelopment goals of the 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. Also, because the major rail lines
               were built to serve the cities, growth in these locations offers the greatest potential for shifting
               the balance in northern New Jersey toward more public transportation and less private
               automobile use. These cities are also focal points of the regional highway network, although
               connector routes may be congested. During the preliminary site screening a number of potential
               locations in Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth, and Paterson were reviewed, as discussed below.

               The suburban areas, in contrast, are likely to continue to apply restrictive land use controls that
               segregate land uses and discourage the SAMP objective of combining residential and
               commercial growth at any one location. The older suburban towns seek to maintain their
               suburban character, and generally discourage further urbanization. The suburban areas
               generally have not suffered industrial and population losses, and so do not have the sites
               available for redevelopment that the larger cities have. Nor do large tracts of virgin land remain,


               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                    ES-1 2









                                                                                                Executive Summaiy


              as exist in exurban areas. While the region could probably physically accommodate much of the
              projected demand for growth without using the Meadowlands sites, it could only do so in
              fragments, scattered over many unrelated sites in the metropolitan region. Such scattered
              growth would increase the undesirable patterns of segregated land uses and sprawling
              development that erode the strength of established cities, place unnecessary burdens on public
              services, and lead to the loss of scarce natural areas in suburban locations. In addition, the
              service infrastructure of many suburban areas does not have sufficient surplus capacity to
              accommodate major new development withoutsignificant public investment.

              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 Crossroads
              sites in Mahwah.. These sites/locations were selected because they best met 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.

              Ability of Out-of-District Altematives to Fulfil/Growth Needs

              This analysis considers the real estate market to be a significant factor in determining the ability
              of various locations to fulfill the housing and office development needs of the region. Market
              demand strongly influences decisions to construct new housing and employment centers.
              Criteria that guide development decisions typically include "hard" factors such as land cost,
              construction cost, and infrastructure availability, and "soft" factors such as marketability and
              location.


              The following sections review both suburban and urban out-of-District growth potential, and
              conclude that differing market forces in urban, suburban, and Meadowlands intraregional. areas
              result in land use preferences which generally do not compete among these areas. These
              differences in market forces are not expected to change over the next 20 years. As a result, the
              growth projected for, and needed in, the District cannot be effectively relocated out of the
              District, as discussed below. Real estate professionals in the region anticipate that if the
              proposed growth in the SAMP is not accommodated in the District, the development will be lost
              to the region. If this occurs, the region's housing and employment needs will not be met.

              Although locations have been identified out of the District that would accommodate single use
              needs, such as development of homes or office buildings, growth dispersed throughout
              suburban locations (such as Mahwah and Wayne) would contribute to the patterns of sprawl
              that is discouraged in the adopted N.J. State Development and Redevelopment Plan.
              Development of the Ramapo Ridge sites in Mahwah will result in loss of forested upland in the
              NJ Highlands, with the attendant loss of wildlife habitat, open space, and increased segregation
              of residential and non-residential land uses (requiring additional dependence on automobile
              travel), in an area that serves as an important source of water supply for major population
              centers in northern New Jersey. The Wayne site has greater potential for mixed use


              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                   ES-1 3








                                                                                               Executive Summafy


              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 use project, and thus is not superior to in-District sites.

              Growth in urban locations is consistent with the State Master Plan. However, the nature of the
              housing and office market was found to be substantially different than the market existing in the
              Meadowlands District, and urban centers were not found to be alternative locations for most of
              the forms of investment and growth that are exhibited in the Meadowlands District.

              Ability of Out-of-District Alternatives to Achieve Project Purpose

              The approach to SAMP implementation agreed upon in the MOU, and proposed by HMDC for
              their future District planning, is based on the interdependency between future land uses and
              environmental restoration, and linkage between future land uses and achievement of
              environmental management goals and social needs (i.e., housing and employment opportunity).
              The future ability to manage the complex environment of the District is founded on:

                ï¿½   achievement of mixed development centers in the District with strong linkages to
                    surrounding business services;

                ï¿½   convergence of Federal, State, and local public policy objectives with regard to the
                    environment, transportation, housing, and economic development;

                ï¿½   creation of a Federal/State partnership that can efficiently and comprehensively address
                    the "package" of problems and needs in the District;

                ï¿½   imposition of development exactions and mitigation to finance environmental
                    rehabilitation, infrastructure, and environmental management and monitoring systems.

              Fulfilling the goals of the SAMP, in particular the EIP, is fundamentally dependent upon
              implementing SAMP mechanisms that are integrally linked, so as to achieve comprehensive
              District-wide planning and environmental management goals. The cost and regulatory
              complexity of realizing land and environmental management goals are significant for the
              District. Directing growth out of the District, to urban or suburban locations elsewhere in
              metropolitan New Jersey, cannot contribute to the project purpose of implementing a SAMP
              with an effective EIP, because it would make the implementation tools that are essential for
              environmental improvement (such as exactions, TDR, and mitigation/restoration projects)
              unavailable to I-IMDC. Hence, the integrity and effectiveness of the SAMP in achieving
              environmental and economic goals would be undermined by shifting a majority of the
              anticipated growth out of the District. Finally, out-of-District growth, to the degree that it
              substantially detracts from in-District growth needs and environmental improvement goals, is
              inconsistent with HMDC's planning purposes and environmental goals.







              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                  ES-14








                                                                                                Executive Summary

              2.2 In-District Alternatives Analysis

              Screening Analysis of In-District Altematives

              The in-District alternatives screening can be described as an environmental analysis that
              compares the relative efficiency of land use and resource protection associated with a series of
              alternative spatial arrangements for future growth in the District. The Land Management
              Alternatives to be screened consist of five in-District alternatives, as well as the No Action
              alternative. The alternatives that have been developed are representative of spatial
              arrangements associated with typical growth patterns in the NY Metropolitan region.

              The in-District alternatives that have been evaluated include:


                    No Action Alternative


                    In-District Alternatives


                    ï¿½ Upland Growth

                    ï¿½ Redevelopment

                    ï¿½ Highway Corridors

                    ï¿½ Dispersed Development Areas

                    ï¿½ Growth Centers


              The in-District alternatives analysis was conducted in several steps. Before a preferred
              alternative could be identified for the District, itwas first necessary to determine whether there
              were spatial arrangements for growth in the District that had higher land use efficiencies,
              identifying such spatial arrangements, and thenevaluating the environmental effects only for
              those forms of growth that best meet the objectives of the SAMP. With this in mind, this section
              of the alternatives analysis consists of an alternatives screening process to evaluate, on a relative
              basis, the general environmental effects of alternative In-District forms of growth.

              The in-District alternatives were screened 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 similarly fulfill
              HMDC-identified social, economic, and environmental needs.

              The alternatives screening is designed to compare the land use efficiency of spatial
              arrangements growth in the District, applying a common and relatively equal set of
              assumptions. The screening process produces aranking of alternatives. The rank of each
              alternative is determined by its environmental impacts and its relative environmental efficiency
              regarding land use. It should be noted that the impact assessment methodologies were selected,
              and the impact assessments were conducted, at at screening level-of-analysis, designed primarily
              to reveal differences among alternatives. The impacts of the six in-District alternatives are based


              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                    ES-1 5







                                                                                          Executive Summary


             on preliminary assumptions regarding land disturbance associated with each alternative form of
             growth, and that the impacts of growth in satellite growth areas and from transportation
             improvements are held constant during the alternatives screening.

             Land Management Alternatives

                   No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative, by definition, does not result in the
                   creation and implementation of a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)'for the District,
                   as defined in the Memorandum of Understanding. The central assumption is that the
                   existing HMDC Master Plan and Zoning ordinance would continue to be implemented.

                   U121and Growth Alternative. This alternative assumes that growth occurs only on vacant
                   land in the District that is not wetland. This alternative requires the development of all
                   natural terrestrial habitats currently existing in the District.

                   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.

                   Highway Corridor Alternative. This alternative has been developed based on the
                   assumption that private market real estate pressures will result in growth along existing
                   highway corridors, specifically the high-visibility highly-traveled Route 3 corridor. This
                   form of growth is typical in the NY/NJ Metropolitan region, as development interests are
                   attracted to highway corridors.

                   Diapersed 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.

                   Growth Centers Alternative. The Growth Centers Alternative involves growth occurring
                   principally in major nodes within the Meadowlands District. This alternative emphasizes
                   large scale mixed-use community designs that seek to integrate housing, employment, and
                   retail activity in common locations.

             Alternatives were compared and ranked based on their relative potential for environmental
             impact. For each category of potential impact, a numerical measure of impact has been
             determined. The ranks are indicators of how the potential impacts of each alternative compare
             to the minimum and maximum potential impacts. To evaluate the in-District alternatives, at a
             screening level the relative ranks for the eight assessed environmental impact categories
             discussed above were combined to identify the alternatives that exhibited lower overall
             potential environmental impact. Ranking was performed to facilitate environmental screening
             of the alternatives.




             CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                February 21, 1995                                ES-1 6









                                                                                                   Executive Summaq


               The Land Mangement Alternatives rank as follows, from highest to lowest composite estimated
               impacts (for all eight environmental impact categories). Please note that this analysis is
               coml2arative. These impacts are relative impacts, not absolute impacts.

                     No Action (7.0 - greatest composite impact)
                     Highway Corridors (4.2)
                     Dispersed Development (3.2)
                     Growth Centers (2-3)
                     Upland (2.0)
                     Redevelopment (1.0 - lowest composite impact)

               2.3 Hybrid Altemative Analysis

               The Alternatives Screening Analysis indicated that the Upland, Redevelopment, and Growth
               Centers alternatives exhibited the lowest environmental impacts among the Land Management
               Alternatives. Thus, land parcels from these alternatives resulted in the lowest environmental
               impacts. However, some land parcels and configurations from other Land Management
               Alternatives, taken individually, exhibited potential to further reduce the impacts of growth. In
               addition, two Land Management Alternatives included residential densities that were extremely
               high, this being necessary because available land was scarce under the Upland Growth and
               Redevelopment alternatives. It was recognized -that a realistic plan for the District would need
               to reflect current and historical development densities in the District and projected market
               acceptability of extremely high densities. (Housing densities of over 100 dwelling units per acre
               and floor area ratios (FARs) of 1.0 to 5.0 were utilized in the Alternatives Screening Analysis
               because of the scarcity of qualifying parcels.) For this reason each of the parcels in each of the
               Land Management Alternatives was re-examined as part of a second level Hybrid Analysis, and
               a Preferred Alternative was identified that was a. hybrid of the sites from the Land Management
               Alternatives.


               The principal objective of the Hybrid Analysis was to meet economic and social needs, and
               fulfill comprehensive planning objectives for the District, by consolidating selected Planning
               Areas from the several Land Management Alternatives, while concurrently addressing the Clean
               Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Thus, aguiding factor in conducting this rigorous
               analysis was also to avoid the use of wetlands to the greatest extent possible in meeting the
               growth and development needs of the District. This planning analysis establishes and applies
               criteria intended to address the cost, logistics, and technology parameters of the Clean Water
               Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This may include using selected parcels in each of the
               alternatives in order to make any necessary adjustments that can ensure a balanced distribution
               of needs. The Hybrid Analysis has determined which of the Planning Areas will be used in the
               preferred alternative.

               Through this analysis, the suitability of Planning Areas to comprise the principal land use
               classifications has been determined, in the context of preparing a comprehensive plan for the
               District. This determination was based on the ap- lication of exclusionary and planning criteria,
                                                                P
               as described below. The Hybrid Analysis applies each of the exclusionary and limiting planning



               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   Febmary 21, 1995                                       ES-1 7








                                                                                                 Executive Summary


               criteria to the Planning Areas in each Land Management Alternative, to determine the suitability
               of the Planning Area to be included in the Hybrid Plan.

               A hierarchy of three levels (tiers) of planning criteria were applied to each site. Assessing a site
               against the criteria in the first tier generally indicates whether a Planning Area should be
               excluded from consideration as part of the Hybrid Alternative. The second and third tiers
               generally indicate that a site has limited potential to achieve HMDC Master Plan goals for
               Planning Areas, and should be excluded, or its use is limited, as a Planning Area (although the
               site may be appropriate as a Satellite Area).

                    Tier I - Exclusionary Criteria are factors or circumstances which are of such significance
                    that they would eliminate the Planning Area from any further consideration (as a Planning
                    Area, Satellite Area, or other use). Specifically, Tier I Criteria relate to site availability,
                    contamination, and ownership or jurisdictional issues?

                    Tier 11 - Potential Cost, Logistics, and Technology Exclusionary Criteria are factors, that
                    when present, can eliminate a Planning Area from further consideration, can change the
                    proposed land use, or can alter the proposed use to that of a Satellite Area. Tier 11 criteria
                    also are intended to address Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines with regard to activities in
                    wetlands.


                    Tier III - Limiting Planning Criteria demonstrate the ability of the Planning Area to be
                    responsive to comprehensive planning principles and HMDC developmental needs. If
                    present, the Tier III Criteria indicate limited potential for a Planning Area to achieve
                    Master Plan goals. Tier III criteria also help to define the specific land use types--either
                    primary (primary office, residential, or commercial) or secondary (secondary office, light
                    industry, or warehousing)-to be implemented in the Planning Area.

               As part of this analysis recommendations were made about the feasibility of including each
               potential Planning Area in the Hybrid Plan, keeping in mind the comprehensive planning
               principles that are used by HMDC to guide future growth. Individual Planning Areas were
               assessed to determine if they met Tier I, U, or III of the exclusionary and limiting planning
               criteria.


               Contaminated lands and Superfund sites have been extensively reviewed. Where remediation
               plans exist that may allow the site to become available within the 20 year planning period, the
               site has been included in the Hybrid Plan. However, many of the known hazardous waste sites
               (where no public program for remediation exists), were eliminated based on costs, logistics, and
               technology constraints that make their reuse impractical.

               -The total development potential of these Planning Areas generally meets the development
               objectives and needs of HMDC. The hybrid plan has a total of 15 Planning Areas and 39 Satellite



               2   Tier I and Tier II criteria were developed to address the Costs, Logistics, and Technology parameters
               of the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.

               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                    ES-1 8









                                                                                                          Executive Summary


                Areas. The land acreage required by the Planning Areas for the Hybrid Alternative totals 931
                acres, of which 510 acres are considered to be wetlands. The Hybrid land use projections based
                on this acreage equate to 17.7 million sq. ft. of office space, 2.7 million sq. ft. of commercial space
                and 13,920 residential units. Table ES-2 identifies each Planning Area selected for the Hybrid
                Alternative and provides information about the type and amount of growth assigned to each of
                the Areas. Table ES-3 provides similar information for the Satellite Areas. Figure ES-3
                illustrates the locations of the Planning and Satellite Areas in the Hybrid Plan. (The numbering
                of the Hybrid Areas is discontinuous because areas were eliminated during the review process.)

                Satellite Areas are locations where the needs for, secondary office/warehouse uses can be met.
                The secondary office /warehouse land use category provides much of the support service for the
                primary uses, but also provides for the storage, distribution, and assembly of a wide variety of
                goods both manufactured and imported into the region. Secondary office uses provide the
                administrative function for the distribution network and in most cases, are located within close
                proximity to the distribution / assembly functions. The land area for Satellite Area
                development totals 768 acres, potentially hostin! 15.3 million sq. ft. of secondary
                office /warehouse space at 39 locations. The total wetland impact for the Satellite Areas is 248.9
                acres.


                2.4 Environmental Improvement Program Altematives

                Alternatives for achievement of environmental improvement goals for the District have been
                assessed as part of this analysis. The alternatives for environmental improvement in the District
                range from no action (no implementation of environmental improvements under the SAMP,
                beyond those programs currently in place), to partial implementation of environmental
                improvement goals using a subset of available mechanisms, to full implementation of
                environmental improvement goals for the District (through HMDC's Environmental
                Improvement Program, EIP).

                Alternative mechanisms for implementing environmental improvements in the District include:

                       ï¿½ relying on public funding sources to realize environmentally beneficial projects;

                       ï¿½  creating new private funding sources to implement environmental improvements;

                       ï¿½  implementing environmental management and regulatory enhancements (in addition
                          to minimum compensation requirements related to project impacts);

                       ï¿½  coordinating environmental projects that are now administered by a range of
                          governmental agencies; and,

                       0  applying a variant of transferable development rights within the District to achieve
                          conservation objectives.

                All the above mechanisms will contribute to achievement of environmental improvement goals
                in the District. In fact, all the above mechanisms, are proposed as part of HMDC's EIP, which is
                an integral component of the Preferred Alternative for the SAMP.

                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                      February 21, 1995                                          ES-1 9









                                                                                    Table ES-2


                                                                                 PLANNING AREAS



                              Area                Location         Acreage          EABI            Office        Commercial          Residential      Wetland
                                                                                Density *                                                                 EM
                                                                                                    (sq. ft.)         (sq. ft.)    (dwelling units)     (acres)
                           HYBRID 1            Carls/E. Ru              40.01           0.50                             871,2001                            2.3

                           HYBRID 2               Secaucus                7.01        15.00   1                                               105 1

                           HYBRID 3               Carlstad              96-01         40.001                                       1        3,8401          95.0
                                                                        70.01         20.001                                       1        1,4001          70.0

                           HYBRID 4               Carlstad              92.01           0.75  1     3,005,640   1                  1                        87.6
                                                                        32.01           1.001                   1      1,393,9201                           32.0
                           HYBRID 5            Carts/E. Ruth    1       14.0          15.00   1                 1                  1          210   1
                                                                1       10.0          40.001                    1                  1          4001
                                                                1         7.01        15.001                    1                  1          105 1

                           HYBRID 6               E. Ruth               12.01           1.001         522,720   1                  1                1

                           HYBRID 7               E. Ruth.              115.01          0.75  1     3,757,0501                     1                1       72.7

                           HYBRID 8               Rutherford              0.0  1      40.00   1                                                     01       0.0

                           HYBRID 9               E. Ruth               15.01           1.001         653,400                                       1

                           HYBRID 1               Secaucus      1       10.0   1        1.00  1       435,6001                     1
                                                                1       65-01         31.001                    1                  1        2,015

                           HYBRID 11              Secaucus      1       30-01                         980,100
                                                                        20.0   1        0.501                   1        435,6001
                                                                        30.01           0.75  1       980,100

                           HYBRID 12           North Bergen     1       50.0   1        0.75  1     1,633,500   1                  1                1       49.7@

                           HYBRID 13              Secaucus              20.01           5.401       4,704,4801                     1                1        9.1
                                                                        33-01           0.75  1     1,078,1101                     1                1


                           HYBRID 14              Secaucu               15.0          15.00                                                   225
                                                                        15.0          20.001                                                  300
                                                                        122.0         40.001                                                4,880

                           HYBRID 15              Jersey Cit    1       11.01         40.00   1                 1                  1          4401


                                PLANNING AREA SUBTOTAL                         0AC.           1   17,750,700 F- 2,700,720                  13,920 11        98.5   AC
                                SATELLITE AREA SUBTOTALI                75     .9 AC.         I                  See table 4-21                     1       251.3 AC@
                         PLANNING AND SATELLITE TOTAL                          AC.                                                                  1       749.8


                         FAR      Floor Area Ratio for office & commercial use.     Density is in dwelling units per acre for residential use.




















                                              FEET





                                            AMERS
                                                        T!5

                                                                                                                                 b
                                                                                                                                              V,




                                                                                                           @4





                                                                                    V..
                                                                                    -.A




                                                                                                                                  2
                                                                                                                                   A,         0
                                                                    Y



                                                                                                                                              ab



















                                                                                    "S

                                                                                                                                              Le-gend

                                                                                                                                            Planning Areas



                                                                                                                                            Satellite Aram



                                                                                                                                            Transportation improvements


                                                                                                                                            HMDC Boundary
                                                                                                                                            Roads

                                                                                                                                            Surface Water

                                                                                                                                            Railroads


                                    D R A F T



                                 February 21, 1995                                                                                              Figure ES-3
                                                                                                                   Pref erred Alternative
                                 CDM
                                 "*WWW4W ffomem WWWSM
                                 pow"" & ftmMOWMM CW&dftrft                                                Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS









                                                                                                                   Table ES-3


                                                                                                                SATELLITE AREAS


                                                             Ama                Municipality                                          Proposed                   Projected                   Wetland
                                                                                                                                          for                 Facility Size                     Fill
                                                                                                                                   Development                   0.5 FAR
                                                                                                                                         facres)                   (sq. ft.)                  (acres)
                                                             a                  LITTLE FERR                                                         3.0                    65,340                           0.0
                                                             b                  MOONACHI                                                            2.0                    43,560                           0.0
                                                             c                  CARLSTAD                                                            9.7                    211,266                          0.0
                                                             a                  CARLSTAD                                                            12.4                   270,072                          0.0
                                                             I                  CARLSTAD                                                            13.0                   283,140                          7.1
                                                             h                  CARLSTADT                                                           10.2                   222,156                          7.-8
                                                             I                  ERUTHERFOR                                                          30.8                   670,824                          0.0
                                                                                E RUTHERFORD                                                        49.1                   1,069,398                        37.5
                                                             k                  CARLSTA                                                             12.1                   263,538                          5.6
                                                             0                  CARLSTAD                                                            1.7                    37,026                           0.0
                                                             p                  CARLSTAD                                                            10.2                   222,156                          6.5
                                                             q                  CARLSTAD                                                            3.1                    67,518                           1.8
                                                             v                  N,BERGE                                                             30.3                   659,934                          23.3
                                                             w                  E.RUTHERFORD                                                        39.7                   864,666                          35.0
                                                             x                  LYNDHLIRS                                                           46.2                   1,006,236                        35.9
                                                             Y                  LYNDHURS                                                            4.0                    87,120                           0.0
                                                             aa                 N.BERGEN                                                            13.2                   287,496                          9.5
                                                             ab                 N,BERGE                                                             7.5                    163,350                          0.0
                                                             ac                 KBERGEN                                                             4.4                    95,832                           2.9
                                                             sh                 SECALICU                                                            8.1                    176,418                          0.0
                                                             am                   KEARN                                                             5.0                    108,900                          0.0
                                                             ar                 MOONACHIE                                                           14.9                   324,622                          .0
                                                             as*                JERSEY CITY                                                         81.5                   392,040                          64.4
                                                             at                 CARLSTAD                                                            1.7                    37,026                           0.0
                                                             av                 CARLSTAD                                                            5.3                    11   34                          2.5
                                                             aw                 SECAUCUS                                                            18.31                  3  @74 1                         0.0
                                                             bb                 N-SERGE                                                             I I.t.1                250,4701                         111 .. HO5
                                                                                SUBTOTAL                                                         "8.9 1                    8,394,0121                  251.37



                                                                                       PLANNING AREAS RETAINED AS SATELLITE AREAS


                                                             AREA               Municipality                                          Proposed                   Projected                   Wetland
                                                                                                                                          for                 Facility Size                     Fill
                                                                                                                                   Development                   b.5 FAR
                                                                                                                                         (acres)                  (sq. ft.)                   (acres)
                                                             n                  CARLSTA                                                             10.01                  217,8001                         0 :0]
                                                                                (upland area NJ
                                                             a                  KBERGEN                                                             30.7 1                 668,646 1                        0
                                                                                                                                                                                                            @Ofl
                                                                                (upland area A)
                                                             Z                  LYNDHURST                                                           20.8 1                 453,024 J                        0-0-1
                                                                                Jupland area H)
                                                             ae/af              WBERGEN                                        1                    60.81                  1,324,224 1
                                                                                Jupland area L)
                                                             ag                 SECAUCU                                                             36.5                   794,9701                         0.0
                                                                                (upland area K)
                                                             ai                   KEARN                                                             27.1                   590,238 1                        0.0
                                                                                (upland area P)
                                                             ak                   KFARN                                                             32.31                  703,4941                         @0@,E
                                                                                (redevelopment 1)
                                                             aq                 JERSEY Cl                                      1                    30.81                  670,8241                         0.0
                                                                                (redevelopment J)
                                                             ay                 SECAUCU                                        1                    3,01                   65,3401                          0.0
                                                                                (redevelopment E)
                                                             az                 SEC/N.BERC;EN                                  1                    30.61                  666,468 1                        CIA
                                                                                (redevelopment F)
                                                             ba                 SECAUCU                                        1                    26.4 1                 574,992 1
                                                                                (redevelopment G)

                                                                                SUBTOTAL                                                         309.01                    6,730,0201                       0.07

                                                               SATELLITE AREA SUBTOTAL                                                           757.91                    15 1124,032                  251.3
                                                               PLANNING AREA SUBTOTAL                                                            931.0                                                498.50
                                                             PLANNING AND SATELLITE TOTAL                                                        1688.                                                749.8


                                                   represents the development Of an intermodal rail facility with associated warehouse space.









                                                                                               Executive Summary


              Although several environmental improvement projects are ongoing in the District under various
              authorities (e.g., hazardous waste remediation via Superfund, landfill closure for a subset of
              landfills for which closure funds were established, sewage treatment plant improvements), a
              number of proposed programs that are very important in the District (wetland protection and
              enhancement, water quality improvement, closure of orphan landfills) cannot proceed because
              there are only very few programs that have been created to target such non-permit-related
              actions (with sources of funding that are sufficient to address the extensive envirorunental
              remediation needed in the District).

              The alternatives to the EIP consist of:

                    (1) no implementation of the EIP,

                    (2) partial implementation of the EIP (only a subset of improvement actions are
                       implemented), or,

                    (3) full implementation of the EIP.

              Full implementation of the EIP, as proposed by'.H1MDC, was selected as the SAMP Preferred
              Alternative. Implementing environmental improvement in the District requires proactive
              management (especially for areas not covered under existing environmental programs), using
              new dedicated sources of environmental improvement funding. Critical environmental
              improvements needed in the District can be realized only through full implementation of the
              EIP, in the context of SAMP implementation. As discussed under the No Action alternative,
              there are a number of important EIP projects and programs that are essential to realizing
              wetland, wildlife habitat, and water quality improvement in the District, but such projects are
              not eligible under available regulatory or management programs. Full implementation of the
              EIP and SAMP will allow implementation of wetland protection, landfill closure, and air and
              water quality improvement projects (i.e., including funding for projects /programs that
              otherwise have no funding available).

              2.5 Preferred Altemative


              The SAMP Preferred Alternative was created during the planning and environmental study
              process that was conducted for the EIS. The MOU for the SAMP called for the implementation
              of specific products pursuant to the SAMP/EIS process: a General Permit and Abbreviated
              Permit Process for projects consistent with the SAMP; a revised HMDC Master Plan for the
              District; restrictions on development in specific areas; and application of best management
              practices for storm water runoff. In accordancewith this list of objectives for the SAMP, the
              SAMP Preferred Alternative consists of the following principal components:

                    0 Adoption of a specific future Land Use Plan and Transportation Improvements
                       Plan for the District, to be included in the revised I-lMDC Master Plan and Zoning
                       'Regulations (see Section 6.1 of the EIS),




              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                 February 21, 1995                                   ES-20








                                                                                                      Executive Summary


                     ï¿½   Full implementation of an Environmental Improvement Program for the District,
                         that comprises a comprehensive series of environmental programs and projects to
                         remediate historic environmental degradation in the District (see Section 2 of the
                         EIS),

                     ï¿½   Requirements for Environmental Mitigation (including mitigation review and
                         monitoring), especially wetland mitigation required for wetland impacts (specific
                         mitigation requirement are presented in Section 5, and mitigation oversight is
                         described in Section 6),

                     ï¿½   Adoption of SAMP Implementation Mechanisms, including streamlining of the
                         regulatory review process (see Section 6.2 of the EIS), mechanisms for conservation
                         and for funding environmental improvements (see Section 2 and 6.1 of the EIS),
                         SAMP oversight processes, and revisions those elements of the NJ Coastal
                         Management Plan that relate to the District.

                The SAMP Preferred Alternative represents a comprehensive plan for the future of the District.
                The future land use plan constitutes the development component of the Preferred Alternative,
                and represents growth anticipated over the 20-year SAMP study period. (The growth
                anticipated over the 20-year planning period represents virtually all growth anticipated for the
                long-term future of the District; the District will reach its buildable limit during the planning
                period). The land use plan yields an alternative that meets the planning and management goals
                of HMDC, and the economic development and social needs of the District, while also addressing
                environmental criteria established through the Clean Water Act (i.e., avoidance, and costs,
                logistics, and technology criteria associated with the use of specific land areas).

                The proposed future land use plan would allow for the construction of 13,920 new homes in the
                District, in planned locations, and will allow specific office and related development that will
                accommodate an estimated 100,000 jobs in the District, over the 20-year planning period for the
                SAMP. The land use plan proposed in the Preferred Alternative will result in the addition of
                17.8 million square feet of primary office space, 2.7 million square feet of commercial space,
                13,920 residential housing units, and 15.3 million square feet of secondary office/ distribution
                space in the District. The total land disturbance associated with the Planning and Satellite
                Areas, as set forth in the Preferred Alternative, calls for the utilization of approximately 1,700
                acres of land in the District. The proposed Transportation Improvements call for the additional
                utilization of about 160 acres of land in the District. The proposed Planning and Satellite Areas
                were listed in Tables ES-2 and ES-3; proposed Transportation Improvements are listed in Table
                     3
                ES-4.






                3  Only minor transportation improvements to existing transportation facilities in the District were
                determined to have no available alternatives, because the low level of impact in the existing location
                could not be reduced in an alternative location. Alternatives analysis has not been conducted for major
                transportation improvements (either new or existing facilities) for this EIS.

                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                    February 21, 1995                                        ES-21











                                                                                   Table ES-4


                                        TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

                                                            From Maps, Plans, and Tables Received from HMDC


                                                                                                                         Project Area          Wetland Fill
                                                                                                                       (Outside P/SAs) (w/o Open Water)
                  Prcject#    Description                                                                                   (acres)               (acres)
                      1       Extend Sea View Ave, south to NE Corridor, replacing Bergen Line.                               4.6                   0.0
                      2       Widen County Ave, from Secaucus Rd to County            e/Rd.                                   7.4                   0.0
                      4       Widen New County Rd, from County Ave/Rd to southern terminus.                                   2.6                   0.0
                              Realign ramps at Rt 3 and Meadowlands Parkway.                                                  4.0                   0.0
                              Widen Paterson Plank Rd, from E.Spur NJ Tpk Bridge to West Side Ave.                            7.4                   0.0
                      7       Widen and extend Bergen Ave, from District Boundary to Newark-Jersey City                       4.9                   0.0
                              Tpk.
                      8       Extend Meadowlands Parkway, north to Paterson Plank Rd.                                         4.1                   0.0
                      9       Connect/widen Paterson Plank Rd, from W.Spur NJ Tpk across river to existing                    4.3                   0.2
                              road.

                      10      New road (Bergen Arches Extension), along existing Bergen Line, from NJ Tpk                     11.5                  2.0
                            1 Interchange at Secaucus Transfer (see #28) to Tonnelle Ave.
                      12      Widen Belleville Tpk, from Sellers Street (District boundary) to Newark-Jersey                  28.1                  5.4
                              City Tpk.
                              Widen Castle Rd, from Meadowlands Parkway Extension to New County Rd                            .5.7                  0.0
                              (entire length).

                      16      Widen Redneck Ave from Moonachie Ave to Liberty St (entire length).                    1        8.1         1         0.0









                                                                             Table 4-22 (continued)

                                       TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE




                                                                                                                          Project Area         Wetland Fill
                                                                                                                       (Outside P/SAs) (w/o Open Water)
                    Project#    Description                                                                                  (acres)              (acres)
                       17       Construction of Park & Ride on approx 7 acres at Moonachie Ave/Railroad                        7.5                  0.0
                                St/Industrial Ave.
                       20       New ramp from W. Spur NJ Tpk northbound at 18W to Rt 120.                                      7.0                  1.8
                       21       New road east of Brendan Byrne Arena (Rt 120).                                                 42.3                 5.0

                       22       Widen Paterson Plank Rd, from Rt 17 to Washington Ave.                                         15.4                 0.0

                       25       Widen Moonachie Ave, from Rt 17 to Washington Ave/Moonachie Rd.                                14.2                 0.0
                       26       Rt 17 South Extension, from Rt 3 to Rt 280 (along existing Kingsland Line).                    57.5                 6.4
                       27       New rail line from Bergen Line, adjacent to widened NE Corridor (see #40) to                   4.0                  2.9
                                NYS&W/West Shore rail (at Rt 3).
                       28       E.Spur NJ Tpk Interchange at Secaucus Transfer.                                                31.7                 16.8
                       29       New rail line connecting Main Line to Bergen Line, west of Meadowlands                         6.9                  1.6
                                Parkwa

                       30       Widen Main Line from connection from Bergen Line (see #29) to NE Corridor.                     20.8                 0.7
                       31       Waterfront Corridor Transit Rail, along District boundary from 50th Street to                  38.4                 7.3
                                Vince Lombardi P&R (see #38).
                       32       Widen Newark-Jersey City Tpk, from District boundary to Belleville Tpk.                        20.4                 0.4
                       33       Realign/grade separation of Secaucus Rd at NYS&W/West Shore rail and post                      4.2                  0.1
                                office access road.









                                                                              Table 4-22 (continued)

                                       TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN THEPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE




                                                                                                                           Project Area           Wetland Fill
                                                                                                                         (Outside P/SAs) (w/o Open Water)
                   Project#    Description                                                                                    (acres)                (acres)
                      34       Ramps at intersection of West Side Ave and Paterson Plank Rd, and realignment                    1.0                    0.1
                               of West Side Ave.

                      35       Widen Washington Ave, from Paterson Plank Rd to Moonachie Ave.                                   13.1                   0.0
                               Widen Secaucus Rd, from E.Spur NJ Tpk to new alignment at West Shore rail (see                   2.8                    0.0
                               #33).                                                                                   1                    1
                               Widpri Rt 3. from Rt 20 to Berrv's Creek bri&e.                                                  17.5                   0.0
                      38       Expansion of Vince Lombardi Park & Ride, approx 10.7 acres.                                      10.7                   0.0
                      39       Secaucus Transfer Station, between Planning Area "13", new Turnpike                              3.0                    0.0
                               Interchange (see #28), Penhorn Creek, widened Mail Line (00), and widened NE
                               Corridor (see #40).

                      40       Widen NE Corridor Line, from Hackensack River to Secaucus Rd.                                    43.6                   11.0
                      41       Widen County Rd from New County Rd/County Ave to Tonnelle Ave.                                   10.9                   1.0
                      42       West Shore Line Commuter Rail (between Vince Lombardi P&R-438 and                                50.0                   29.1
                               Meadowlands Sports Complex).

                                    Total                                                                                       515.6                  91.8




                (o:\hmdc\ tables\ hmtis.wpc)








                                                                                              Executive Summary


             The implementation of the Environmental Improvement Program is anticipated to lead to
             significant restoration of the District's natural environment, an environment that was seriously
             degraded as a result of historic activities. ,

             The Preferred Alternative was compared with the six alternatives examined during the
             alternatives screening analysis. The comparison of overall environmental impacts shows that
             the Preferred Alternative ranks second in its overall environmental impacts, behind the
             Redevelopment alternative. However, as discussed above, the Redevelopment alternative
             applies unreasonably high development densities to fulfill the development needs, because only
             limited acreage of redevelopment land exists in the District. If the redevelopment alternative is
             excluded from consideration because of implementation constraints, the Preferred Alternative
             exhibits the lowest overall environmental impact.







































             CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                   ES-22









                                                                                                  Executive Summary


                Chapter 3
                Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative


                The Preferred Alternative has been assessed using impact assessment methods relevant to
                regional environmental analysis, to identify (at a programmatic level) effects of the Preferred
                Alternative on environmental resources. This EIS focuses on regional and cumulative
                environmental impacts from the Preferred Alternative, Because this EIS is being conducted at a
                regional scale (i.e., District-wide, over a 20-year planning period), all of the impacts discussed in
                this EIS are evaluated as cumulative impacts. The analyses selected to assess impacts from the
                Preferred Alternative were chosen because the), are appropriate at a regional scale, and, to the
                extent possible, they reflect cumulative effects. As an example, impacts to aquatic resources are
                discussed in terms of the amount of primary productivity lost (cumulatively) to the entire
                Meadowlands ecosystem. Cumulative impacts are also often felt "across" different
                environmental media. For example, impacts to aquatic biology may occur because of decreases
                in water quality. To the extent possible, these "cross-media" cumulative impacts have been
                evaluated.

                Impacts have been assessed for 18 different environmental or socio-economic topics that are
                important in the Meadowlands. These topics include biological resources (e.g., wetland and
                upland habitats for both plants and animals), other natural resources (e.g., water quality,
                hydrology, air quality, and noise), socio-economic resources (e.g., community facilities,
                transportation, and local government services), and cultural resources.

                If an identified environmental impact is significant, planned and/or appropriate actions to be
                taken to mitigate adverse impacts have been identified. In some cases (e.g., wetland resources
                or water quality) mitigation actions are required by law. But in many cases (e.g., terrestrial
                habitat or community facility impacts), mitigation for projected impacts is not required by law.
                In these cases, appropriate mitigative actions are presented in order to minimize the cumulative
                environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative. In many cases, the anticipated mitigation
                actions, in concert with implementation of the 17mvironmental Improvement Program, result in
                improved environmental quality in the District.

                Wetlands Impacts

                Implementation of the Preferred Alternative will result in impacts to wetland resources in the
                District. The hybridization process used to identify the Preferred Alternative included review of
                all feasible upland and redevelopment areas within the District to avoid, where possible,
                wetland impacts. In addition, development densities (e.g., housing units per acre, square feet of
                office space per acre, etc.) were maximized to reduce wetland impacts to the greatest feasible
                extent.


                Impact Method. In order to assess impacts to wetlands in the District, the indicator value
                assessment (IVA) method was used. The IVA is an indexing system developed for the SAMP
                that uses chemical, physical, and biological wetland indicators to identify the effects of potential


                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  Febntary 21, 1995                                    ES-23








                                                                                                      Executive Summary


               changes to wetlands in the District. The IVA method provides a semi-quantitative measure of
               wetland indicators currently present in the District (relative to other District wetlands), and
               allows for measurement of potential impacts caused by predicted changes to these indicators.
               The method being used to evaluate wetland impacts (the IVA method) is based on the WET and
               AVID (EPA, 1985) previously conducted in the District.

               Potential impacts to wetlands are assessed in this EIS by using the IVA method to track wetland
               indicators (and changes to the indicators) for three wetland attributes: (1) water quality
               improvement (WQ), (2) wildlife habitat (WH), and (3) social significance (SS). The IVA method
               operates by assigning a numerical importance rank to a broad range of wetland indicators
               (including features such as water depth, vegetation type, wildlife presence, tidal influence, etc.)
               as they relate to these three wetland attributes. The IVA provides a numerical score for each
               wetland (for each attribute) on a scale of 0 to 100. The score for each attribute is then multiplied
               by the area of the wetland (in acres) to arrive at a final "indicator value" for the AA for each of
               the three attributes.


               In support of this EIS, a field study of the IVA method and its application in the District was
               conducted. One important conclusion of the field study was that the IVA method resulted in
               measurements of wetland value comparable to the best professional judgement of five wetland
               professionals.

               Direct ImRacts. The impact analysis considered two types of wetland impacts using the IVA
               method: direct impacts and indirect impacts. Direct wetland impacts are those impacts directly
               associated with the filling of wetlands. The IVA tracks direct impacts by assuming that a
               wetland that is within a development area is filled and loses all of its wetland indicators. For the
               Preferred Alternative, approximately 842 acres of wetlands are projected to be filled over the 20-
               year planning period. This is approximately 10 percent of the existing wetlands and aquatic
               habitat now present in the District. The results of the IVA analysis shows that this direct impact
               represents between 8% and 129/64 of the value of existing wetlands in the District.

               Indirect ImpActs. When development occurs adjacent to (or upstream from) a wetland, that
               wetland is likely to experience secondary impacts from the new development. Because these
               impacts are not caused by "direct" activity in the wetland area, they are termed "indirect"
               impacts. Indirect impacts (e.g., uncontrolled culverted storm water runoff, hydrologic
               disturbances and non-point source runoff) lead to a lowering of the wetland value for the
               indirectly impacted wetlands, but not a complete loss. Indirect impacts to wetlands are
               measured by evaluating potential changes to the wetland indicators of all wetlands that are
               either adjacent to, or downstream of developed land. These indirect impacts are initially
               calculated by assuming that no management or minimization actions would occur to reduce
               indirect impacts. If none of these management or minimization actions are taken, the Preferred




               4  The IVA method actually reports impacts for each of the three wetland attributes. In this
               summary, impacts are discussed in terms of the range among the three attributes. Additionally,
               impacts are presented as a percentage of the existing ("baseline") conditions.

               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                     February 21, 1995                                        ES-24









                                                                                                           Executive Summary


                 Alternative could indirectly impact an additional 1,945 acres, further reducing the value of the
                 District's wetlands by between 3% and 12%.

                 SAMP Management. However, these potential "maximum" indirect wetland impacts will be
                 reduced through requirements in the SAMP for structural and site planning techniques, or "best
                 management practices" (BMPs) to reduce (by avoiding and/or minimizing) indirect impacts to
                 the remaining wetlands. Thus, requirements for BMPs, within the SAMP, will result in a
                 reduction of indirect impacts. By implementing appropriate BMPs, the indirect impact of the
                 Preferred Alternative would be reduced to 1,217 acres, resulting in an indirect impact of
                 between 2% and 5% of the values of existing wetlands.

                 Direct and Indirect I=act. Thus, by using BMps, the total impact (including both direct and
                 indirect) of the Preferred Alternative would result in the filling of 842 acres of wetlands, and the
                 reduced functioning of an additional 1,217 acres. The results of the IVA analysis shows that the
                 total impact will be between 11 and 14 percent of the value of the District's existing wetlands.

                 Wetland Mitigation. Subsequent to taking avoidance and minimization actions regarding
                 wetlands impacts, a mitigation plan is required under the Clean Water Act to mitigate direct and
                 indirect impacts. A programmatic-level mitigation plan has been identified to compens           ate for
                 wetland functions and values lost as a result of fill activity and indirect effects. The mitigation
                 plan identifies a portion of the required mitigation to replace certain wetland indicators lost due
                 to indirect impacts, and then identifies wetlands enhancement and creation actions throughout
                 the entire District. Creation of 45 acres of wetlands and enhancement of 3,360 acres of wetlands
                 will provide the remaining mitigation for the unavoidable wetland impacts of the Preferred
                 Alternative. Figure ES-4 shows locations of anticipated wetland fill under the Preferred
                 Alternative, and proposed wetland mitigation (creation and enhancement) areas. Examples of
                 the proposed wetland enhancement techniques include: re-establishing or improving tidal flow;
                 creating meandering channels (with pools and riffles where appropriate); and replacing
                 monotypic stands of phragmites with a diversity of wetland plants.

                 The IVA method was used to predict the gain in wetland value associated with the various
                 mitigation, creation, and enhancement actions identified in the plan. The results of the IVA
                 analysis show that the proposed mitigation plan will result in "no net loss of wetland values" in
                 the District, for all of the three wetland attributes'.

                 EIP Impacts. In contrast to the development as- ects of the Preferred Alternative, the EIP will
                                                                     P
                 have a significant positive impact on the wetlarid resources in the District, by establishing a
                 program to enhance and manage the wetlands in the District. Goals of the EIP include the
                 enhancement, restoration, and management of the wetland resources in the District, by
                 increasing the biological diversity, health, and functioning of those wetlands. The EIP also sets
                 forth the blueprint for the creation of a wetlands mitigation bank, to coordinate and foster
                 wetland mitigation and enhancement efforts tfuroughout the District.


                 .5  The proposed SAMP mitigation plan will result in no net loss in wetland values for the Water
                 Quality attribute, and will result in a net gain in wetland values for the Wildlife Habitat and Social
                 Significance attributes.

                 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                      February 21, 1995                                         ES-25



















                           FEET





                         ALE=-
































                                                                                                Le-gend

                                                                                               Wetiand Enhancement Areas

                                                                                               Wedand Creation Aram

                                                                                               Unanhanced Watiands

                                                                                               Planning/SetallIte Aram (PISAs)
                                                                                               and Transportation
                                                                                               Improvements (Tis)
                                                                                               Portions of Pt&4s and TLs
                                                                                               In Wertlands
                                                                                               Rivers & Stream

                                                                                               HMDC Boundary

                                                                                               Roads

                   D R A F T                                                                   Railroads



                 February 21, 1995                                                                Figure ES-4
                                      Potential Wetland Fill and                         Mitigation for
                  CDM                                                        Pref erred Alternative
                              Wkn9ft
                 Pkimm & aww"W"Ormcftm                                    Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/ElS









                                                                                                      Executive Summary


                Threatened and Endangered (TIE) Species Habitats Impacts

                Several species among the state and federally listed endangered or threatened species have been
                reported to be present within District. State and. federal laws seek to preserve the habitats of the
                threatened or endangered species. Impacts to threatened or endangered (T/E) species habitats
                were assessed by measuring direct loss of, or indirect effects on these important habitats. The
                analysis was conducted regionally for the District, and relies principally on the resource
                inventories conducted for the AVID, and those available from NJDEP. In addition, a federal
                biological assessment (BA) was conducted to identify potential impacts to existing federally-
                listed threatened or endangered species (Peregrine Falcon).

                Habitat areas, as identified from federal, state, and HMDC sources, generally cover broad
                expanses of territory, in which some localized use, or uses, have been observed. Thus, the
                impact analysis for T/E species uses the term "Potential" impact, because impacts to specific
                areas of nesting /breeding/feeding within the broad areas'of use will need to be conducted in
                the future once specific site designs, and hence potential for disturbance, are known.

                ,Using this generalized data on potential T/E habitat areas, the Preferred Alternative has the
                potential to impact, to some extent, general habitat locations for all of the avian and floral
                threatened and endangered species reported in the District. Actual impacts may be
                substantially lower than those presented here, due to the uncertainty of habitat locations. The
                wetland mitigation actions taken will avoid disturbance to existing nesting sites, or other actions
                which might destroy existing habitats for both federal and state T/E species. It should be noted,
                however, that one of the goals of the wetlands mitigation is to improve existing habitats such
                that the existing T/E habitats in the District will expand.

                Peregrine Falcon. For the only federally-listed T/E species reported in the District, Peregrine
                Falcon (Falco peregrinus), no direct impact is projected, because no proposed activities would
                cause direct mortality of any of these birds, and no nesting sites will be destroyed'. The
                principal indirect impacts to Peregrine Falcon consists principally of elimination of potential
                feeding habitat, which in turn might reduce the diversity and abundance of available prey. It is
                unlikely that size of food supply is a limiting factor for peregrines in the Meadowlands region,
                as this species readily utilizes prey species associated with heavily developed habitats.
                However, the fact that peregrines are known to regularly utilize the District suggests that the
                environment and food supply provided by this area represent an important resource.

                Of the total area proposed to be developed in the Preferred Alternative, approximately 600 acres
                of wetland and 150 acres of upland have been classified in the BA as Average or better feeding
                habitat for Peregrine Falcon. Without compensating mitigation, the total impact would
                represent more than 10% of the total wetland habitat in the District and 30% of the undeveloped
                upland habitat, and the loss of this amount of foraging habitat could slightly reduce the carrying
                capacity of the Meadowlands system for this species, although this reduction would be unlikely
                to adversely affect the stability of the regional population. Effective mitigation of these losses,


                6  No Peregrine Falcon nests are known to exist: in the District.

                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                       ES-26








                                                                                                   Executive Summary


               however, would offset this small adverse impact and may possibly provide net benefits to
               Peregrine Falcon.

               In addition to impacts from the proposed development, impacts to Peregrine Falcon might occur
               if changes are made to wetlands in order to mitigate for wetland impacts (see discussion of
               wetlands impacts above). To ensure that actions taken for wetlands mitigation will not
               adversely impact T/E habitats, the BA conducted for this project also identified habitats for
               federal T/E species within areas identified in the wetlands mitigation plan. The proposed
               SAMP wetland mitigation plan is designed to improve overall habitat diversity and wildlife
               habitat value in the District. By allowing the District to support larger populations of birds (and
               other wildlife), and possibly a greater diversity of species, such mitigation will increase the prey
               base available to raptors, and thus would have a substantial positive indirect impact on the
               peregrines that utilize the District. The cumulative positive impact of the wetlands mitigation
               plan, in fact, would probably be more than the sum of the individual mitigation projects.
               Because the overall plan includes numerous hydrological enhancements (new, improved, or re-
               established connections between various elements), and greatly increased vegetation diversity, it
               would probably improve the functioning of virtually the entire wetland system in the District.
               This, along with the proposed wildlife habitat enhancements in uplands (as part of the EIP),
               could enable the system to support a greatly increased prey base for Peregrine Falcon, and thus
               the system could potentially support more individual falcons, contributing to the conservation
               of the Eastern population. Because wetland mitigation is a required element of the SAMP, and
               because the benefits provided by the wetland mitigation will far outweigh the current habitat
               value of the development and transportation sites, the cumulative impact of the SAMP
               (including development, wetland mitigation, and the EIP) win be highly positive.

               Other State-listed T/E Sj2ecies. The Preferred Alternative has the potential to impact, to some
               extent, other species listed as threatened or endangered by NJDEP. The principal potential
               habitat impacted are the wetlands and uplands around lower Berry's Creek. This area is listed
               as a potential habitat for Salt Marsh Bulrush (a NJ-endangered plant); Northern Harrier and
               Pied-billed Grebe (birds whose breeding habitat is listed by NJDEP as endangered); Bobolink
               and Savannah Sparrow (NJ-threatened birds); and American Bittern (a bird whose breeding
               habitat is listed by NJDEP as threatened). However, as stated above, the actual habitat areas for
               these species is not know. Thus, site-specific identification of actual T/E habitats will need to be
               performed at the time of project proposal for projects in locations that have been identified as
               potential T/E habitats.

               T/E Mitigation. Avoidance of direct impacts on T/E species habitats was a factor in the
               development of the Preferred Alternative by reducing to the extent feasible the amount of
               habitat that would be directly or indirectly affected by the build-out of the Preferred Alternative.
               However, site-specific identification of actual T/E habitats will need to be performed for projects
               that include areas that have been identified as potential T/E habitats. if actual T/E habitats are
               located adjacent to a project, mitigation of indirect impacts can be accomplished by
               implementing appropriate site planning and construction measures (e.g., adjusting locations of
               high-intensity land uses away from important habitats, and scheduling construction to avoid
               important breeding or migrating seasons) during site-specific development. In addition, the
               wetlands enhancement plan and the Environmental Improvement Program should increase


               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                     ES-27









                                                                                                   Executive Summaty


               potential habitat for threatened and endangered species. In particular, suitable nesting sites for
               least tem can be created, and osprey platforms can be constructed.

               For additional enhancement of the District to protect Peregrine Falcon, the BA identified specific
               conservation measures that could be taken to protect and increase the use of the District by
               Peregrine Falcon. In consultation with the NJ Endangered and Nongame Species Program and
               the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), peregrine nest platforms could be installed on tall
               buildings, bridges, towers, elevated highways and other structures in the District. If the
               Meadowlands system has additional carrying capacity for breeding birds, such a program could
               help to further expand the peregrine population of the Mid-Atlantic Coast region. The existence
               of known nest sites in accessible locations could facilitate research on productivity, current
               pollutant loads, and other aspects of the biology of urban peregrines.

               EIP I=acts. The Environmental Improvement Program, by remediating water quality impacts
               from landfill leachate, controlling non-point source pollution, and improving flood control and
               storm water management, is likely to result in substantial improvements to water quality in the
               District. This will enhance the functioning of the Meadowlands ecosystem starting at the bottom
               of the food chain, and ultimately could benefit all T/E species. It could also reduce pollutant
               loads ingested by T/E species. Proposed reclamation of landfills for wildlife habitat values will
               expand the prey base for carnivores, such as Peregrine Falcon, by increasing the diversity of
               birds and other wildlife inhabiting the District. 'fhe Program's natural-resource management
               goals of improving the preservation, control, enhancement, management, and maintenance of
               the District's wetlands will provide similar benefits. Furthermore, there is a significant
               opportunity for implementation of additional conservation measures in the District to promote
               use of the District by all T/E species. The BA recommended that the signatory agencies to the
               SAMP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
               with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the investigation and implementation of
               conservation measures as part of the SAMP. This conservation MOA will help assure that
               conservation measures will be realized through the SAMP.

               Other Aquatic Resources Impacts

               Indirect impacts to aquatic resources may occuras a result of the loss of estuarine wetlands,
               which provide a source of primary productivity for the aquatic food chain. The Preferred
               Alternative impacts approximately 380 acres of estuarine wetlands. This represents a 6 percent
               reduction in the 6,583 acres of existing estuarine wetlands in the District. Assuming that all
               estuarine wetlands in the District provide similar amounts of primary productivity, this means
               that approximately 6 percent of the existing primary productivity provided by estuarine
               wetlands would be lost. This reduction in estuarme wetland acreage may result in the slight
               reduction of an important source of primary productivity to the aquatic food chain. Additional
               indirect impacts to the aquatic ecosystem may occur from new bridges over existing channels,
               by potentially creating additional shading and localized alterations in stream flow. However,
               only a small number of new bridges are proposed (two over the Hackensack River, as well as a
               few small bridges over minor streams and channels).




               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                       ES-28








                                                                                                 Executive Summaty


               Mitigation for the indirect impacts would be included with, and accomplished through wetland
               enhancement under the wetland mitigation plan. By creating or enhancing 3,400 acres of
               wetlands, and improving the circulation in and communication with open water areas, the
               predicted reduction in estuarine wetland acreage would be more than compensated for by
               increased functioning, and a correspondent increase in productivity of the remaining wetlands.

               Indirect impacts from the EIP will consist of benefits to the aquatic food chain by reducing
               pollution from landfill leachate, from hazardous waste sites, and from other non-point sources.
               All of these actions serve to improve water quality in the District, which will improve the
               aquatic ecosystem.

               Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts

               The Preferred Alternative impacts a substantial percentage of the existing "vacant" upland
               acreage, which is the predominant terrestrial habitat in the District. The major terrestrial
               resources in the District (except for the rernnant and unique habitats) are habitats on open
               vegetated areas in the District that have evolved on portions of wetlands filled in the past for
               solid waste disposal. These vegetated filled areas provide both a habitat for numerous
               terrestrial species that have moved in when nearby vacant uplands (outside the District) were
               built on, and provide a habitat for species that use both wetlands and uplands. Because the
               majority of the terrestrial habitats that would potentially be impacted under the Preferred
               Alternative are located on areas that were filled over the last century, there are virtually no
               impacted upland habitats that can be considered indigenous. Many open spaces have also been
               subject to continuous disturbances, such as vehicular traffic and fire, which have slowed the
               natural process of succession.

               Those areas not in wetlands that were characterized by HMDC as "vacant" land use were used
               as the basis for assessing potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative on terrestrial resources.
               The Preferred Alternative will potentially impact approximately 680 acres of upland habitat.
               This represents approximately 31 percent of the existing 2,176 acres of vacant uplands in the
               District. The remaining vacant upland habitat consists primarily of historic landfills and
               contaminated sites. All of these upland areas are approximately equal in importance to the
               wildlife ecosystems in-the Meadowlands, except for the upland areas that are identified as
               habitats for threatened or endangered species, or that are considered remnant or unique
               (discussed below).

               As part of the solid waste improvements included in the EIP, abandoned or closed landfills will
               be reclaimed as upland habitats for plants and animals. There are approximately 900 acres of
               historic, closed or abandoned landfills in the District identified in the EIP for habitat reclamation.
               As part of the EIP, clusters of desirable native plantings will be established on select areas on the
               landfills. These "planting islands" will function as seed sources which will be naturally
               dispersed by wind, animals, and insects to vegetate the landfill. This newly created habitat will
               serve as a valuable refuge for birds, mammals, and insects that require upland ecosystems. To
               the degree possible, new terrestrial habitats will be designed to serve as replacements for the
               habitat lost due to development of the Preferred Alternative. Thus, the EIP will provide a



               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                    ES-29








                                                                                               Executive Summary


               positive impact to terrestrial resources by creating or enhancing approximately 900 acres of
               upland habitat in the District.

               RIU Habitat Impacts

               Remnant habitats are those which were more common in the past but which have since
               dwindled to remnants of their former areal range. Unique habitats are those that developed
               under unusual circumstances and now providevaluable habitat. Remnant habitats provide
               scientists with an opportunity to study and understand the mechanisms that led to the
               reduction of these habitats. Remnant and unique habitats in the Meadowlands provide a local
               diversity of plants and animals which may supply the stock to recolonize other areas of the
               Meadowlands at some future time. The four remnant or unique habitats found in the District
               include: High Salt Marsh, Fresh Water Meadows, Forested Wetlands, and Rock Outcroppings.

               The Preferred Alternative has the potential to irnpact, to a minimal extent, two of the four
               remnant and unique (R/U) habitats identified in. the District:

                    ï¿½  Transportation improvements of the Preferred Alternative (widening of the Northeast
                       Corridor) has the potential to impact approximately four acres of the unique "High Salt
                       Marsh" habitat. Because this is a widening of existing rail lines, the impacts on the high
                       salt marsh habitat will be significantly less than that which would be associated with
                       construction of a new roadway.

                    ï¿½ Development of the Preferred Alternative has the potential to directly impact 70 acres
                       (12 percent) of the remnant "Fresh Water Meadows" habitat, primarily along
                       Moonachie Creek, but also along the edges of Kearny and Kingsland Marshes.

               The EIP, in addition to enhancing, managing, and protecting the general wetland resources of
               the District, will establish a program to enhance and manage remnant and unique (R/U) plant
               and animal habitats in the District. The program will address over 225 acres of R/U habitats,
               including Little Snake Hill, Losen Slote Creek, and the Teterboro woodlands. The current lack
               of management and control over many of the District's remnant habitats could potentially lead
               to degradation and ultimately to the loss of these habitats from vandalism and neglect.
               Protection of these sites can reduce the threat of -vandalism; management and enhancement can
               prevent and reverse the trend of neglect.

               Anticipated enhancement efforts include the establishment of indigenous plant species which
               represent the native community structure thus increasing wildlife diversity; restoration of
               endangered plant species; and the preservation of unique, physical site features.

               Water Quality Impacts

               There are three sources of potential impact to waiter quality from the Preferred Alternative:
               increased discharges from wastewater treatment plants that serve the growth areas in the
               District (point sources); increases in storm water runoff to the Hackensack River and its



               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                 February 21, 1995                                   ES-30








                                                                                              Executive Summary


              tributaries as a result of an increase in impervious surfaces (non-point sources); and temporary
              construction activities (both point and non-point sources).

              WastCwater DischargoL. There are four separate authorities that collect and provide secondary-
              level treatment for wastewater generated in the District. The Bergen County Utilities Authority
              (BCUA) operates the largest facility in the District, with a design capacity of 100 million gallons
              per day (mgd). BCUA currently discharges approximately 70 mgd of secondary-level treated
              wastewater into the Hackensack River. BCUA serves the municipalities west of the Hackensack
              River and north of Route 3 and Ridgefield. Wastewater generated in the municipalities west of
              the Hackensack River and south of Route 3 is now pumped to the 330-mgd capacity treatment
              plant in Newark operated by the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC), where it is
              treated and discharged to the Passaic River.

              Wastewater generated in North Bergen and Secaucus flows to the treatment plants operated by
              each of these towns. North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority (NBMUA) operates a 10-mgd
              capacity treatment plant, and currently discharges approximately 5 mgd to Chromakill Creek.
              Secaucus Municipal Utilities Authority (SMUA) operates a 5.1-mgd capacity treatment plant,
              and currently discharges approximately 3 mgd to Mill Creek.

              Wastewater flows are projected to increase by 6.1 mgd for the growth anticipated under the
              Preferred Alternative. Wastewater flows are projected to increase by 2.7 mgd to the BCUA
              treatment plant, by 0.5 mgd to the NBMUA treatment plant, by 2.6 mgd to the SMUA treatment
              plant, and by 0.3 mgd to the PVSC treatment plant. Except for SMUA, the existing wastewater
              treatment facilities appear capable of accommodating projected growth within their current
              design capacity and permit requirements. The lack of available capacity at the SMUA facility
              can be solved by either expanding the existing plant, constructing a new treatment facility, or
              pumping the excess flows to another treatment facility.

              BCUA has completed a major study of the impact of their discharge on the water quality of the
              Hackensack River. This study showed that, under existing conditions, the dissolved oxygen
              (DO) standard (4.0 mg/1) was violated 19 percent of the time during the summer period (June
              through September) in the "critical reach" of the Hackensack River. The BCUA study also
              predicted that, if all three of the treatment plants that discharge to the Hackensack River were
              discharging at their respective capacities, the DO standard would be violated 21 percent of the
              time in the critical reach during the summer. Because the additional flows to the three treatment
              plants would be less than what is required to bring them to capacity, the water quality impact of
              the Preferred Alternative would be less than the minor change predicted in the BCUA study.

              The SAMP embraces the ongoing water quality improvement efforts being taken by the two
              principal point source dischargers into the lower Hackensack River-BCUA and PSE&G. Based
              on current information, the most likely future scenario would involve relocation of BCUA's
              outfall to near Berrys Creek, along with a 50 to 60 percent reduction in thermal discharge from
              PSE&G (through re-powering of their plants). Based on BCUA's analysis of water quality in the
              District, this scenario would reduce DO violations during the summer from an existing 19
              percent of the time to between 0.8 and 5.5 percent of the time.



              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                 February 21, 1995                                   ES-31









                                                                                                Executive Summary


               Storm water Runoff. Storm water runoff would increase from the Planning /Satellite Areas as a
               result of the creation of additional impervious surfaces in the District. The potential impact of
               storm water discharges on water quality in the District was assessed by estimating the impacts
               of specific pollutants to be discharged from the proposed development areas.

               The Preferred Alternative has the potential to increase loadings of contaminants by between 1
               and 3 percent of the existing storm water loadings to the system. This translates to an overall
               increase in contaminant loading to the lower Hackensack River of less than 0.15 percene. Of the
               seven contaminants modeled, only three-suspended solids, copper and zinc-have the
               potential to be present in storm water discharge from the Planning/Satellite Areas at
               concentrations greater than measured ambient concentrations in the District, or above EPA's
               Gold Book standards where ambient concentrations are not available. Standard storm water
               detention controls are recommended (and will be required by the SAMP) to reduce copper, zinc
               and suspended sediment discharges. Thus, the -water quality impacts from the Planning/
               Satellite Areas should be minimal.

               Construction Activities. Implementation of thePreferred Alternative will include construction
               activities in the Planning/ Satellite Areas and along the transportation improvement corridors.
               These construction activities may have temporary and localized impacts on water quality. The
               primary impact will be from the disturbance of soils, which will lead to increased sediment
               discharges into nearby streams, creeks, or wetlands. The impacts will cease once final site
               grading and landscaping is completed. These temporary localized impacts should have no
               significant long-term impacts on the water quality in the District.

               EIP Impacts. The EIP will have a positive impact on water quality in the District by bringing
               about a reduction in landfill leachates, cleanup of hazardous waste sites, and a reduction in the
               non-permitted releases of pollutants.

               Mitigation, Although non-point source loadings may have a slight negative impact on the
               existing low water quality in the District (providing storm water detention is employed to aid in
               the removal of urban runoff pollutants), other efforts are likely to improve water quality in the
               District. The SAMP embraces on-going water quality improvement efforts being undertaken by
               major point source discharges to the lower Hackensack River. The conclusion of the water
               quality analyses described above is that these water quality improvement efforts, together with
               the storm water management controls (BMPs), and the other water quality improvements
               effected by the EIP, will result in a significant improvement in water quality in the District.

               Standard storm water detention controls are recommended (and will be required by the SAMP)
               to reduce lead, zinc, copper and suspended sediment discharges, particularly for the smaller
               Planning/ Satellite Areas, where there is less chance for filtration and settling that occur during
               overland flow to remove contaminants from the storm water.





               7   The BCUA modeling concluded that storm water contributes less than five percent of the
               total loadings to the Hackensack River.

               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  Febniary 21, 1995                                   ES-32








                                                                                                       Executive Summary


                Soils Impacts

                The combined impacts on soils from the Preferred Alternative would primarily consist of the
                potential disturbance of 842 acres of tidal marsh soils and 1,363 acres of udorthents and urban
                land soils. Mitigation of these impacts will include implementation of soil erosion and
                sedimentation control and soil conservation measures.


                Surface Water Hydrology Impacts

                Approximately 13,288 acres of the District are included within the federally delineated (FEMA)
                100-year floodplain. The Preferred Alternative will result in development of approximately
                1,257 acres of the floodplain. However, the Meadowlands District is affected principally by
                tidal, not fluvial, flooding, whereby flooding is caused principally by the elevation of offshore
                tidal surges, related to storm effects, wind, and tidal change. The impacts of growth in the
                District on tidal flooding events, which are the predominant flood type in the District, would be
                negligible. Using simple calculations related to the volume and surface area of the 100-year
                floodplain it is estimated that development in the Planning/Satellite Areas has the potential to
                increase the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood, which is currently about elevation 8.5
                feet, by approximately 3 to 6 inches, as a result of floodplain displacement in a fluvial flood
                event. The effects of development under a tidal flood event are significantly lower, but cannot
                be quantified without complex ocean modeling.

                The EIP proposes to conduct several studies related to flooding in the District, including a
                regional flood study, and specific studies to determine possible solutions to flooding in
                particular areas in the District. Based on the results of these studies, flood control measures
                such as tide gates may be constructed to reduce the effects of existing flooding problems. In
                addition to structural controls such as tide gates, levees, pumps, and flood walls,
                implementation of the EIP will reduce flooding by increasing the effectiveness of existing
                wetlands (in some cases, by removing existing fill material to increase flood storage capacity) in
                the District to store flood waters.


                The Preferred Alternative will affect the surface water hydrology by altering the existing
                hydrology of certain wetlands in the District. To mitigate for the potential localized alteration of
                surface water hydrology from Planning /Satellite Area development, site planning will
                emphasize reconnecting isolated wetlands to the hydrologic network of the District. As was
                discussed above, specific mitigation methods include: installation of culverts under roads or
                railroads, maintenance of existing storm water peak flows, and maintenance of existing flow
                patterns through Planning/ Satellite Areas. Site planning approaches will be overseen by
                HN4DC through site plan review authority; NJDEP, as related to water quality certification, and
                federal agencies when federal permits are necessary.

                Groundwater Impacts

                Because most of the District lies within the lower elevations of a river valley, most locations are
                groundwater discharge zones. While the Planning/Satellite Areas and Transportation


                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                    February 21, 1995                                        ES-33









                                                                                                Executive Summaq


               Improvements will result in only negligible changes to groundwater discharge and recharge, the
               EIP will result in substantial control of landfill pollutants currently being discharged to the
               surface water system.

               Land Use and Zoning Impacts

               Implementation of the Preferred Alternative will expand residential, office, commercial/ retail,
               and industrial land uses in the District. Based on a 1990 land use assessment, the Preferred
               Alternative would increase the area devoted to primary and secondary office space from 144 to
               766 acres, residential uses would increase from,330 acres to 746 acres, commercial/retail uses
               would increase from 342 acres to 391 acres, and industrial uses (including warehousing) would
               increase from 3,179 to 3,327 acres. Most of the increase in active land uses-residential, office,
               commercial /retail, and industrial-would occur within the 6,542 acres of land currently
               classified as vacant (including undeveloped uplands, some of the District's wetlands, abandoned
               industrial sites, and historic landfill areas) within the District. Some of the new land uses would
               replace blighted and under-utilized industrial properties.

               The adoption of the SAMP will provide a framework for HMDC's revision of its Master Plan,
               and adjustments to the Zoning Ordinance. The new HMDC Master Plan will reflect the
               emphasis of balanced growth and environmental protection developed during the SAMP
               process. After adoption of a new Master Plan, a, new Zoning Ordinance will be adopted to
               implement the Master Plan and the SAMP, allowing growth and development to proceed more
               predictably within the framework of the SAMP. The Zoning Ordinance, and Site Plan Review
               regulations will contain environmental performance standards that require, for example,
               provision of open space/ recreation in Planning Areas, and provision of Best Management
               Practices for storm water control as related to development.

               On balance, the SAMP and related zoning changes would result in reductions in the areal extent
               of development allowed by the 1972 Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The central downtown
               growth model envisioned in the 1972 Master Plan would be replaced by a growth center model
               that is more sensitive to the ecological needs of the District's environment. Implementation of
               the EIP will increase the amount of dedicated open space by reclaiming historic landfills and
               converting the landfills to upland wildlife habitat and by creating additional parks and
               recreation areas.


               Financing of Local Government Services Impacts

               The growth anticipated under the SAMP and new District Master Plan in the Planning/ Satellite
               Areas will increase the sources of property tax revenue available to the municipalities within the
               District. The development of land that is currently vacant or under-utilized and proposed for
               office, industrial, commercial, or residential growth will double the total assessed value of
               property within the District from $4.5 billion in 1991 to an estimated $9.4 billion. Property tax
               revenues to the municipalities (after county taxes) are projected to grow from $56.1 million to
               $136.2 million, assuming the revised Master Plan is fully realized over the 20-year planning
               period.


               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                   ES-34








                                                                                                 Executive Summaq

               Theincreased tax revenue from growth will be reduced, to a minor degree, by public acquisition
               of approximately 500 acres of wetland properties to be preserved under the transfer of
               development rights (TDR) program.

               The SAMP and new HMDC Master Plan would provide for population and employment growth
               in the District, balanced with conservation and enhancement of valuable environmental
               resources. Growth will be implemented at comparatively high densities, allowing economic
               benefit to the region while minimizing the environmental and economic costs of sprawl inherent
               in most contemporary suburban growth. High quality, planned growth in combination with
               wetlands restoration and conservation is predicted to increase land values, both within the
               District and beyond its borders-a result of encouraging more spatially-efficient economic use of
               private property.

               There will be additional costs incurred by the municipalities in, order to provide services to new
               residents and employees. One of the primary additional costs will be schooling costs for a
               projected increase of 5,500 children in the District (at build-out). The majority of the increased
               demand for educational services will occur in Secaucus and Carlstadt. Costs for other
               governmental services-such as police, fire protection, emergency medical services, and public
               works-will also increase. Fiscal impacts at the municipal level will be determined, and issues
               resolved, during the HMDC site plan review of individual projects. Project-related service
               standards are too detailed to address at the regional scale.

               The land targeted for transportation improvement will become public property and thus will be
               removed from the municipal tax rolls. However, the resulting loss in municipal tax revenues
               will be more than offset by the property tax revenues from anticipated growth. Furthermore, it
               is anticipated that developer contributions will fund a portion of the new service needs (e.g.,
               active recreation facilities, fire and emergency response equipment, community meeting space)
               pursuant to the HMDC site plan approval process.

               Utility Infrastructure Impacts

               Wastewater. The growth anticipated in the District under the SAMP is projected to increase
               wastewater flows to the wastewater treatment plants serving the District, with the greatest new
               flows directed to the Bergen County Utilities Authority (BCUA) and the Secaucus Municipal
               Utilities Authority (SMUA) facilities. As discussed in above, projected flows to the SI@IUA
               treatment plant are above the plant's current available capacity. To provide treatment for the
               additional wastewater, either the plant will need to be expanded, additional facilities
               constructed, or some of the wastewater from the Preferred Alternative that would normally be
               directed to SMUA will need to be redirected to other local treatment plants (such as PVSC via
               Jersey City).

               Water. Most of the Planning/Satellite Areas are within the in-District service areas of the
               Hackensack Water Company. Planning/ Satellite areas within Kearny and Jersey City would be
               served by Jersey City Water Company, and those within Kearny would be served by Kearny
               WA. Based on Hackensack Water Company water use factors, the anticipated homes and
               workplaces would require an estimated average daily water supply of 8.3 mgd. The


               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                    ES-35









                                                                                                       Executive Summary


                Hackensack Water Company has indicated that the company has adequate supply and
                treatment facilities to serve the projected growth in the District. There is also projected to be no
                supply problems for Kearny MUA or Jersey City Water Company, as similar conditions exist in
                their service areas.


                Mitigation. With the exception of the need for additional wastewater treatment capacity in
                Secaucus, no significant adverse utility impacts are predicted; no mitigation measures appear to
                be necessary.

                Population and Employment Impacts

                Realization of the Preferred Alternative over the 20-year planning period will add a total of
                13,920 dwelling units to the District, housing a population of 33,408 persons. The 13,920 housing
                units proposed for the Meadowlands under thePreferred Alternative would come on the
                market gradually, in response to existing demand. Ranging from luxury to affordable units, the
                housing would attract people from a wide range! of income types and geographic locations. The
                creation of new housing opportunity, including affordable housing, is a major positive impact of
                the proposed plan.

                Development of new primary and secondary office, commercial, light industrial, and
                warehousing in the Planning /Satellite Areas will create many new employment opportunities.
                The total potential increase in permanent employment in the District under the SAMP amounts
                to approximately 112,000 new jobs. The creation of new employment opportunity, both
                construction-related and permanent, is a significant positive impact of the proposed plan.

                The range of prospective office, retail, and manufacturing jobs, together with the planned
                housing, is designed (and expected) to attract many people to both live and work in the District,
                reducing commutation requirements. The Preferred Alternative will provide for the District's
                growth needs by creating an integrated home, work, and recreation environment, with a
                relatively high land use efficiency.

                Community Facilities Impacts

                An increase of 33,400 residents (about 5,500 of which are projected to be children) and 112,000
                workers in the District over the 20-year SAMP planning period will require the support of many
                new and expanded community facilities. These community facilities will be provided both via
                the development application review and approval process (as carried out by HMDC) and by
                expanding existing municipal services. The distribution of financial responsibility is usually
                negotiated among the host municipality, the project applicant, and the planning review agency,
                and occurs at the individual project review level.

                Education. The new expanded housing stock could add about 5,500 school-age children to the
                District's population over the planning period. An increase in the capacity of the local
                educational facilities will be required to accommodate this increased student population. At an
                average of 25 pupils per classroom, the school districts in the affected communities will need
                approximately 220 new classrooms. The school systems principally affected will be those of


                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                     February 21, 1995                                        ES-36








                                                                                                    Executive Summary


               Secaucus and Carlstadt, where the majority of the new residences will be located. The HMDC
               development review process requires the dedication of space for school facilities by sponsors of
               large projects.

               Health Care. The approximately 33,000 new residents and approximately 112,000 new
               employees in the District would increase the use of regional health care facilities, including
               hospitals. There are now 2,593 hospital beds in Hudson County and 2,775 beds in Bergen
               County. The prospective population growth in the Meadowlands could be accommodated by
               the currently under-utilized hospitals in the region without physical expansion.

               Police. The 1990 estimated District population of 15,154 is projected to grow by more than
               33,000 people. Using standard service multipliers, this growth could necessitate an increase in
               police protection by 2.01 officers per 1,000 residents. The total population requiring police
               services could approach 145,000 residents and workers. New police stations, officers, vehicles,
               and equipment would be added to the existing police operations already present throughout the
               District, as needed.

               Eim The future population and density of development in the District will require additional
               fire protection staff and facilities to achieve appropriate levels of fire protection. Using standard
               service multipliers, the expansion of the resident population by more than 33,000 could require
               an additional 1.64 firefighters per 1,000 new residents. Non-residential developmental in the
               District will also require increased fire protection. However, fire safety services should be based
               on an analysis (in order of priority) of response time, staffing, and equipment available at the
               time specific development projects are proposed.

               EIP Impacts. The EIP proposes the creation of "an urban oasis of wetlands, parks, and
               reclaimed /restored open space in the District." The HMDC parks and preserves program will
               result in the transformation of District landfills and degraded wetlands into parkland, using
               state-of-the-art landfill closure improvements. The general locations of parks and preserves
               proposed under the EIP are shown in Figure ES-5. The Hackensack River is the central open
               space corridor in the District and serves as the centerpiece for park development.
               Implementation of the SAMP and EIP would provide parks and preserves capable of
               accommodating the recreational needs of the District's future population.

               Mitigation. Mitigation for community facility impacts (expressed as increased service needs)
               consists of the provision of additional community facilities, in accordance with current service
               standards and maximum acceptable response times. Local government will be responsible for
               financing the police force, fire protection, and educational facilities. In addition, it is anticipated
               that developer contributions will provide land, facilities, and equipment to meet some portion of
               the local service needs. The wide range of projects proposed under the EIP will provide
               extensive parks and recreation facilities for the new residents and workforce, and HMDC's
               planning review powers will require dedication of land for schools and other public facilities.






               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                      ES-37










                                                                                      TeterborD                                                             Losen Slote
                                                                                                 r'
                                                                                      Woodland                                                              Creek Park
                                              FEET                                    Reserve                                  IL



                                             AIMRS





                                                                                                                                        It


                                                                                                                                      3


                                                                                                                            4
                                                                                                                                                        L.



                                                                                   2


                                                                                               7

                                                                                       7                                               2
                                             Lyndhurst
                                                                                                                                         A
                                             Ballfields               V
                                                                                                                                                     1-08
                                                                  z                                                                              Ji@
                                                                                                                                                   ab
                                 A VON &
                                 BCUAlKingsland
                                 Landfills





                                                                                                                                    12
                                                                                        A
                                 1-E Landfill


                                                                                                                                          Laurel Hill
                                                                                                                                          Park

                                                                                                                                                   Legend
                                                                                                                                         EE       Planning Areas
                                                                             am                                                          EK]      Saiellite Areas
                                          sk 1

                                                                                                                                                  Transportation Improvements
                                                                                                    aq                                            EIP-Proposed Parks
                                          1-D&15W
                                                                                                                                                  EIP-Proposed Reclarnation of
                                          Landfills               Sky    llfound--r,,@                 Secaucus I&Y                               Landfill to Upland Habitats
                                                                  Art   Park                           (Malanka's)                        Ps"     HIVIDC Boundary
                                                                                                       Landfills                          /V      Roads

                                                                                                                                                  Surface Water

                                                                                                                                                  Railroads
                                    D R A F T



                                 February 21, 1995                                                                                                     Figure ES-5
                                                                                                                      General Locations of
                                 CDM                                              EIP-Proposed Parks and Preserves
                                            giftem
                                                  V&MftO                                                     @ Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS








                                                                                                  Executive Summary


              Transportation Impacts

              Transportation system performance of the Preferred Alternative was evaluated using the
              existing Hackensack Meadowlands Transportation Model (HMTM) that was separately
              developed. The HMT Model is a computer-based planning tool that can be used to project
              future travel patterns and volumes based on assumptions regarding future land development
              patterns, future transportation system improvements and future travel behavior characteristics.

              The Preferred Alternative performs better, for all evaluation parameters, than the No-Action
              alternative. This means that, without a coordinated planning effort, transportation conditions
              will continue to deteriorate. Particularly of note are improvements in vehicle miles of travel
              (VMT), hours of delay and modal split (percent transit use). These measures deal with both the
              supply and demand sides of the equation which is a key consideration in ISTEA mandated
              congestion management initiatives.

                    ï¿½   The average speed for the Preferred Alternative is 5.3 percent higher than for the No-
                        Action alternative.


                    ï¿½   The vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) for the Preferred Alternative is 2.2 percent lower
                        than that of the No-Action alternative.


                    ï¿½   The Preferred Alternative results in 6.9 percent less vehicle-hours of travel (VHT) than
                        the No-Action alternative.


                    ï¿½   There are 11.8 percent less hours of delay resulting from the Preferred Alternative than
                        for the No-Action alternative.

                    ï¿½   The volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for the Preferred Alternative showed a 2.2 percent
                        improvement from the No-Action alternative.

                    ï¿½   The transit modal split for the Preferred Alternative is 3.3 percent higher than the No-
                        Action alternative.


                    ï¿½   For the baseline, 149 links were congested. The No-Action alternative had 285
                        congested links in the Year 2010 while the Preferred Alternative had 261, a reduction of
                        about eight percent. This measure is an important one because it directly impacts the
                        air quality analysis and indicates those areas that may provide a higher contribution to
                        total area-wide emissions.


              Air Quality Impacts

              Approximately 100 million vehicle-miles of travel occurs each day throughout the north Jersey
              metropolitan area. Much of this mileage is attributable to "through" trips, with origins and
              destinations outside the boundaries of the planning area. The North Jersey Transportation
              Coordinating Council (NJTCC) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible
              for air quality conformity throughout the region. The Hackensack Meadowlands District is a


              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                     ES-38









                                                                                              Executive Summary


              subplanning district within the NJTCC, and, as a special planning district of the NJTCC,
              represents only a portion of the total regional emissions contributing to air quality impacts
              within the north Jersey planning region.

              For the majority of the Hackensack Meadowlands District, the most demonstrable emissions
              reductions are largely embodied in decreasing mobile source emissions estimates for horizon
              years as a result of fleet turnover, enhanced inspection and maintenance programs, and anti-
              tampering programs, etc. For the Preferred Alternative versus the No Action alternative, carbon
              monoxide (CO) is reduced from an estimated 113,562 lbs/AM peak hr to approximately 106,421
              lbs/AM peak hr, a 6.3% improvement in CO emissions; oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are reduced
              from an estimated 12,669 to approximately 12,350 lbs/AM peak hr, an improvement in NOx
              emissions of approximately 2.5%, and volatile organic compounds (VC1Q are reduced from an
              estimated 10,388 to approximately 9,757 lbs/AN.1 peak hr, an improvement of approximately
              6.1%. Consistent with the CAAA requirement of a conformity finding for the Preferred
              Alternative, CO, NOx, and VOC emissions are also reduced relative to the Baseline alternative.

              Estimates of the representative changes in future background concentrations likely to occur
              within the District were derived using EPA procedures. Results indicate that the Preferred
              Alternative would result in a 5% reduction of background CO concentrations within the District.
              The No Action alternative would provide no additional offsets relative to the Baseline
              background CO concentration because no reduction is estimated to occur. Both the No Action
              and Preferred Alternatives would result in a reduction in NOx of 24% relative to the Baseline
              background concentration. The estimated VOC background concentration would be reduced
              approximately 27% for the No Action alternative while the future background concentration of
              the Preferred Alternative would be reduced approximately 29%.

              Comparative analysis of the Preferred and No Action Alternatives to Baseline conditions
              indicates the Preferred Alternative would provide equivalent or enhanced benefits toward the
              future reduction of mobile source background concentrations within the District. The estimated
              results of the background concentrations analysis are conditionally based upon regional travel
              results obtained with the HMTM and emission factors obtained with the EPA MOBILE5a Mobile
              Source Emissions Factor model.


              Noise Impacts

              The area-wide noise impacts that could be associated with the Preferred Alternative (including
              associated transportation improvements) are expected to increase average sound levels in the
              District by less than 3 dBA, a negligible increase. Recommended mitigation for this impact
              includes siting of noise-sensitive uses away from major noise sources and use of
              development-specific measures to address site-specific noise concerns.

              Cultural Resources Impacts

              A Stage 1A cultural resources survey was conducted to determine the potential cultural
              resources impacts from the various components of the Preferred Alternative. The specific goal
              of Phase 2 of this expanded basin-wide archaeological and historical evaluation is to provide an

              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                 February 21, 1995                                   ES-39








                                                                                                   Executive Summary


               appropriate planning tool to finalize, as needed, the parcel-specific Stage 1A cultural resource
               sensitivity study of known and potential prehistoric and historic localities in accordance with
               Federal Section 106 compliance procedures for each of the proposed development impact
               categories within the Hackensack Meadowlands study area.

               Field reconnaissance and air photo based impact analysis resulted in the definition of a small set
               of potential archaeologically sensitive parcels which had little or no identifiable disturbance, and
               which therefore warrant additional investigation through detailed parcel-specific sensitivity
               studies and/or presence and/or absence testing. As a result of this historic impact analysis, a
               concrete set of criteria were developed and multiple lines of evidence were formulated for
               identifying development areas with possible prehistoric and/or historic sensitivity, which, at the
               same time, demonstrated a potential for survival of artifacts. This process has resulted in the
               identification of 8 P/SAs that warrant additional archaeological evaluation, 2 wetland mitigation
               areas that warrant further archaeological assessment, and 25 transportation improvements that
               warrant further work, due to the extent and diversity of the prehistoric and historic resources
               either adjacent to or in immediate proximity to the study areas. Of the 8 selected P/SA parcels,
               2 are recommended for Stage 1B testing only, and 6 have been recommended for both detailed
               parcel-specific Stage IA sensitivity and Stage 1B presence and/or absence subsurface testing.
               The two mitigation areas warranting further investigation are prompted by the potential
               presence of a 19th century mill near one of the wetlands, and the potential for surviving historic
               elements relating to the Paterson Plank Road and the historic Paterson bridge within another
               wetland.

               In addition to the need for subsequent archaeological evaluation of these historic parcels, the
               wetlands mitigation actions may potentially disturb wetlands that may contain undisturbed
               pollen sequences or records. These pollen sequences in these wetlands may provide
               information on the changing prehistoric and/or historic environmental and human ecological
               record within the Hackensack Meadowlands. To assure that this information is not lost due to
               wetland mitigation, 5 discrete parcels have been identified to be investigated and documented
               through the use of controlled, radiocarbon dated pollen core samples prior to being subjected to
               any change, including mitigation work.

               Coordination of, and methods for, future cultural resource study in the District (for SAMP-
               related projects) will be formalized in a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
               between EPA, ACE, and NJDEP. This MOA will detail the future Section 106 (National Historic
               Preservation Act) compliance process to be followed by the SAMP partners.

               The EIP will result in development of a comprehensive cultural resource management process,
               development of procedures to incorporate cultural resource issues into the land use review
               process, and implementation of a historic preservation ordinance. Each of these efforts will
               benefit the preservation of and the sensitivity to cultural resource issues in the District. The EIP
               also proposes wetland enhancement that may disturb cultural resources.






               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                     ES-40









                                                                                                      Executive Summary


                 Solid Waste

                 Implementation of the Preferred Alternative will result in an approximately 75 percent increase
                 in overall solidwaste generation in the District. Because there are currently so few households
                 in the District, and because solid waste generation from office uses is relatively low, the
                 Preferred Alternative land uses result in a large percentage increase in a solid waste generation
                 over existing levels. Given that the increase will be gradual, as build-out occurs, the increase is
                 not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the capacity of the solid waste system to
                 manage this waste through a combination of recycling, composting, incineration, and landfilling
                 methods. The solid waste generation in the District under the Preferred Alternative (117,000
                 tons/year) represents an increase of approximately 5 percent in the total solid waste generation
                 (before recycling) of Bergen County (1.2 million. tons/year) and Hudson County (910,000
                 tons/year).

                 Some of the areas identified for development in the Preferred Alternative overlie known and/or
                 historic solid waste disposal locations. Development in locations in which solid waste has been
                 disposed of is an advantage insofar as such sites often provide non-wetland growth locations
                 that exhibit fewer effects on natural resources. However, such locations require additional site
                 engineering to provide stable foundations and control of leachates and gases.

                 The solid waste disposal locations that underlie proposed Planning /Satellite Areas are not
                 anticipated to preclude use of those sites. The best available information for Planning/ Satellite
                 Area locations indicates that the type of solid waste to be encountered in these areas is
                 predominantly construction debris, and that disturbance of waste disposal locations that may
                 exist within the Planning/ Satellite Areas will not result in uncontrollable discharges of leachates
                 or gases, primarily because of previous successes in controlling such discharges.

                 In addition to the reclamation of landfills for upland wildlife habitat, the EIP win establish a
                 program to remediate many of the solid waste impacts that have occurred in the District in the
                 past. This will have a large positive impact on the general environment of the District.

                 The program to be established by the EIP will use state-of-the-art landfill closure and
                 remediation designs, including the control of leachate and landfill gas emissions from the
                 currently unmanaged landfills in the District. Where possible, the closed landfills will be made
                 available to the general public for passive and potentially active recreation activities.

                 Hazardous Waste Remediation

                 The process to develop the Preferred Alternative generally avoided use of sites known to be
                 heavily contaminated by hazardous wastes, except two locations that are being remediated
                 under existing state and federal remediation programs, and that are included in the Preferred
                 Alternative. Thus, the combined impacts to hazardous waste remediation in the District from
                 the Preferred Alternative are not expected to be significant, assuming many sites will benefit
                 from expedited remediation under the Environmental Improvement Program, and other sites
                 will be properly controlled where construction disturbances may occur. Therefore, no major


                 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                    Febntary 21, 1995                                      ES-41








                                                                                               Executive Summary


              program for mitigation of impacts that might arise from disturbance of sites suspected of
              containing hazardous materials is necessary at the programmatic level.

              Through the "Hazardous Sites Initiatives," the EIP will have a positive impact on hazardous
              waste management in the District. The EIP will establish a program to improve the cleanup
              procedures and other regulatory efforts regarding hazardous waste activities within the District.
              The EIP initiatives will aid in hazardous waste cleanup by prioritizing sites within the District
              and coordinating activities with appropriate government agencies. In addition, the EIP will
              establish a program to determine the feasibility of developing remediated hazardous waste sites
              in the District, while incorporating natural resource improvements as a condition of
              development.





































              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                    ES-42








                                                                                                       Executive Summaiy


                Chapter 4
                Implementation of the SAMP


                In accordance with the goals of the MOU, the SAMP/EIS recommends implementation of
                several major regulatory and planning products. The regulatory and planning products include
                changes to regulations and project review procedures in the District, and changes in the
                administration of such regulations and review procedures. The principal regulatory products of
                the SAMP are:

                    ï¿½   Adoption of a new Master Plan and Zoning Regulations for the District by HMDC. (The
                        MOU calls for the creation of a revised Master Plan for the District that "uses the EIS ... to
                        plan a land use configuration that, in addition to meeting HMDC's planning purposes in
                        the District, will satisfy the requirements of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and the Corps'
                        public interest review regulations".)

                    ï¿½   Implementation of new site design and environmental requirements for projects
                        submitted to HMDC for planning approval, including, for specified activities,
                        requirements for best management practices for stormwater management, open space
                        preservation, and maximum lot coverage allowances.

                    ï¿½   Streamlined wetlands permitting, under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. (The
                        MOU calls for implementation of a General Permit for specified activities consistent with
                        the SAMP, as authorized under Section,104(e) of the Clean Water Act, and "restrictions
                        on development ... in agreed-upon areas of the District through ... land use designation
                        in the revised Master Plan and zoning amendments". The MOU further calls for a joint
                        processing agreement between ACE, EPA, and HMDC that "individual development
                        proposals consistent with the revised Master Plan would not be subjected to additional
                        project-by-project analyses of alternative sites"... with conditions.)

                    ï¿½   Establishment of a comprehensive Environmental Improvement Program for the District,
                        with HMDC as the lead implementing agency. (The MOU cites "the parties'
                        commitment, through the SAMP process, ... to ensure positive environmental gains for
                        the District".)

                    ï¿½   Changes in the permit review process for NJ environmental permits, to streamline the
                        review process. Proposed changes will be developed and implemented cooperatively
                        between NJDEP and HMDC, and will consistent with NJ's Coastal Management
                        Program.

                Fundamentally, the SAMP is a JPLIIan-a set of interlinked actions (involving federal, state, and
                local agencies) to effect environmental enhancements in the District, while allowing a specific
                agreed-upon level of economic growth. The SAMP proposes specific future land uses for the
                undeveloped properties (and many developed properties) in the District, ranging from
                conservation, to remediation, to transportation improvement, to economic development.


                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                     February 21, 1995                                      ES-43








                                                                                                      Executive Summary


              With respect to land development proposals, two basic project review tracks will be created.
              The first review track is available to projects that are consistent with the SAMP, and the second
              for those that are not. Only projects that are consistent with the SAMP will be eligible for
              streamlined federal, state, and local project review processes.

              The agency that will have the first line of responsibility for determining whether projects are
              consistent with the SAMP will be HMDC. The initial review will consider whether the project is
              consistent with: the SAMP; the revised HMDC Master Plan; and the revised Zoning Map for the
              District. Review for SAND consistency will include an identification of the relevant regulations
              that are expected to apply to a project so that the extent of permitting requirements are known
              to the sponsor of a project.

              Projects that are not consistent with the SAMP will need to comply with standard permit
              application processes, and are not eligible for the streamlined review process available for
              projects consistent with the SAMP/HMDC Master Plan. (The streamlined review process is
              available only to projects consistent with the SAMP because extensive studies regarding need,
              alternatives environmental impacts, and mandatory mitigation have been performed for actions
              included in the SAMP-)

              It is anticipated that projects that are not consistent with the SAMP will be difficult to implement
              if they require HMDC, State, and federal permit approvals. Because the revised HMDC Master
              Plan will replace the existing Master Plan as an element of the NJ Coastal Management Program,
              projects that are inconsistent with the revised Master Plan will, by definition, be inconsistent
              with the Coastal Management Program for NJ. Only projects that are consistent with the
              Coastal Management Program are typically eligible for federal or state agency permit approvals.

              Activities not consistent with the SAMP will be regulated and/or precluded under existing
              regulatory authorities, such as (1) revised zoning and development review regulations being
              implemented by HMDC, (2) authorities exercised by the NJDEP through review of consistency
              of the project with the NJ Coastal Management Program (under Section 307 of the Coastal Zone
              Management Act), (3) individual permit application review by ACE, and (4) potential future
              404(c) actions by EPA where valuable aquatic sites are threatened.

              4. 1 Special Area Management Plan Components

              The SAMP for the Hackensack Meadowlands consists of several components, as described
              below.


                  SAMP Components

                      1.  Future Land Use Plan. A future land use plan has been identified, showing general
                          locations eligible for conservation, environmental improvement, and development in
                          the District. The future land use plan will be a component of HMDC's revised
                          Master Plan for the District, which will mirror the SAMP. The Land Use element of
                          the Master Plan will identify general land use classifications and the areal location
                          and extent of development activity. The SAMP/1-1MDC Master Plan planning period


              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                     February 21, 1995                                        ES-44









                                                                                                  Executive Summary


                          extends to the year 2010, but it is anticipated that the land use plan developed in the
                          SAMP constitutes the entire permittable build-out of the District. The revised Master
                          Plan will guide the development of a new Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations for
                          the District. The Master Plan and Zoning Regulations are products of HN4DC's
                          planning authority in the District. T'he Master Plan will incorporate a new program
                          for implementation of Transfer of Development Rights in the District (described in
                          Section 6.1.4). A map showing the components of the Preferred Alternatives is
                          presented as Figure ES-6.

                      2.  Transportation Improvement Projects. Proposed projects include road widening,
                          railroad, and highway extension projects that maintain mobility in and through the
                          District, and that seek to achieve air quality objectives for the region by reducing
                          congestion and increasing availability of transit systems. There are 34 transportation
                          improvement projects anticipated in the SAMP, ranging from road widenings to new
                          rail lines.


                      3.  Mitigation Requirements for Unavoidable Impacts. Mitigation is required to
                          compensate for regulated activities, especially those that will adversely impact
                          wetlands. Specific mitigation recommendations are included in this EIS, and will
                          also be required pursuant to HMDC's revised Zoning Regulations and
                          Environmental Performance Standards. Several environmental mitigation issues will
                          receive special attention:

                              (a) Wetland mitigation will be implemented pursuant to an Interagency
                              Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Agreement. Participation will be invited from
                              ACE, EPA, NJDEP, HMDC, NOAA, and USFWS, and will include specific
                              provision for implementation of wetland mitigation banking in the District (see
                              Section 6.2.2);

                              (b) Mitigation for non-point source runoff from projects in the District must be
                              performed in accordance with the requirements of the EPA and NOAA Section
                              6217 Coastal Nonpoint Program (,see Table ES-5), and relevant NJDEP
                              regulations;

                              (c) Impact assessment and mitigation with respect to compliance with the
                              National Historic Preservation Act will be conducted in accordance with a
                              Memorandum of Agreement that will be negotiated among EPA, ACE, NJDEP,
                              and HMDC; and

                              (d) Special measures to advance the conservation of Peregrine Falcon are
                              proposed in accordance with Section 7a(l) of the Endangered Species Act, to be
                              implemented pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement proposed between EPA,
                              ACE, USFWS, and HMDC.

                      4. Environmental Improvements Program (EIP). An extensive portfolio of projects to
                          restore and improve the District's natural environment is proposed by HMDC, with


              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   FebruarY 21, 1995                                     ES-45



















                      FEET





                     Amp=






















                                                           Irtk

















                                                                              Le-gend

                                                                             Proposed Development Areas
                                                                             Proposed Development
                                                                             in . .ds

                                                                                   Impactad


                                                                             UnImpacmd Wetlands

                                                                             Existing Development

                                                                             Rivers & Streams

                                                                             KMDC Boundary
                D R A F T                                                    Roads
                                                  f-                         Railroads


              Februmy 21, 1995                                                 Figure ES-6
                                                            Land Uses         Under       the
              CDM                                              Pref erred     Alternative
                      - kkIwIft
               pfamm & MWOOMIA OWWOUr"                      Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS










                                                              TABLE ES-5
                                           EXAMPLE MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR
                                               SOURCES OF NONPOINT POLLUTION


                     1. Management Measures For Urban Areas

                     Reduce Runoff from New Develgpme . Reduce suspended solids levels to no greater than
                     predevelopment levels. Peak runoff rate not to exceed predevelopment levels.

                     Watershed Protection. Avoid conversion of erodible areas, preserve areas providing water quality
                     benefits, and protect the natural integrity of waterbodies and natural drainage systems.

                     Site D            Design sites to protect areas that provide important water quality benefits, limit
                     increases in impervious area, and limit land disturbance activities.

                     Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control. Reduce erosion and retain sediment onsite during
                     and after construction.


                     Existing Develeme . Identify watershed pollutant reduction opportunities, and enhance buffers along
                     surface waterways.

                     Pollution Prevention. Reduce discharge of pollutants into storm drains, and prevent improper storage,
                     use, and disposal of household hazardous chemicals.

                     Road, Highway, and Bridge Runoff System . Implement controls for non-point pollutants.

                     11. Management Measures for Hydromodification

                     Instream and ftarian Habitat Restoration. Minimize the effects of channel modification on instrearn
                     and riparian habitats to reduce undesirable impacts.

                     Mg=ement qf Ero
                                       dine Streambanks and Shorelines. Stabilize streambank and shoreline erosion, and
                     protect streambanks and shorelines from erosion.

                     111. Management Measures for Wetlands and Riparian Areas

                     Protect Wetlands and Riparian Areas. Protect wetlands and riparian areas that serve a significant NPS
                     abatement function, while protecting the other existing functions.

                     Restore Wetlands and ftarian Areas. Promote the: restoration of the preexisting fimctions in damaged
                     and destroyed wetlands and -riparian systems.

                     IV. Monitoring of Management Measures

                     Monitoring Lo Assess Lmplementation. Operation. id Maintenance of-ManXem nt Measures. Initiate
                     sampling, data analysis, and the interpretation of results to assess the success of measures
                     implemented to reduce pollution loads and improve water quality.


                     (Source: Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution, EPA, 1993)








                                                                                                Executive Summary


                         correct decades of historic environment degradation that occurred in the District
                         before the creation of HMDC in 1968. The EIP proposes a set of comprehensive
                         environmental management and restoration efforts, including management of about
                         7,000 acres of wetlands, creation of six major new parks, implementation of
                         transportation management programs, closure of 8 landfills with landfill gas
                         recovery, District-wide water quality monitoring, education programs and
                         enforcement programs. (See Section 2 and Section 6.1.6 for additional information on
                         the EIP.)

                      5. EIP Funding Mechanisms. Various mechanisms to fund the EIP are proposed,
                         including exactions on growth, assessments on buildings, environmental linkage
                         fees, and coordination of government funding programs. (See Section 2 for
                         additional information.)

                      6. Streamlining of Regulatory Review Process. General Permits and Abbreviated
                         Permit Processing will be implemented for projects that are consistent with the
                         SAMP /revised HMDC Master Plan, and that involve wetland fill. Projects consistent
                         with the SAMP will have in place approved alternatives analysis, insofar as such
                         analyses have been prepared for this EIS. Impact and mitigation analyses (in
                         addition to those performed for the EIS) may be required for projects using GP or
                         APP. Such analyses will be tiered on the work performed for this EIS. In addition,
                         streamlined permit review between HMDC and NJDEP will be implemented for
                         projects consistent with the SAMP.

                      7. Pilot Program to Test Redirecting Growth Out-of-District. IWDC will work to
                         create and package various administrative support and existing NJ funding
                         mechanisms designed to evaluate approaches to redirect development proposals to
                         urban areas, as an alternative to growth in wetlands in the District.

                      8. Monitoring and Review Process for SAMP Components. Progress in achieving
                         SAMP goals will be assessed to assure balance between projects that impact, and
                         projects that improve, the environment. An Oversight Committee will be created by
                         the SAMP partners, and, in addition to the SAMP partners, may include interested
                         parties, to review progress in achieving SAMP goals, to assure that the streamlined
                         regulatory review process is being implemented appropriately, and to recommend
                         adjustments in the implementation of the SAMP to assure that the principles of the
                         SAMP MOU are met.


              4.2 Revisions to HMDC Plans, Policies, and Procedures

              HMDC Master Plan Revisions

              The Master Plan for the District will contain the recommended future land use plan, specifying
              those locations recommended for economic growth and those areas recommended for
              conservation and environmental improvement. The Master Plan will include the following
              sections: Land Use Plan, Environmental (Mitigation) Plan, Open Space and Recreation Plan,


              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                    ES-46









                                                                                                     Executive Summary


                Transportation Plan, Housing Plan, Infrastructure Plan, and a Capital Improvement and
                Financial Plan. The Master Plan will also identify locations where conservation and
                environmental improvement are proposed within the District. Conservation and environmental
                improvement locations recommended within the Master Plan will be consistent with those
                recommended in the SAMP/EIS. The revised HMDC Master Plan will provide for conservation
                areas in the SAMP through a number of mechanisms, i.e., zoning changes, transfer of
                development rights, requirements for open space, etc.

                Revisions to HMDC Zoning Regulations

                The revised zoning regulations for the District (which will follow the adoption of a revised
                Master Plan for the District) will establish zoned areas that allow land uses and activities that are
                consistent with the SAMP. A range of zoning approaches will be employed under the SAMP to
                conserve wetlands in the District that are not already protected under existing conservation
                mechanisms (27% of the District wetlands are already protected as dedicated open space and by
                deed restriction). HMDC proposes to increase the percentage of land that is preserved to 88% of
                the District's wetlands using a range of mechanisms. Five types of wetland preservation actions
                are proposed by HMDC, as follows:

                       1. Marshland Preservation Zoning. HTv1DC proposes to expand the Marshland
                       Preservation zone to include a majority of the wetlands within the District. Wetlands
                       under public and quasi-public ownership will be zoned as marshland preservation areas
                       (by amending the existing Zoning Regulations). The vast majority of such land will be
                       designated for preservation purposes in the zoning regulations and zoning plan,
                       resulting in designation of approximately 1,150 additional acres of land within the
                       Marshland Preservation zone. Although the SAMP involves no fill in major open waters
                       (e.g., rivers and major tributaries) in the District, HMDC also proposes to conserve major
                       open waters using Marshland Preservation zoning authority, making such areas
                       ineligible for development under HMDC regulations.

                       2. Open Space Requirements. Open space requirements, mandated under revised
                       HMDC Zoning Regulations, will result in the preservation of wetlands where projects
                       are extensively bordered by wetlands. Developers will be responsible for deed
                       restricting such areas from future development, or dedicating them to land trust
                       organizations. Approximately 770 acres of wetland will be preserved in this manner.

                       3. Lot coverage/FAR restrictions. Wetlands on properties that are now partially
                       developed are and will continue to be protected through zoning and site plan regulation.
                       Maximum lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) criteria will determine the maximum
                       extent of development permitted on individual sites, thereby protecting the balance of
                       the site open space areas from future development. Approximately 1,500 acres will be
                       protected in this manner.

                       4. Transfer of Development Rights. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) will be
                       utilized to preserve approximately 500 acres of unprotected private wetland property
                       through the issuance of development credits to private property owners in the District.


                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                       ES-47








                                                                                                      Executive Summary


                      The owners of designated TDR preserved wetlands will be assigned development credits
                      to sell on the open market to land owners whose properties have been designated for
                      Satellite Area development (consistent with the SAMP and Master Plan). Under the TDR
                      program, designated owners of wetland property planned for development will be
                      required to purchase development rights from owners of property designated to be open
                      space.

                      5. Wetland acquisition planned under EIP Program. HMDC's Environmental
                      Improvement Program (EIP) proposes acquisition of approximately 250 acres of wetland,
                      located primarily along the Hackensack River and consisting of scattered, privately held
                      properties.

               Table ES-6 lists the acreage of the wetlands in the District at present, as defined and delineated
               during the ACE /EPA Advanced Identification (AVID) of Wetlands in the Hackensack
               Meadowlands (December 10, 1992). The criteria for the AVID focused on the protection of water
               quality, wildlife and fisheries habitat, and recreation and educational use. For this reason, and
               for hydrologic reasons, the wetland boundaries included, in many instances, substantial areas of
               open water (such as segments of the Hackensack River). The 8,530 acres delineated as wetland
               Assessment Areas for the AVID included 1,640 acres of open water, interconnected with 6,890
               acres of wetland.


               Table ES-6 also lists the acreages protected by each of the proposed zoning and other controls.
               Of the 6,890 acres of non-open water wetland in the District, approximately 12% (842 acres) will
               be converted to upland as part of the economic development anticipated by HMDC in the
               Planning Area, Satellite Area, and Transportation Improvement locations, approximately 27%
               (1,865 acres) are currently protected by conservation mechanisms (i.e., dedicated open space or
               deed restricted), and approximately 61% (4,170 acres) will be protected using the five
               conservation mechanisms described above. Thus, by the conclusion of the SAMP planning
               period (year 2010), it is proposed that an estimated 88% (6,035 acres) of the wetlands that are
               now present in the District will be protected and managed. The objective of the SAMP is to
               provide protection to these wetlands in perpetuity.

               As can be seen from Table ES-6, zoning mechanisms will be used to protect the largest share of
               wetland area. However, zoning controls do not provide the same assurance of permanent
               protection as does acquisition (because zoning regulations can be revised). Nevertheless, NJ
               planning law requires that the Zoning Regulations be consistent with the adopted Master Plan,
               and the Master Plan will dearly present HMDC's goal of preserving, in perpetuity, all remaining
               wetlands by the conclusion of the SAMP.

               Changes to the HMDC Development Review Process

               HMDC will revise its development review process to better realize SAMP environmental goals.
               Revision of the development review process involves changes to HMDC's zoning regulations,
               development review regulations, site plan design standards, and environmental performance
               standards. The development review regulations will be expanded to specifically require Best
               Management Practices for all new development with non-point source discharges (e.g., storm


               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                     February 21, 1995                                       ES-4B









                                                                                                      Executive Summary


                                                            TABLE ES-6


                              District Wetland Resources and SAMP Wetland Conservation Actions





                     District Wetland Resources                                                   Acres Line

                     Total area of aquatic sites' (AVID Assessment Areas) in the District         8,530     1
                     Total area of open water within aquatic site boundaries                      1,640     2   1
                     Total wetland area now present in the District (line 1 - line 2)             6,890     3
                     Wetland area to be converted to upland r P/SAs & TIs                          842      4
                     Wetland area in District at conclusion of SAMP (line 3 - line 4 plus         6,093     5
                     45 acres of wetland created as part of mitigation requirements)



                     Wetland Conservation

                     Existing Wetland Conservation Mechanisms

                            Wetland already protected through deed restrictions, etc.             1,865     6



                     Proposed SAMP Wetland Conservation Mechanisms
                            1. Wetland protected by Marshland. Preservation zoning                1,163     7
                            2. Open Space requirements per Zoning Regulation                       770      8
                            3. Lot coverage/FAR restrictions per Zoning Regulation                1,500     9
                            4. Transfer of Developme   nt Rights                                   500      10
                            5. Wetland acquisition planned under EIP Program                       250      11
                            Total additional conserved wetland area (sum lines 7 - 11)            4,183     12


                     Total protected wetland at conclusion of SAMP (line 6 + line 12 plus         6,093     13
                     45 acres of wetland created as part of mitigation requireE2ents)
                     Total protected wetland and regulated open water at the conclusion           7,733     14
                     of the SAMP (line 2 + line 13)
                     'Aquatic sites (assessment areas) were delineated for the 1992 ACE/EPA Advanced
                     Identification (AVID) for the Hackensack Meadowlands, December 1992, and include
                     important open water habitat adjacent to wetlands.
                     P/SA = Planning/ Satellite Area; TIfLansportation Improvement








                                                                                                  Executive Summary


              water runoff), to meet the requirements of the Section 6217 Coastal Nonpoint Program to be
              adopted by NJDEP pursuant to the 1990 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act.

              Wetland Mitigation Actions by HMDC

              Requirements for wetland mitigation will be included in the proposed changes in I-IMDC's
              Zoning Regulations and plan review process. However, ACE has the principal authority for
              review and approval of wetland mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Thus,
              while provision for wetland mitigation will be incorporated into project review by HMDC as
              part of the planning process for the District, permission to implement wetland mitigation, and
              establishment of specific requirements for mitigation, proceeds mainly under federal law for the
              District. Nevertheless, to the maximum degree feasible under existing law, requirements for
              wetland mitigation, performance guarantees, maintenance, and monitoring will be incorporated
              into HMDC's Zoning and Development Review regulations. HMDC will promulgate and adopt
              requirements for wetland mitigation as part of its development review process.

              Environmental Improvement Program

              There is a need for substantial environmental remediation in the Hackensack Meadowlands
              District. The pollution and environmental destruction from previous decades of solid waste
              disposal within or adjacent to these wetlands must be remediated. Planning for the future of the
              District must recognize the remediation costs of long-standing and continuing cumulative
              impacts to wetlands and upland areas.

              As noted earlier, HMDC, in concert with state and federal SAMP partner agencies, proposes to
              implement an EIP in the District. The components of the EIP include solid waste management,
              surface and groundwater resource protection, environmental enforcement, air and land quality
              improvements, natural resource management and development of park, educational and
              recreational opportunities.

              Out-of-District Development Program

              The out-of-District analysis concluded that no practicable alternative existed within the six
              county study region that would achieve SAMP goals. However, HMDC recognizes the need to
              assist in the revitalization of urban centers, especially in light of the fact that one of the HMDC
              member municipalities is an urban center Gersey City). Moreover, the formulation of the out-of-
              District component of the SAMP provides a meaningful opportunity to test whether
              development can be redirected away from wetland areas that are under great development
              pressure in the District. If mechanisms to redirect some of the District's growth can be
              implemented, it is possible that out-of-District growth could achieve some of the in-District need
              for housing and employment. With this in mind, HMDC has agreed to create a pilot program as
              part of the SAMP to develop and test mechanisms that would redirect some growth to out-of-
              District urban locations.






              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                   February 21, 1995                                     ES-49









                                                                                                       Executive Summary


                NGAA Approval of Revised HMDC Master Plan and Zoning Regulations

                Because the revised HMDC Master Plan will replace the existing Master Plan as the coastal
                program element for the District, once the HMDC Master Plan and Zoning Regulations have
                been revised to incorporate the SAMP and the relevant NJDEP regulations, NJDEP will submit a
                program change request to NOAA for approval. Depending on whether the proposed revision
                is determined to be a substantial change to the enforceable policies or authorities of the NJ
                Coastal Management Program, it may be necessary to conduct a National Environmental Policy
                Act (NEPA) review on the program change request. HMDC will be able to use the revised
                Master Plan as the coastal program for the District for federal consistency purposes once NJDEP
                has published notice of NOAA's approval of the program change. If any future revisions to the
                HMDC Master Plan and Zoning Regulations, or changes to the permitting structure, are needed
                subsequent to the SAMP-related Master Plan and permitting revisions, they will also be
                required to be submitted to NOAA as program changes.

                4.3 SAMP Regulatoty Products

                The principal regulatory products of the Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP are Section 404
                General Permits, Abbreviated Permitting Procedures, and a revised HMDC Master Plan and
                Zoning Regulations for the District (changes to the planning process are described in Section
                6.1). Concurrent with the regulatory changes listed above, a revised system is proposed for local
                (HMDC) and state (NJDEP) review and approval of projects consistent with the SAMP. Several
                other supporting regulatory products will be implemented, as related to wetland mitigation and
                wetland mitigation banking.

                Section 404 Regulatory Products

                Several regulatory changes are proposed by the SAMP that will       improve the review process for
                projects that involve wetland fill in the District, and that are consistent with the SAMP. HMDC's
                SAMP Development Plan proposes to allow the development of 52 Planning and Satellite
                parcels and 34 Transportation Improvements (for a total of about 1,860 development acres) over
                the next 20 years. Of these parcels, 22 of the Planning and SateRite Areas contain wetlands
                (potentially associated with a maximum of 750 acres of wetlands fill), and 17 of the
                Transportation Improvement locations contain wetlands (potentially associated with a
                maximum of 92 acres of wetland fill).

                The SAMP/EIS has evaluated the need for economic growth and environmental improvement
                in the District, analyzed alternatives to fulfill those needs, identified a Preferred Alternative, and
                studied the environmental impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. Projects that are
                consistent with the SAMP have been shown, through the studies conducted for this EIS, to have
                no practicable alternatives with lesser overall environmental impact. Because alternatives
                evaluations have been performed as part of thisEIS for activities that are part of the SAMP
                Preferred Alternative, they will not need to be repeated in the future for projects that are
                consistent with the SAMP. Based on these studies and evaluations ACE and EPA have
                determined that projects consistent with the SAMP, and that meet other requirements (described
                below) will be eligible for streamlined federal permit review using two mechanisms:

                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                     February 21, 1995                                         ES-50








                                                                                                Executive Summary


                         General Permits (GP)

                         Abbreviated Permit Processing (APP)

              Conditions of eligibility for projects seeking GP's and APP's are described below:

                     General Permits


                     ï¿½   Proposed wetland fills that cumulatively total not more than 15 acres for P/SAs
                         included in the Preferred Alternative and that are consistent with the approved
                         SAMP /revised HMDC Master Plan will be eligible for a GP. The GP applies only to
                         projects in Planning Areas and Satellite Areas which alone, or in conjunction with
                         other developers within the area, incur not more than 15 acres of fill, regardless of the
                         current distribution of lot ownership within the Planning /Satellite Area boundary.
                         Projects not eligible for a GP may be eligible for APP (see below).

                     ï¿½   In addition, proposed wetland fills of no more than one acre, associated with
                         identified minor Transportation Improvements to existing transportation facilities in
                         the District, and that are consistent with the approved SAMP/revised HMDC Master
                         Plan, will be eligible for a GP.

                     ï¿½   Projects for restoration and enhancement of wetlands in the District that are required
                         for development activities authorized by the proposed SAMP GP, or projects for
                         implementation of Mitigation Banks in the District that are consistent with the SAMP
                         will quality for a GP. Such projects must be located in areas identified for mitigation
                         in the SAMP/EIS.

                     ï¿½   The project must not result in significant adverse impacts to federal or state
                         threatened or endangered species. (The SAMP/EIS has addressed the requirements
                         for current federally-listed species. Presence of and use by State-listed species will be
                         determined at the time of submittal of the GP application, as required by the
                         conditions of the Water Quality Certificate proposed to be authorized for the GP-)

                     ï¿½   The project must not result in significant adverse impacts to cultural resources, and
                         otherwise complies with the provisions of NHPA. (The SAMP/EIS has identified
                         sensitive locations requiring further survey/ study work.)

                     It is anticipated that the GP will be determined to be consistent with the NJ CMP.
                     Similarly, it is expected that NJDEP will issue a 401 Water Quality Certificate for the GP.
                     Based on the studies conducted for the SAMP/EIS, NJDEP proposes to issue WQC's for
                     projects authorized by the GP, conditioned to require, at minimum, additional
                     investigation for state endangered, threatened, and rare species at the time of the
                     requested use of the GP. With the above in mind, projects that proceed under the GP
                     will not require a separate CMP review or WQC. ACE's proposed GP is presented in
                     Appendix 0 of this EIS. It provides additional information on the requirements and
                     mechanics of the proposed federal GP process.


              CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                  February 21, 1995                                   ES-51









                                                                                                       Executive Summary


                        Abbreviated Permit Processing

                            Proposed wetland fills that cumulatively total more than 15 acres within a Planning
                            or Satellite Area and that are consistent with the SAMP would be eligible for APP.

                        Given that projects not eligible for the proposed GP involve greater wetland impact, and
                        because of the programmatic nature of the SAMP/EIS, applicants proceeding under APP
                        will be required to collect additional site specific data under the APP, including
                        information regarding the presence of State threatened and endangered species, cultural
                        resources, and additional site specific information about the characteristics of and
                        wildlife use of potentiallyimpacted wetlands. Such information will be used to reach a
                        permit decision, and will be used to better specify mitigation requirements (including
                        wetland mitigation) associated with a permit approval.

                Projects not consistent with the SAMP and HMDC's revised Master Plan will undergo the
                individual Section 404 permit process, including preparation of an alternatives analysis, as
                appropriate and relevant. However, as noted earlier in this chapter, projects that are not
                consistent with the SAMP are likely to be difficult to implement if they require state and/or
                federal permit approvals. Because the revised HMDC Master Plan will replace the existing
                Master Plan as the component of the NJ CMP applicable to the District, projects that are not
                consistent with the Master Plan will, by definition, not be consistent with the NJ CMP. Only
                projects that are consistent with the NJ CMP are typically eligible for federal or state agency
                permit approvals, notwithstanding the rights of project sponsors to apply for such permits.'

                Procedures for Wetland Mitigation

                The SAMP partners propose to implement an Interagency Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
                Agreement that will define the process for determining acceptable wetland mitigation under the
                SAMP. The Interagency Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Agreement, a SAMP regulatory
                product, will establish the Meadowlands Interagency Mitigation Advisory Committee
                (MIMAC). It is proposed that MIMAC include one wetland mitigation specialist from each of
                the following agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
                NJ. Dept. of Environmental Protection; Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission;
                National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

                Under the proposed agreement, MIMAC will be responsible for developing guidance for
                wetland mitigation projects, including mitigation banks. MIMAC responsibilities include
                recommending mitigation actions for projects that are eligible for GP's and APP's. The
                components of the guidance for wetland mitigation will include: site selection criteria;
                performance standards for conducting mitigation, including mitigation performed for mitigation
                banks; methodologies for assessing site success; criteria for the valuation and exchange of


                8  It is not possible for the SAMP to anticipate all projects that may be valuable or needed in the future
                of the District. However, as noted herein, projects that are not consistent with the SAMP Preferred
                Alternative will have a more extensive local, state, and federal review process, because they have not
                been subject to the advance studies performed as part of this EIS.

                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                    February 21, 1995                                         ES-52








                                                                                                      Executive Summary


                mitigation credits and debits; and monitoring requirements for wetland mitigation projects,
                including mitigation banks.

                The MRVIAC will meet to review individual wetland mitigation project proposals and wetland
                mitigation bank proposals. Proposals for individual wetland mitigation projects and for
                banking sites will be submitted to the MIMAC, including documentation of the need for the
                mitigation or banking site, evaluation of existing site conditions; and analysis of the feasibility of
                mitigation at the proposed location. MDAAC will make recommendations to ACE regarding the
                acceptability of: wetland mitigation site locations; wetland mitigation development plans
                (including restoration, creation, and enhancement); and wetland mitigation site selection, site
                designs, and operation and maintenance procedures.

                Project sponsors applying for FIMDC site plan approval will be required to implement wetland
                mitigation consistent with MIMAC procedures and determinations. Successful implementation
                of the mitigation project will be a permit condition, determined by fulfillment of site-specific
                criteria established for each mitigation site. To assure fulfillment of permit conditions, post-
                mitigation maintenance (as needed) and monitoring of the wetland mitigation project will be
                required, including preparation and submission of a monitoring report to the MHVIAC and
                federal resource agencies for not less than 5 years after the mitigation project is complete.

                For the SAMP, it is proposed that wetland mitigation banking be authorized under a GP, to
                encourage early implementation of wetland mitigation efforts using banking systems.

                Changes to Permit Responsibilities between HMDC and NJDEP

                As part of the SAMP, specific permit review and approval responsibilities will be revised
                between HMDC and NJDEP. To effect this change, several NJDEP regulatory products will be
                pursued following the SAMP/EIS Record of Decision, as discussed below. For projects
                consistent with the SAMP, the goal is to create a review process whereby compliance with
                HMDC development review requirements will result in de facto compliance with relevant state
                requirements.

                In order to streamline the permit review process, it is proposed that HMDC become the lead
                agency for permit review in the Distrid?. To accomplish this, amendments would be made to
                the HMDC Master Plan and Zoning Regulations, NJDEP's Rules on Coastal Zone Management,
                and New Jersey's Federally-approved CMP.

                Upon issuance of the SAMP/EIS Record of Decision, IIMDC would revise its Master Plan and
                Zoning Regulations to reflect the SAMP, and (working with NJDEP and NOAA) incorporate the
                appropriate Rules on Coastal Zone Management. Once the necessary revisions have been made,
                the revised Master Plan and Zoning Regulations will be submitted to NOAA as a change to the
                NJ CMP.


                9  Under the State's Federally-approved Coastal Zone Management Plan, three types of approvals may
                be needed before an applicant undertakes development projects in the District. They are a Waterfront
                Development Permit, a Water Quality Certificate, and a Federal Consistency Determination.

                CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                    February 21, 1995                                       ES-53









                                                                                                    Executive Summaty


               During the period between the SAMP/EIS Record of Decision and NOAA's approval of the
               revised Master Plan and Zoning Regulations as the coastal program for the District, a
               temporary, partial moratorium would be implemented by FUvfDC, contingent upon the
               approval of the Commission, in order for F1MDC to prepare and adopt a revised Master Plan
               and Zoning Regulations. The moratorium would cover all new development proposed to be
               located on wetlands parcels, Planning Areas and Satellite Areas, with certain exceptions.

               In the second phase, permit applications for projects in the District would be reviewed by
               HMDC staff using the revised Master Plan and Zoning Regulations, which would include the
               relevant Rules on Coastal Zone Management as standards. The mechanism to initiate this
               process will be a Memorandum of Agreement between NJDEP and HMDC. HMDC's
               recommendations on permit decisions would be forwarded to NJDEP for approval, denial, or
               modification.

               In the third phase of the permit review consolidation, a Programmatic General Permit for the
               District would be developed and adopted, after NJDEP receives NOAA's approval of the
               revisions to the Master Plan and Zoning Regulations. The Programmatic General Permit is
               intended to allow those activities described in the SAMP and now adopted as amendments to
               the Master Plan to go forward without the need for additional project specific permits from
               NJDEP. The Programmatic General Permit will require revisions to the NJ CMP, which is
               initiated through a rule proposal by NJDEP. This further revision to the permitting process also
               must be submitted to NOAA for approval as a change to the NJ CMP. Once the Programmatic
               General Permit is approved by NJDEP and NOAA, HMDC will become. the lead agency for
               permit review in the District.

               4.4 General Schedule for Implementation Actions

               The SAMP will be implemented in a series Of Steps, with a logical sequence of regulatory
               changes occurring over approximately a one year period. SAMP implementation will be
               initiated upon the filing of the Record of Decision by the lead federal agencies for the EIS. The
               Record of Decision will identify a specific SAMPalternative for the District (which is likely to
               include numerous components) as well as approve the proposed General Permit for activities
               consistent with the SAMP. The Record of Decision will indicate that the SAMP is consistent
               with the Coastal Management Plan for NJ.

               The following sequence of SAMP implementation steps are anticipated:

                       Immediate Actions


                       The SAMP partners and appropriate resource agencies finalize and approve the
                       Interagency Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Agreement. The Meadowlands
                       Interagency Mitigation Advisory Committee is created.

                       Federal agencies and SAMP partners finalize APP procedures.




               CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                    February 21, 1995                                     ES-54








                                                                                           Executive Summary


                    A SAMP Oversight Committee is established, to include representatives from the SAMP
                    partners.

                    Contingent upon the approval of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
                    Commission, a temporary, partial moratorium would be implemented for all new
                    development (as described in the SAMP Preferred Alternative) that is proposed to be
                    located on wetland parcels, or Planning Areas or Satellite Areas, for a specified period of
                    time (to be determined).

                    HMDC creates an EIP Advisory Committee.

                    Within One Year


                    HMDC revises and adopts a new Master Plan and Zoning Regulations for the District.
                    NJDEP reviews the revised Master Plan and submits it to NOAA as a program change to
                    the NJ CMP. NOAA reviews the revised Master Plan as a program change. Upon
                    approval of the changes to the NJ CMP, the temporary moratorium on development is
                    lifted.


                    HMDC and NJDEP approve permit processing procedures for the District. (HMDC
                    prepares project permit reviews and submits same to NJDEP for NJDEP action on permit
                    applications.)

                    HMDC and NJDEP reach agreement on a General Programmatic Permit, that will allow
                    HMDC to conduct streamlined permit reviews, with proper notice to NJDEP.

                    Following adoption of a new Master Plan and Zoning Regulations for the District by
                    HMDC, HMDC implements a Wetland Bank, a Transfer of Development Rights System,
                    and changes in the Development Review and Approval Process.

                    HMDC begins implementation of the Environmental Improvement Program.

                    HMDC initiates the pilot program for testing potential to redirect in-District growth to
                    urban centers.


                    ACE, EPA, NJDEP, and HMDC enter into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding
                    future cultural resources investigative efforts in the District.

                    ACE, EPA, and HMDC enter into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding conservation
                    actions to be implemented for the Peregrine Falcon to enhance the District's ability to
                    support this species.

                    In accordance with the goals of Section 7a(l) of the Endangered Species Act, specific
                    conservation measures to enhance use of the District by Peregrine Falcons are developed
                    and implemented.




             CDM Camp Dresser & McKee                February 21, 1995                                 ES-55









                                                                                                                                                               27
                                                                                                                                                                   45    8




















                                                                                  CIDM
                                                                           environmental engineers, scientists,
                                                                          planners, & management consultants
                                                                                                                                         OAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR  I


                                                                                                                                        3 6668 1411
















































                                                                        CAMP DRESSER & McKEE

                                                                                    offices worldwide                                                     Pnnted on Recycled PgW