HomeMy Public PortalAbout23-08-16 - Carteret Ferry Terminal Environmental Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Federal Transit Administration Region 2
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL
LOTS 2.01 & 2.02, BLOCK 304
BOROUGH OF CARTERET
MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
August 2023
CME File No.: HCA00536.02
Project Sponsor:
Borough of Carteret
61 Cooke Avenue
Carteret, NJ 07008
Prepared by:
CME Associates
1460 Route 9 South
Howell, NJ 07731
Consulting & Municipal
ENGINEERS
Parlin • Howell • Monmouth Junction • Pleasantville • Camden • Barnegat
2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION AUGUST 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contact Information
Executive Summary
1. Project Purpose and Need
1.1. Purpose of the Study
1.2. Purpose of the Project
1.3. Need for the Project
1.4. Goals and Objectives
2. Project Alternatives
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Alternatives Evaluation and Screening
2.3. No Build Alternative
2.4. Build Alternatives
2.5. Alternative Selection
3. Environmental Considerations
3.1. Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy
3.2. Community Services
3.3. Parks and Recreational Resources
3.4. Socioeconomic Conditions
3.5. Property Acquisition and Displacement
3.6. Visual Resources
3.7. Historic and Cultural Resources (Section 106)
3.8. Transportation
3.9. Air Quality
3.10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Resilience
3.11. Energy
3.12. Noise and Vibration
3.13. Natural Resources
3.14. Contaminated Materials
3.15. Safety and Security
3.16. Utilities and Infrastructure
3.17. Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts
3.18. Permits, Approvals, Public Participation and Consultation
4. Construction Methods and Effects
4.1. Construction Methods
4.2. Short Term Construction Impacts
5. Environmental Justice
6. Section 4(f) Evaluation – Parkland, Waterfowl and Wildlife Protection
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION AUGUST 2023
FIGURES
• Figure 1-1: Location Map
• Figure 1-2: Transportation Mode share of commuters: Carteret, NJ to Manhattan
• Figure 1-3: Transportation Mode share of commuters: Carteret, NJ to Midtown Manhattan
• Figure 1-4: Transportation Mode share of commuters from Carteret, NJ to Lower Manhattan
• Figure 2-1: Summary of Alternatives Evaluation – Initial Screening
• Figure 3.1-1: Zoning Study Area Map
• Figure 3.1-2: Conceptual Redevelopment Area Master Plan
• Figure 3.1-3: Zoning Map
• Figure 3.3-1: Recreational Resources Map
• Figure 3.4-1: Socioeconomic Study Area Map
• Figure 3.4-2: Census Tract 36.01 Demographics
• Figure 3.4-3: Census Tract 38.02 Demographics
• Figure 3.6-1: Intermodal Transportation Building Rendering
• Figure 3.12-1: FTA Noise Exposure by Distance (FTA Manual Figure 4-6)
• Figure 3.12-2: FTA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects (FTA Manual Figure 4-2)
• Figure 3.13-1: FEMA Flood Map
• Figure 5.1-1: Environmental Justice Study Area Map
• Figure 5.1-1: EJMAP Combined Stressor Summary
TABLES
• Table 1-1: Summary of Potential Long Term Effects and Mitigation Strategies
• Table 1-2: AM Peak One-Way In-Vehicle Times and Expenses from Carteret to Midtown Manhattan s(Existing
Modes)
• Table 1-3: AM Peak One-Way In-Vehicle Times and Expenses from Carteret to Lower Manhattan (Existing Modes)
• Table 2-1: Combined Ranking of Alternatives Evaluated
• Table 3.4-1: Census Tract Population and Income Data
• Table 3.8-1: 2022 and 2042 Level of Service Comparisons
• Table 3.9-1: NAAQS and NJ Air Quality Comparison
• Table 3.10-1: Comparison of GHG Emissions in Build versus No Build Scenario
• Table 3.13.3.7-1: Summary of Threatened and Endangered Species
• Table 5.1-1: Race, Income and Poverty and Language Data Comparison
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION AUGUST 2023
APPENDICES
• Appendix 1-1: Carteret Ferry Terminal Categorical Exclusion Document, prepared December 29, 2021
• Appendix 1-2: Carteret Ferry Feasibility Study Concept Report, prepared by Weinberger & Associates and Nelson
Nygaard, December 2017
• Appendix 1-3: Carteret Ferry Tier 2 Feasibility Study, prepared by Weinberger & Associates and Nelson Nygaard,
December 2016
• Appendix 1-3: Proposed Carteret Passenger Ferry Expanded Ridership Demand Study, prepared by Rutgers
University, October 2018
• Appendix 3.1-1: Chrome Waterfront Redevelopment Plan, prepared by Schoor DePalma, Inc., February 2003,
amended 2022.
• Appendix 3.2-1: Carteret Police, Fire, and OEM Correspondence, March 2023
• Appendix 3.5-1: Land Donation Agreement, Borough of Carteret and DuPont, April 30, 2020.
• Appendix 3.6-1: Photo Location Map and Site Photographs, prepared by McCormick Taylor, Inc., May 2021
• Appendix 3.7-1: NJDEP Bureau of Environmental Program Resources and Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
and NY SHPO correspondence dated November 2, 2020 and January 4, 2021
• Appendix 3.7-2: Phase IA Archeological Survey, prepared by Richard Grubb and Associates, May 2007
• Appendix 3.7-3: Phase I Underwater Archeological Survey, prepared by Dolan Research, Inc., June 2020
• Appendix 3.8-1: Traffic Impact Study – Ferry Terminal, prepared by McCormick Taylor, Inc., May 2021
• Appendix 3.9-1: Air Quality Assessment, prepared by Paul Carpenter Associates, Inc. August 5, 2011
• Appendix 3.12-1: Noise Assessment – Ferry Terminal, prepared by Paul Carpenter Associates, Inc., July 2021
• Appendix 3.13-1: Arthur Kill Complex Species List
• Appendix 3.13-2: Essential Fish Habitat Assessment – Ferry Terminal, prepared by T&M Associates, November
2020
• Appendix 3.13-3: NOAA GARFO ESA Section 7: NLAA Program Verification Form
• Appendix 3.13-4: USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Report, August 12, 2021
• Appendix 3.13-5: NJDEP Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Report, March 11, 2020
• Appendix 3.14-1: Hazardous Waste Screening Report – Ferry Terminal, prepared by McCormick Taylor, Inc., May
2021
• Appendix 3.14-2: Fill Use Plan for Review, Certification, and Acceptance of Alternative Fill Materials, prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants, September 2018
• Appendix 3.15-1: Navigational Safety Plan, prepared by Panaveer Partners, December 9, 2021
• Appendix 3.17-1: Outside Agency Permits
• Appendix 3.17-2: Open House #1 Memorandum, prepared by Nelson Nygaard, July 28, 2016
• Appendix 3.17-3: Letters of Support
• Appendix 5.1-1: Overburdened Community Stressor Summary
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Executive Summary 1
CONTACT INFORMATION
Borough of Carteret
Department of Engineering
Attn: John DuPont, PE, PP, CME – Director of Engineering
61 Cooke Avenue
Carteret, NJ 07008
Federal Transportation Administration (FTA)
Ky Woltering, Ph.D
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Planning & Program Development
1 Bowling Green, Rm. 429
New York, NY 10004
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Executive Summary 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Borough of Carteret (“Borough”) is proposing to construct a commuter ferry terminal facility, including landside and
waterside facilities, along the Arthur Kill waterfront. The Carteret Ferry Terminal (CFT) will serve the Borough’s
commuter ferry service with regularly scheduled routes to Manhattan. The Borough has evaluated multiple
improvement alternatives, including the no-build alternative, and has selected a preferred alternative based on its ability
to satisfy the project’s purpose and need while minimizing impacts to the environment and other public resources.
The proposed project site is a vacant former brownfield which has been remediated by the responsible party, DuPont
de Nemours, Inc., due to historic industrial contamination. The site has been acquired by the Borough for the purposes
of redevelopment, including the CFT, with the remainder of the site slated for the development of public waterfront
open space and commercial uses.
The Borough is conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the CFT project in accordance with the Federal
Transit Administration’s (FTA) procedures for new transit projects. As part of those procedures, the FTA must make a
determination about the proposed project’s environmental impacts in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) before it can approve its final design and construction. The analyses presented in this EA
concludes that the proposed project will not result in significant adverse impacts to social, economic, or environmental
resources. This EA is being prepared to meet the environmental review requirements of FTA and the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 C.F.R. Part 771) and the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 C.F.R. 1500). This EA was also prepared in
accordance with other applicable federal laws including, but not limited to the following:
• Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
• Clean Water Act
• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA)
• Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966
• Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations”
• Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”
• Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management”
Table 1-1 summarizes the potential effects identified across the various assessment areas along with proposed
strategies and commitments from the project sponsor to mitigate any adverse project impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Executive Summary 3
Table 1-1: Summary of Potential Long Term Effects and Mitigation Strategies
Section Assessment Area Potential Effects Mitigation/Commitment/Notes
3.1 Land Use, Zoning and
Public Policy
None; Supportive of redevelopment,
consistent with the Chrome Waterfront
Redevelopment Plan, Municipal Public
Access Plan, and STIP
N/A
3.2 Community Services None N/A
3.3 Parks and Recreational
Resources
None N/A
3.4 Socioeconomic Conditions None; Development will foster
economic growth in the region.
N/A
3.5 Property Acquisition and
Displacement
None N/A
3.6 Visual Resources None; Improvement to blighted
industrial area.
N/A
3.7 Historic and Cultural
Resources
None Any artifacts inadvertently disturbed will
result in a cessation of work pending
consultation with authorities.
3.8 Transportation Net positive effect on regional
congestion.
Surrounding roadway infrastructure
projects being implemented to serve
commuter traffic, including pedestrian,
cyclist, and bus modes.
3.9 Air Quality Potential for localized impacts in
AM/PM peak hours
No long term impacts anticipated
3.10 Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions
Build Alternative will result in additional
GHG emissions associated with
terminal and ferry operations; however,
increases are partially offset by
reduction in road vehicles
Project will provide electric vehicle (EV)
charging spaces to promote a reduction in
GHG emissions. Increased ridership will
further offset ferry emissions by reducing
car and bus traffic.
3.11 Energy Build Alternative will result in increased
energy demand for building operations.
Integrate applicable energy efficient
standards for green building, materials and
energy technology. Increased ridership will
further offset terminal emissions by
reducing car / bus traffic.
3.12 Noise & Vibration No increase in noise or vibration at
sensitive receptors.
N/A
3.13.3.1 Wetlands Disturbance of degraded wetlands
permitted by NJDEP
Wetlands will be restored to an enhanced
condition.
3.13.3.2 Flood Zones None Site elevation above base flood elevations
3.13.3.3 Water Quality None Project will comply with SESC standards.
In-water work in compliance with issued
NJDEP/USACE permits.
3.13.3.4
Terrestrial Natural
Resources
None N/A
3.13.3.5 Aquatic Resources None N/A
3.13.3.6 Essential Fish Habitat None In-water work moratoriums as stipulated by
NJDEP and NOAA.
3.13.3.7 Threatened and
Endangered Species
(ESA Section 106)
None N/A
3.13.3.8 Coastal Zones Disturbance of disturbed coastal area
permitted by NJDEP
Shoreline to be restored and vegetated in
compliance with NJDEP permits
3.13.3.9 Sole Source Aquifers None N/A
3.14 Contaminated Materials Building to serve as impermeable cap
on contaminated site.
Site previously remediated. Any
disturbance of existing cap to be overseen
by LSRP in full accordance with NJ Site
Remediation Standards.
3.15 Safety and Security None N/A
3.16 Utilities and Infrastructure None; capacity available in existing
utilities to serve CFT
N/A
3.18 Indirect Effects and
Cumulative Impacts
Promotes growth, waterfront
redevelopment and revitalization, public
access
Expand parking, ferry service to meet
potential future demand
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Executive Summary 4
Section Assessment Area Potential Effects Mitigation/Commitment/Notes
4 Construction Impacts Short-term sound & vibration nuisances
adjacent park during initial foundation
construction.
Monitor noise and vibration complaints.
5 Environmental Justice None Communication to be kept open with
community to identify and respond to
potential stressors
6 Section 4(f) Evaluation –
Historic, Parkland,
Waterfowl, and Wildlife
Protection
None N/A
Table 1-1 (continued): Summary of Potential Long Term Effects and Mitigation Strategies (continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 1: Purpose and Need 1-1
1. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1. Purpose of the Study
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to identify and evaluate the potential social, economic
and environmental impacts of the proposed Carteret Ferry Terminal (CFT), approximately one-quarter mile east of
Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway in the Borough of Carteret, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The site is situated on
Block 304, Lots 2.01 and 2.02 and located along the western shoreline of the Arthur Kill tidal strait, separating New
Jersey and Staten Island, New York. This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to meet the
environmental review requirements of FTA and FHWA’s Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 C.F.R.
Part 771) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 C.F.R. 1500). It
addresses all applicable impacts areas, including demonstrating compliance with Section 4(f) Parkland, Waterfowl,
and Wildlife Protection as well as Section 106 Historic assessment requirements.
For the purposes of this EA, the Carteret Ferry Terminal (CFT) is defined as a combination of both the in-water
infrastructure (docks, gangways, moorings, ferry boats) and upland site improvements, including, but not limited to
the parking lot, above- and below-ground utilities and facilities supporting commuter ferry service.
A location map is provided in Figure 1-1 on the following page.
The Borough has received a $6,000,000 allocation from FTA’s FY 2021 Discretionary Passenger Ferry Grant
Program to specifically fund the construction of the Carteret Ferry Terminal’s Intermodal Transporation Building,
which will be obligated following issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) relative to this EA. In
addition, the Borough has received other grants from multiple funding sources for the construction of site
improvements, waterside facilities, and recreational improvements in the vicinity of the project.
Due to the nature of the project as a new passenger transportation facility, the Categorical Exclusion Document
(CED) previously prepared detailing project impacts, based on the FTA’s past experience with similar projects with
insignificant impacts, was not applicable in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.118 due to the nature of the
improvements and as federal funding was made in excess of $5,000,000, thus requiring the preparation of an EA.
A copy of the CED is provided in Appendix 1-1. After due consideration and given the expected environmental
impacts posed by construction of a new ferry terminal, the FTA Regional Office assessed the appropriate class of
action for this project as an EA.
This EA has been prepared to demonstrate that the preferred alternative is the most prudent and feasible
alternative that satisfies the project purpose and need, and that the preferred alternative will not result in any
significant adverse impacts to the man-made or naturally occurring environment, or result in cumulative or indirect
impacts that would require further evaluation. The findings of this EA will be presented for public input and provide
sufficient information to serve as a record of environmental approvals and consultations as required by law.
It is the intent that this EA will lead to the determination that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be
issued for the CFT project by the FTA.
1.2. Purpose of the Project
The purpose of the Carteret Ferry Terminal Project is to provide a convenient and reliable transportation alternative
in the form of ferry service for commuting between the Borough of Carteret and New York City, while satisfying
socio-economic, environmental, and public needs of the residents of the Borough of Carteret.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 1: Purpose and Need 1-2
Figure 1-1: Location Map
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 1: Purpose and Need 1-3
This project supports at least four of the six goals articulated for investment by the North Jersey Transportation
Planning Authority (NJTPA), the authorized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in “Plan 2050,
Transportation. People. Opportunity”:
o Provide affordable, accessible and dynamic transportation systems responsive to current and future
customers.
o Protect and improve the quality of natural ecosystems and the human environment.
o Retain and increase economic activity and competitiveness.
o Select transportation investments that support the coordination of land use with transportation systems.
1.3. Need for the Project
1.3.1. Need to Supplement Mass Transit & Regional Transport Infrastructure
Transportation options from Carteret to Manhattan are limited and result in limited access and opportunities for
the growing residential population of the Borough and surrounding communities. The Borough has seen a 22%
increase in population since the year 2000 and is home to 25,326 residents as of the 2020 Census. Outside of
the Borough, Middlesex County has experienced a population growth of over 14% since 2000, putting a
significant stress on public infrastructure (US Census Bureau, 2022). Despite the rapid growth in population
and with more residents commuting to New York City, transportation infrastructure has struggled to keep pace:
o The New Jersey Turnpike operates at, or above, capacity during peak periods. Travel times are, therefore,
unpredictable. Delays, both for those on buses and in cars, are common leading to increased cost in terms
of time and money. From the Turnpike, access to the Manhattan central business district (CBD) is provided
via the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels Both facilities operate at chronically congested levels at 4,100 and
3,100 vehicles per hour per facility, respectively, according to PANYNJ’s 2016 Trans-Hudson Commuting
Capacity Study. While more recent vehicle per hour information is not available to gauge current
congestion levels in light of the pandemic, PANJNY publishes monthly and annual bridge and tunnel traffic
counts (https://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/en/traffic---volume-information---b-t.html). These counts
were used to verify the extent to which pandemic-era shifts in commuting modes may have shifted in the
intervening years.
o Annual counts from 2016 (same year as the quoted study) for the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels
were 19,210,919 and 15,365,361, respectively.
o 2020 counts, during the peak of the pandemic dropped to 13,682,655 at the Lincoln and
11,439,118 at the Holland Tunnels.
o As of 2022, traffic had rebounded to 19,687,888 and 14,708,991 for the Lincoln and Holland
respectively. This equates to a 3% increase at the Lincoln and 5% decrease at the Holland
compared to 2016. Based on these figures, we do not anticipate that the peak hour congestion
levels of either facility have significantly changed as a result of any lasting effects of the pandemic
and therefore estimate that peak hour congestion levels are more or less consistent with the
figures in the 2016 Trans-Hudson Community Capacity Study.
o There are two New Jersey Transit bus routes to Manhattan that serve the Borough of Carteret:
o The No. 116 route to the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Midtown Manhattan is scheduled for 40
minutes at peak, but is subject to traffic congestion. Carteret customers are last to board before
the bus reaches the New Jersey Turnpike. Public input for the CFT project gathered in 2016 noted
that buses can be fully loaded before reaching Carteret. This bus uses the NJ-495 Express Bus
Lane (XBL) between the Turnpike and the Lincoln Tunnel. The XBL carries 700 buses and 35,000
passengers per hour and has been operating at full capacity for decades.
o The No. 48 route connects to NJ Transit Rail at Rahway; travel time from Carteret to Manhattan via
this combined route is 1 hour 5 minutes plus transfer time. The rail service uses the North
(Hudson) River Tunnels, which carry 26 trains and 23,000 passengers per hour and have been
operating at full capacity since 1996 when the Kearny Connection, also known as the Morris and
Essex Midtown Direct Service, absorbed any existing extra capacity when it began running to New
York Penn Station.
o There is no direct rail access to or from the Borough of Carteret. The closest rail service is in Rahway and
also in Woodbridge, approximately 4 miles from central Carteret. This train station is of minimal service to
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 1: Purpose and Need 1-4
Carteret residents: the 500 available parking spaces are under a permit system administered by
Woodbridge Township and fill early leaving no capacity to serve additional commuters reaching the station
by car.
Taking advantage of municipally-owned waterfront property and understanding the need for new water-based
mass transit to New York City, the Borough has identified commuter ferry service to Manhattan as a viable
option to meet this need.
Ridership projections for the proposed ferry service are further detailed in Section 2: Project Alternatives.
1.3.2. Existing Manhattan-Bound Transportation Network and Modal Split
The Carteret Ferry Feasibility Study Concept Development Report, prepared by Weinberger & Associates and
Nelson Nygaard, dated December 2017 (Appendix 1-2), as well as the Proposed Carteret Passenger Ferry
Expanded Ridership Demand Study, dated October 2018, prepared by Rutgers University (Appendix 1-4) were
reports prepared by consultants to analyze feasibility and ridership patterns for the proposed ferry service.
Related to project need, the Nelson-Nygaard report assessed existing transportation mode choices for Carteret
residents, while the Rutgers University study expanded the scope of projected ridership to the greater market
area that would be influenced by the presence of new ferry service in Carteret.
Travel Patterns and Mode Split
As stated in the report, the 2006-2010 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) estimated total daily
weekday commute market for Carteret-Manhattan was 812 trips, adjusted to 858 trips based on 2015
population estimates. This market is further split 489 trips to Midtown Manhattan and 369 trips to Lower
Manhattan. Altogether, these commuters represented 7.4% of the commute trips originating in Carteret. The
remaining 92.6% of commute trips originating in Carteret travel to destinations other than Manhattan.
Mode share distribution between Carteret-Manhattan, and further divided into Carteret-Midtown and Carteret-
Lower Manhattan trips are shown below in Figures 1-2 through 1-4. NJTransit’s Route 116 bus from Carteret
to the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan is used in 55% of Carteret-Manhattan trips. Of those trips, it is
more frequently used in trips to Midtown (60%) than to trips to Lower Manhattan (44%). Drive-alone is the
second most commonly used mode, with a mode share of 26%.
Commuter rail is most used in trips to Lower Manhattan, with 23% of the mode share, compared with 9% of
trips to Midtown. Subway service receives a small share of commute trips to Manhattan, 8% of trips to Lower
Manhattan and 4% of trips to Midtown. (It is noted that no subway service exists in Carteret. It is assumed that
these commuters are driving to Journal Square PATH station in Jersey City, where off-street parking is
provided, and taking PATH service to Manhattan. This could also represent estimation errors in the CTPP).
Taxi and carpooling modes represent 4% and 2% of mode share, respectively. Refer to Appendix A of the
2016 Nelson-Nygaard report (Appendix 1-3) for a detailed table with Origin-Destination pairs at the Census
Tract level and transportation modes.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 1: Purpose and Need 1-5
Figure 1-2: Transporation mode share of commuters: Carteret, NJ to Manhattan
(Nelson Nygaard)
Figure 1-3: Tranpsoration mode share of commuters: Carteret, NJ to Midtown Manhattan
(Nelson Nygaard)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 1: Purpose and Need 1-6
Figure 1-4: Transportation mode share of commuters: Carteret, NJ to Lower Manhattan
(Nelson Nygaard)
Travel Times and Costs
There are several transportation alternatives available for travel from Carteret to Midtown and Lower
Manhattan, including driving alone, bus, and rail. The following sections describe in-vehicle times and travel
costs by mode under existing conditions. In-vehicle times are used in place of travel times because they
correspond to scheduled transit departures and arrivals or, in the case of private vehicle travel, travel times to
reach the driver's destination before any search for parking begins. This approach assumes that actual door-to-
door travel times of commuter trips will be longer than in-vehicle times due to additional walking and any other
additional access and egress travel required to reach the traveler's final destination
• Bus: The current bus service to destinations in either Midtown or Lower Manhattan is NJTransit’s
Route 116 which provides express service from Carteret to the Port Authority Bus Terminal. Typical
AM and PM travel times are 40 and 41 minutes, respectively; however, actual travel time is dependent
on traffic delays. Additionally, since Carteret is the final stop on the route, the buses are frequently full
by the time they reach Carteret.
• Rail: There are several opportunities to travel by rail as the main mode, but because Carteret does not
have a rail station, an initial trip to reach the closest station is needed. Rail commuters begin by
traveling to a NJ Transit station (Rahway and Woodbridge are the closest options). From there,
Midtown-bound commuters may take trains on either the Northeast Corridor or North Jersey Coast
Lines to NY Penn Station, with an in-vehicle time of 43 minutes to New York Penn Station. Rahway
station has a Park & Ride facility, with a $5 daily fee allowing Carteret residents to drive and park at the
station. Rahway station is also accessible by a local NJ Transit bus (Route 48), with a fee of $2.55 and
a travel time of 12 minutes. At a driving distance of about 4 miles from central Carteret, Woodbridge
station is closer to Carteret than Rahway station. However, Woodbridge station is of minimal service to
Carteret residents as the 500 available parking spaces are under a permit system administered by
Woodbridge Township and often fill early. Rail commuters to Lower Manhattan would make a similar
journey from Rahway to NY Penn Station on NJ Transit commuter rail service. As with the Midtown bus
alternative, a transfer to MTA bus or subway service is required to access Lower Manhattan
destinations. An alternative rail option is a combination between private vehicle and PATH, driving from
Carteret NJ to Journal Square, and transferring to PATH to get to World Trade Center, with an in-
vehicle time of 46 minutes and $26 of travel expenses. Lower Manhattan-bound commuters may also
take NJ Transit commuter rail from Rahway to Newark Penn Station then transfer to PATH service at
Newark Penn Station to World Trade Center (2 transfers, 47-minute in-vehicle time).
• Private Vehicle: Travel times to Midtown Manhattan by private vehicle average 67 minutes during the
AM peak. Lower Manhattan travel times average 62 minutes. It should be noted that private vehicle
travel incurs the additional expenses of tolls and parking fees, which can potentially be reduced by
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 1: Purpose and Need 1-7
ridesharing. Additionally, in June 2023, the Federal Highway Administration approved the MTA’s
Manhattan Central Business District Tolling Program, commonly known as congestion pricing. Under
this plan, passenger vehicles could face additional tolls of up to $23 per day, further discouraging
private vehicle use for commuting. The Program Is anticipated to be launched as soon as May 2024 to
vehicles entering or remaining in the zone below 60th Street. (council.nyc.gov)
Existing in-vehicle travel times for various modes to Midtown and Lower Manhattan from Carteret, as compiled
in the Nelson-Nygaard report are summarized below in Table 1-2 and Table 1-3, respectively.
Mode In-vehicle time
(mins)
Transit Fare
or IRS Mileage
Reimbursement
Tolls, Parking
Expenses
Total One-Way
Travel Costs
Drive Alone 67 IRS mileage: $17.80 Parking: $15.00
Toll: $17.10
$49.90
Carpooling 67 IRS mileage: $8.90 Parking: $7.50
Tolls: $8.55
$24.95
Bus 40 Route 116: $8.00
MTA: $2.75
N/A $10.75
Rail (Drive, Rail) 42 Rail, Rahway-NY
Penn Station: $9.25
IRS mileage: $2.65
Park & Ride
(Rahway): $5.00
$16.90
Rail (Bus, Rail) 54 Route 48 bus: $1.60
Rail, Rahway-NY
Penn Station: $11.25
N/A $11.85
Table 1-2: AM Peak One-Way In-Vehicle Times and Expenses from Carteret to Midtown Manhattan (Existing
Modes) (Nelson Nygaard)
Mode In-vehicle time
(mins)
Transit Fare
or IRS Mileage
Reimbursement
Tolls, Parking
Expenses
Total One-Way
Travel Costs
Drive Alone 62 IRS mileage: $16.50 Parking: $25.00
Toll: $16.90
$58.40
Carpooling 62 IRS mileage: $8.25 Parking: $12.50
Tolls; $8.45
$29.20
Bus 54 Route 116: $8.00
MTA: $2.75
N/A $10.75
Rail (Drive, Rail,
MTA Subway)
55 Rail, Newark-NY
Penn Station: $5.00
MTA: $2.75
IRS mileage: $2.65
Park & Ride
(Rahway): $5.00
$15.40
Rail (Bus, Rail.
MTA Subway)
55 Route 48 bus: $2.55
Rail, Newark-NY
Penn Station: $5.00
MTA: $2.75
N/A $10.30
Subway (Drive,
PANYNJ PATH)
46 PATH: $2.75
IRS mileage: $11.25
Journal Square
parking: $11.00
Toll: $3.00
$25.25
Table 1-3: AM Peak One-Way In-Vehicle Times and Expenses from Carteret to Lower Manhattan (Existing
Modes) (Nelson Nygaard). Note: IRS mileage rates have been adjusted to reflect the 2023 rate of 65.5 cents
per mile.
1.4. Goals and Objectives
Goals identified for ferry service operating between Carteret and Manhattan are as follows:
o To transform an area of environmental degradation (existing vacant industrial Brownfield site) into a
catalyst for economic development;
o To provide reliable and more environmentally-friendly transportation service to New York City;
o To reduce congestion on the New Jersey Turnpike and roads leading from the Turnpike into the Holland
and Lincoln Tunnels;
o To accommodate Borough of Carteret’s continued population growth;
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 1: Purpose and Need 1-8
o To reduce reliance on the automobile in a densely populated area well-suited to the development of
additional public transit services;
o To provide redundant transportation service in instances of an emergency or catastrophic event; and,
o To provide a new transportation mode that can become quickly operational without high capital cost and
long construction timelines.
In addition to the above-stated transportation and development goals, the project will be carried out in a manner
which will minimize and mitigate any environmental, social, or natural resource impacts identified in this report as
a result of the implementation of ferry service or the construction of the required support terminal facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 2: Project Alternatives 2-1
2. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
2.1. Introduction
The general objectives of the Carteret Ferry Terminal project are to provide fast, reliable, and environmentally-friendly
transportation service between Carteret and New York City; to provide redundant transportation service in the event of
an emergency; and to transform the Carteret waterfront area from one of neglect into a catalyst for transit-oriented
economic development.
2.2. Alternatives Evaluation and Screening
2.2.1. Tier 1 Screening Analysis
An initial screening analysis of alternatives for commuting between Carteret and Manhattan was conducted by
Nelson-Nygaard to identify a short list of options that best satisfy the study’s goals and objectives, as outlined in
Section 1.4 of their 2016 study (Appendix 1-3). The alternatives evaluated were based on options outlined in
an initial screening of a longer list of alternatives, including:
• Ferry Service: Carteret – Manhattan
• Express Bus Service: Direct to Port Authority Bus Terminal
• Express Bus Service: Direct to Lower Manhattan
• Express Bus Service: Transfer to Liberty Landing ferry (Jersey City) for service to Manhattan
• Express Bus Service: Transfer to PATH (Jersey City)
• Express Bus Service: Transfers to Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and PATH
• Rail Service: Commuter or light rail connecting Carteret to existing NJ Transit rail network at Rahway
Station
• No Build
Each alternative was evaluated according to evaluative criteria of travel time, reliability, capital cost,
constructability/operability within a three year timeframe, and user experience. The initial screening included a
conceptual level evaluation that analyzed the projected desirability and negative impacts of the alternatives.
The initial screening evaluation criteria were qualitative seeking to eliminate alternatives that were not readily
feasible or did not, prima facie, meet study goals. Findings of the analysis are provided in Figure 2-1, below.
Figure 2-1: Summary of Alternatives Evaluation – Initial Screening (Nelson Nygaard)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 2: Project Alternatives 2-2
As a result of the evaluation, it was determined that the following alternatives should not be pursued further:
Express Bus (Transfer to Liberty Landing Ferry)
• Recurring congestion on the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95) and I-78 negatively impacts travel time
reliability compared to alternatives like rail, which travel in a dedicated right of way, or ferry, which
does not encounter significant congestion on the water.
• Transfer from the Express Bus to the ferry takes an average of 15 minutes in the morning peak
period, which negatively impacts user experience.
Express Bus (Transfer to PATH)
• Recurring congestion on the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95) and I-78 negatively impacts travel time
reliability compared to alternatives like rail, which travel in a dedicated right of way, or ferry, which
doesn't encounter congestion.
• Although transfer from the Express Bus to PATH train only takes a few minutes, this additional
step negatively impacts travel time the user experience compared to one- seat rides.
Express Bus (Transfers to Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and PATH)
• This alternative encounters recurring congestion on the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95) and I-78,
which negatively impacts travel time reliability compared to modes using dedicated right of way.
• The user experience is significantly diminished by an average of 20 minutes spent on two
transfers: first, from the Express Bus to the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and second, to PATH.
Rail
• Construction and operation of the Rail alternative within a three-year timeframe is not feasible due
to planning, cost, and potential right-of-way acquisition.
• No additional capacity exists for trans-Hudson rail service due to constraints at Penn Station until
the Gateway Project is completed.
The initial screen thereby narrowed the range of alternatives considered for the more detailed evaluation
presented here.
2.2.2. Tier 2 Screening Analysis
The 2016 Nelson Nygaard Tier 2 Feasibility Study (Appendix 1-3) performed an exhaustive evaluation of
shortlisted alternate transportation modes. Consistent with the Local Concept Development Process outlined
by NJDOT and NJTPA, a Preferred Preliminary Alternative was ultimately selected from the report with a
summarization of the analysis presented herein.
The following list presents the alternatives recommended for further analysis, based on the initial analysis and
confirmed through a public open house conducted in June 2016 as well as through coordination with NJDOT.
• Ferry Alternative 1: Carteret – World Financial Center
• Ferry Alternative 2: Carteret – Midtown West (W. 39nd St)
• Ferry Alternative 3: Carteret – Wall Street
• Ferry Alternative 4: Carteret – Midtown East (E. 35th St)
• Express Bus Service Alternative 1: Carteret to Port Authority Bus Terminal
• Express Bus Service Alternative 2: Catered to Lower Manhattan
• No-Build Alternative: No new transportation infrastructure would be necessary for commuting between
Carteret and Manhattan. Only existing transportation facilities were included in this alternative.
These remaining alternatives were evaluated against a series of performance indicators intended to establish
the transportation benefits of each alternative and identify a Preliminary Preferred Alternative (PPA).
Alternatives were assessed based upon multiple evaluation factors as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 2: Project Alternatives 2-3
• Travel time reliability
Methodology: Reliability of each travel mode expressed as a probability that any given trip will
be delayed. Average reliability factors between modes were compared to rank them.
• Annual round-trip ridership
Methodology: Using modified parameters from the NJRTME travel demand forecasting tool, a
travel demand model was developed to estimate annual ridership for the alternative
transportation options and to forecast the annual ridership in future demographic scenarios.
The model employed the first three steps: Trip generation, Trip Distribution, and Modal Split.
The model was calibrated to replicate the most recent commute data between Carteret and
Manhattan.
• Total cost efficiency (open year and 25-year)
Methodology: Operating costs include the costs derived from operating and maintaining the
systems such as expenditures for fuel, labor, and maintenance which vary depending on the
type of vehicle/vessel and the service frequency. Cost estimates were used to illustrate the
ridership necessary for each service alternative to achieve a given cost recovery ratio and,
therefore, the extent to which each alternative may be feasible to operate with varying levels of
public subsidy. In addition, they were divided by passenger trip forecasts in the opening year to
reach cost efficiency estimates per passenger trip and per passenger mile.
• Constructability/Operability
Methodology: Constructability and operability evaluations of the proposed alternatives consists
of a qualitative review of the feasibility of building and operating the alternatives within a 3-year
timeline.
• User Experience
Methodology: User experience evaluations consist of a qualitative review of the ease of
commute, including number of transfers and comfort of travel.
• Environment
Methodology:
• Evaluation included a quantitative assessment of annual roadway vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) for the two (2) bus alternatives only as ferry routes do not utilize
roadways. VMT is based on roadway travel and is normalized by rider to account for
varying passenger loads by mode.
• Emissions of air quality pollutants are calculated by multiplying the total fuel
consumption multiplied by the estimated emission rates by vehicle type. Emissions
factors for bus and ferry alternatives for the air pollutants NOx, PM2.5 PM10, CO and
CO2 were assessed. Ferries and buses were assumed to use ultra-low sulfur diesel
fuel appropriate for each vessel/vehicle.
• Economic development
Methodology:
• Access to jobs was evaluated by dividing the total number of jobs located within one
half-mile of each origin and destination point and dividing these totals by the travel
time of each alternative. A radius of one half-mile was used as a proxy for a 10-minute
walk, generally considered the maximum distance most travelers will walk to their
destinations before seeking additional transportation alternatives. Employment data for
both 2015 and the 2040 forecast year were available from NYMTC at the Traffic
Analysis Zone (TAZ) scale.
• An assessment of benefits to economic development consisted of a qualitative
assessment of each mode’s ability to support Carteret’s economic development
strategies.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 2: Project Alternatives 2-4
• Access to housing
Methodology: Access to housing was evaluated by dividing the total number of households
located within one-half mile of each origin and destination point and dividing these totals by the
travel time of each alternative. A radius of one-half mile was used as a proxy for a 10-minute
walk, generally considered the maximum distance most travelers will walk to their destinations
before seeking transportation alternatives. Housing data was taken from NYMTC SED 2050
forecasts, which forecast the number of households in both 2015 and2040 at the scale of
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs)
• Access to services
Methodology: Access to services was a qualitative review of access to new locations, primarily
as compared to the No-Build Alternative. Services under consideration included a wide range
of discretionary trip destinations, such as food, retail, entertainment, tourism, medical,
educational, and civic destinations.
For each factor, the existing conditions were evaluated followed by an assessment of each of the six
alternatives on that factor/criterion. The alternatives were ranked against each other based on the expected
performance for the given criterion. The Nelson Nygaard report ranked the best performing alternative as 1
(one) and the worst performing as 7 (seven). Results of the assessment undertaken in the Nelson Nygaard
report are presented below in Table 2-1.
Alternative Reliability Travel
Demand
Total Cost
Efficiency
Construct./
Operability
User
Experience
Annual
Roadway
VMT per
Rider
Air
Emissions
Access to
Jobs
Economic
Developme
nt
Access to
Housing
Access to
Services
Ferry #1: Carteret –
World Financial
Center
1 5 5 4 2 1 6 3 1 4 1
Ferry #2: Carteret –
Midtown West (W
39th St)
1 2 3 4 3 1 4 5 1 2 4
Ferry #3: Carteret –
Wall Street 1 3 4 4 1 1 5 1 1 5 3
Ferry #4: Carteret –
Midtown East (E.
35th St.)
1 6 6 4 4 1 7 4 1 1 2
Express Bus (Direct
to PABT)5 1 1 2 5 6 2 6 6 6 6
Express Bus (Direct
to Lower
Manhattan)
6 4 2 3 6 7 3 2 5 3 5
No Build 7 N/A N/A 1 7 5 1 7 7 7 7
Table 2-1: Combined Ranking of Alternatives Evaluated (1 = Best, 7 = Worst) (Nelson Nygaard)
Using the combined and average rankings of each alternative evaluated, the PPA was determined to be either
Ferry Alternative #3, between Carteret and Wall Street or Ferry Alternative #2 between Carteret and Midtown
West which both scored within one point of each other (combined scores of 29 and 30 points, respectively;
average scores of 2.6 and 2.7, respectively).
Ferry Alternative #3 scored well on forecasted rider demand. It provided the greatest access to jobs, and had
the best user experience of the alternatives reviewed. While Ferry Alternative #2 has higher forecast ridership
and better cost efficiency, this alternative's Midtown West destination is less proximate to major employment,
transit, and services destinations. Ferry Alternative #3's Wall Street terminus, with close access to one of the
City's largest employment centers, gives the alternative higher rankings in access to jobs and intermodal
transfers.
Ferry Alternative #1, between Carteret and the World Financial Center, scored just below the top two ranked
alternatives (33 points; 3.0 average). Therefore, any of Ferry Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would rank high enough to
be considered acceptable PPA's.
Ferry Alternative #4, between Carteret and Midtown East ranks as the lowest ferry alternative, though higher
than the bus and No-Build alternatives.
Bus alternatives generally performed poorly across many of the performance metrics and below all of the ferry
alternatives, ranking low in reliability, annual roadway vehicle miles travelled (VMT), user experience, and
potential for economic development. These poor rankings offset the advantages bus alternatives showed with
respect to air emissions, cost efficiency, ridership, and constructability.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 2: Project Alternatives 2-5
The No-Build Alternative ranked poorly across all but two of the metrics evaluated, air emissions and
constructability, and therefore it is the least-preferred of the alternatives reviewed in this report.
When comparing the results of the alternatives analysis to the project's goals, the PPA's further supported the
overall purpose better than the bus or No-Build alternatives. The preferred ferry alternatives offer the following
opportunities to directly supporting the project's goals.
• Transportation Efficiency:
Any of the three PPA's would provide more reliable travel times to New York City than cars or
buses on the existing roadway network (or the existing rail system), which are already
operating at capacity during the peak periods.
By accommodating unmet travel demand on waterways, which have available travel capacity,
any of the three PPA's would help accommodate the growing travel demand between New
Jersey and New York City, while mitigating projected, worsening congestion on the New Jersey
Turnpike and roads leading from the Turnpike into the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels.
• Environment:
As they would not be dependent on the existing road or rail system, any of the three PPA's
would offer Carteret residents (plus the wider region) a redundant transportation service that
could provide access to Manhattan during instances of an emergency or catastrophic event.
• Economy:
The PPA's would accommodate Carteret's anticipated continued population growth, and
support its economic development goals by enhancing access for residents to jobs and
services in New York City.
The PPA's would also help catalyze development within Carteret at the proposed ferry terminal
site.
• Community:
By providing a reasonable alternative to driving, the three PPA's would help to reduce reliance
on the automobile in a densely populated, waterfront area well-suited to the development of
robust public transit service.
After a complete evaluation of the four (4) ferry alternatives, two (2) bus alternatives, and the No-Build
Alternative, three (3) ferry alternatives (between Carteret and World Financial Center, W. 39th Street, and Wall
Street) were deemed to best meet the project's goals and were recommended for advancement to engineering
and design.
Based on the PPA’s developed in the Nelson Nygaard report, anticipated destinations will include the World
Financial Center, W. 39th Street, and Wall Street. Service will be provided via two (2) 149-passenger ferries
purchased by the Borough and home-ported at the CFT. Service is anticipated to include approximately two to
four AM round trips and two to four PM round trips. The Borough reserves the right to alter destinations, and
service frequency, as it deems necessary to adjust and adapt to changing market and economic conditions.
2.2.3. Carteret Ferry Terminal Facilities
To support the PPA ferry routes identified in the project alternatives analysis, certain waterside and landside
facilities are required to support a Carteret-based ferry operation. The CFT is proposed to be constructed on
currently vacant, Borough-owned property along the Arthur Kill waterfront on Block 304, Lot 2.02. Access to the
site will be gained via the existing Waterfront Access Road from Industrial Highway. The site will provide
parking for approximately 700 commuter vehicles.
The terminal will have a footprint of approximately 12,500 square feet per floor and incorporate an information
display system to effectively communicate basic information about using the ferry system, specifically about
ferry fares, schedules, policies, maps, and connecting transit information; tips related to courtesy and security;
marketing to encourage more frequent use of ferry; and other important messages. The architectural design of
the terminal will be fully ADA accessible and include, but not be limited to:
• Commuter concourse, including conditioned indoor and outdoor waiting areas,
• Ticketing services and automated fare collection system;
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 2: Project Alternatives 2-6
• Intermodal bus and jitney station;
• Bicycle storage;
• Public and staff restrooms;
• Commuter food and beverage services;
• Commuter convenience and newsstand retail space;
• Environmental interpretive spaces;
• Event space and education space;
• Ferry administration offices; and,
• Security office and custodial space.
While convenience, comfort, and attractiveness will be considered in the programming for the facility, the
design of the terminal will assure that the goals of safety, durability, and economy are achieved. The facility will
employ standardized materials that are fabricated in such a manner to resist vandalism and provide for ease of
maintenance, cleaning, and repair or replacement.
Waterside facilities will include floating docks for two (2) 80-foot ferries, floating wave attenuators, and
gangways. Approximately 18,000 cubic yards of sediment for the ferry slips was dredged in December 2022
under a contract awarded by the New Jersey Department of Transportation.
2.2.4. Ferry Administration and Operations
Upon completion of upland and in-water work, the CFT will be administered by the Borough of Carteret
Municipal Port Authority, a governmental entity established in 2003 to promote the health, safety, and welfare
of the Borough’s residents through the advancement of uniform and consistent regulations of the development
and operation of the Borough’s maritime facilities. The Authority includes five (5) members appointed by the
Mayor and Borough Council. The Authority has been granted powers by the Borough Council in its founding
charter, including the powers to grant franchises or leases, execute contracts, enforce management
regulations, acquire, purchase and operate projects to advance the purposes of the Authority.
Under the oversight of the Authority, a fair and open competitive bidding process is anticipated to be let seeking
an experienced ferry operator that will handle day-to-day operations of the CFT. The lease will include the ferry
contractor’s use of two (2) Borough-owned 149-passenger ferry boats. These contractors will be responsible
for all ongoing maintenance, repairs, upgrades, safety inspections, and required certifications. The contractor
will be provided space within the ferry terminal facility for ticketing and support operations. All ferry
maintenance, fueling, and repairs would take place off-site at locations to be determined and provided by the
contractor. Captains, crews, and administrative and maintenance personnel are anticipated to be provided by
the ferry contractor rather than Borough or Municipal Port Authority employees. The details of such a contract
have not been finalized by the Municipal Port Authority or the Borough as of the preparation of this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-1
3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
This section will focus on environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of the CFT, including in-
water and landside improvements.
3.1. Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy
This section reviews the impacts that the proposed CFT may have on the land use, policy, socio-economic, and
environmental conditions of the Borough of Carteret. The impacts are reviewed and compared to a baseline condition
of a “No Build Alternative” in which no ferry service is implemented. Specific or varying ferry destinations in and around
Manhattan are not considered in this Section’s analysis as they are not anticipated to vary the intensity of any impacts.
For the purposes of this review, a ¼-mile radius around the Study Area (Figure 3.1-1, following page) has been
evaluated to determine the potential impacts that the Build Alternative on the waterfront in Carteret might have on the
surrounding community and natural environment. The entirety of the Study Area is located within the Borough of
Carteret.
The property on which the CFT is proposed is Block 304, Lots 2.01 and 2.02. This parcel is currently vacant, with Lot
2.02 owned by the Borough, and Lot 2.01 under contract to be purchased by the Borough. This property is set as the
center of the Study Area. As the land on which the facility is to be built is already owned by the Borough, there will be no
impacts to land use, zoning, or public policy resulting from a real estate transaction.
3.1.1. Affected Environment
3.1.1.1. Land Use
Within one-quarter mile of the proposed location of the CFT, the current land use patterns are primarily
industrial, with much of the Carteret waterfront historically being an industrial area. Most of the land to
the east of Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway is made up of warehouses, distribution centers, and similar
light industrial logistics facilities. These industrial facilities are generally on larger parcels of 10 acres or
greater.
To the immediate south of the Study Area is a public marina, park, and NJ State Police Marine
Services Bureau barracks. A parking lot that is accessible from Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway
provides public parking for the park.
Immediately north of the Study Area is a large property that is mostly currently vacant and cleared. This
30+ acre property was formerly used as agricultural chemical manufacturing facility, but has been
remediated and will be acquired by the Borough as part of an existing agreement with the former
industrial operator. This area is currently subject to a redevelopment plan (Chrome Waterfront
Redevelopment Plan) that calls for many new uses on the site, including a waterfront park and
boardwalk, as well as a movie production studios. It is anticipated that any such developments would
be initiated following the construction of the CFT, and that construction impacts on future
redevelopment would not be applicable.
The industrial areas of the waterfront, and the Study Area, are generally separated from the rest of the
Borough of Carteret by Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway. To the west of the Study Area across the Sica
Industrial Highway is a large multi-family residential community, and further west is the Chrome
neighborhood of the Borough.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-2
Figure 3-1: Zoning Study Area Map
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-3
This consists of small-scale residential uses and commercial uses primarily on lots of approximately
one-quarter acre or less. There are several public uses in the neighborhood, including a school, post
office, and emergency services facilities.
East of the Study Area is the Arthur Kill, and the Borough of Staten Island in New York City across the
water. Within Staten Island, the former Fresh Kills landfill is directly across the river from the Study
Area, just over one-quarter mile from the Study Area site.
3.1.1.2. Zoning
All subdivision and land development within the Borough of Carteret is regulated by the Borough’s
Land Development and Zoning Ordinance, Section 160 of the municipal code. No subdivision of land is
necessary as the property in question is already owned by the Borough.
The Borough’s Zoning Ordinance was studied to determine the underlying zone of the property.
Council ordinances were reviewed to determine the presence of any redevelopment zone overlays
which may affect the property. Due diligence into zoning review also including direct consultation with
the Borough’s Planner, Beacon Planning and Consulting Services, LLC, who has prepared
amendments to the proceeding redevelopment plan in effect at the subject property.
The Study Area lies within Carteret’s Chrome Waterfront Redevelopment Area, and with underlying
zoning of the “Heavy Industry – B District” (HI-B Zone). This district permits a wide range of light
industrial facilities, storage uses, and manufacturing uses, while prohibiting gas production, junkyards,
and the manufacture of explosive materials. While transportation facility uses are not explicitly
captioned as a permitted use in the HI-B Zone, the Chrome Waterfront Redevelopment, which overlays
and supersedes the restrictions of the HI-B zoning, specifically recommends the site for ferry service
use, and is further discussed in Section 3.1.1.3. Marine bulkheads, piers, and docks and off-street
parking loading areas are permitted accessory uses in the HI-B zone.
The majority of the Carteret Waterfront is within the “Heavy Industry – B” zoning district. Properties to
the west of Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway are located in the “RM Multi-family” zoning district, and
further west of Roosevelt Avenue is the “R-25 High Density Residential” district and the “NC
Neighborhood Commercial” district, respectively. The “MF multi-family” district permits garden
apartments, as well as townhouses and single-family homes. The R-25 High Density Residential
district permits single family homes on lots of at least 5,000 square feet. The NC Neighborhood
Commercial district permits a range of small-scale retail and service businesses such as professional
offices, restaurants, and general shops. The Borough’s zoning map is presented in Figure 3.1-2 on the
following pages.
The CFT project will include a surface parking lot, terminal building, and waterside facilities to support
ferry operations. These improvements are consistent with the nature of existing industrial development
in the area and do not represent a more intense use when compared to adjacent industrial uses, all of
which require expansive impervious areas for truck and trailer parking, large warehouses, as well as
industrial areas directly north of the site which maintain industrial docking facilities along the Arthur Kill.
The construction of the CFT would not require the closure or
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-4
Figure 3-1.2: Borough Zoning Map
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-5
alteration of any of the existing industrial facilities operating within the Study Area. The property on
which the CFT is proposed is uniquely suitable for the development of the project with respect to
commuter access, waterfront access, and landside area to accommodate parking and terminal
facilities.
As further detailed in Sections 3.12 (Noise and Vibration Impacts) and 4.2 (Short Term Construction
Impacts), noise and vibration associated with the construction and operation of the CFT will be minor in
nature and not alter community character.
3.1.1.3. Redevelopment and Public Policy Plans
The Chrome Waterfront Redevelopment Plan, prepared by Schoor-DePalma, Inc., which governs land
use within the designated Redevelopment Area was initially adopted by Borough Council in 2003,
representing a decade’s long effort to transform this former industrial area, was last amended in 2022
(refer to Appendix 3.1-1). The primary aim of the Redevelopment Plan is to transform this former
industrial area into a mixed-use community asset that will include a waterfront park, hotel, film studio
and stages, multi-family residential projects, restaurants, a boardwalk, and the Ferry. The goals and
objectives of the Redevelopment Plan include the following:
A. The development of a mixture of residential uses, supportive neighborhood retail services,
and recreational opportunities that will add needed taxable improvements to the Borough’s
ratable base and advance the revitalization of the Chrome section of Carteret without
adding significantly to the cost of Borough services;
B. The remediation of brownfield sites;
C. The enhancement of economic development opportunities that can support existing
businesses with new customers residing within walking distance of Lower Roosevelt
Avenue; and,
D. The creation of a water-based commuter village with convenient ferry service to Manhattan
and a variety of new waterfront recreational uses.
The Redevelopment Plan permits a range of business uses including offices, research laboratories,
storage facilities, and similar facilities within the Area. Specifically, on the property that makes up the
Study Area, the redevelopment plan currently calls for a ferry terminal building and a surface parking
lot to serve the facility. As the proposed CFT is explicitly mentioned in the Chrome Waterfront
Redevelopment Plan (under item (D), above, it is consistent with permitted uses in the zone. As the
project fits within the criteria of the Redevelopment Plan, no re-zoning will be required.
A conceptual redevelopment plan of the site is presented in Figure 3.1-2 on the following page. This
plan identifies proposed improvements on the adjacent property directly north and east of the CFT
within the Study Area. Long-term improvements include a hotel, residential mid-rise and high-rise
redevelopments, and a multi-story film production study. The film studio redevelopment project is
located on Block 304, Lot 2.01 and received Preliminary approval from the Borough Planning Board in
2022. This development will not have an adverse impact on the CFT project and is anticipated to result
in increased demand for the ferry service which would otherwise have been met by existing surface
transportation modes. Future developments would be reviewed by the Borough’s Planning and Zoning
Boards with consideration
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-6
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-7
given to the positive and negative impacts to the CFT. All of the future improvements shown in Figure
3.1.3 further the goals of the Chrome Waterfront Redevelopment Plan, specifically by providing a
mixture of uses, remediating a former brownfield site, enhancing economic development opportunities
and creating a water-based commuter village.
To support the proposed CFT project as well as future mixed use improvements in and around the
redevelopment of the former DuPont property, the Borough is in the process of providing transportation
infrastructure improvements leading to the site. As of Spring 2023, the Borough is undertaking a
widening of the existing access road between Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway and the Waterfront Park
Access Road (a/k/a Andrew Baumgartner Memorial Boulevard). This will include the signalization of
the intersection of Industrial Highway and the Waterfront Park Access Road. This project has been
submitted to the NJDOT and is funded in part by a Municipal Aid grant to the Borough. The widening
project will widen the road approximately eight (8) feet to the north to accommodate one lane of traffic
in each direction, parallel parking along the westbound lane, shared bicycle lanes, and sidewalk. The
new signal at Industrial Highway will serve increased inbound and outbound CFT traffic and provide
protected turning movements for vehicles and crossing phases for pedestrians and cyclists accessing
the site.
The Borough of Carteret prepared a Municipal Public Access Plan (MPAP) in June of 2015. The MPAP
provides a guide for providing public access to the Borough’s waterfront. The plan notes that the
Borough’s waterfront along the Arthur Kill has historically been dominated by heavy industrial uses, and
points out the efforts the Borough has been undertaking to revitalize this waterfront as a community
asset. The expansion to the Waterfront and ferry service to New York is listed as one of the primary
ways that the Borough intends to enhance waterfront access for the community.
As a part of the community outreach for the MPAP, the public was surveyed to determine the types of
activities they would like to see along the Borough’s waterfront. Among the responses to the survey,
one of the top answers was to ‘construct a ferry terminal and marina’. An additional request was to
provide small retail and restaurant uses near the marina and ferry terminal to enhance the experience
and attract more visitors to the area. The Municipal Marina and CFT play a key part in connecting the
existing community in the Borough to the greater region of Northern New Jersey and New York City.
The development of the CFT has been subject to the standards contained within the NJDEP’s Coastal
Zone Management Program (N.J.A.C. 7:7) regarding the use and development of coastal resources,
including reviewing conformance with the Wetlands Act of 1970, N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq. (coastal
wetlands permits), and the Waterfront Development Law, N.J.S.A. 12:5-3 (waterfront development and
flood hazard permits). By extension, as the project includes work below the mean high water line,
review and approval consistent with the Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.
Code 403) and Section 404 of the Clean W ater Act (33 U.S. Code 1344) was conducted by the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
That being said, plans for the CFT, including in-water and upland improvements, have been found
consistent with applicable above-mentioned public policy instruments by the NJDEP Division of Land
Use and US Army Corps of Engineers, Sector New York.
Furthermore, the CFT project is specifically identified in several State-level transportation planning
documents including:
• The NJ Department of Transportation FY2022-2031 Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). The STIP identifies the CFT as a project which will provide mobility and
congestion relief by way of the proposed ferry service.
• The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA)’s Long Range Transporation
Plan 2050 also identifies the CFT amongst other transit expansion projects: “New ferry
services such as those under consideration in Bayonne in Hudson County, and Perth Amboy
and Carteret in Middlesex County are promising strategies for complementing and filling gaps
in the transit system.”
•
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-8
3.1.2. No Build Alternative
A No Build Alternative would have no impacts on current land uses in the area.
A ‘no-build’ or No Build Alternative would potentially have a negative impact on the proposed land uses and
policies for the Carteret waterfront area. The CFT is an essential component of the proposed redevelopment
of the Chrome Waterfront Redevelopment Area. Much of the proposed new residential development in the
area is planned around the concept of the ferry service being in place to provide convenient transportation to
regional destinations in the New York Metropolitan area, Keeping a ‘no build’ scenario would be inconsistent
with the Borough’s redevelopment planning, and overall land use plans and policies for future development.
3.1.3. Build Alternative
The ‘Build Alternative’ would be entirely consistent with many years of planning and policy initiatives in Carteret
that have called for ferry service to New York, and for the CFT on the waterfront as a central piece of a larger
redevelopment effort. The proposed project would provide a base for the ferry service in the same way that a
train station provides a central space and amenities for commuter train service and comfort. The project would
directly support the redevelopment efforts of the Chrome Waterfront Redevelopment Plan.
Potential negative impacts to the community may come from increased traffic to and from the area. What is
currently a vacant former industrial site that generates no traffic, would become a destination. While it is
anticipated that many users of the ferry service would be able to walk to the terminal from the new residences
that will be constructed, many will drive to the waterfront from adjacent communities. However, the Traffic
Impact Study discussed in Section 3.8 of this assessment details the projected traffic impacts, and concludes
that additional delays on the adjacent roadway networks will be minimal.
3.1.4. Mitigation
No adverse impacts on adjacent land uses are anticipated to come from the Build Alternative, therefore it is not
anticipated that any new land use policy analysis will be necessary to mitigate negative impacts that would
result from the construction of the CFT. The Borough has the funding that will support shuttle service to the
CFT to help mitigate any traffic impacts.
3.1.5. Conclusion
The proposed CFT project is a critical transit improvement project that is consistent and compatible with the
nature of existing uses present along the Carteret Waterfront in the Heavy Industrial – B District (HI-B) Zone.
While not a specifically permitted use of the underlying zone, the overlaying Chrome Waterfront
Redevelopment Zone adopted by the Borough Council specifically encourages the development of a commuter
ferry terminal and found the location to be suitable for such a facility.
As the redevelopment plan’s central focus is to develop a blighted brownfield area into a hub for economic
revitalization and provide a water-based commuter center, the proposed project will provide a transportation
improvement which will include a new commuting option for both existing and future residents of the
Waterfront, Borough, and region at large.
As the property in question is already owned by the Borough and currently vacant, no additional real estate
acquisitions, subdivisions, or easements are necessary for the development of the project. The project has
previously received approvals from the NJDEP and US Army Corps of Engineers, and in doing so, has
demonstrated consistency with established public policy relative to transportation, land use, and coastal zone
management. Furthermore, the project is consistent with regional transportation planning studies, specifically
included in NJDOT’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and NJTPA’s Plan 2050 as a
project which will complement and fill gaps in the existing transportation system between New Jersey and New
York.
The project will have de minimis noise impacts related to the ferry operations; however, any impacts would not
be inconsistent with the existing noise impacts and character of the existing industrial uses in the Study Area
which will remain after implementation of ferry operations. Further discussion on Noise impacts are provided in
Section 3.12.
Construction and operation of the proposed ferry terminal is well-suited and compatible with the surrounding
land uses, which consist of Waterfront Park and Municipal Marina, trucking terminals, warehouses. Future
adjacent uses will include office, retail, and residential.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-9
3.2. Community Services
3.2.1. Affected Environment
The Borough of Carteret is served by a municipal Police Department and a joint Fire/EMS Department
consisting of a combination of paid and volunteer firefighters and EMTs. The Borough is also served by an
Office of Emergency Management (OEM) which is overseen by the Fire Department. The OEM is in a mutual
partnership with Police, Fire, EMS, and other Borough Departments and in coordination with federal, state,
county, and other local municipalities working to prepare for and respond to any man-made or natural hazard
that may jeopardize life and property.
The Borough employs a robust system of essential services that serves and responds to calls from the
Borough’s population of 25,326 residents as well as the New Jersey Turnpike (Interstate 95) that bisects the
Borough, and array of industrial uses, rail, marine, and petrochemical facilities.
Since 2013, the Borough’s Municipal Marina has also been home to the New Jersey State Police Marine
Services Bureau which patrols and responds to emergencies along the Arthur Kill, Raritan Bay, and Newark
Bay.
All of the essential community service facilities are located within one-half mile of the proposed CFT:
• Carteret Police Department 230 Roosevelt Avenue
• Carteret Fire Headquarters 240 Roosevelt Avenue
• Carteret OEM 183 Roosevelt Avenue
• NJ State Police Marine Barracks 135 Middlesex Avenue Rear
3.2.2. No Build Alternative
A no-build scenario would not have an impact on essential community services.
3.2.3. Build Alternative
The construction of the CFT is proposed on a vacant parcel of Borough owned-land and would not physically
displace any existing community facilities, including but not limited to Police, Fire, EMS, or OEM facilities.
It is anticipated that the CFT and associated daily commuter ferry services would result in an additional
population of commuters which could potentially require the services of police, fire and emergency services.
The Borough’s Police and Fire Chiefs and OEM coordinator were consulted to inform their departments of the
proposed project and gather input on whether existing staffing, service, and equipment capabilities would be
sufficient to accommodate the potential increase in call demand. All three representatives responded that their
current resources would be sufficient to handle additional needs, also noting that their physical locations in
relation to the proposed CFT would help ensure rapid response times in the event of emergencies. Responses
from Borough community services are provided in Appendix 3.2-1.
It is further noted that the Carteret Fire Department’s equipment roster includes a firefighting boat based at the
Municipal Marina to assist in responding to water-based fire emergencies and search and rescue operations.
3.2.4. Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be necessary to provide additional essential community services to respond to
emergencies associated with the construction of the CFT.
3.2.5. Conclusion
The Borough’s primary essential services (Police, Fire/EMS, and OEM) have been consulted with to review the
potential impacts of the CFT project. The representatives of each department have confirmed that the
additional commuter influx associated with ferry operations would not put excessive strain on existing
personnel or resources or degrade services to the existing community. All of the above-mentioned facilities are
located within one-half mile of the ferry terminal and would be able to rapidly respond to land-based and water-
based emergencies. Furthermore, the construction of the CFT would not physically displace any community
facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-10
3.3. Parks and Recreational Resources
The analysis of parks and recreation resources considers the effects of the proposed CFT on parks and open space
located within a one-quarter mile study area. It also considers whether the proposed CFT may have any effect on park
space protected under the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) Green Acres regulations
and listed in the state’s Recreation and Open Space Inventory (ROSI). Recreational Resources are presented in
Figure 3.3-1 on the following page.
3.3.1. Affected Environment
3.3.1.1. Existing Recreational Resources
A large public park is located within the study area in Carteret, adjacent to the project site. Known as
Waterfront Park, it is also home to the Carteret’s Municipal Marina, located along the western shore of
the Arthur Kill. The marina includes 185 boat slips, fuel dock and sanitary pumpout, and supporting
landside facilities. Waterfront Park includes public restrooms, a miniature golf course, walking paths,
open green space, picnic areas, playground, small sports courts, boat launch ramp, and a fishing pier.
The open space/recreation site offers active and passive recreation for park users. The park also serves
as natural habitat for upland and aquatic life forms including birds, mammals, fish, and other water-
dependent life. The Carteret Municipal Marina & Waterfront Park and the connected boat and kayak
ramp is listed in the Carteret ROSI and serves the greater Carteret community as an integral place for
recreation, and open space activities.
3.3.1.2. Proposed Recreational Resources
Also located in the one-quarter mile study area is the proposed, not yet constructed, Northern Riverwalk
Public Access Easement. Upon completion, the Northern Riverwalk will facilitate new ADA-accessible
recreational options along the Borough’s rapidly expanding Waterfront. This project will add 1,900 linear
feet of 20-foot-wide boardwalk extending north from Waterfront Park towards Noes Creek as part of the
Borough’s Arthur Kill River Walk. This project will hug the shoreline and connect to the south and north
ends of the CFT project.
3.3.2. No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative will not affect parks and recreation resources. The Carteret W aterfront is a great
opportunity for recreation resources and, as mentioned in the previous section, will continue to be developed
and to enhance the areas’ parks and recreation resources.
3.3.3. Build Alternative
While the project location (Block 304, Lot 2.02) is adjacent to an existing public park, boat launch ramp, and
marina, the construction and operation of the facility will not directly impact existing recreation resources. There
is currently no existing pedestrian or vehicular access between the proposed CFT site and the existing
adjacent park, and there will be none until the CFT project is complete. The property on which the CFT is
located is able to be accessed from a separate entrance off of Roosevelt Avenue during construction as not to
impede use of Waterfront Park, the Municipal Marina, or the associated access roads. Sufficient space exists
in the Borough-owned ferry terminal parcel to accommodate all
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-11
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-12
construction materials, stockpiling, and staging operations. The Borough has an existing access agreement in
place with the owner of the DuPont property until the point in time ownership of Block 304, Lot 2.01 is
transferred to the Borough. Therefore, no easements will be required on existing parkland and construction of
the CFT will not impact the access or use of the park or marina.
Upon commencing operations, the existing Waterfront Park access road (a/k/a Andrew Baumgartner Memorial
Boulevard) will be utilized by commuters to access the CFT. As previously discussed in Section 3.1 and
demonstrated in Section 3.8 and the Traffic Investigation Report contained in the associated Appendix 3.8-1,
the existing access road experiences only light traffic in the present condition and will be able to accommodate
the additional commuter traffic and traffic from park users thanks to ongoing road widening and intersection
signalization upgrades at Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway.
As discussed in Sections 3.6 (Visual Resources), 3.9 (Air Quality), 3.12 (Noise and Vibration), there will be no
negative impacts to the adjacent Waterfront Park or Municipal Marina. As discussed in these analyses,
changes in these parameters associated with the construction and operation of the CFT will not negatively
impact the public’s use and enjoyment of the park. This is due in part to the park’s existing location, set against
adjacent commercial and industrial uses that subject the Waterfront to a variety of noise sources and
intensities, including sound levels generated from regular commercial marine traffic. Vibration impacts will be
temporary in nature only in relation to construction of the facility and will not result in any on-going disturbance
of the adjacent park. With this being said, the construction and operation of the ferry terminal will not
significantly impact ambient noise, vibration, or air quality. The construction of the CFT will result in an
improved setting when compared to the currently vacant land on which the terminal is proposed. (Refer to
Figure 3-6.1).
The additional vehicular and foot traffic are anticipated to have de minimis impacts to the Waterfront Park and
Marina. All vehicular traffic accessing the site, while sharing a common access road from Industrial Highway,
inbound traffic will be directed via a separate driveway to the CFT prior to reaching the main parking lot that
serves Waterfront Park and adjacent boat launch ramp. An ADA-compliant sidewalk will continue to serve
pedestrians accessing the Waterfront Park from Industrial Highway. ADA-compliant crosswalks will be
provided at two locations where the pedestrian route would cross driveways for the CFT. Appropriate
pedestrian crossing signage will be provided where necessary which will require vehicles to yield to pedestrians
in the crosswalk and maintain safe and unimpeded access to Waterfront Park.
Regarding the volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and its impacts on the existing park and marina, no
adverse impacts are anticipated. Waterfront Park is home to various annual Borough-sponsored events which
draw thousands of patrons, including the July 4th Festival, Latin Fest, and Summer Concert Series. These
events generally coincide with weekends or holidays and would not be affected by commuter traffic or peak
operations of the CFT. The Municipal Marina has a separate parking lot which is accessed via access
driveways further south along Industrial Highway between existing warehouses at #100 and #200 Middlesex
Avenue and is not anticipated to be affected by commuter traffic.
Upon completion of the Northern Riverwalk project (by others) described in Section 3.3.1.2, above, access for
foot traffic directly accessing and passing through Waterfront Park and the CFT will be supplemented.
The Build Alternative would go hand in hand with existing and proposed parks and recreation resources
according to Carteret’s Recreation and Open Space Inventory. As discussed above, the Build Alternative will
facilitate the future construction of a pathway along the shoreline (by others) to connect a proposed future
waterfront walkway donated by DuPont to the existing Carteret Municipal Marina and Waterfront. The Build
Alternative will have no effect on the existing or future waterfront parks, other than slight positive changes in
views from those parks, because these view changes will be improvements to the current view of the
industrial/storage site that is where the proposed CFT is to be built.
3.3.4. Mitigation
No adverse effects will occur on parks and recreational resources because of the Build Alternative and no
mitigation is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-13
3.3.5. Conclusion
As construction of the CFT will take place entirely on a separate property, accessed from an alternate
construction entrance, the adjacent Waterfront Park and Municipal Marina will not be negatively impacted and
access to the park and marina will be maintained at all times. This being said, no property acquisition or takings
are necessary for the CFT. Effects of noise, vibration, and air quality will be minimal and not require mitigation.
Furthermore, the conversion of a blighted brownfield property to an aesthetically pleasing commuter ferry
facility will result in an improved visual condition for users of the adjacent park and marina.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-14
3.4. Socioeconomic Conditions
The construction of the proposed CFT will aid in public mass transit to and from Manhattan as part of multiple Borough
redevelopment projects. Construction of the terminal, as well as the Borough’s ongoing and future residential
redevelopments, will create numerous jobs and bolster the local and regional economies. Independent of the CFT, the
adjacent DuPont Brownfield site (Block 304. Lot 2.01) will be conveyed to the Borough for the purposes of commercial
and public open space redevelopment. Additionally, the former Basin Holdings, Inc., site situated on Block 304, Lot 5),
also a blighted industrial property adjacent to the DuPont parcel, has been acquired for residential redevelopment. This
future construction will have a positive economic impact drawing in prospective residents, businesses and service
providers.
3.4.1. Affected Environment
There are three (3) designated Census Tracts within one-quarter mile of the Study Area where data is collected
by the US Census Bureau. The CFT location and the majority of the industrial waterfront of the Borough is
located in Census Tract 9800, while the areas northwest of the Study Area across Roosevelt Avenue are within
Census Tract 36.01, and the areas immediately west of the Study area on the opposite side of Peter J. Sica
Industrial Boulevard falls within Census Tract 38.02. A socioeconomic study area is provided in Figure 3.4-1
on the following page. Table 3.4-1 below details the estimated population and household income for each
Census Tract around the Study Area.
Census
Tract
Population # of
Households
Median
Income
# in
Labor
Force
Employment
Rate
9800 56 0 $0 0 0%
36.01 8,156 2,539 $64,693 4,341 53.2%
38.02 3,553 1,442 $78,295 1,767 49.7%
Source: 2020 Decennial Census
Table 3.4-1: Census tract population and income data.
Within the Study Area itself, which is entirely within Census Tract 9800, there appears to be a discrepancy in
the Census Data. Census Tract 9800 occupies the industrial area of the waterfront of Carteret, and does not
include any lands west of Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway. 2020 Census counts indicate that there are no
households within this area, but a population of 56 is stated. It is likely that this is an error or an estimate rather
than an actual count. There are not currently any residences along the waterfront, only businesses. So the
count of zero households is likely accurate but the population of 56 is assumed to be inaccurate at this time.
Census Tracts 36.01 and 38.02 are just west of Roosevelt Avenue and Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway, and
are indicated by Census counts to have populations of 8,156 persons and 3,553 persons respectively. The
majority of each of these Tracts are located outside of a one-quarter mile radius from the Study Area, indicating
that the majority of these populations are not located in close proximity to the proposed location of the CFT.
There is a multi-family apartment complex and a public housing complex located between Peter J. Sica
Industrial Highway and Roosevelt Avenue in Tract 38.02 that likely accounts for a portion of that residential
population.
Both of the Census Tracts with an actual population show median household incomes that are somewhat lower
than the statewide median income for New Jersey, with Tract 36.01 being approximately $14,000 less than
Tract 38.02. This indicates that there is a lower income population in the general vicinity of the Study Area.
Employment data for Tracts 36.01 and 38.02 is 53.2% and 49.7% respectively, which is below the 59.4%
employment rate reported for the Borough as a whole. Employment data for Tract 9800 is disregarded as no
residential developments are known to actually exist within this Tract.
Carteret Borough has a very racially diverse community. Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 on the following pages
illustrate the racial breakdown of each Census Tract according to data from the US Census Bureau.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-15
Figure 3.4-2: Census Tract 36.01 demographics (US Census)
Figure 3.4-3: Census Tract 38.02 demographics (US Census)
Census data indicates that for both Tracts in the east side of the Borough closer to the waterfront, there is a
substantial population of minority communities. Each Tract has a population that is less than 25% white alone,
with large percentages of African American, Asian, and “some other race” identified in each tract. In addition to
the racial breakdown indicated in the charts above, The Borough has a large Hispanic population. 45% of
residents in Tract 36.01 identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 40% did the same for Tract 38.02. The map on
the following page indicates the boundaries of each Census Tract.
3.4.2. No Build Alternative
A No Build scenario would not have an impact on socio-economic conditions of the surrounding community.
Without the CFT, the economy and demographics of the Borough’s neighborhoods would remain in their
current state.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-16
3.4.3. Build Alternative
The proposed ferry terminal (proposed to serve any of the ferry alternatives) would help-to fulfill the Borough of
Carteret's goal of transforming a former brownfield site into a catalyst for economic development. An attractive,
high-speed ferry service on Carteret's waterfront would incentivize mixed-use development in the area and
promote the Borough as an attractive place to live and work. In particular, the proximity to a comfortable, high-
speed ferry service would make housing and retail opportunities on the waterfront more attractive to
developers; it is likely that these developments would be especially popular among Carteret residents already
working in Manhattan.
As calculated by the Nelson Nygaard feasibility study, it is anticipated that the option to commute via ferry
would reduce commute times to Manhattan over existing modes and eliminate the uncertainty associated with
traffic. A trial ferry run between Carteret and the World Financial Center found a one-way trip of 54 minutes,
comparable with actual bus commute times and lower than the 62 to 90 minutes experienced by car drivers to
Lower Manhattan. By promoting the ferry as a fast, scenic one-seat ride to Manhattan that is not subject to
congestion-related delays, Carteret can improve its economic competitiveness in relation to neighboring
communities that lack a ferry service. In addition, opportunities exist to use a ferry service as a means of
attracting tourism to the Carteret Waterfront, particularly during non-peak hours.
The opportunity for waterfront development in Carteret has already led to considerable developer investment
and several key projects in the pipeline. Over 500 mid-rise residential apartment units have been constructed
since 2015 in and around the Borough’s Arts District, centered on a newly built 1,600 seat Performing Arts
Center. An additional 2,000 units are part of proposed redevelopment plans for future redevelopments along
the Waterfront and surrounding areas of the Borough. The proposed ferry would enhance development
prospects by improving local quality of life and providing a fast, one-seat ride to Manhattan.
3.4.4. Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be necessary to alleviate any negative impacts associated with the construction
of the CFT.
3.4.5. Conclusion
Construction of the ferry terminal will not displace residents or business owners from the existing site. Since the
site is a Brownfield site, it is barren and underutilized. Completion of the ferry terminal will have positive social
benefits throughout the Borough and immediate area. This is an undeveloped parcel, therefore no minority,
low-income, or tribal populations would be immediately affected and, therefore, no adverse impacts will fall on
such populations. As the site is isolated from current development, the project will not adversely impact the
character of the community surrounding the ferry terminal.
The construction of the CFT is not anticipated to have negative impacts on the socio-economic character of the
community. The construction of a commuter ferry terminal and regular commuter ferry operations between
Carteret and Manhattan are projected to have positive socioeconomic benefits for the Borough and its
residents. Reliable ferry services with minimal transfers will allow for improved commute times over existing
modes and eliminate the uncertainty of traffic congestion frequently experienced along the New Jersey
Turnpike and inbound Hudson River tunnels to Manhattan. The presence of the ferry will provide an opportunity
for waterfront development and spur the construction of additional mixed use and residential developments to
supplement the existing housing stock in a rapidly growing community.
The Build Alternative would also help to facilitate the related improvements such as the expanded waterfront
park, development of underutilized and blighted sites, which will provide new recreation spaces for the
community and tie together the Borough’s waterfront recreation complex.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-17
3.5. Property Acquisition and Displacement
Construction of the Carteret Ferry Terminal (CFT) will take place on Block 304, Lots 2.01 and 2.02. The
complex will be inclusive of a commuter parking lot, terminal building, and waterside docking facilities. The
ferry terminal building will be situated on the eastern edge of the parking lot, along the shoreline of the Arthur
Kill.
3.5.1. Affected Environment
The CFT will be constructed on Block 304, Lots 2.01 and 2.02. Lot 2.02 is currently owned by the Borough.
This 5.52-acre property was ceded to the Borough of Carteret from E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (“DuPont”) by
deed dated December 21, 2010. Access to Lot 2.02 is provided via an existing Borough access road (a/k/a
Andrew Baumgartner Memorial Boulevard), connecting to Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway.
The Borough is also contract purchaser of Lot 2.01, on which the northern portion of the CFT will partially be
constructed. The Borough entered into a 2020 land donation agreement with DuPont related to this property,
which stipulated that, pending completion of DuPont’s remedial responsibilities, title for Lot 2.01 would be
transferred to the Borough. A copy of this agreement is provided in Appendix 3.5-1.
3.5.2. No Build Alternative
A no-build scenario would result in the Lot 2.02 continuing to be owned and maintained by the Borough.
Likewise in the no-build scenario, ownership Lot 2.01 would be transferred from DuPont to the Borough
pending fulfillment of DuPont’s site remediation responsibilities. In the absence of the CFT, both lots in
question would be developed consistent with the Chrome Waterfront Redevelopment Plan.
3.5.3. Build Alternative
As the property on which the development is proposed is owned, or will be owned by the Borough, no additional
property acquisition is required. Furthermore, as the site is vacant, no existing uses, structures, or areas of
value would be displaced.
As previously described, the lot is currently vacant land and will also accommodate a- commuter parking lot,
accommodating approximately 700 passenger vehicles, a terminal building, and in-water docking facility for two
ferry boats. During construction, the site will be accessed via a construction entrance off of Roosevelt Avenue,
opposite the Borough Department of Public Works Complex at 339 Roosevelt Avenue. The Borough has an
existing access agreement in place with DuPont to access Lot 2.02 via this entrance and across Lot 2.01.
It is anticipated that construction will commence once the Borough takes title to Lot 2.01 following DuPont’s
fulfillment of site remediation responsibilities.
No additional access easements or agreements are anticipated to be required for the construction or operation
of the CFT. The project has also been designed to avoid impacts to the adjacent Green Acres-encumbered
parcel to the south and will not affect the existing parking spaces within that lot.
3.5.4. Mitigation
No adverse impacts on the subject property with respect to property acquisition or displacement are anticipated
related to the Build Alternative; therefore, no mitigation is required.
3.5.5. Conclusion
All property required for the construction and operation of the CFT is currently owned or will be owned by the
Borough through an existing land conveyance agreement. No additional acquisition, takings, or easements are
required for the construction and operation of the facilities; therefore, there will be no impacts related to
property acquisition or displacement.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-18
3.6. Visual Resources
This section of the EA considers the effects of the Build Alternative on the visual character and aesthetic conditions of
the surrounding area and community. Consistent with federal guidance on preparation of visual resources analyses, it
considers views from and to Arthur Kill and Waterfront recreation and open space, taking into consideration the
duration and sensitivity of views. The analysis focuses on views of Arthur Kill since the CFT will be built along the
Waterfront.
The study area for this analysis was defined to include publicly accessible areas from which the Build Alternative will
also be visible. This consists of the waterfront areas in Carteret along Arthur Kill—including Roosevelt Avenue,
Middlesex Avenue, the Northern Riverwalk Public Easement, Carteret Municipal Marina and Waterfront Park, and the
fishing pier that extends out into Arthur Kill. Please refer to Photo Location Map and site photographs prepared by
McCormick Taylor in Appendix 3.6-1. The bounds of this area are also defined on this location map, considering areas
of the viewing area that are generally blocked by existing warehouses and topography.
3.6.1. Affected Environment
3.6.1.1. Visual Setting and Visual Resources
Within the study area, the Arthur Kill viewshed is the primary visual resource. This includes the
combination of its associated visual features such as the coastal areas of Carteret and Staten Island,
Fresh Kills, Freshkills Park, and the Isle of Meadows. Existing land uses within the study area along the
New Jersey shoreline of the Arthur Kill are divided into industrial and recreational uses.
Historically, the Carteret Waterfront has been dominated by industry, including extant petrochemical
port facilities in the northeastern portion of the Borough (Kinder Morgan), agricultural and fertilizer
production (DuPont/Agrico) on the subject site, a lumber and veneer operation (I.T. Williams)
immediately to the south of the site (current Waterfront Park and Municipal Marina), and a former
metal refining and smelting operation (US Metals Refining Company/AMAX) along the southern third of
the Waterfront. The industrial nature of the waterfront is generally bounded – and visually separated
from the Waterfront – by Middlesex Avenue and Industrial Highway, with a combination of single and
multi-family attached and detached residential buildings west of these roadways, outside of the study
area.
Presently, historical industrial and manufacturing uses of the Waterfront, with the exception the Kinder
Morgan petrochemical terminal, have all given way to warehousing and distribution facilities. Existing
facilities are generally 30 to 50 feet in height, and have rectangular massing characteristics, lacking
significant architectural detail. Additionally, the Borough has reclaimed several former industrial sites,
including the IT Williams site (now Waterfront Park and Municipal Marina) and the DuPont/Agrico,
which has been acquired for the development of the CFT, the balance of which will be ceded to the
Borough for additional waterfront redevelopment including mid- and high-rise residential, hotel uses, a
film production studio, and recreational space.
The existing site where the CFT is proposed is currently a vacant industrial property. The site is
situated along the western banks of the Arthur Kill and has existing recreational areas (Waterfront Park
and the Carteret Municipal Marina) to the south, warehousing to the west and southwest, and industrial
uses to the north.
Viewed from the western side of the river, the Arthur Kill viewshed is industrial in nature in excess of
one-half mile north and south of the site with the exception of Waterfront Park immediately south of the
site. Views on the eastern side of the Arthur Kill along the Staten Island waterfront include the former
Fresh Kills Landfill site (now Freshkills Park), which is a grass covered open space rising
approximately 200 feet above sea level, dominating the view to the southeast. To the northeast,
industrial sites in Staten Island, including a power generating plant are visible. On clear days, the
Manhattan skyline is visible on the northeast horizon across Staten Island.
Proposed CFT Site
Please refer to Figures 3.6-1A and 1B for an architectural rendering of the proposed Terminal
Building, prepared by Potter Architects and to Figure 3.1-2 for a conceptual site plan of the ferry
terminal in addition to future development proposed in the vicinity for reference. As shown, the
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-19
proposed site will include a terminal building, inclusive of approximately five (5) stories and two (2) ferry
berths.
The size and waterfront location of the CFT provides a largely unobstructed view of the waterfront to
the north and south. (refer to McCormick Taylor Map, photos 1-6, Appendix 3.6-1). The site location
visual looking north has views of the capped brownfield site, and the industrial waterfronts of Carteret
and Staten Island (Photo 2). The view east from behind the project site shows the open expanse of
land with the Arthur Kill and Staten Island in the distance. The large site and proximity of the location
put Freshkills Park and the Arthur Kill in the distance (Photo 3). The view from the shoreline from the
proposed CFT site looking southwest back onto the site has the view into Carteret of some warehouse
spaces partially blocked by the proximity of the capped project site (photo 5). The CFT’s visual from
the south side facing east along the waterfront access road has a clear view over the open site and
down the street. Freshkills Park in Staten Island is visible on the other side of the Arthur Kill (photo 6).
Figure 3.6-1A: Architectural rendering of the proposed CFT, western elevation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-20
Figure 3.6-1B: Architectural rendering of the proposed CFT, eastern elevation.
3.6.1.2. Viewer Groups and View Durations
Viewer groups in the area consist of pedestrians and/or park users, residents, boaters,
commercial/industrial workers, and motorists. Each group has a different sensitivity level depending on
the exposure to the visual resources and how a person would be experiencing the resource.
3.6.1.2.1. Pedestrians and Park Users
Parks and recreation areas are generally recognized as sensitive locations, although sensitivity
depends on the viewer’s activities and view duration. Bicyclists and pedestrians have a
transient perspective; however, viewers in this group include those out for recreational
purposes who will, therefore, be more sensitive to their surroundings with moderate viewer
sensitivity. People participating in passive activities such as fishing, picnicking, and enjoying
the open green space will have increased sensitivity as their views can be stationary.
Most pedestrians and recreational users will be using either the Carteret Marina/Waterfront
Park neighboring the site to the south or the proposed future Northern Riverwalk (listed on the
Carteret ROSI) located along the Arthur Kill to the immediate north of the site. The view from
the proposed Northern Riverwalk site looking south of the stone revetment from the north side
of the proposed site location views through the open space of the site to the neighboring
Carteret Marina. To the east side is the Arthur Kill with the Freshkills Park West Mound, the
rolling green open space provides a backdrop over the Arthur Kill (Photo 4). The Northern
Riverwalk will be a place for mostly passive recreation so park goers will be more aware and
focused on the surrounding visuals. The Carteret Marina and Waterfront Park offers a wide
variety of active and passive activities. This will give a different experience of visuals to
parkgoers. The entrance to the park is located approximately 200 feet south of the CFT. The
view for people on the site will not be adversely affected by people entering the site via the
park’s access road from Industrial Highway. If anything, the proposed CFT will enhance the
view from the access road which is the divider between an open green recreation space and
the waterfront and what is currently a large industrial shoreline. The view of the park now is
unaffected by surrounding features (Photo 11). The views from the park entrance, boat ramp,
and docks/walks give a large uninterrupted view of Arthur Kill and Staten Island (Photos 11,
12, 13, and 14). The north side of the park bordering the project location does not currently
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-21
have many negative visuals of the existing neighboring industrial and chemical sites. The
proposed project will be an improvement to recreation space visuals.
3.6.1.2.2. Residents
A limited number of residents in Carteret have clear views of the Arthur Kill viewshed. This is
an important viewer group since they live within proximity to the visual resources and have high
viewer sensitivity due to prolonged stationary views. Most views from the surrounding
residential areas are already blocked by existing businesses, industrial sites, and warehouses
(Photos 8, 9, 10, 19, and 21). This prevents residents from getting the positive views of the
Arthur Kill and surrounding green space. Future residents of the planned residential
redevelopments on the adjacent properties (Block 304, Lots 2.01 and 5) may have a more
direct view of the ferry terminal.
3.6.1.2.3. Boaters
Boaters, including those on the water for both commercial and recreational purposes, have a
high viewer sensitivity because of the long duration of their views of the shoreline. Boaters
traveling on the Arthur Kill have expansive views of the waterway and the Carteret and Staten
Island shorelines. The northwest view from the docks of the marina looking back toward
Carteret shows the docks with parkland and green open space in the background. In the
distance some industrial sites can be seen where the proposed CFT is to be built (Photo 24).
As noted in maritime analyses conducted by Stevens Institute and Applied Technology &
Management, the vast majority of vessels operating within the Arthur Kill 94% of marine traffic
was characterized as tugboats, barges, or other commercial craft. Sensitivity of this viewer
group is considered low as captains and crew are focused on safe operation of their vessel
and would not be concerned with aesthetic character of their environment. That being said,
with the marina and boat launch located within the study area, recreational boaters will make
up a small component of the water-based viewer group in the study area.
3.6.1.2.4. Motorists
With the exception of commuters directly assessing the site, motorists traveling on the local
streets in the study area close to the Waterfront have some but very limited views to the site
and Waterfront. Views are most prominent from Roosevelt Ave. and Peter J. Sica Industrial
Highway which run parallel to the Waterfront next to industrial, commercial, and residential
sites, with mostly large buildings and properties between the road and the Waterfront and
greenspaces. In Carteret, views to the east from any of the nearby roads are obstructed by
vegetation, fencing, or buildings. Limited views of the project site are available from Roosevelt
Ave., Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway, and various access roads, but these are limited by other
motorists and built-up sites.
3.6.1.2.5. Commercial and Industrial Workers
Some commercial and industrial workers within the study area have uninterrupted views out to
the water. However, their viewer sensitivity is considered low since employees are presumed
to be engaged with business activities. These include members of the Carteret Police and Fire
Departments and workers at the numerous surrounding commercial and industrial sites. Many
of their existing visuals are of the industrial and commercial sites on which they are working
due to the large size of buildings, property, and machinery (Photos 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21,
22, and 23).
3.6.2. No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, no changes to the aesthetic character of the study area or to visually sensitive
resources are anticipated.
3.6.3. Build Alternative
The extent to which the various viewer groups identified above will perceive the change caused by the Build
Alternative varies. Motorists traveling nearby that pass through the study area have brief views of the Arthur Kill
viewshed and greenspace. The new CFT will be a visual improvement compared to the very industrial
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-22
landscape that currently exists at and around the site. An architectural rendering of the CFT is provided in
Figure 3.6-1 for reference. The height of the proposed structure will not be out of character with existing
industrial development in the area, and will therefore not be a prominent feature of the Waterfront. Visually, the
terminal will be enhanced with additional detail and ornamentation associated with a defined architectural style.
The viewer groups that currently experience the longest duration and closest range views of the Arthur Kill
viewshed are recreational boaters in the immediate vicinity of the site; pedestrian and park users in Carteret
Marina and Waterfront Park and the Northern Riverwalk; and a limited number of residents in Carteret. These
viewer groups will likely notice the change to the site with the Build Alternative more than any other viewer
group due to their proximity to the project site. However, the use and overall character and location of the
feature will be an improvement to the current commercial/industrial visuals that make up the majority of the
study area.
3.6.4. Mitigation
The Build Alternative will not substantially alter the visual character of the study area or block important views
to visually sensitive resources. Therefore, the Build Alternative will not result in adverse impacts on visual
character and visually sensitive resources in the study area. No mitigation is required.
3.6.5. Conclusion
The construction of the CFT will result in a visual improvement of a blighted, vacant former industrial site along
the Arthur Kill. The terminal will not be an overtly conspicuous feature of the Borough’s waterfront given its
backdrop of adjacent commercial and industrial uses and will therefore not negatively impact visual resources
of the study area. In addition to improving a Brownfield site, the CFT will significantly improve the natural
environment on the site and will provide an opportunity for the public to thoroughly enjoy existing scenic
resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-23
3.7. Historic, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources (Section 106)
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as implemented by federal regulations at 36 CFR Part
800, mandates that federal agencies consider the effect of their actions on any properties listed on or determined
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Place (NR). It also calls for consultation with parties with an
interest in the historic resources that may be affected, including the NJDEP State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
as well as other interested organizations to determine any effects on state registers of historic places (SR)
As early as 1996, the Borough of Carteret began planning for a ferry service at the site in question when a study by the
PANYNJ identified Carteret as a viable location. As part of the initial studies and environmental studies conducted
between 2006 and 2011, a Phase 1A Archaeological Survey was conducted in May 2007 by Richard Grubb &
Associates. Following additional consultation with the NJDEP SHPO, a Phase I Underwater Archaeological Survey was
conducted in June 2020 by Dolan Research, Inc. The results of these evaluations as summarized in this section of the
Assessment. NJDOT Bureau of Environmental Program Resources and SHPO correspondence dated November 2,
2020 and January 4, 2021, respectively, are provided in Appendix 3.7-1.
3.7.1. Affected Environment (Section 106 Area of Potential Effects)
An Area of Potential Effects (APE) was established to determine the affected environment of the proposed
ferry terminal project. An APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and its determination
includes the consideration of direct and indirect effects, including those of the Build and No Build Alternatives.
An APE is not generally defined or limited by governmental or property boundaries and will include the full limits
of all underground and aboveground disturbance. The APE for the CFT project is bound by the entirety of the
Terminal’s footprint on Block 304, Lot 2.02, and the southern portion of Block 304, Lot 2.01 on which the
upland portion of the CFT upland site is proposed. The APE is also inclusive of riparian and subaqueous
portions of Lots 2.01 and 2.02 which will be utilized for ferry operations. The boundaries of the APE measure
approximately 600 feet from south to north (measured from the southern boundary of Lot 2.02) and 1,000 feet
from east to west (measured from the edge of the Arthur Kill navigational channel), as shown and described in
the proceeding archaeological investigations. However, it is noted that the general archeological and historic
investigations for the project were conservative in their breadth and generally exceeded these boundaries.
Archeological APE (Upland)
An archaeological APE for the site was determined in consultation with SHPO. It was originally agreed that the
archaeological APE would be comprised of all areas where ground disturbance would occur, including any
dredging of in-water sediments. Additionally, an architectural APE was agreed to include of the property to be
developed, adjoining parcels, and those in the immediate viewshed of the proposed construction.
Archaeological investigations were initiated in 2007 and documented in a report entitled Phase IA
Archaeological Survey prepared by Richard Grubb and Associates (Appendix 3.7-2). The investigations were
conducted prior to more recent remediation activities on the subject property that addressed elevated levels of
contamination. The report describes the environmental setting of the upland portion of the project area as
having been comprised of low-lying topography that was primarily occupied by tidal marsh associated with the
Arthur Kill. The report notes that the upland areas were likely inundated on a regular basis. The report goes on
to state that although the Arthur Kill is known to have been occupied by pre-Contact groups from the Paleo-
Indian to Contact periods, this area is likely to have supported only the gathering of food and other organic
resources. These activities, at best, tend to leave only an ephemeral archaeological presence. Habitation sites
would likely have been at a greater distance from the tidal marsh settings as has been documented elsewhere
in the Middle Atlantic and Southeast regions.
The report indicates that the presence of extensive salt marsh at this location also limited historic period
utilization of the area until the 20th century. Industrial development expanded significantly during the first half of
the century locally, and especially in the more marginal areas bordering the Arthur Kill. Research into the site
history and field verification revealed the presence of concrete building remains associated with the growth and
expansion of the fertilizer business that was present on the site between 1890 and into the 1990s under
different ownership, known as Agrico. By 1981 reportedly only one of the original structures associated with the
works remained. By the 2007 fieldwork, only vestiges of the former buildings and remains of a wharf (built prior
to 1899 and used until ca. 1970) were extant.
Today, the subject lot is vacant and no architectural resources exist within the APE. Ground penetrating radar
(GPR) investigations of the concrete slabs confirmed they were simply slab remains and soil borings confirmed
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-24
the extent of subsurface disturbance at the site – documenting a high water table even in the western portion of
the APE, fill to 6 to 14 feet below ground surface throughout, and extensive marsh sediments in proximity to the
Arthur Kill. Furthermore, properties adjacent to the site are entirely commercial/industrial in nature, the majority
of which were constructed beginning in the 1980s with the shuttering of historic industrial uses on the site and
its surroundings. Therefore, no historic architectural survey will be required.
The 2007 Phase IA archeological report concluded that there were no historic archeological resources within
the APE associated with either the pre-Contact and Contact periods; until the beginning of the 20th century, the
salt marsh comprising the APE was not suitable for habitation. Historic documentation verifies commercial use
of the property as a fertilizer manufacturing plant. Based on these findings, it is unlikely that further
archeological investigations would provide new information about 20th century industrial developments.
Since the 2007 cultural resources study, site remediation activities were undertaken by DuPont to address
hazardous materials contamination prior to acquisition of the site by the Borough of Carteret. Remedial actions
consist of a sitewide deed restriction, stabilization in place of contaminated soils, and a sitewide cap comprised
of clean fill material with vegetative cover, asphalt paving, or concrete building slabs. Institutional controls will
include a Classification Exception/Well Restriction Area for groundwater. Consideration of the findings of the
2007 Phase IA resources survey report together with the progress of the remediation project resulted in
agreement amongst NJDOT and the NJ SHPO that no further investigations were required to address the
potential impacts on land. However, the 2007 study did not include any in-water investigations to address
proposed in-water activities for the project.
Archeological APE (Underwater)
Consultation with NJ SHPO on the APE for the proposed project, which includes in-water activities, determined
the need for further archaeological investigations in an in-water survey. Therefore, the underwater portion of
the APE was defined as the result of consultation between NJDOT and NJDEP HPO to include any areas of in-
water disturbance and the proposed dredging area plus a 50-foot buffer.
A Phase I Underwater Archaeological Investigation was conducted in June 2020 by Dolan Research, Inc.
(Appendix 3.7-3) to examine an APE that was approximately 580 feet long by 170 feet wide and situated
between the federal navigational channel of the Arthur Kill and the tidal mudflats along the Carteret shoreline.
Water depths in the APE ranged less than one (1) foot along the shoreline to more than 40 feet at the federal
channel. North of the APE, the remains of an abandoned dock complex extend along the shoreline The
investigation utilized remote sensing to assess the presence or absence of potential submerged cultural
resources within the underwater portions of the APE. One (1) magnetic target, two (2) sonar targets, and one
(1) combined magnetic-acoustic (sonar) targets were identified in the APE. However, none of the targets were
suggestive of potential submerged cultural resources. Furthermore, no shipwrecks were identified within the
APE by the Dolan report or as identified by NOAA’s Office of the Coast Survey. No additional underwater
archeological work was recommended.
The wharf and bulkheading remains north of the APE discussed in the 2007 Grubb report are remnants of an
AGRICO pier built in the early 20th century and expanded prior to World War II. The Dolan report further notes
that many of the wood piles of the former dock have either been cut down to the waterline or broken off due to
wear and neglect. While the features are of limited archaeological significance, they are located south of the
APE and will not be impacted by the proposed project. Likewise, the Borough-owned fishing pier at Waterfront
Park is located south of the APE and will not be impacted by the project
Interstate Consultation
Due to the project’s proximity to the New Jersey and New York border, technical assistance and comments
were sought from the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY SHPO). Inquiries were specifically made
with reference to the potential to affect historic properties within the Borough of Staten Island, which is within
the viewshed of the proposed project area. Consultation was specifically sought with respect to the former
Fresh Kills Landfill, which is the final resting place for materials removed from the World Trade Center site
following the events of September 11th. New York SHPO stated that Freshkills Park is not considered eligible
for listing in the NR. There are also no above-ground resources within the viewshed of the CFT and since there
is no physical impact to the Freshkills Park site, New York SHPO had no archaeological concerns as presented
in Appendix 3.7-1.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-25
Tribal Nation Consultation
Three (3) federally recognized tribal nations with an interest in this geographic area were consulted in
consultation with NJ SHPO: Shawnee, Delaware Nation, and the Delaware Tribe of Indians. It is a belief of
some tribal nations that spiritual strength can be derived from the confluence of two rivers, which occurs in the
vicinity of the project area. The outcome of coordination between the three identified tribal nations is described
as follows:
1. The Shawnee Nation concurred that no known historic properties will be negatively impacted by the
project and stated they have no issues or concerns.
2. The Delaware Nation confirmed that the project does not endanger cultural or religious sites of interest
and to continue with the project planned.
3. The Delaware Tribe provided confirmation that there was no objection to the project.
All tribal nations requested that in the event any cultural materials be found during construction that all ground
disturbance be ceased and the nations be notified immediately. The above-mentioned consultations with the
New York SHPO and tribal nations are both contained in Appendix 3.7-1.
3.7.2. No Build Alternative
Under the No Build scenario, there would be no change to the site and no change in relation to the presence or
absence of archaeological or cultural resources.
3.7.3. Build Alternative
Consistent with the findings of the Phase IA Archeological Survey, Phase I Underwater Archaeological
Investigation, and consultation with New Jersey and New York SHPOs, as well as locally interested tribal
nations, no adverse effects on archaeological, architectural, historic, or cultural resources were identified with
the Build Alternative for the CFT project
3.7.4. Mitigation
As the CFT project will not affect any archeological, architectural, historic, or cultural resources – none of which
were identified within the APE, no mitigation is required.
3.7.5. Conclusion
Based on the information provided in the technical studies, which included by upland, underground, and
underwater investigations within the APE, no archaeological, architectural, or historic features were identified
which would be impacted by the proposed ferry terminal project. Furthermore, consultation with the NJ and NY
SHPO revealed no State Register or National Register listed properties or resources within the APE.
Additionally, consultation with federally recognized tribes within the geographic area either concurred that no
known historic properties would be affected or made no objection to the project. Accordingly, the Section 106
analysis for the project has determined that there will be no impacts to historic, archaeological, architectural, or
cultural resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-26
3.8. Transportation
The purpose of the proposed project is to address the need for additional mass transit resources in the New York-New
Jersey metropolitan area. Thus, the Build Alternative will have an overall benefit on transportation in the affected project
area. This Assessment recognizes the impacts related to the CFT operations.
A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by McCormick Taylor in May 2021 to evaluate year 2022 and 2042 traffic
operating conditions and impacts on the adjacent roadway network resulting from the construction of the proposed
CFT, as well as an analysis of roadway capacity under a No Build scenario. This study is provided in Appendix 3.8-1.
This study utilized findings from the Expanded Ridership Demand Study prepared by Rutgers University (Appendix 1-
3), which projected an opening year ridership range of 739 to 1,606 boardings per weekday and a future year range of
1,037 to 2,199 boardings per weekday
The Expanded Ridership Demand Study assumed the service will utilize two (2) 149-passenger ferries, with three to
four departures from Carteret to Manhattan between the hours of 6:00AM and 9:00AM with ferries departing
approximately every 45 minutes with return service during the evening commute from Manhattan to Carteret. It is noted
that final timetables for service have not yet been determined.
The Expanded Ridership Demand Study approach and methods included studying the two (2) commuter markets
which would be served by the CFT:
1. Regional commuters to New York City (inclusive of Monmouth and Ocean Counties, including portions of
Middlesex, Mercer, Hunterdon, and Somerset Counties, bounded generally by the NJ Transit Raritan Valley
Line to the west and county boundaries to the south). To forecast potential ferry ridership demand from
Commuter Market #1, the research team calibrated and ran the North Jersey Regional Transportation Model-
Enhanced (NJRTM-E). This method was deemed appropriate for this market because the population and
household characteristics used in the model to estimate travel demand reasonably reflect existing conditions in
stable residential markets that exhibit traditional growth patterns.
2. The focus was on local residents living in the Borough’s established housing stocks and individuals moving to
the Borough to take advantage of new housing opportunities at the Waterfront and nearby redevelopment
areas. A review of the demographic data for Carteret used in the NJRTM-E suggests that using the model is
appropriate for forecasting near term ridership from existing residents because the model accurately reflects
existing demographic conditions. A two-step process was used to forecast potential ferry ridership demand
from the local market. This process Involved using output from the regional model to forecast potential ferry
ridership demand among existing Borough residents, supplemented with off-model calculations that estimated
ridership associated with the new residential development occurring in the Borough. The off- model
calculations used ferry ridership demand multipliers derived from an analysis of ferry passenger survey data
and data provided by Borough on new and planned residential development in the Borough.
Ferry commuters will arrive and depart from the surrounding communities via several different modes (i.e., driving,
walking, bicycle, transit, etc.). The travel modes for ferry passengers were estimated based on the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) publication TCRP Report 95, which has conducted travel mode studies at over 100 park-and-
ride facilities. Based on the results of this study, the following travel modes are assumed for the proposed CFT (Drove
Alone – 73%; Carpool – 11%; Drop-off – 11%; Walk/Bus/Transit – 5%). It is noted that the Borough currently operates
a fleet of five (5) jitney buses to points of interest throughout the Borough, including the ferry dock, a service which will
expand to service the CFT.
These capacity analyses are based on a level of service (LOS) methodology, which provides qualitative measures of a
driver’s perception of a roadway’s operating conditions. LOS are defined for each type of facility (i.e. freeways,
highways, signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections). Levels of services range from LOS A to LOS F, with
LOS A representing the best conditions and a LOS F representing undesirable conditions. These LOS criteria have
been established through analysis procedures developed by the Transportation Research Board and outlined in the
Highway Capacity Manual 2010.
The analyses were prepared assuming the improvements to the sending and receiving roadway network, including the
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway and Memorial Boulevard (a/k/a
Waterfront Access Road). It also considers the eastward extension of Carteret Avenue from its current terminus at the
T-intersection with Roosevelt Avenue to the intersection of Industrial Highway and Memorial Boulevard.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-27
3.8.1. Affected Environment
The nearest roadway to the proposed CFT site is the Andrew Baumgartner Memorial Boulevard access road
which connects Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway to Waterfront Park. The road currently serves two-way traffic,
includes parallel parking and a sidewalk on its north side (westbound lane). While a sidewalk is provided, there
is no crosswalk or formal accessible route existing at its western terminus to provide pedestrian access from
residential zones of Carteret (generally west of Industrial Highway) to the W aterfront. Therefore, the road is not
frequently utilized by pedestrians or cyclists to access the Waterfront.
Industrial Highway primarily serves as a commercial truck route, allowing heavy truck traffic from NJ Turnpike
Exit 12 to bypass Carteret’s residential core which is not suited for commercial motor vehicles. Industrial
Highway was completed in the 1990s and serves dozens of warehouses between the Exit 12 interchange at its
northern end, and the Woodbridge Township border at its southern end where Industrial Highway connects to
Middlesex Avenue.
Baumgartner Memorial Boulevard is currently the subject of a road widening project (independent of the CFT
project) to provide two (2) 14’ wide travel lanes, maintaining curbside parallel parking, as well as shared
bicycle lanes. A contract has been awarded and work is anticipated to being in spring 2023. This project also
includes the signalization of the intersection of Industrial Highway and Memorial Boulevard to accommodate
anticipated traffic associated with AM and PM peaks at the CFT. This project is anticipated to be completion
prior to commencement of ferry operations at the subject site.
3.8.2. No Build Alternative
McCormick Taylor’s 2021 Traffic Impact Study also analyzed No Build traffic scenarios to assess roadway
conditions absent the presence of a functioning commuter ferry service in Carteret. Existing traffic growth
projections through the study area were prepared for the 2022 and 2042 design years assuming an annual
background growth rate of 0.37% based on population and employment growth forecasts in the surrounding
communities. The analysis indicated the surrounding roadways and intersections would operate at an overall
LOS B or better, with the intersections of Industrial Highway & Memorial Boulevard and Carteret Avenue &
Roosevelt Avenue seeing minor reductions in level A to B in peak hours, as shown below in Table 3.8.1.
3.8.3. Build Alternative
The amount of traffic to be generated by a development is typically estimated based on a comparison of other
similar land uses and facilities. However, there is limited published trip generation information for this type of
land use found in the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition. The most
similar land use is a Park-and-Ride Lot with Bus or Light Rail Service, utilizing the number of parking spaces to
develop trip generation estimates for the facility. So to better estimate the trip generating capability of the
proposed ferry terminal, the anticipated operating characteristics and ferry schedules were utilized in order to
develop peak hour and daily trip counts. In conjunction with the McCormick Taylor traffic report, a multimodal
analysis of the Build Alternative has been assembled.
The travel modes for ferry terminal passengers were estimated based on the Transportation Research Board
(TRB) publication TCRP Report 95, which has conducted travel mode studies at over 100 park and ride
facilities. Based on the results of this study, the following travel modes were assumed for the proposed Carteret
Ferry Terminal (Drove Alone – 73%;
Carpool – 11%; Drop-off – 11%; Walk/Bus/Transit – 5%). It is noted that the Borough maintains a fleet of
jitney/commuter style buses which will ultimately provide service to/from the proposed ferry terminal as part of
their scheduled routes.
Furthermore, the operation of the ferry will have positive impacts on the local and regional transportation
network that are aligned closely with project’s stated goals:
o To reduce congestion on the New Jersey Turnpike and roads leading from the Turnpike into the
Holland and Lincoln Tunnels.
Based on projected ridership and travel mode studies for passengers accessing the CFT, each
ferry trip will reduce the burden on existing commuter transportation facilities and services, many of
which are already operating at or beyond their capacities. Conservatively assuming the Expanded
Ridership Demand Study’s low-end range of daily boardings (739 per day) combined with existing
mode split for Manhattan-bound Carteret commuters (refer to Section 1.3.2), it is anticipated that
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-28
200 fewer passenger cars would be on the road and 441 fewer riders would need to utilize existing
bus routes.
o To reduce reliance on the automobile in a densely populated area well-suited to the development
of additional public transit services.
The proposed CFT site is uniquely positioned in location and in time to be utilized for a specific
transportation-oriented redevelopment that can provide fast, reliable near door-to-door service for
commuters to Midtown and Lower Manhattan. As mentioned above, ferry service will serve to
reduce the need for automobiles in a growing, already densely populated urban area.
o To provide redundant transportation service in instances of an emergency or catastrophic event.
As was demonstrated on September 11th, 2001, ferries proved to be one of the only means for
evacuating Manhattan in the midst of a catastrophic emergency. Expanded ferry service will help
close the service gap for resilient transportation infrastructure that is not typically restricted by
congestion, road closures, or other unexpected events, especially for direct access to Middlesex
County and the greater Central New Jersey area beyond.
Vehicular Traffic Impacts
Under the Build Alternative, trip generation and capacity analyses were performed under future development
scenarios to evaluate the adjacent roadways’ abilities to accommodate the anticipated traffic demands. Once
opened, the CFT is expected to generate approximately 300 new trips to the roadway system during both the
weekday AM and PM peak hours. Capacity analyses were prepared for each study intersection which showed
that the roadway infrastructure will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional trips generated by
the terminal, operating at an overall LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. CFT
operations will result in minor changes to the overall intersection levels of service at the intersections within the
study area, as summarized in the below Table 3.8-1. As demonstrated, traffic generated by the proposed ferry
terminal would not have a significant impact on traffic operations at intersections within the study area.
Table 3.8-1 – 2022 and 2042 Level of Service Comparisons (McCormick Taylor).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-29
Parking and Site Circulation
The proposed site plan includes a surface parking lot inclusive of approximately 700 passenger vehicle parking
stalls, as well as a passenger drop-off area for carpooling and bus modes. The parking lot has been sized to
provide sufficient parking for ferry service operations. An additional 25 spaces are available for use along
Baumgartner Memorial Boulevard for overflow parking if necessary, which are not currently utilized by park
users except in the case of special events, which generally only occur on weekends and holidays which would
otherwise be unaffected by CFT operations. It is noted that no parking is proposed to be shared with the
existing Waterfront Park, Municipal Marina, or boat ramp parking lot. All public parking for the CFT will also be
separate from parking utilized by existing adjacent commercial and industrial facilities.
Assuming four (4) full 149-passenger ferry boat departures (596 total outbound passengers) from Carteret
each morning anticipated in the Expanded Ridership Demand Study, the parking lot would require at least 468
spaces. This is based on 73% of passengers driving alone and 11% carpooling with at least one other
passenger, as assumed in the McCormick and Taylor Traffic Impact Study. Extrapolating these figures, the
proposed parking lot and overflow parking would also be sufficient to accommodate two (2) additional fully
loaded outbound departures each morning before, building in capacity for future expansion of service.
Review of the proposed site plan shows that it has been efficiently designed to accommodate not only
commuter passenger vehicles, but also buses, emergency vehicles, and refuse/service vehicles. Sufficient
ADA parking will also be provided as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Transit Impacts
As discussed previously in this section, the availability of ferry service from Carteret will better distribute
commuter needs across an additional travel mode. Based on existing travel mode splits for local commuters
(refer to Section 1.3.2), 55% of Manhattan-bound Carteret commuters utilize the bus, with a combined 13%
opting for rail or subway modes. It is anticipated that those people currently utilizing existing mass transit
options will shift to utilizing the ferry for daily commuting needs.
As the site and surrounding roadways are not currently served by NJ Transit bus routes, the presence of the
CFT will not negatively impact existing mass transit. On the contrary, a shift in commuter ridership will make
the bus more accessible for those utilizing it as a local transportation option and result in positive benefits for
bus rider experience.
The Borough’s fleet of five (5) local 30-passenger shuttle buses currently provides public transportation for
senior citizens, recreation programs, and Borough events. This service’s schedule and routes will be expanded
to include stops within the residential core of the Borough to provide rapid and frequent service to the CFT.
This will also serve to reduce the reliance on automobiles for short “first mile” trips for residents to access mass
transit. As confirmed by the Borough, the shuttle bus system has the capacity and resources necessary provide
the expanded service and will not result in a reduction of existing services currently offered.
Ferry service from Carteret into Manhattan will utilize existing ferry terminals in Midtown and Lower Manhattan,
including West 39th Street (Pier 79), the World Financial Center ferry terminal at Brookfield Place/Battery Park
City, and Wall Street (Pier 11). This negates the need for the construction of additional facilities to support the
project at the destination. A 2021 Navigational Safety Plan prepared by Panaveer Partners (Appendix 3.15-1)
noted that use of passenger terminals in Manhattan will be under terms and conditions negotiated with the
owners of these terminals. The report further stated that congestion at these terminals is cyclical and
manageable, and that arriving ferries are seldom delayed awaiting a berth, a situation unlikely to be significantly
changed with the additional ferry traffic from Carteret.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts
The ferry terminal is anticipated to draw a small percentage (approximately 5%) of riders that access the CFT
by foot or bike. However, it is anticipated that this share will increase with the future redevelopment of existing
industrial properties along the Waterfront to mid- and high-rise residential, which will generally be located within
one-quarter mile or less of the CFT. With this in mind, the project has incorporated accessible pedestrian and
bicycle routes both on-site and within standalone projects which will ultimately service the ferry terminal site.
These include the widening of the Baumgartner Memorial Boulevard to include shared bike lanes, and
continuous pedestrian routes from Industrial Highway, as well as the signalization of the intersection of these
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-30
two roads to provide an intersection with pedestrian push-button activated crossing phases in an area where
none were previously provided. Storage areas will also be provided for bicycle riders, and can be easily
expanded as needed to respond to changing needs of commuters.
With this being said, the development of the CFT will result in improved accessibility and connectivity for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Indirectly, improved facilities will also be provided for those wishing to reach the
Borough’s Waterfront Park, Marina, or river boardwalks by foot or bike.
3.8.4. Mitigation
The Build Alternative will not result in adverse impacts to transportation and no mitigation is required.
3.8.5. Conclusion
Once opened, the CFT is expected to generate approximately 300 new trips to the roadway system during both
the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Capacity analyses demonstrated that the roadway infrastructure will have
sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional trips generated by the terminal during the weekday AM and
PM peak hours with no negative impacts to existing facilities.
Surface parking lots are proposed at the CFT which will be capable of accommodating up to approximately 725
passenger vehicles. The site has been designed with adequate circulation paths in mind for buses, drop-off
areas, emergency, and service vehicles. Available parking will be able to accommodate projected daily ferry
trips without affecting parking at the adjacent Borough parks or marina.
Indirectly, the availability of a new commuter transit mode will lessen the burden on existing bus, rail, and public
roads with every ferry boat that departs from Carteret, resulting in a positive impact for the public at large. Ferry
terminals exist in Manhattan with available capacity for the additional commuter service without significant
adverse impacts. The Borough’s fleet of shuttle buses will include the CFT as a stop and provide service from
the residential cores of the Borough without affecting existing services provided to the community. This service
will also reduce the need for short passenger vehicle trips and reduce the demand for off-street parking
provided at the CFT.
Additionally, peripheral roadway improvements being undertaken to accommodate the Build Alternative will
improve the reliability and resilience of the municipal road network for both motorists and pedestrians.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-31
3.9. Air Quality
This section of the Assessment considers the effects of the Build Alternative on air quality both on-site and at nearby
sensitive locations, including parks. Air quality can be affected by both mobile and stationary sources, both during
construction and operation of a facility. The analysis also considers the Build Alternative with respect to conformity with
relevant State Implementation Plans (SIP), described below.
The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, is the primary basis for regulating air pollutant emissions. As required
by the CAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated, and revises periodically,
regulations which set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), lead, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM) regulated in two size categories: respirable PM smaller
than 10 micrometers (PM10), and fine respirable PM smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). For these “criteria
pollutants,” the NAAQS are divided into two types: primary standards define air quality levels intended to protect the
public health with an adequate margin of safety, and secondary standards define levels of air quality intended to protect
the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effect of a pollutant (e.g., visibility, vegetation damage,
material corrosion).
Table 3.9-1 shows the NAAQS Standards in comparison with data collected from the State of New Jersey Air Quality
Monitoring Stations nearest to the project site between 2018 and 2021.
(Source: NJDEP 2021 New Jersey Air Quality Report. September 2022.
https://nj.gov/dep/airmon/pdf/2021-nj-aq-report.pdf)
Pollutant Primary/
Secondary
Averaging
Time Level Form
Nearest Air Quality
Monitoring Station
Concentrations
(2021 NJ Air Quality
Report)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) P
8 hrs 9 ppm
Annual 2nd-highest
1.3 ppm
(Elizabeth Lab)
1 hr 35 ppm 1.8 ppm
(Elizabeth Lab)
Lead (Pb) P & S Rolling 3-
month avg
0.15
ug/m3 Not to be exceeded. 0.003 ug/m3
(Newark Firehouse)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
P 1 hr 100 ppb
98th percentile of 1-
hr daily max
concentration,
avg. over 3 years
61 ppb
(Elizabeth Lab)
P & S 1 year 53 ppb Annual Mean 19 ppb
(Elizabeth Lab)
Ozone (O3) P & S 8 hrs 0.070 ppm
Annual 4th highest
daily max 8-hr
concentration,
avg. over 3 years
0.066 ppm
(Bayonne)
Particulate
Matter (PM)
PM2.5
P 1 year 12 ug/m3 annual mean,
avg. over 3 years
9 ug/m3
(Elizabeth Lab)
S 1 year 15 ug/m3 annual mean,
avg. over 3 years
9 ug/m3
(Elizabeth Lab)
P & S 24 hrs 35 ug/m3 98th percentile,
avg. over 3 years
22 ug/m3
(Elizabeth Lab)
PM10 P & S 24 hrs 150 ug/m3 2nd-highest annual
avg. over 3 years
34 ug/m3
(Newark Firehouse)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
P 1 hr 75 ppb
99th percentile of 1-
hour daily maximum
concentrations,
avg. over 3 years
4 ppb
(Elizabeth Lab)
S 3 hrs 0.5 ppm Annual 2nd-highest 0.0041 ppm
(Elizabeth Lab)
Table 3.9-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and NJ Air Quality Comparison
Each criteria pollutant is monitored on a continuous basis at various locations throughout the State of New Jersey by
NJDEP. The monitoring is required under the CAA to determine the attainment status of an area and to monitor
progress of states under their SIPs, and also provide a warning system for unhealthy pollutant concentrations (both
short and long term), and provide data for the assessment of air quality in light of public health and welfare standards
and of changes in these pollutant levels. Section 107 of the Clean Air Act Amendments requires USEPA and states to
identify areas not meeting the NAAQS and designate them as “nonattainment areas.” It is the States’ responsibility to
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-32
attain the standards in those areas via SIPs. After a standard is attained, the SIP remains in effect as a “maintenance”
plan to ensure continued attainment.
As a federally funded project, the proposed project must conform to SIPs applicable to the project region. An area’s
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which is an entity responsible for transportation planning, together with the
state, is responsible for demonstrating conformity with respect to the SIP on metropolitan long-range transportation
plans and State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs). USEPA must then concur with such conformity
determinations. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has final approval of conforming plans and STIPs.
Conformity of federal actions related to transportation plans, programs, and approval, funding, or implementation of
FHWA/FTA projects must be addressed according to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 93 Subpart A (transportation
conformity regulations).
3.9.1. Affected Environment
At the closest ozone monitoring stations to the project site, the most recent data for ozone indicates that the
concentrations are in compliance with the current standards. PM concentrations and ozone concentrations at
the closest air quality monitoring locations for those pollutants do not exceed standards.
The project site is located in Middlesex County, which is in the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment area. As a result of state and federal efforts,
measured ozone levels have been decreasing, and although Middlesex County is part of the nonattainment
area, concentrations in the county itself have not exceeded the standard in recent years.
The project site is also within the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 maintenance
area, which attained the standard in 2013. As is the case for the entire US, the area is
‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for the recent 1-hour NO2 standard, pending additional monitoring data required for
classification. The area has never been designated for any other standards.
A report titled Borough of Carteret Ferry Terminal Air Quality Assessment, dated August 5, 2011, prepared by
Paul Carpenter Associates has been provided in Appendix 3.9-1. This report was prepared for an anticipated
conservative ferry terminal operating scenario of 22 ferry trips per day and when the project was located within
a designated PM2.5 nonattainment area (24-hour and annual). As per Section 93.123(b)(1)(iii) of the
conformity rule, this new project proposed a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single
location. Therefore, a 24-hour and annual PM2.5 hot-spot analysis was performed. The 2011 study concluded:
• Since the project, as proposed at the time, was located in a PM2.5 and O3 nonattainment area,
conformity determination was required. The conformity requirements are as follows:
1. The project must originate from a conforming transportation plan and program.
2. In nonattainment areas, the project must eliminate or reduce the severity and number of
violations of the NAAQS.
• Transportation projects that originate from a conforming Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan
(STIP) are considered to conform to the TCR. The Carteret Ferry Terminal project was listed within the
FY2010-2019 STIP thereby demonstrating O3 and PM2.5 conformity.
• Further project-related PM2.5 analyses were performed and predicted concentrations fell well below
the 24-hour (35 ug/m3) and annual (15 ug/m3) Significant Impact Level (SILs). Therefore, the Carteret
Ferry Terminal project, as proposed at the time, was not expected to cause or contribute to a PM2.5
violation of the NAAQS.
• Construction-related PM2.5 emission estimates related to the Carteret Ferry project are not required
since the emissions are considered temporary as defined in 40 CFR 93.123(c)(5). Temporary
exposure is assumed for all projects with a construction schedule duration of less than five (5) years.
Construction-related dust and exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment are
examples of direct PM2.5 emissions assumed from the project.
3.9.2. No Build Alternative
The No Action Alternative will not affect air quality in the study area. Air quality would ultimately be lessened
given that the proposed transit improvement would not be implemented and the projected decrease in single-
occupancy vehicle usage would not occur.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-33
3.9.3. Build Alternative
3.9.3.1. Air Quality Impacts
The pollutants of concern for the Build Alternative are those related to temporary diesel emissions from
construction equipment, stationary source diesel emissions from the proposed emergency backup
generator for the CFT, mobile source diesel emissions from ferry service operation, and emissions
from increased automobile traffic in the study area Pollutant emissions from diesel combustion contain
nitrogen oxides (NOx, including both nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide, NO2) and particulate matter
(PM) which can potentially affect local concentrations near diesel sources, and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) which combine with NOx to form ozone and may be of concern on a regional
scale. Carbon monoxide (CO) is also emitted directly from diesel combustion and may affect local
concentrations. Sulfur dioxide and lead are not of concern from diesel sources.
Diesel emissions from construction equipment are temporary and not expected to result in significant
impact to local air quality.
Diesel emissions from the emergency backup generator will be insignificant since the generator will
only be used on an emergency basis in the case of power outages.
The proposed Ferry Terminal is not expected to result in significant changes to air quality. A review of
emissions from the proposed ferry service in comparison with emissions from car and bus transport
shows the ferry will not result in significantly higher air pollution and has similar emission rates to the
automobiles that are anticipated to be replaced on the roadway (Refer to Section 3.10 – Greenhouse
Gas Emissions).
Localized impacts to air quality may occur during a.m. and p.m. peak hours when traffic is increased in
the immediate vicinity of the Ferry Terminal. No long-term local or regional impacts to air quality are
anticipated.
3.9.3.2. Project Level Conformity
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7506), forbids any department,
agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government from engaging in, supporting in any way or
providing financial assistance for, licensing or permitting, or approving, any activity which does not
conform to a SIP after the activity has been approved or promulgated. As defined in Section 176(c)(1),
conformity to an implementation plan means conformity to an implementation plan's purpose of
eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious
attainment of such standards; and that such activities will not:
• Cause or contribute to any new violation of any NAAQS in any area;
• Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS in any area; or,
• Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any required interim emission reductions or other
milestones in any area.
Projects that are funded and approved by the FTA are subject to the transportation conformity
regulations at Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 93.The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
(NJTPA) is the MPO for the area where the Build Alternative will be located. The CFT project is
included within the approved NJTPA FY 2022-2025 TIP (Project ID: 06316) and FY 2022-2031
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) (Project ID: 06316). In addition to the on-road
emissions included in the STIP, the Build Alternative will not substantially increase emissions, and
emissions from its construction will occur over less than five years and are therefore exempt from
conformity hotspot analysis requirements. According to the transportation conformity regulations, the
inclusion of a project in a conforming STIP indicates conformity with the SIP, and therefore, a project-
level conformity analysis and/or determination is not required with respect to transportation conformity.
3.9.4. Mitigation
The Build Alternative will not result in adverse effects on air quality and no mitigation is required.
3.9.5. Conclusion
Minor impacts to local air quality may occur during weekday AM and PM peak hours due to increased traffic in
the immediate vicinity of the Ferry Terminal. No significant long-term impacts to local or regional air quality are
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-34
anticipated. The net operational result over the lifetime of the proposed project will be increased ridership of
commuters and other riders on the ferry service reducing on-road vehicles thereby reducing net energy use
and ensuing GHG emissions operationally, providing additional benefits to regional air quality.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-35
3.10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Resilience
This section of the EA evaluates the short-term and long-term effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the
proposed project with specific regard to potential GHG emissions associated with the No Build Alternative and Build
Alternative, respectively. GHGs are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic,
that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earth’s
surface, the atmosphere itself and by clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect. The primary GHGs in the
Earth’s atmosphere consist of water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), and
ozone (O3) (IPCC 2018). GHGs are released into the atmosphere through various natural and manmade processes.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities, mainly through the combustion
of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation. The transportation sector generates the largest
share (27% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) of greenhouse gas emissions (EPA 2022).
Mass transit opportunities for residents of the area are limited, causing over reliance on singular vehicle on-road
transportation. For example, NJ Transit Bus Service is overcrowded and there is no direct rail access to or from
Carteret. The influx of commuters into NYC has resulted in the NJ Turnpike continuously operating at or above
capacity.
A June 2022 study by the Regional Plan Association, titled “Gateway and the Post-COVID Economy,” analyzed the
Trans-Hudson travel market, specifically trips that begin in New Jersey and the Hudson Valley West (Rockland,
Orange, Ulster and Sullivan Counties) and end in New York City and Long Island. The study indicates that almost 85%
of this market is between New Jersey and New York City or Long Island; 15% is from the Hudson Valley West. In 2019
there were 822,000 average daily trips from New Jersey and Hudson Valley West to destinations in New York City and
Long Island. It’s important to note that a majority of these trips were to destinations other than the Central Business
District (CBD). 377,000 total trips were destined to the CBD and another 405,000 (for a total of 95%) were destined to
other NYC destinations, and the remaining 5% were destined for Long Island. Work trips comprised 62% of Trans-
Hudson trips. The study projects that despite increased remote working (work-from-home) rates by the City’s
workforce, the total number of trips will jump 10 percent by 2030, and increase 15 to 32 percent by 2050, according to a
study from the Regional Plan Association (RPA 2022).
These projections suggest that without the addition of reliable direct access mass transportation options for New Jersey
commuters, GHG emissions from automobile use will continue to increase through 2050.
3.10.1. Affected Environment
The project site is currently vacant; therefore, any proposed use will result in increased GHG emissions. The
proposed ferry terminal is expected to result in an increase of GHG emissions in the long-term due to energy
consumption and ferry operation diesel emissions, and in the short-term during the construction process and
building materials production; however, since mass transportation is widely accepted as more fuel-efficient than
singular vehicle on-road transportation, the overall net effect of the CFT project is lower energy use and lower
GHG emission rate in the region due to reduced reliance on the automobile.
3.10.2. No Build Alternative
In the No Build Alternative no changes to GHG emissions would occur; however, any potential emissions
savings from reduced automobile reliance would be lost. GHG emissions would ultimately increase as a
growing population in the market area continues to commute by way of outmoded forms of transportation,
including personal vehicles that compete for limited space on overcrowded roadways and emit GHGs at much
higher per-capita rates compared to mass transit options.
3.10.3. Build Alternative
The Build Alternative will construct a new five-story, approximately 62,500 square foot terminal building, floating
docks, ferry vessels, and ancillary site improvements (i.e. sidewalks, parking, lighting, landscaping, etc.). Diesel
emissions from ferry operations will result in GHG emissions. The use of gas and electricity to power the new
building operating systems, including lighting, HVAC system, mechanical controls, and natural gas powered
emergency power supply, will also result in GHG emissions. The Project will meet all applicable current building
and energy efficiency codes required by law, which will result in efficient use of energy within the new building.
The construction duration for the project is estimated to be approximately 18 months. As with any construction
project, construction of the Build Alternative will result in GHG emissions that include direct emissions from on-
site non-road construction engines and indirect emissions from on-road trucks and worker vehicles supporting
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-36
construction. In addition, construction of the Build Alternative will also result in indirect GHG emissions, which
are not released by on-site construction activities, but are nonetheless caused by the proposed project, since
GHGs are emitted during the production and disposal of materials used for construction. For example, GHGs
will be emitted during the extraction, production, and delivery of cement and steel (also known as embodied
emissions). Mitigation steps to reduced embodied emissions are further described in Section 4.
Table 3.10-1 provides a comparison of GHG emissions associated with the operation of one ferry (Build
Alternative) vs. a baseline scenario of 149 commuter vehicles (No Build Alternative). The GHG analysis model
utilized to compare the alternatives is based on the Figure 3-37 “Emissions Estimates by Mode” in the
December 2016 Carteret Ferry Feasibility Study, Tier 2 Analysis prepared by Nelson Nygaard and Weinberger
& Associates (Appendix 1-2).
Factors Ferry Vessel 149 Passenger Cars
Capacity (passengers/trip)149 149
Future Year Annual Ridership Forecast (1,000)74,500 74,500
One-Way Trip duration (min)54 65
One-Way Length (mi)20 30
Round Trip Length (mi)40 60
Fuel Consumption (gal/RT)146 3
Fuel Consumption (Gal/Hr)70 1.5
Annual Service Hours 1,040 75,990
Annual Fuel Consumption (Gal)72,800 113,985
Annual Passenger Vehicle Miles Traveled / Round Trip 2,980,000 2,469,675
Annual Passenger Vehicle Miles Traveled / One Way Trip 1,490,000 1,139,850
Criteria Pollutants Ferry Pollutant
Emissions Factors
Auto Pollutant
Emissions Factors
CH4 (g/gal)0.81 0.012
CO2 (kg/gal)10 8887
CO (g/gal)6.1 2.855
N2O (g/gal)3.66 0.004
NOX (g/gal)180 0.120
PM 2.5 (g/gal)0.59 0.019
PM 10 (g/gal)0.53 0.033
SO2 (g/gal)0.28 0.004
VOC (g/gal)10.99 0.166
Emissions Emissions per Ferry Emissions per 149 Cars
CH4 per year (kg)59 28.65
CO2 per year (kg)728000 1012984.695
CO per year (kg)444 7050.18
N2O per year (kg)266 10.62
NOX per year (kg)13104 295.87
PM 2.5 per year (kg)43 45.94
PM 10 per year (kg)39 81.99
SO2 per year (kg)20 10.37
VOC per year (kg)800 409.47
CH4 per passenger trip (kg)0.0008 0.0004
CO2 per passenger trip (kg)9.77 13.5971
CO per passenger trip (kg)0.0060 0.0946
N2O per passenger trip (kg)0.0036 0.0001
NOX per passenger trip (kg)0.1759 0.0040
PM 2.5 per passenger trip (kg)0.0006 0.0006
PM 10 per passenger trip (kg)0.0005 0.0011
SO2 per passenger trip (kg)0.0003 0.0001
VOC per passenger trip (kg)0.0107 0.0055
CH4 per passenger mile (kg)0.0000 0.0000
CO2 per passenger mile(kg)0.4886 0.4532
CO per passenger mile (kg)0.0003 0.0032
N2O per passenger mile (kg)0.0002 0.0000
NOX per passenger mile(kg)0.0088 0.0001
PM 2.5 per passenger mile (kg)0.0000 0.0000
PM 10 per passenger mile (kg)0.0000 0.0000
SO2 per passenger mile (kg)0.0000 0.0000
VOC per passenger mile (kg)0.0005 0.0002 Table 3.10-1 Comparison of GHG Emissions in Build versus No Build scenario.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-37
While it’s likely the share of travel modes replaced by ferry ridership would be more varied (i.e. bus, train,
carpool), the purpose of the comparison is to show an approximate maximum potential emissions savings in a
ferry ridership maximum capacity scenario. This model shows a potential savings of CO2 emissions in the Build
Alternative.
While the Build Alternative will result in increased energy use and the associated emissions at the site, the net
operational result over the lifetime of the proposed project will be increased ridership of commuters and other
riders on the ferry service reducing on-road vehicles thereby reducing net energy use and ensuing GHG
emissions operationally. Overall, the changes associated with the Build Alternative will likely be minor.
3.10.4. Mitigation
Per NEPA guidance, while any given project is small in the context of global GHG emissions, projects
worldwide have a considerable impact on climate and also an opportunity to reduce emissions via choices
made. Mitigation options for the reduction of operational emissions may include incorporation of applicable
energy efficiency standards for green buildings, use of energy efficient building materials, and/or incorporation
of clean energy technologies in the project design. Since the primary concern is net lifetime emissions from the
proposed project, mitigation options for construction were also reviewed. Reducing GHGs from construction
could be achieved by using biodiesel and/or low-sulfur diesel fuel in construction engines, implementing energy
conservation best practices for construction sites, and by using recycled construction materials and cement
replacements.
Recognizing the impact of GHG emissions on the global environment, and to promote their reduction, the CFT
will include infrastructure for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations to promote the adoption of EVs and attract
commuters that already own them.
3.10.5. Conclusion
Based on the comparative GHG analysis provided in Table 3.10-1, a decrease in vehicle miles traveled
resulting from the Build Alternative may yield a reduction in GHG emissions and offset the increase in GHG
emissions associated with the overall project. The net operational result over the lifetime of the proposed
project will be increased ridership of commuters and other riders on the ferry service reducing on-road vehicles
thereby reducing net energy use and ensuing GHG emissions operationally.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-38
3.11. Energy
This section discusses the potential impacts on energy consumption of the proposed CFT alternative. For the purposes
of this section, energy resources are described in terms of electricity and fuel. The analysis focused on the project’s
potential to increase demand on existing resources and the potential to result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy. The analysis has determined that no adverse impacts to energy consumption would occur as a
result of the No Build Alternative or Build Alternative of the proposed project.
3.11.1. Affected Environment
This section provides an overview of existing energy service providers and energy consumption in the project
area. The Project will use the existing energy providers and utility infrastructure that service the area, in
addition to the required site improvements to install additional capacity for gas and electric service to the
proposed building. The primary gas company servicing the project area is Elizabethtown Gas and the electricity
company is Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G).
3.11.2. No Build Alternative
In the No Build Alternative, no modifications to the site would occur to accommodate ferry services. There will
be no new utility infrastructure installed for additional capacity and an increase in fuel and electrical power
consumption at the CFT would not occur. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would have no effect or impact
with regard to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
3.11.3. Build Alternative
The Build Alternative will result in increased energy demand due to the construction of the building’s operating
systems, including lighting, HVAC system, mechanical controls, and emergency power supply, which will be
powered by gas and electricity utilities, as well as energy consumed by the operation of the ferry boats. The
Project will meet all applicable building and energy efficiency codes required by law; therefore, it is not
anticipated that energy consumption from the operation of the building would not result in the wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Emergency power will be provided by a centrally located natural gas generator serving the CFT. The exact size
of the generator would be determined during design. The generator would only be used during emergencies
and power outages, as well as periodic maintenance cycling, and would not result in a significant increase of
fuel by the project.
Under the proposed project, the building construction would be completed over approximately 24 months.
Construction would include required demolition, construction of the building foundation and structure, dock
improvements and piers, and construction of ancillary improvements (i.e. sidewalks, parking, lighting,
landscaping, etc.). Common construction practices used for similar projects would be implemented. All
reasonable energy conservation practices would be used to minimize the costs associated with energy use,
consistent with state and local requirements.
Emissions from construction equipment will result in an increase in energy consumption at the site. FTA’s
Greenhouse Gas Estimator, v3.0 was used to analyze and estimate projected energy use associated with the
operation of the CFT. The “Facility Operation” worksheet of the tool was exclusively used to determine energy
consumption estimates. We note that this spreadsheet tool is assumed to provide an order of magnitude
estimate for the project, which is useful for the purposes of this assessment – disclosing projected energy use
associated with operation of the CFT. While this tool provides an estimation based on broad industry averages,
the specific use of this tool may introduce significant error. There is no specific transit mode for a ferry terminal;
therefore, “Bus/BRT Station” was selected as the closest applicable facility type. An analysis period of 50 years
was selected over which to assess energy use. Based on the FTA tool, the facility is estimated to consume
4,195 mmBTU of energy annually, and 209,741 mmBTU over its 50-year service life.
An aggregate estimation of energy saved by vehicles being taken off the road versus energy expended by the
operation of the ferry service is provided below in Table 3.11-1. This summary finds that although there is
increased energy required to operate the CFT, it is 44% of new energy expenditures are offset by energy
savings from a reduction in car, bus, and rail commuters that would utilize the ferry service. The calculations
conservatively assume initial year low-range ridership numbers per the 2018 Rutgers Expanded Ridership
Study. Accordingly, as ridership increases, as it is expected to, energy offsets would increase in turn and
further reduce net energy use.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-39
Table 3.11-1: Annual Energy Consumption
Energy Use New Energy
Use (mmBTU)
Offset Energy
Use (mmBTU)
Notes / Assumptions
Facility Operation: Electric Power Consumption 4,195 -FTA GHG Estimator v3.0 (Bus station facility mode utilized)
Ferry: Diesel Fuel Consumption 34,952 -Assumes: 70 gal/hr x 1,800 service hours per year x 2 ferries x
138,700 BTU/gal (diesel)
Bus: Diesel Fuel Consumption --508 Assumes: 55% of new ferry riders (407) are former bus riders,
calculated as follows: 6 buses x 3.7 gal/hr x 1,650 service
hours per year x 138,700 BTU/gal (diesel)
Passenger Vehicle: Gasoline Fuel Consumption --21,368 Assumes: 30% of new ferry ridership (222) are former car
drivers, calculated as follows: 1.4 gal/hr x 550 service hours
per year x 222 cars x 125,000 BTU/gal (gasoline)
Commuter Rail: Electric Power Consumption -45 Assumes: 15% of new ferry ridership (110) are former rail
riders, calculated using FTA GHG Estimator v3.0 (Electric
commuter rail transit vehicle operation & maintenance), RFCE
eGrid subregion; 10,500 Annual VMT
TOTAL: 39,147 -21,921
NET CHANGE:
Notes:
1. Initial ferry ridership of 739 passengers assumed based on low range estimate per 2018 Rutgers Expanded Ridership Study
2. Mode split per Nelson Nygaard 2016 Feasibility Study
3. Fuel consumption and service hours per Nelson Nygaard 2016 Feasibility Study
17,227
As shown, the operational energy consumption of the facility itself represents approximately 10% of new
consumption. This would be entirely offset by the reduction in energy consumption through shifts in mode splits
of transportation converting to ferry ridership.
3.11.4. Mitigation
Energy-saving mitigation measures may be incorporated into the project design to mitigate impacts of
increased energy usage at the site. Any proposed stationary sources of air pollution, including the standby
generator would be permitted as required by the NJDEP.
3.11.5. Conclusion
With the start of the CFT’s operations on a formerly vacant site along with providing a new mode of
transportation to commuters, there will be an increase in energy consumption with the implementation of the
Build Alternative. However, it is noted that only 10% of new energy consumption will be associated with the
stationary facility located in Carteret, all of which will be offset by reductions in energy associated with travel
modes shifting to ferry ridership Additionally, as ridership continues to increase as projected by studies
performed for the ferry service, energy offsets will continue to increase and balance the operational energy
consumption of the ferry service as a whole.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-40
3.12. Noise and Vibration
This section evaluates the potential for the Build Alternative to result in noise and vibration impacts. Changes to noise
and vibration could occur because of the construction of a new transportation facility in proximity to sensitive receptors.
The analyses of noise and vibration were conducted in accordance with the methodologies presented in the FTA’s
guidance manual, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Report No. 0123, September 2018),
noted herein as the “FTA Manual” .
3.12.1. Airborne Noise
To evaluate the Build Alternative’s effects on airborne noise, a General Noise Assessment was conducted in
accordance with the methodologies presented in the FTA Manual. This involves conducting a screening
assessment to identify whether any “noise-sensitive” locations are present that could be affected by a project,
and when such locations are present, conducting the General Noise Assessment to evaluate impacts.
The FTA Manual defines noise impact criteria based on the specific type of land use that will be affected, with
three noise-sensitive land use categories identified:
• Noise Land Use Category 1: Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element of the intended
purpose;
• Noise Land Use Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep (where nighttime
sensitivity to noise is greatest – e.g., homes, hospitals, and hotels); and
• Noise Land Use Category 3: Institutional land uses with daytime and evening use (e.g., schools,
libraries, theaters, parks/recreational areas and churches where avoiding speech interference is
critical).
It is noted that the area surrounding the proposed CFT has existing industrial and commercial properties on all
sides. Given the proposed location of the facility, Category 3 has been selected as it is consistent with the
existing recreational, commercial, and industrial nature of land use characteristic in proximity to the project
location, as well as its isolation from residential areas and highly sensitive receptors. It is also the category for
which nighttime noise sensitivity is not a factor. Category 3 land uses are evaluated by the noise metric Leq(1hr),
which represents the loudest hour of related activity during which human activities occur at the noise-sensitive
location.
FTA criteria for noise impact specify a comparison of future project noise with existing noise. A “No Build”
scenario, therefore, is not contemplated in this analysis. The criteria are defined with the expectation that
communities already exposed to high levels of noise can only tolerate a small increase. In contrast, if the
existing noise levels are low, it is reasonable to allow a greater change in community noise.
The proposed project will result in both mobile‐ and stationary‐source noise. Mobile sources of noise generated
by the proposed project include vehicular traffic traveling along access roadways to/from the proposed surface
parking lot adjacent to the ferry terminal. Mobile source noise levels reduce at a rate of 3 decibels per distance
doubling from the source (e.g. 70 dBA at a distance of 50 feet would reduce to approximately 67 dBA at a
distance of 100 feet). Noise levels associated with stationary‐sources, including those associated with the ferry
terminal building and the ferry whistles, reduce at a rate of 6 decibels per distance doubling (e.g. 70 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet would reduce to approximately 64 dBA at 100 feet).
New Jersey Administrative Code Title 7, Section 29 (N.J.A.C. 7:29) regulates noise levels from commercial
facilities (including transportation facilities, like the proposed CFT) at other commercial, community facility or
residential receiving properties. Industrial properties are located directly north, west and southwest of the
proposed project. The Carteret Waterfront Park and Carteret Fishing Pier would be considered a community
service facility and are located directly south of the proposed project. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:29, the maximum
permissible continuous airborne sound level resulting from this commercial facility, for any time period at these
receiving properties, is 65 dBA. This 65 dBA upper limit for acceptable noise levels is noise levels is consistent
with FTA guidance for Category 1 and 2 land uses. For Category 3 land uses, which are considered to be less
sensitive to noise, the upper limit for acceptable noise levels is identified as 70 dBA.
3.12.1.1. Build Alternative
To assess the potential noise impacts associated with the Build Alternative, the FTA methodology was
used to assess noise impacts by estimating project-related noise and comparing it to existing noise to
determine anticipated levels of noise increase.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-41
This analysis follows the FTA’s Noise Screening Procedure and transitions to a General Noise
Assessment. The Noise Screening Procedure defines the study area any noise impact assessment.
Noise Screening Procedure
Step 1 – Identify Project Type
The project will be modeled as three (3) distinct project types per FTA Manual Table 4-7 with
assessments of each at proximate sensitive receptors:
Ferry Terminal
Park & Ride Lot with Buses
Bus Facility Access Road
Multiple project types were selected to identify discrete noise impacts associated with various aspects
of the CFT which will include both stationary noise sources associated with the building and ferry, as
well as mobile noise sources associated with passenger and shuttle bus traffic accessing the park-and-
ride lot via the access road from Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway. “Bus facility access road” was
conservatively selected as the most similar appropriate system since parking facilities specific to Ferry
Terminals are not contemplated in the FTA Manual. The intensity of operations at the CFT and park-
and-ride facility are anticipated to be less than those specified in the FTA manual as the access road
and park-and-ride lot will accommodate fewer than 1,000 cars and 12 buses, at speeds less than 35
mph.
Step 2 – Determine Screening Distance
Table 4-7 cites the following unobstructed screening distances for the systems:
Ferry Terminal: 300 feet (from center of berth)
Park & Ride Lot with Buses: 225 feet (from ROW on both sides of road)
Bus Facility Access Road: 100 feet (from ROW on both sides of road)
Step 3 – Identify Study Area
Screening distances were applied based on the project system. Option C (Small Stationary Facility)
was selected as noise sources at the terminal will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the building
and supporting infrastructure (ferry docking operations, HVAC equipment, and standby generators,
etc.) The screening distance is applied from the center of the noise-generating activity. Option B
(Highway/Transit Sources) was applied to consider traffic entering and exiting the park-and-ride facility
and associated access road.
Step 4 – Locate Noise Sensitive Land Uses
Land Use Category 3 (Institutional) was selected as the nearest noise sensitive land use, associated
with Waterfront Park, located approximately 250 feet south of the CFT. More distant from the site, a
large industrial warehouse is located approximately 450 feet southwest of the site, and residential
apartment (Meridian Square and Meridian Terrace apartments) are located approximately 1,450 feet
west of the site, but also noted as being adjacent to Industrial Highway at the intersection with the park-
and-ride access road.
As the noise sensitive land use was identified in Waterfront Park and at the residential developments
opposite the intersection of the access road to the park-and-ride at Industrial Highway, a General
Noise Assessment was completed to evaluation noise impacts at these receptors:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-42
General Noise Assessment
Step 1 – Identify Noise Sensitive Receivers
Waterfront Park (250 feet south of site) has been identified at the most proximate noise sensitive
receiver to the ferry terminal. The adjacent warehouse has been disregarded as an existing industrial
use with noise levels assumed to be greater than that of the proposed CFT and with employees
accustomed to experiencing background ambient noise consistent with their workplace.
Residential apartments (Meridian Square and Meridian Terrace) are located along the western side of
Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway, setback approximately 65 feet from the centerline of the roadway.
These have been identified as sensitive receptors (Land Use Category 2). This land use category
utilizes the noise metric Ldn and includes an additional 10-dB penalty for nighttime noises, however, no
additional nighttime noises are proposed; therefore, calculations will be carried out sim ilar to Land Use
Category 3.
Step 2 – Determine Project Noise Source Reference Levels:
Project noise sources are classified as a Stationary Source (Option C.i – Small Facility). Per the
General Noise Assessment guidelines, only prominent features of each fixed facility are considered in
the noise analysis. FTA Manual Table 4-13 provides a sound exposure level (SEL) of 97 dBA for ferry
boats without sounding fog horns and 100 dBA with sounding fog horns, assuming 4 ferry boat
landings in one hour. For the purposes of the assessment, it was conservatively assumed that ferry
boats may sound a horn upon departure. Noise impacts of the terminal’s associated 700-space park-
and-ride commuter lot and access road were also considered.
The Leq(1hr) is calculated at 50 feet according to the equation in Table 4-14:
Leq(1hr) = peak hour noise level at 50 feet, dBA
SELref = reference Sound Exposure Level (SEL), dBA
CN = Volume adjustment (calculated for both ferry terminal and park-and-ride lot):
Ferry Terminal:
NF = average ferry boat loadings per hour during day or night (2)
Park-and-Ride Lot / Access Road:
NA = average number of automobiles per hours during day or night
NB = average number of buses per hour during day or night
Therefore:
Ferry Terminal at 50 feet:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-43
Park-and-Ride Lot / Access Road at 50 feet:
Step 3 – Estimate Project Noise Exposure by Distance
In the previous step, noise exposure at the reference distance of 50 ft was calculated for the various
noise sources. This step describes how to estimate the project noise exposure beyond (or, if needed,
closer than) the reference distance, such as at noise-sensitive land uses locations. This procedure
estimates the source’s noise exposure as a function of distance.
No further adjustments for noise exposure were made for the park-and-ride lot, as the 50 foot distance
is consistent with the setback of the residential apartments and edge of the right-of-way.
At Waterfront Park, per FTA Manual Figure 4-6, a distance correction value of approximately -17 dB
and -10 dB was calculated at 250 feet (representing the distance to the adjoining Waterfront Park), for
the stationary ferry terminal source and park-and-ride source, respectively as shown in Figure 3.12-1:
Figure 3.12-1: FTA Manual Figure 4-6.
To determine the noise level at Waterfront Park, the distance correction is combined with the Leq(1hr) for
each source:
Ferry Terminal at 250 feet:
Park-and-Ride / Access Road at 250 feet:
As the sound level at 250 feet was determined to be approximately 40.5 dBA, which is relatively
insignificant, analyses for more distant sound receptors were not conducted.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-44
Step 4 – Combine Noise Exposure from All Sources
Both park-and-ride and ferry terminal sources are combined to predict the total noise at Waterfront
Park. Given the significant distance of the ferry terminal docks from the Meridian Square and Terrace
condominium complexes, only noise exposure related to the park-and-ride facility was analyzed.
Total noise exposure is computed according to Table 4-16 of the FTA Manual:
Step 5 – Measure Existing Noise Exposure
Per FTA Manual Table 4-17, existing noise exposure for the site and the adjacent Waterfront Park has
been estimated by reviewing both the effects of ambient noise related to population density and
ambient noise associated with Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway, located approximately one-quarter mile
to the east of the site. Table 4-17 estimates daytime Leq at 50 dBA for roadway noise and 55 dBA
based on the Borough’s population density between 3,000 and 10,000 people per square mile. As a
conservative measure, effects of shielding were not considered.
Along Industrial Highway at the residential condominium complexes, 2020 existing peak noise levels
were measured and in the Paul Carpenter Noise Assessment (Appendix 3.12-1) as shown in Table
3.12-1:
Table 3.12-1: 2020 Existing Peak Noise Levels dBA (Leq)
Measurement Location AM Peak Noise Level
(7:45 am – 8:45am)
PM Peak Noise Level
(4:30 pm -5:30 pm)
Meridian Terrace 75 75
Meridian Square 74 73
Existing peak noise levels at the residential developments are shown to already be on the upper bound
of existing noise exposure ratings; therefore, any noise assessments which demonstrate noise levels
below existing levels will result in no impact to these receptors.
Step 6 – Inventory Impacts
Option A was selected to compare existing noise project noise at the noise-sensitive land use area. As
the existing ambient noise exposure was determined to be between 50 dBA and 55 dBA, while the
predicted noise level associated with the Ferry Terminal and park-and-ride/access road was calculated
to be approximately 49.7 dBA, is concluded that there will be no noise impact to existing noise levels at
Waterfront Park. This is consistent with FTA Manual Figure 4-2 for project noise exposure, presented
in Figure 3.12-2.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-45
Figure 3.12-2: FTA Manual Figure 4-2 Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects, including projected
noise levels compared to existing noise levels for (1) Waterfront Park and (2) residential
condominiums along Industrial Highway.
Step 7 – Determine Noise Mitigation Needs
3.12.1.2. Mitigation
As the above assessment determined there would be no noise impact, no mitigation measures are
required.
3.12.2. Groundborne Vibration and Noise
The FTA Manual provides three levels of analysis to assess the potential ground-borne vibration and noise
impacts resulting from a public transportation project. The appropriate level of analysis varies by project based
on the type and scale of the project, the stage of project development, and its environmental setting. These
three levels are: the Vibration Screening Procedure, the General Vibration Assessment, and the Detailed
Vibration Analysis. These levels of vibration analysis mirror the levels of noise analysis discussed in Section
3.12.1.
The Vibration Screening Procedure, performed first, defines the study area of any subsequent vibration impact
assessment. Where there is potential for impact, the General Vibration Assessment and Detailed Vibration
Analysis.
In the case of the CFT, there are no transportation modes or project vehicles proposed which will generate
vibration impacts. As stated in the FTA Manual Section 6.3, transit projects that do not involve vehicles do not
have potential for vibration impact and do not require further analysis. Additionally, projects such as bus
terminals and park-and-ride lots and building which do not include vehicles operating within them (the most
similar analog for the CFT), do not require further analysis of ground-borne vibration impact; therefore, no
mitigation is required.
3.12.3. Conclusion
Noise impacts associated with mobile and stationary sources of the CFT were assessed in accordance with the
FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. The project will generate noise as a result of
operations; however, increased noise levels at nearby sensitive land uses, including residential condominium
complexes located along Industrial Highway, and Waterfront Park fall within the “No Impact” zone for increases
in existing noise exposure. Accordingly, there will also be no moderate or severe noise impacts.
1
2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-46
Likewise, due to the nature of the project involving water-based vessels at ferry docks and rubber-tired vehicles
at the park-and-ride lot, no ground-borne vibrations will be induced as a result of the operation of the facility.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-47
3.13. Natural Resources
This section characterizes the natural resources on the project site and in the immediate area and evaluates the Build
Alternative’s impacts on those resources. These include inland fresh and emergent tidal wetlands, floodplains, riparian
areas, water quality, terrestrial ecological communities and wildlife, aquatic biota, federal and state designated
threatened and endangered species, and protected coastal zone management areas. The study area for wetlands and
terrestrial resources comprises the project site itself and immediately adjacent areas. For aquatic resources, the study
area consists of the Arthur Kill.
As part of the regulatory review process for the CFT project, extensive consultation with State and Federal
environmental stakeholders and permitting agencies has been undertaken to ensure all work meets regulatory
standards. Existing conditions in the study area were characterized on the basis of existing information available from
federal and state resources and the results of field investigation of the study area.
3.13.1. Affected Environment
3.13.1.1. Wetlands
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) regulates wetlands under both the
Freshwater Wetlands (FWW) Protection Act Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:7A) and the Wetlands Act of 1970
(N.J.A.C. 7:7 et. seq.). Freshwater wetlands are determined by field delineations using the Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, published in 1989 by the EPA, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
The NJDEP GeoWeb and National Wetlands Inventory did not identify any freshwater wetlands (FWW)
within the project area. However, freshwater wetlands were identified along the southern shoreline
which were delineated by Environmental Technology, Inc., and legally verified by a FWW Letter of
Interpretation (LOI) File No. 1201-08-001.1. The wetlands onsite are classified as Intermediate
Resource Value with a 50-foot transition area.
3.13.1.2. Flood Zones
Activities in the flood hazard area are regulated under the NJDEP Flood Hazard Area Control Act
(FHA) Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:13) and generally require formal permit authorization for activities within a
floodplain or flood hazard area. Additionally, under the FHA Rules, regulated waters are subject to
buffer areas known as “riparian zones”—i.e., shoreline areas at the water’s edge. Certain activities in
these areas, such as grading, the placement of fill, the cutting or clearing of vegetation, the creation of
impervious surface, are subject to regulation.
Generally, activities within regulated flood hazard areas or riparian zones require separate FHA permits
for authorization of these activities. However, portions of the study area may be subject to regulation
under the NJDEP Waterfront Development Law (N.J.A.C. 7:7) and by rule, compliance with the FHA
Rules can take place within the context of a Waterfront Development Permit and a separate FHA
Permit will not be required.
According to the Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 34023C0079G released by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on January 30, 2015 (see Figure 3.13-1 on the
following page), the entirety of the site is within the study area are located within the 100- year
floodplain (1 percent annual-chance flood event), Zone AE-14. Within this zone, the proposed site of
the CFT is situated seaward of the Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LimWA) line, which indicates the
potential for additional hazards due to storm -induced velocity wave action between 1.5 and 3-foot high
breaking waves; however, FEMA mapping is reflective of site topography prior to substantial site filling
which has since raised the CFT building pad above the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, no effects
from wave action during coastal flood events is anticipated.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-48
Figure 3.13-1: FEMA Preliminary Flood Zone Map. CFT location shown in yellow.
3.13.1.3. Water Quality
Surface Water Quality Standards for New Jersey Waters (N.J.A.C. 7:9B) establish the designated uses
to be achieved, provide management guidelines, and specify the water quality criteria necessary to
protect the state’s waters. Designed uses include potable water, propagation of fish and wildlife,
recreation, agricultural and industrial uses, and navigation. These are reflected in the classifications
assigned to specific waters.
NJDEP classifies this portion of the Arthur Kill as saline estuarine waters, secondary contact and
migration of fish that does not support tour production or maintenance (SE3) by the NJDEP Surface
Water Quality Standards. Designated uses as defined in the Surface Water Quality Standards include:
• Secondary contact recreation;
• Maintenance and migration of fish populations;
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-49
• Migration of diadromous fish;
• Maintenance of wildlife; and
• Any other reasonable uses.
The Arthur Kill within the study area is listed on the New Jersey 2020 list of impaired waters
accordingly to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act list of impaired waters for certain pollutants and
has restrictions on the consumption of fish from the waterway.
The development of the upland site is subject to NJDEP Stormwater Management Rules, which sets
standards for water quality of stormwater runoff, which requires all new regulated motor vehicle
impervious surfaces be treated to remove 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) before being
discharged off-site. The Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey (SESC) as set
forth in (N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.1), defines parameters for the design of SESC for site work and outfalls to
minimize downstream impacts related to off-site stormwater discharge, including turbidity and scour.
3.13.1.4. Terrestrial Natural Resources
Terrestrial vegetation and wildlife of the study area are described below. The area in which the site is
located is defined as the Arthur Kill Complex within the New York Bight by the USFWS. Information
contained below has been based on the USFWS’s List of Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes
of the New York Bight Watershed – Arthur Kill Complex #18. A list of species of special emphasis
occurring in the Arthur Kill Complex is included in Appendix 3.13-1 “Arthur Kill Complex Species List”
and are described more generally below.
The Study area, due to the recent remediation work and cap installation, is generally devoid of any
vegetation in the upland area, with the exception of some limited wildflowers established on the surface
of the aggregate cap, including sand tickseed (Coreopsis lanceolate), and common reeds (Phragmites
australis) on lower elevations of the site, and numerous invasive species which have colonized the
periphery of the site.
Areas on and within the immediate vicinity of the study area are highly disturbed and developed, and it
is anticipated that terrestrial mammals found in this area will be limited to primarily to disturbance-
tolerant urban-adapted species.
A number of migratory and non-migratory birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, raptors,
and songbirds occur in the Arthur Kill Complex area.
Amphibians and reptiles could be expected to exist on the site, more likely on the periphery than the
disturbed surface of the cap.
3.13.1.5. Aquatic Natural Resources
While being adjacent to the Arthur Kill tidal strait, there are no aquatic natural resources located within
the footprint of the proposed CFT. The existing site generally slopes from the northwest to the
southeast and does not contain any areas of wetlands, streams, or water bodies.
Intertidal and Subtidal Shallows – Intertidal and subtidal shallows exist within the project area for the
overall CFT project. Proposed dredging for the ferry docks and landing will impact approximately
61,690 square feet of subtidal shallows. The location of the proposed ferry slips are the preferred
alternative that will best suit the purpose and need of the project while minimizing environmental
impacts. The deteriorated wetlands onsite will be restored to provide improved subtidal habitat. The
shoreline has been subject to long-term use and heavy industrial and cargo ship traffic for many years.
As such, the shoreline would be considered previously disturbed, and the overall project is not
anticipated to have adverse impacts on the intertidal and subtidal shallows.
3.13.1.6. Essential Fish Habitat
Section 305(b)(2)-(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 USC § 1801 to 1883) outlines the process for
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Regional Fishery Management Councils (in this
case, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council) to comment on activities proposed by federal
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-50
agencies (issuing permits or funding projects) that may adversely impact areas designated as
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (16 USC §1802[10]). Adverse impacts to EFH, as
defined in 50 CFR 600.910(A), include any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH.
Adverse impacts may include:
• Direct impacts such as physical disruption or the release of contaminants;
• Indirect impacts such as the loss of prey or reduction in the fecundity (number of offspring
produced) of a managed species; and
• Site-specific or habitat-wide impacts that may include individual, cumulative, or synergetic
consequences of a Federal action.
The CFT project will include in-water work for the construction of the ferry slips and dockage.
Coordination with NOAA and NMFS determined the need for an EFH Assessment during the project’s
permitting process and approvals have been received from NOAA regarding Essential Fish Habitat. An
EFH Assessment was conducted by T&M Associates is included in Appendix 3.13-2.
The EFH Assessment concluded that the majority of the species identified are not estuarine species
and therefore only utilize the project area on a seasonal basis, primarily in the warmer summer
months. The only exception is the winter flounder which generally spawn from February to June.
Seasonal work restrictions area required by the combine NJDEP permit for in-water work (dredging
and marine construction) activities from January 1st to June 30th to protect winter founder and
anadromous fish. The in-water construction activities will take place during the latter part of the year to
decrease impacts to summer flounder. Concurrence was sought from NFMS on the EFH Assessment
and the USACE determination that the proposed action may adversely affect EFH, however, the
adverse effects on EFH are not likely to be substantial. NFMS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries
Office (GARFO) Habitat Conservation Division (HCD) corresponded on July 16, 2021 and advised that
the project may adversely affect EFH, and provided the following Conservation Recommendations
(CRs) to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects:
• Avoid in-water work activities associated with dredging, bulkhead construction, and steel pile
installation between March 2 and June 20 to minimize impacts to anadromous fish (dates
inclusive of NJDEP restriction); and
• Best management practices should be utilized when pouring concrete to avoid contact with the
water (e.g. pump into sealed forms and the forms should not be removed until the concrete
has cured).
The NMFS GARFO HCD also reviewed the project under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, but
did not provide any additional CRs other than those listed above.
The construction of the ferry terminal slips will involve pile driving and dredging within the Arthur Kill.
The NJDEP Upland/In-Water Waterfront Development Permit prepared for the project indicates that
there is not documented shellfish habitat within the vicinity of the CFT. Furthermore, based on Shellfish
Growing Water Classification Charts, these Arthur Kill is condemned and closed to the harvest of
clams, mussels, and oysters. Due to the lack of suitable shellfish, the construction of the CFT is not
anticipated to result in adverse effects to habitat.
3.13.1.7. Threatened and Endangered Species (ESA Section 7)
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC §§ 1531 to 1544) recognizes that endangered
species of wildlife and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and
scientific value to the nation and its people. The ESA forbids any government agency, corporation, or
citizen from taking (i.e., harming or killing) endangered animals without a permit. Once a species is
listed as threatened or endangered, the ESA requires that “critical habitat” be designated for that
species, including areas necessary for the recovery of the species. Federal agencies are forbidden
from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action which “destroys or adversely modifies” critical
habitat.
Section 7 of the Act, called "Interagency Cooperation," is the mechanism by which Federal agencies
ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-51
any listed species. Section 7 approval has been obtained for the project from NOAA. A copy of the
NOAA ESA Section 7: Project Verification Form is included in Appendix 3.13-3.
The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Report generated for the CFT Project
(Appendix 3.13-4), did not identify any federally listed species within the project area. The IPaC
Report, did, however, identify numerous migratory bird species. Furthermore, the Borough of Carteret
is not listed on the USFWS’s New Jersey Municipalities with Hibernation of Maternity Occurrence of
Indiana Bat or Northern Long-eared Bat” (April 15, 2017), which includes municipalities with
documented northern long-eared bat roost trees and municipalities that have or are within ¼ mile from
a known hibernaculum. In addition, the Borough of Carteret is not listed a municipality with known
occurrences of swamp pink (Helonias bullata) or bog turtle (Clemmys [Glyptemys] muhlenbergii) on
NJDEP’s “Known Locations of Swamp Pink in NJ” or “Known Locations of Bog Turtles in NJ”.
According to Biological Opinion on the Effects of Road Network Operations, Maintenance,
Improvement and Expansion on the Federally Listed (Threatened) Bog Turtle (Clemmys [Glyptemys]
muhlenbergii) in New Jersey (June 2019), the project is located entirely outside of the Programmatic
Action Area. There will be no effect for bog turtle.
During the permitting process, the USACE solicited comments of NOAA/NMFS’s Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) Protected Resources Division (PRD) to complete consultation
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for species under their jurisdiction. This report is
contained in Appendix 3.13-3. Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), a Federally
endangered/threatened and State endangered species, was identified as occurring in the project’s
action area. Although the NJDEP Natural Heritage Program report included shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum), a Federally and State endangered spaces), the NOAA GARFO ESA Section
7 Mapper only listed Atlantic Sturgeon.
GARFO PRD concurred with the “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determination based on the
justification and provided the special condition of a 20-minute soft start for pile driving on the GARFO
ESA Section 7: NLAA Program Verification Form.
The NJDEP Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Report, dated March 11, 2020, and provided in
Appendix 3.13-5, identified the following species onsite:
• Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) [Foraging] – State Endangered
• Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) [Foraging] – State Threatened
• Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) [Nest, Foraging] – State Threatened
• Yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassa violacea) [Foraging] – State Threatened
• Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) [Migration corridor – Adult Sighting] – Federal
and State Endangered
The NHP Report identified the following species in the immediate vicinity of the project site:
• Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) [Foraging] – State Threatened
The NHP Report identified the following species within one mile of the project site:
• Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) [Urban nest] – State Endangered
The NHP Report also identified the following special concern species on the project site, in the
immediate vicinity, and within one mile of the project site:
• Glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) [Foraging]
• Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) [Foraging]
• Snowy egret (Egretta thula) [Foraging]
• Tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor) [Foraging]
The NJDEP Landscape Project Viewer v3.3 identified all the species located on the project which were
identified by NJDEP NHP. No additional species were mapped.
Based upon the existing conditions of the project area and the Arthur Kill, the proposed project is not
anticipated to have major long-term impacts to Essential Fish Habitat. The in-water construction
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-52
activities will be staged during the winter months to decrease the project’s impacts to EFH and
threatened and endangered species.
3.13.1.8. Coastal Zones
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC § 1451 to 1465) established a voluntary
participation program to encourage coastal states to manage development within the state’s
designated coastal areas, reducing conflicts between coastal development and protection of resources
within the coastal area. The Coastal Zone Management Act requires that federal activities within a
state’s coastal zone be consistent with that state’s federally approved coastal zone management plan.
New Jersey has a federally approved coastal zone management program, which is administered by
NJDEP through the Coastal Zone Management Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:7).
The Arthur Kill tidal strait within the vicinity of the project site is within New Jersey’s regulated Coastal
Zone. It is not, however, within the state’s Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1973 (CAFRA).
3.13.1.9. Sole Source Aquifers
The Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program is authorized by Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-523, 42 U.S.C. 300 et. seq), which states that no commitment for
federal financial assistance may be entered into for any project that may contaminate an area that has
been determined to be a sole source aquifer and would create a significant hazard to public health.
USEPA defines a sole source aquifer as “one which supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water
consumed in the area overlying the aquifer.” USEPA also stipulates that these areas can have no
alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically, legally, and economically supply all those who
depend upon the aquifer for drinking water.
The project site overlays the extreme northeastern edge of the Coastal Plain sole-source aquifer (i.e.,
the New Jersey Coastal Plain aquifer system), which was designated by the USEPA as a sole source
aquifer on June 24, 1988 (NJDEP 1999). Recharge of the Coastal Plain aquifer is through stream flow
and infiltration from the New Jersey Coastal Plain physiographic province, including all upstream
portions of the Delaware River watershed in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York (NJDEP 1999).
The project site is located within the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system of the Coastal Plain.
The Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is a confined aquifer characterized by alternating layers of sand,
gravel, silt, and clay. Groundwater wells in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer range from 50 to
1,800 feet in depth (USGS 2013). Withdrawals from the Coastal Plain aquifer system (e.g., via shallow
domestic, public supply, industrial, and irrigation wells) total about 243 million gallons per day (MGD)
(USGS 2013). Withdrawals from the deeper confined aquifers in the Coastal Plain, primarily from
public supply wells, total about 230 MGD (Buxton 1995).
It is further noted that as the project study area is located in the Metropolitan Planning Area as set forth
by the New Jersey State Planning Commission, NJDEP Stormwater Management Rules pertaining to
groundwater recharge as found in N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.4 are not applicable.
3.13.2. No Build Alternative
In the No Build scenario, natural resources would remain unaffected from the existing condition outside of
effects captioned above with respect to the overall CFT project.
3.13.3. Build Alternative
The analysis in this section considers the potential impacts of the Build Alternative. The overall effects of the
proposed project on natural resources are described below.
3.13.3.1. Wetlands
The CFT project will involve shoreline stabilization, stormwater improvements, some of which will
extend into previously disturbed and degraded freshwater wetland areas identified on the site.
Pursuant to this work, NJDEP issued FWW General Permits No. 7 and No. 11 (approved August 10,
2021) for the regulated activities of human-made ditches/swales in headwaters and construction of
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-53
stormwater conveyance structures. Restoration of degraded wetlands will be carried out consistent
with requirements of the NJDEP to provide an overall improved wetland condition at the site.
3.13.3.2. Flood Zones
As noted above, for projects that will have a significant encroachment into the floodplain, USDOT
Order 5650.2, “Floodplain Management and Protection,” requires FTA to make a finding that the
proposed action is the only practicable alternative and that an evaluation was conducted to identify
whether other alternatives are available to avoid or reduce adverse impacts on the floodplain. A
significant encroachment is defined as one that will result in a considerable probability of loss of human
life; likely future damage associated with the encroachment that could be substantial in cost or extent,
inducing interruption of service on or loss of a vital transportation facility; and a notable adverse impact
on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Additionally, Executive Order 11988 requires federal
agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the
occupancy and modification of flood plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain
development wherever there is a practicable alternative.
While the Build Alternative is located within the mapped 100-year floodplain, the existing topography at
the site have been modified and raised as part of the site remediation work to the extent that the
current topography of the site is above the 100-year floodplain elevation of 14.0. (Refer to Figure 3.13-
1)
In order to comply with ASCE 24-14 and as structure is classified as Flood Design Class 3 structure
due to its critical role as a mass transit terminal, it must have its lowest horizontal structure member
elevated at least two (2) feet above the 1% annual flood elevation of 14. Therefore, the finished floor of
the structure must have a minimum required elevation of 16.0. With this being said, the Build
Alternative will result in the placement of material within the 100-year floodplain under the footprint of
the terminal building. Additionally, all parking areas will be elevated above the base flood elevation.
Because this section of the Arthur Kill is tidal and is affected by coastal flooding rather than riverine
flooding, it will not lose storage capacity under normal conditions or during severe storms as a result of
the placement of this structure. Additionally, the area is within a tidal flood hazard area, thereby
exempting the Build Alternative from the NJDEP rules on adjacent area flood storage volume
displacement limits at N.J.A.C. 7:13-11.4. Given, the minor modifications to the floodplain that will
result from the Build Alternative, and its location within a tidal waterbody, adverse impacts to the
floodplain or flooding of areas adjacent to the study area are not expected. The design of the Build
Alternative will ensure that all elements adhere to the Flood Hazard Area Design Standards, Uniform
Construction Code Standards, and ASCE 24-14.
3.13.3.3. Project Resilience
By the nature of its purpose, the CFT must be located in close proximity to the municipal ferry landing
along the western banks of the Arthur Kill. Consequently, the CFT is proposed to be located within the
1% annual (a/k/a “100-year”) Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as determined by FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (refer to Section 3.13). Specifically, the proposed structure is in flood zone AE-
14. Flood-related damage, as well as flooding exacerbated by sea-level rise, have been identified as
the principal hazards posed to the CFT.
The terminal building structure is classified as a Flood Design Class 3 structure under the American
Society of Civil Engineers “Flood Resistant Design and Construction” guidelines (ASCE 24-14), due to
its critical role as a mass transit terminal, and must have its lowest horizontal structure member
elevated at least two (2) feet above the 1% annual flood elevation of 14. The finished floor of the
structure must meet a minimum required elevation of 16.0. It is noted that this elevation also exceeds
the 0.2% annual flood elevation of 15.2. All utilities and supporting infrastructure will be elevated to
required elevations as dictated by Local, State, and Federal guidelines.
In-water improvements will consist of floating docks and floating wave attenuators anchored to steel
pipe piles. Structures will be designed to resist significant wave heights anticipated during storm events
in the Arthur Kill. Pile elevations will likewise be designed with elevations above the 100-year base
flood elevation, including additional freeboard to retain floating structures from wind-generated waves.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-54
3.13.3.4. Water Quality
It is anticipated that the construction of the CFT will result in temporary and manageable impacts to
sedimentation as a result of dredging and site work. All construction work will comply with the State’s
Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control to mitigate impacts to adjacent surface waters.
Potential construction phase impacts to water quality for the CFT Facility project are discussed in
Section 4.2.9.2.
3.13.3.5. Terrestrial Natural Resources
Small areas of upland vegetation will be affected by the Build Alternative where the new landside
tracks will be constructed. Generally, the upland vegetation habitats on the project site are consistent
with highly disturbed urban settings and transportation corridors and contain degraded resources,
colonized by numerous invasive species and species common to these disturbed areas. Impacts to or
loss of significant upland habitat is not anticipated to result from implementation of the Build
Alternative.
Wildlife within the project study area is generally expected to include species tolerant of highly
disturbed and heavily urbanized areas. The small impacts to vegetation habitats that will occur as a
result of the Build Alternative may result in direct impact to wildlife habitat and associated impacts to
wildlife species within the project site. Generally, wildlife species exhibit mobility that allows them to
relocate to adjacent habitat areas which can help mitigate any potential temporary impact on these
species. It is anticipated that the common species identified within the study area will exhibit such
mobility and that direct impacts to these species as a result of project implementation will be minimal.
3.13.3.6. Aquatic Natural Resources
For construction projects, it is possible that surface waters can be affected by siltation from earthwork,
which can increase turbidity and affect aquatic life. However, as described in Section 3.13.3.7 and
Section 4.2.9.2, offsite migration of sediments can and will be mitigated by adhering to SESC
construction practices and complying with conditions of NJDEP and USACE-issued permits.
Additionally, as the CFT is proposed to be constructed on a known contaminated site, construction has
the potential to expose contaminated sediments to surface water migration pathways. However, as the
construction of the CFT is not anticipated to extend to depths which will penetrate the recent clean fill
site cap and underlying processed dredge fill material, widespread exposure of these contaminants is
not expected. Where foundation piles will penetrate the cap, the foundation slab of the building will act
as an impervious cap and prevent long-term contact with underlying site materials. Contaminated
materials present on site are further discussed in Section 3.14.
3.13.3.7. Essential Fish Habitat
As described in detail in the EFH assessment included in Appendix 3.13-2, based upon the existing
conditions of the project area and the Arthur Kill, the proposed project is not anticipated to have major
long-term impacts to Essential Fish Habitat.. The in-water construction activities will be completed
between July 1 and December 31 to decrease the project’s impacts to EFH. Additional information is
provided under Section 3.13.3.7. No in-water work will be conducted during regulated moratoriums.
Accordingly, the Build Alternative will not result in adverse impacts to the suitability of the waters
adjacent to the project site for fish species identified by NMFS as having EFH in the Arthur Kill.
3.13.3.8. Threatened and Endangered Species (ESA Section 7)
As described in the above Section 3.13.1.6, several bird and aquatic species were identified by the
NJDEP NHP Report and NOAA GARFO as having habitat within the vicinity of the Build Alternative.
Species identified are summarized below in Table 3.13.3.7-1. Enhancement of riparian areas will
restore the previously disturbed nature of wildlife habitats and W etland and water areas within the site
unaffected by direct impacts during construction will continue to provide foraging habitat for the bird
species noted in the NHP Report. There will be no significant impacts to threatened aquatic species, as
demonstrated by the NOAA GARFO ESA Section 7: NLAA Program Verification Form.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-55
Common Name Scientific Name Federal State
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus -Endangered
Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax -Threatened
Osprey Pandion haliaetus -Threatened
Yellow-crowned night heron Nyctanassa violacea -Threatened
Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Endangered -
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Endangered
Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis -Threatened
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus -Endangered
Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus -Concern
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea -Concern
Snowy Egret Egretta thula -Concern
Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor -Concern
Summary of Threatened and Endangered Species
Species Status
Onsite
Immediate Vicinity
Within One (1) Mile
Onsite, Immediate Vicinity and Within One (1) Mile
Table 3.13.3.7-1: Summary of threatened and endangered species.
As part of an ESA Section 7 analysis, the impacts relating to the following stressors have been
analyzed and detailed to determine impacts associated with in-water work and operations of the CFT
and are included in an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment prepared by T&M Associates, dated
November 2020 and included in Appendix 3.13-2:
Sound
Temporary subaqueous sound and vibration impacts must be considered when carrying out
underwater work in the marine environment. Interagency coordination part of the USACE and
NJDEP permitting process identified listed species of Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose
Sturgeon as occurring within the project area. To mitigate any impacts to these species, a 20-
minute soft start to underwater pile driving will be followed in accordance with permit conditions
in order to reduce sound impacts on sturgeon, winter flounder, and other species
Habitat Structure and Disturbance
The shoreline has been subject to long-term use and industrial/cargo ship traffic for many
years. As such, the shoreline would be considered previously disturbed and the proposed
project is not anticipated to have adverse impacts on the intertidal and subtidal shallows. No
existing structures are proposed to be removed as part of the scope of work; therefore there
will be no impact to existing habitat structures which may have served fish populations at the
project location.
The location of underwater disturbance predominantly consists of intertidal-subtidal shallows
and degraded wetland and riparian zones. Submerged aquatic vegetation in this location was
not observed during site inspection nor was it mapped on NJDEP GIS layers. The deteriorated
areas onsite will be restored to provide improved subtidal habitat. Contaminated sediments are
proposed to be removed and nuisance/exotic vegetation will be removed. The wetlands and
mudflats will be graded accordingly and will be planted with salt meadow cord grass (spartina
patens) in upland areas and salt marsh grass (spartina alterniflora) in areas below the mean
high water line to restore the already disturbed nature of the habitat as referenced on the
permit plan. This will allow for shoreline restoration, future erosion protection, enhancement of
intertidal shallows and wildlife habitat, and protection from boat wakes/wave attenuation. The
vegetated shoreline will improve the existing shoreline which is currently disturbed and devoid
of vegetation.
Disturbance will be temporary and will not significantly impact protected marine species as in-
water work will be conducted outside of work moratoriums. Improvements associated with
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-56
wetlands and mudflat restoration will provide an enhanced habitat for protected marine
species.
Dredging and In-Water Structures
Construction of the ferry berths required the dredging of approximately 18,000 cubic yards of
sediment to an authorized project depth of 17 feet below mean low water. Dredging work was
carried out in November 2022 in accordance with the conditions outlined in the NJDEP and US
Army Corps of Engineers permits for the work, which required coordination with approval from,
among other agencies, NOAA/NMFS and USFWS. Dredging impacts were temporary and
minimized effects and impacts related to dredging. Seasonal work restrictions are to be
required for the dredging and marine construction activities from March 1st to June 30th for
anadromous migration and/or February 1st to May 31st to protect winter flounder early life
stages. In its permit for the project, the NJDEP instituted a blanket moratorium against in-water
disturbance from January 1st to June 30th to mitigate effects to protected marine species.
The in-water construction activities will take place between July 1 and December 31 to
decrease impacts to the seasonal fish species. All in water work will take place during times
when most of the listed species are not expected to be present with the exception of winter
flounder. Therefore, adverse impacts to the fish species are not anticipated as a result of the
dredging work, which was conducted in November 2022, outside of the January 1 to June 30
moratorium to protect winter flounder and anadromous fish species.
The project scope includes the installation of approximately 58 steel pipe piles to support a 40-
foot by 40-foot floating dock and 200-foot long floating breakwater for the ferry berths. As
discussed, the study area is previously disturbed and includes derelict and active waterfront
structures in the vicinity of the project, including piers, bulkheads, and docks. The addition of
these structures is minor in nature and will not significantly impact protected marine species.
Water Quality
Temporary impacts to turbidity and sediment suspension associated with dredging were
anticipated in planning for the CFT project. Conditions provided for in NJDEP and USACE
permits for in-water work were respected during dredge work for the ferry slips by
implementing construction techniques and environmental protection guidelines. The material
was dredged with an environmental clamshell bucket and placed on a sealed barge. The
environmental bucket is sealed and aids in reducing the amount of suspended solids in the
water column. After 24 hours, the decant water was allowed to be pumped back into the Arthur
Kill and the sediment transferred to a second adjoining barge.
With respect to the CFT site, NJDEP requires the reduction of total suspended solids,
including suspended silts, oils, floatables, and road contaminants in stormwater runoff
discharged to the Arthur Kill through the use of pervious pavement and other stormwater
infrastructure.
Additionally, the property on which the CFT is to be constructed has been recently remediated
to cap and limit the migration of historic contamination on the site, thereby lessening impacts
to protected marine species had the site contamination otherwise been left unaddressed.
Prey Quality/Quantity
Deteriorated wetlands onsite will be restored to provide improved subtidal habitat to support
enhanced habitat and increased populations for lower food-chain marine species and juvenile
fish. Upon project completion, the shoreline will be planted with spartina alterniflora and
spartina patens to restore the already disturbed nature of the habitat as referenced on the
permit plan. This will allow for shoreline restoration, future erosion protection, enhancement of
intertidal shallows and wildlife habitat, and protection from boat wakes/wave attenuation. The
vegetated shoreline will improve the existing shoreline which is currently disturbed and devoid
of vegetation. There will be no negative impact to protected marine species.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-57
Vessels
The long term impacts to EFH include the impacts associated with the presence of two ferry
vessels (i.e. noise, movement, etc.). However, the Arthur Kill is subject to commercial vessels
traveling the waterway daily.
The habitat within the project area is subject to high volumes of commercial and industrial boat
traffic. In addition, the project area is an occasional swing/maneuvering point for large cargo
vessels to turn around to reverse course.
The addition of two other vessels piloted by a licensed captain will not lower water quality to
such an extent that it will interfere with the movement of fish or impact protected marine
species.
3.13.3.9. Coastal Zones
The Arthur Kill tidal strait within the vicinity of the project site is within New Jersey’s regulated Coastal
Zone. Accordingly, the project has required a Waterfront Development Permit from the NJDEP for the
construction of the in-water and upland work as it is within 500 feet of the mean high water line of the
Arthur Kill. The permit is included in Appendix 3.17-1. Specific conditions of the permit as they relate
to natural resources are described under various subheadings of this section.
3.13.3.10. Sole Source Aquifers
The Build Alternative will not result in significant withdrawals from the underlying Coastal Plain aquifer
nor will it significantly groundwater recharge; therefore, overall impacts on the aquifer system are
anticipated to be insignificant.
3.13.4. Mitigation
As discussed, the Build Alternative has required permits from the NJDEP and US Army Corps of Engineers
related to natural resources discussed in the preceding section. Those permits have set forth specific
measures that must be included in the project to minimize its impacts to natural resources, including wetlands,
flood zones, and threatened and endangered species. Construction of the Build Alternative will include
avoidance and minimization of impacts to the maximum extent practicable, acquisition and adherence to
applicable permit conditions.
Mitigation measures to be implemented during the proposed project’s construction period are described in
Section 4, “Construction Effects and Methods.”
3.13.5. Conclusion
Construction of the Build Alternative will result in minor, manageable, and temporary impacts, as well as
enhancements, to natural resources in the project area as summarized below:
Wetlands:
Areas of degraded wetlands will be disturbed and restored as part of the construction of the CFT
facility and in-water improvements. Necessary permits have been obtained from NJDEP Division of
Land Use for wetlands disturbance, restoration, and mitigation work, confirming no significant or long
term impacts to wetlands.
Flood Zones:
The entirety of the CFT site and in-water area is located within a FEMA-delineated tidal flood hazard
area. Remediation work on the existing site has already raised the majority of the developable land on
the site above the flood elevation to mitigate flood risks. The finished floor elevation of the terminal
building will be raised to the elevation required according to its Flood Design Class to provide additional
freeboard from floodwaters. Ferry docks are proposed to be floating to address rising water levels and
will be additionally protected by a floating breakwater. Given these steps, adverse impacts to the
floodplain or flooding of areas adjacent to the study area are not expected.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-58
Water Quality:
Temporary impacts to turbidity and sediment suspension associated with dredging were anticipated in
planning for the CFT project. Conditions provided for in NJDEP and USACE permits for in-water work
were respected during dredge work for the ferry slips by implementing construction techniques and
environmental protection guidelines. With respect to the uplands, NJDEP requirements to meet
reductions for total suspended solids runoff will be met prior to discharge to the Arthur Kill.
Additionally, the property on which the CFT is to be constructed has been recently remediated to cap
and limit the migration of historic contamination on the site. These steps ensure that impacts to water
quality will be temporary in nature and insignificant.
Terrestrial Natural Resources:
Existing uplands on the site have been severely disturbed as a result of recently completed site
remediation work and has not been allowed to re-populate with native vegetation. Wildlife within the
project study area is generally expected to include species tolerant of highly disturbed and heavily
urbanized areas and be unaffected by construction. It is anticipated that the common species
identified within the study area will exhibit mobility and that direct impacts to these species as a result
of project implementation will be minimal.
Aquatic Natural Resources & Essential Fish Habitat;
Disturbance related to dredging and in-water construction will be temporary and will be conducted
outside of in-water disturbance moratoriums established by the NOAA and USFWS to protect
migratory and anadromous fish species. Shoreline and wetland restoration will enhance existing
degraded habitats and benefit aquatic natural resources. The habitat within the project area is subject
to high volumes of commercial and industrial boat traffic; subsequently, the addition of two ferry
vessels piloted by a licensed captain will not impact habitat or natural resources to such an extent that
it will interfere with the movement of fish or impact protected marine species. Necessary approvals
have been obtained from NOAA regarding EFH.
Threatened and Endangered Species / Section 7:
The USFWS IPaC Report generated for the CFT project, did not identify any federally listed species
within the project area. NJDEP Natural Heritage Program identified Bald eagle (state endangered),
black-crowned night heron, osprey, and yellow-crowned night heron (state threatened), Shortnose
sturgeon (federal/state endangered) in the project area. Generally, such species exhibit mobility that
allows them to relocate to adjacent habitat areas which can help mitigate any potential temporary
impact on these species; therefore, no impacts to threatened and endangered species are anticipated.
As part of an ESA Section 7 analysis, the impacts relating to specific marine species stressors associated with
the project (sound, habitat, dredging, water quality, prey quality/quantity, vessels and in-water structures) have
been analyzed and detailed to determine impacts associated with in-water work and operations of the CFT.
Review of these stressors has determined that any impacts associated with construction on protected marine
species will be temporary or insignificant in nature given the existing surroundings of the project on waterway
heavily traffic by commercial vessels. Dredging work has been completed in accordance with NJDEP and
USACE permit requirements, including specific conditions to mitigate water quality issues and safeguard
protected marine species.
Necessary approvals have been obtained from NOAA regarding Section 7, ruling that the project is not likely to
adversely affect (NLAA) protected species.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-59
3.14. Contaminated Materials
Contaminated materials are defined as potentially harmful substances that may be present in soil, groundwater,
sediment, surface water, containers, or building materials and may pose a threat to human health or the environment.
Soil and groundwater can be contaminated as a result of past or present uses on a project site or on neighboring
properties and may be encountered during construction activities. This Section assesses the potential for the presence
of contaminated materials in the project site, the potential for exposure to them during and after the construction of the
Build Alternative, and the specific measures that will be employed to protect public health, worker safety, and the
environment in the event that contaminated materials are present in the project site.
A Hazardous Waste Screening Report was prepared by McCormick Taylor in August 2021 related to the CFT project,
which is presented in Appendix 3.14-1. The Hazardous Waste Screening identified the project site, as well as eleven
(11) other properties of potential environmental concern were found within proximity to the proposed project
site/construction activities. In general, the area of the project site and surrounding properties have been impacted by
the historical industrial land use and the presence of contaminated fill material onsite. Based on the above information,
past site remediation activities, existing offsite institutional and engineering controls, existing onsite engineering (site-
wide environmental cap) and institutional controls implemented, no further investigation was recommended for the
project site.
The site has been under the supervision of environmental remediation professionals, since the 1990s to carry out
remedial actions necessary to address soil and groundwater contamination associated with the former industrial use.
The site is currently under the supervision of a Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP). The LSRP’s role is to
oversee the remediation of contaminated sites in accordance with the NJDEP’s Site Remediation Program standards
and regulations for responsible parties. LSRPs are subject to a strict code of conduct established by statute and
regulation and must ensure that remediation work is protective of public health, safety and the environment. As a result,
the site has been the subject of extensive soil, groundwater, and sediment sampling from the surface level to depths to
approximately 48 feet below existing grade.
3.14.1. Affected Environment
The proposed CFT site is identified as Block 304, Lots 2.01 and 2.02 (formerly Block 5.02, Lot 1.01). While this
property is owned by the Borough of Carteret, all remedial activities have been the responsibility of, and carried
out by, the responsible party for the historic contamination of the site. Historically, the site was owned and
operated by Agrico, a manufacturer of phosphate-based fertilizers. All fertilizer production ceased around 1980
and the site was purchased by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) in 1995. DuPont, as the
responsible party has been actively working with the NDJEP to investigate and remediate site contamination.
With this being said, the Borough, as the project sponsor of the CFT, is not directly responsible for
environmental remediation of the site.
DuPont has completed remediation work on the site, capping the site with 18" of dense-grade aggregate
(DGA). A revised Remedial Action Permit application and accompanying form of Deed Notice was submitted to
NJDEP to reflect the newly adopted remediation standards in May 2021. At this time, the permit application is
under NJDEP review. Once NJDEP approves the permit, DuPont’s LSRP will issue a Response Action
Outcome and the Borough will close on the acquisition of the property.
The site is located off of Roosevelt Avenue and Industrial Highway. The former industrial property is located
directly adjacent to the Arthur Kill and is currently an undeveloped lot redeveloped with engineering controls to
address known soil and groundwater contamination. The property’s shoreline consists of small areas of
wetlands at the southeast corner and a pebble beach area that has been previously disturbed from past site
uses. To date, the site has been subject to site remediation activities that include soil removal and soil
importation. Capping of the site has been carried to out to the point that the entirety of the upland portion of the
site has been raised above the 100-year flood plan elevation. As such, the upland portion of the site is vacant
with recently placed fill material. The entire property is fenced for safety and security purposes and the
shoreline stabilized with a stone revetment.
A review of historical Sanborn fire insurance maps (circa 1924 through 1969) and aerial photographs (circa
1931 through 2017) of the site was also conducted. These maps and photographs, contained within the
McCormick Taylor Hazardous Waste Screening Report, revealed multiple buildings, warehouses, railroad
sidings, industrial facilities, and utilities related to the manufacture and storage of fertilizer and associated
materials. Photographs shows that the large warehouse located on the site of present-day Lot 2.02 was
demolished in the mid to late 1970s. The site laid largely vacant from the 1980s through to the mid-2010s when
remediation activities began taking place in 2016.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-60
State, County, and local agencies were consulted to determine if there have been any regulatory actions
pertaining to the properties within the project area. Agencies and offices contacted during the course of the
assessment included the NJDEP, Borough Legal Counsel, and the Borough Engineer. The following
documentation was provided related to Block 304, Lot 2.02:
Former Agrico Site, Phase II Soil Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP), dated March 2011 and prepared by
Parsons. The soil RAWP addresses the second phase of remedial action for soils at the site. The RAWP also
identifies that the subject property is to be redeveloped for the parking lot of the CFT. The components consist
of:
a. Processing and placement of the debris pile placed on the northeast corner of the property by a third
party. The debris material will be processed and used as grading fill material across the site.
b. The grading fill will be covered by a site wide cap consisting of 12 inches of approved clean fill material,
with a surface layer consisting of either asphalt paving, concrete building slabs, or topsoil with
vegetation.
c. A site-wide deed notice.
Former Agrico Site, Groundwater Remedial Action Workplan, dated June 2011 and prepared by Geosyntec
Consultants. The groundwater RAWP addresses the remedial action for groundwater at the site. The Remedial
Action Selection Report dated November 15, 1997, and approved by NJDEP in February 1990, selected natural
remediation because groundwater at the site does not present any unacceptable risks to human health and the
environment, there is no one utilizing the groundwater, and contaminated groundwater discharging to the
Arthur Kill and Noes Creek has no significant impact on surface water quality and sediments. The Phase II
contaminated soil remedy, capping of the site, is anticipated to further improve groundwater quality. The
engineered cap is expected to enhance natural remediation by hydraulic and geochemical mechanisms. The
cap will decrease infiltration and lower the water table, decreasing the amount of groundwater in contact with
contaminated soils. The cap will also decrease the hydraulic gradient reducing the amount of groundwater
being discharged to surface water. Institutional controls will include a Classification Area Exception/well
restriction area for groundwater.
Arthur Kill Sediment Sampling Results: In support of the ferry terminal project and at the request of T&M
Associates, Arthur Kill Sediments were sampled on three separate occasions within the proposed dredge
location. In December 2008, Excel Environmental performed subsurface soil sampling in accordance with the
Sediment Sampling Plan approved by NJDEP Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology (ODST). The
results documented that the sediment within the dredging location has elevated levels of heavy metals. In July
2013, per the direction of NJDEP, three additional samples were collected by Hydrograph Surveys for further
analysis. The three (3) sediment samples were composited and one (1) composite sample (Composite A) was
analyzed for various parameters. Based on review of the data, concentrations of arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene
were detected above the applicable NJDEP Soil Remediation Standards (SRS). In addition, concentrations of
metals (e.g., beryllium, lead, and mercury) were detected at concentrations above the default Impact to
Groundwater Soil Screening Levels (IGWSSL). Based on the laboratory analytical results provided,
contaminants of concern (arsenic, lead, benzo[a]pyrene) have been identified in the sediment at concentrations
above the applicable NJDEP SRS and/or default IGWSSL. Therefore, the sediment to be dredged will need to
be handled as impacted soil and properly disposed of at an approved disposal facility.
Recent correspondence conducted in Summer-Fall 2020 between NJDEP and the project engineer regarding
the need for additional deeper dredging, has resulted in NJDEP’s request for additional sediment sampling and
analyses for the project. Additional sediment samples were collected on December 29, 2020. Six additional
sediment samples and two composite samples were collected and analyzed during this event. Based on review
of the data, concentrations of arsenic were detected above the applicable NJDEP Soil Remediation Standards
(SRS).
An exhaustive search of federal and NJDEP environmental records was conducted during the assessment on
adjacent properties, including Classification Exception Areas (CEAs) and Deed Notices that may impact the
project site. An executive summary from the database report, including an explanation of the environmental
databases is provided in Appendix A of the Hazardous Waste Screening Report.
Correspondence between McCormick Taylor and Borough of Carteret on August 18, 2021, indicated that to
date the responsible party has finished the remediation work on the project site. The site has been capped with
18” of Dense Grade Aggregate (DGA). In 2020, the responsible party submitted an application to the NJDEP
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-61
for a Remedial Action Permit (RAP) based on this engineering control (18-inch cap). However, the NJDEP
recently (May 2021) adopted new remediation standards that triggered a review of compounds found at the
site. The new standards do not result in a remediation issue onsite, since the site-wide DGA cap is protective.
As such, no additional remediation work is necessary. However, the responsible party had to revise the
Remedial Action Permit application and accompanying form of Deed Notice to reflect the more recent review
delaying the approval. Once the DEP approves the Permit, the responsible party’s LSRP will issue a Response
Action Outcome (RAO) and the Borough will close on the acquisition of the property.
Future construction and development activities will follow applicable best management practices and regulatory
requirements associated with the site engineering and institutional controls.
3.14.2. No Build Alternative
In the No Build Alternative, there would be no construction on the site and it would remain vacant and
unstabilized. Assuming the maintenance of the recently installed cap, there would be no impacts to the site.
3.14.3. Build Alternative
3.14.3.1. Site Clearing and Subsurface Disturbance
Based on the records review and past and current land use, it is understood that contaminated
materials are present on the site, as a result of contamination from the former industrial use of the
property. The CFT is proposed to be constructed on top of the existing site engineering controls,
generally consisting of a minimum 18-inch thick cap of granular fill material (processed concrete and
stone) associated with the remediation of the former Agrico site. This cap is further underlain by
amended processed dredge material (PDM) layer varying between in thickness from approximately 2
to 10 feet. This layer was placed on the site to raise finished grades above the 100-year flood elevation
as part of the Remedial Action Workplan for the site undertaken by DuPont in anticipation of the
eventual CFT project. Site grading and utility installation work is generally not anticipated to penetrate
the PDM layer and therefore impacted in-situ soils beneath the cap are not anticipated to be
encountered.
Following construction of site improvements, the floor slab of the building and paved surfaces of the
parking lot and site at large will serve as an impervious engineering control cap for the disturbed
portion of the site. Any proposed pervious areas on the site will be capped with a minimum of 2 feet of
clean fill material.
Pending completion of construction of the building and placement of any required engineering controls,
the LSRP will issue a Remediation Action Outcome letter, certifying that work has been conducted in
accordance with NJDEP’s applicable standards and regulations.
3.14.3.2. Construction Health and Safety Measures
A Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) will be prepared to address the contamination issues
prior to construction activities for the proposed project. The CHASP will be prepared in accordance
with OSHA regulations for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) (29
CFR 1910.120), OSHA construction safety requirements (29 CFR 1926), and other applicable
regulations and guidelines for the field personnel. The CHASP will describe in detail the health and
safety procedures to minimize exposure of contaminated materials to workers and the public. The
hazards to be evaluated include chemical, biological, hazardous, or contaminated materials, noise,
dust, health, and other hazards. The CHASP will include designation and training of appropriate
personnel, monitoring for the presence of contamination (e.g., buried tanks, drums or other containers,
sludge; or soil which shows evidence of potential contamination, such as discoloration, staining, or
odors) and approved response plans. Visual and active monitoring of airborne dust and fugitive
emissions, and dust control measures will be implemented during earthwork.
As contaminated materials are not generally anticipated to be encountered during construction, a
Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) is not anticipated to be necessary.
As potential dust emissions will be generally limited to that emanating from placement of new clean fill,
excavations of the existing clean fill cap, or the underlying processed dredge material (PDM) layer
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-62
which provides a substantial buffer between construction activities and the existing in-situ
contaminated materials understood to exist beneath these soil barriers.
Dust will be controlled by methods prescribed by the New Jersey Standards for Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control and the conditions of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Certification issued
by the Freehold Soil Conservation District for upland work.
3.14.3.3. Materials Management
Dredging
Dredging for the ferry berths was completed in November 2022 by the NJDOT. Dredging operations
were carried out consistent with the conditions of the NJDEP combined permit for the project.
Project dredging activities were conducted via a clamshell environmental dredge, which is a watertight
bucket that prevents water and sediment from being reintroduced into the waterway. This minimizes
suspended solids in the water column. Dewatering was accomplished with a dual barge system.
Sediment was be placed on a sealed barge and was allowed to dewater for a period of 24 hours. The
decant water was then pumped off back into the Arthur Kill and the remaining sediment transferred to
the second adjoining barge. Dredge materials are understood to have been transferred to the
Middlesex County Landfill.
Fill Use Plan
Structural fill is anticipated to be needed for the construction of building foundation. Fill brought to the
site will meet the clean fill or alternative fill requirements as per NJDEP requirements. Clean fill
material meets all soil remediation standards and does not contain extraneous debris, solid waste, or
free liquids. Fill material brought the site will meet the requirements of the Fill Use Plan (FUP)
developed by Geosyntec Consultants, dated September 2018 (Appendix 3.14-2).
The FUP establishes site-specific procedures and protocols for sampling, analysis, and
characterization of proposed off-site sources of fill materials to be used for grading fill and the cap/final
cover system in support of the implementation of the approved Soil Remedial Action Work Plan (Soil
RAWP) for the site. This FUP establishes the types of fill material suitable for the Site (clean or
alternative fill; collectively “Fill Material”), the specific protocols for demonstrating that imported fill
material from off-Site sources meets the approved fill acceptance criteria in place for the Site and
provides a procedure for tracking the placement of the fill material once delivered.
This FUP is required in accordance with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (TRSRs; 7:26E-5.2(g) and 7:26E-5.5(b)9), and
NJDEP's Fill Material Guidance for SRP Sites, updated April 2015 ("Fill Material Guidance" or "FMG").
All fill import and site work will be conducted in coordination with the site LSRP.
Materials Management Plan
A Materials Management Plan (MMP) will be developed to manage any contaminated media
encountered during construction. On-site monitoring will ensure that handling, stockpiling, and disposal
of contaminated soil, groundwater, or any other media is done in compliance with the MMP and all
regulatory requirements. The plan will include methods to minimize and avoid disturbance of
contaminated soil, groundwater, or any other media and describe procedures for proper storage,
disposal, or re-use of contaminated soil.
On the upland portion of the project site, contaminated materials contained below the existing cap,
including historic fill, processed dredge materials placed on the site, buried construction debris, and
other unclassified materials may be generated during construction activities. The plans and documents
for the Build Alternative will provide procedures for stockpiling, testing, loading, transportation, and
proper disposal of the excavated materials requiring off-site disposal, if encountered
Waste characterization sampling will be completed per the requirements of the waste disposal
facilities. Depth of soil samples will generally not exceed the depth of the required excavation and will
vary across the site. The waste material will be stored or stockpiled at the site with appropriate soil and
sediment control measures and away from the streams and drains to prevent impacts to human health
and the environment. Licensed waste haulers or transporters will be used to transport materials to the
waste disposal facilities with appropriate permits and in accordance with local, state, and federal
regulations. The licensed disposal facility will be selected based on the type of waste (i.e., construction
and demolition waste, contaminated soil, or hazardous waste).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-63
3.14.3.4. Groundwater
Dewatering is not anticipated to be required during construction. Should dewatering be required,
dewatered liquids will be tested prior to discharge and will be discharged to surface water, existing
sewers, or to recharge galleries for groundwater infiltration consisting of temporary basins, ditches, or
trenches. Dewatering will be conducted in accordance with applicable requirements including NJPDES
regulations for discharge to groundwater or surface water, and local and state requirements for sewer
discharge.
3.14.4. Mitigation
With the implementation of the measures discussed above to characterize potential areas of concern in the
project site, and the protocols that will be followed for the handling, storage, transport and disposal of
contaminated materials, the Build Alternative will not result in adverse impacts related to contaminated
materials.
3.14.5. Conclusion
The property proposed for the construction of the CFT has been the subject of intense environmental
investigation, review, and oversight by various State agencies since the 1990s as a result of the historical
industrial contamination of the site. Remedial actions, including engineering controls to cap the existing
contaminated soils, importing processed dredge materials to raise the site above the 100-year flood elevation
and have since been completed, capping the site with 18" of dense-grade aggregate (DGA) across the site and
stone revetments to stabilize the shorelines.
Dredging of the ferry berths was completed in 2022 by the NJDOT in accordance with the conditions of permits
issued for the work.
A revised Remedial Action Permit application and accompanying form of Deed Notice were submitted to
NJDEP to reflect the newly adopted remediation standards in May 2021. At this time, the permit application is
under NJDEP review. Once NJDEP approves the permit, DuPont’s LSRP will issue a Response Action
Outcome and the Borough will close on the acquisition of the property.
Pending acquisition of the property, the Borough will begin upland and in-water construction of the CFT. Prior
to construction a Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) will be prepared to address the contamination
issues prior to construction activities for the proposed project. The CHASP will be prepared in accordance with
OSHA regulations for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) (29 CFR
1910.120), OSHA construction safety requirements (29 CFR 1926), and other applicable regulations and
guidelines for the field personnel.
Project construction is not anticipated to encounter contaminated materials due to the presence of the 18-inch
cap across the site and an underlying 2- to 10- foot thick layer of PDM placed on the site as part of the
remediation work; therefore, impacted in-situ soils beneath these layers are not anticipated to be encountered.
However, if encountered, a Materials Management Plan will be implemented to manage any contaminated
media encountered during construction. On-site monitoring will ensure that handling, stockpiling, and disposal
of contaminated soil, groundwater, or any other media is done in compliance with the MMP and all regulatory
requirements. The plan will include methods to minimize and avoid disturbance of contaminated soil,
groundwater, or any other media and describe procedures for proper storage, disposal, or re-use of
contaminated soil.
The construction of the CFT will serve to provide an additional predominantly impervious cap to the site, which
will assist in controlling and sealing contaminated materials capped below the project area. Material imported to
the site will conform to the requirements of the site’s Fill Use Plan. If contaminated or hazardous materials are
encountered during construction, there are protocols in place to address environmental and occupational
health and safety will be implemented for handling, storage and disposal of same to ensure there will no
resulting adverse impacts associated with known and previously remediated historical contamination on the
project site. All work will be done under the oversight of the site’s LSRP to ensure conformance with
requirements of the NJDEP Site Remediation Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-64
3.15. Safety and Security
As a passenger embarkation point for hundreds to thousands of commuters daily, the Carteret Ferry Terminal will
require certain safety and security standards to operate safely and effectively. As with any public transportation system,
the health and safety of passengers is of utmost concern in day -to-day operations. A Navigational Safety Plan was
prepared by Captain Patrick L. Johnsen of Panaveer Partners, dated December 9, 2021, (Appendix 3.15-1) which
details various aspects of safety, security, and risks associated with the proposed ferry service, vessel, and route.
3.15.1. Affected Environment
The proposed site of the CFT is a vacant lot off limits to the public. The following local essential emergency
services are located approximately ¼ mile from the proposed CFT:
o Carteret Police Department (240 Roosevelt Avenue)
o Carteret Fire Headquarters and EMS (230 Roosevelt Avenue)
o Carteret Fire Boat (Carteret Municipal Marina)
o NJ State Police Marine Barracks (135 Middlesex Avenue Rear)
3.15.2. No Build Alternative
In the No Build scenario, there would be no change to the safety and security of the existing site. The parcel
would remain fenced off from the public with limited daily patrols from local police on adjacent roadways.
Borough essential services would respond to calls at the site on an as-needed basis.
3.15.3. Build Alternative
Site and Terminal Safety and Security
The Build Alternative would provide a central logistical office for ferry operations at the waterfront, which would
include an integrated communications and CCTV security system for the facility, including fire and emergency
alarms connected to local Police, Fire and EMS Departments, as well as lines to the NJ State Police, NYPD,
and U.S. Coast Guard. It is anticipated the CFT would only be open to the public during normal operating hours
and patrolled by local police on a 24/7 basis as a part of normal patrol beats
The Borough’s Police Department, Fire Department, and Office Emergency Management have all been
consulted in the preparation of this report. All department heads have confirmed that their existing resources,
including personnel and equipment, can adequately monitor and respond to emergencies at the CFT without
compromising service to their current service areas.
Pick-up and drop-off areas for commuters arriving by car or bus will be designated in limited areas on the west
side of the terminal building to limit congestion for vehicles entering the lot. Time limits for loading and
unloading will be enforced by staff to ensure the safe and orderly flow of vehicles and passengers. ADA parking
spaces will be located in a separate area to provide more direct access to the terminal and docks and limit
crosswalks and conflicts with the balance of the facility’s parking lot. All critical areas will be well-lit for added
security.
Prior to commencement of service an approved facility security plan will be in place that ensures full
compliance with U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Security Act regulations as contained in 33 CFR
Subsection H.
The Coast Guard employs a three-tiered system of Maritime Security (MARSEC) Levels designed to easily
communicate to the Coast Guard and Carteret’s maritime industry partners pre-planned scalable responses for
credible threats. If the Secretary of Homeland Security issues a National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS)
alert, the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard will adjust the MARSEC Level, if appropriate, based on the
commensurate risk, any maritime nexus.
MARSEC Levels are set to reflect the prevailing threat environment to the marine elements of the national
transportation system, including ports, vessels, facilities, and critical assets and infrastructure located on or
adjacent to waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. MARSEC Levels apply to vessels, Coast Guard-
regulated facilities
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-65
o MARSEC Level 1 means the level for which minimum appropriate security measures shall be
maintained at all times.
o MARSEC Level 2 means the level for which appropriate additional protective security measures shall
be maintained for a period of time as a result of heightened risk of a transportation security incident.
o MARSEC Level 3 means the level for which further specific protective security measures shall be
maintained for a limited period of time when a transportation security incident is probable, imminent, or
has occurred, although it may not be possible to identify the specific target.
Appropriate MARSEC signage will be provided on the site as required by the U.S. Coast Guard. Operational
requirements with varying MARSEC levels will be determined upon consultation with the Coast Guard as
necessary.
Access to the ferry berths and docks would be behind locked gates at all times except during loading and
unloading, when gates would be opened by authorized staff upon safe docking of the vessel. Passengers will
be guided along ADA-accessible ramps and gangways to the floating berths and separated from the water by
guardrails through to the point they board the vessel.
As described above in 3.14.3.2 “Construction Health and Safety Measures”, a Construction Health and Safety
Plan (CHASP) will be developed for construction of the facility. This will include emergency procedure
instructions, emergency phone numbers, and directions to the nearest hospital.
Vessel Safety and Security
On the Federal level, the Borough of Carteret, as the effective owner of ferries to operate within this service,
and in conjunction with contract managers of the service, will ensure full compliance with the Coast Guard
Maritime Transportation Security Act (33 CFR Subsection H) as applicable. This compliance will include, but
not be limited to, an approved Security Plan and the designation of a Security Officer responsible for ensuring
plan compliance.
Vessel will be operated by a licensed captain and be required to meet U.S. Coast Guard regulations (as found
in Title 46 of Code of Federal Regulations) and U.S. Coast Guard Navigational Rules, including provision of
navigational equipment and life safety items. On-board vessel security measures will include CCTV and public
address systems. While operating with passengers, ferries will be manned in accordance with a Certificate of
Inspection issued by the U.S. Coast Guard
3.15.4. Mitigation
The construction and operation of the CFT site will provide an enhanced level of safety and security for
commuters and patrons of the ferry service; therefore, no mitigation is required. Potential risks associated with
ferry operations on the water will be mitigated through compliance with Federal navigation standards with
operating procedures provided in an approved Security Plan and Navigational Safety Plan.
3.15.5. Conclusion
The security of the site will be improved from the proposed project given the additional law enforcement focus
on terminal operations. Additionally, U.S. Coast Guard regulations will include specific safety and security
precautions related to Department of Homeland Security threat levels. Security cameras, lighting, physical
barriers, and operational procedures will be implemented to allay risks posed to passengers and crew.
Generalized and particular risks inherent with ferry transport have been assessed a U.S. Coast Guard qualified
Unlimited Tonnage Captain with specific knowledge and experience of vessel operations in the Arthur Kill and
New York Harbor and presented in a Navigational Safety Plan, which recommends risk mediation measures
that present the potential to enhance effective safety management by the operator. Federal regulatory
requirements have also been identified.
Given the precautions and planning required for the operation of a commuter ferry facility under the auspices of
the U.S. Coast Guard, there will be no adverse impacts to safety and security of the public.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-66
3.16. Utilities and Infrastructure
This section identifies the utilities and infrastructure in the area that could be affected by the Build Alternative. Potential
impacts to existing utilities that will result from the Build Alternative’s construction and the provisions needed to mitigate
any conflicts with local utilities are identified.
3.16.1. Affected Environment
The proposed site of the CFT does not include any existing underground or overhead utility lines or existing site
infrastructure. The site has been recently remediated and capped by the former owner, DuPont, with a
combination of processed dredge material (PDM), recycled concrete aggregate (RCA), and dense graded
aggregate (DGA) as part of a site remediation program. Utility infrastructure exists in the vicinity of the project,
either along Baumgartner Memorial Boulevard (a/k/a Waterfront Access Road) that can support additional
development.
3.16.2. No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, there would not be an extension of utility infrastructure (water, sewer, natural
gas or telecommunications) to the site
3.16.3. Build Alternative
New utility mains and services will be extended to the site to serve the CFT, including the following:
Water and Sewer
Municipally-owned 8” water main and 8” gravity sanitary sewer mains are proposed to be extended from an
existing system approximately 500 feet to the southwest of the site, which currently terminate near the
northwest corner of the miniature golf course at Waterfront Park. The proposed water and sewer lines are
proposed to be extended to the site under existing proposed driveways and parking areas associated with
site improvements for the CFT. Connection to the water and sewer lines will occur entirely upstream of
existing customers and will not result in service interruption for other customers on either of these mains.
The existing lines were completed in 2014 and designed considering future capacity requirements of the
CFT.
Natural Gas
Elizabethtown Gas Company maintains an existing 4” high pressure natural gas main in a private
easement located between the warehouses at 100 and 200 Middlesex Avenue. This main is proposed to
be extended from its current location, approximately 1,200 feet via existing access roads and easements to
the proposed CFT. Again, as service connection will be made via the extension of an existing dead-end
main, connecting gas service to the CFT will not result in any gas service interruptions for neighboring
properties.
Electric
PSE&G maintains an existing 12kV three-phase overhead electric distribution line along the current
Waterfront Park Access Road, approximately 200 feet to the south of the proposed site of the CFT. From
this line, underground feeders are proposed to be brought to the site to serve the electrical needs of the
building. The new underground conduits are proposed to be installed under the existing parking lot and
driveways to the site. As electrical service is anticipated to be connected to a utility pole at the eastern
terminus of the Baumgartner Memorial Access Road, the project will not result in any service interruptions
to adjacent power customers.
Telecommunications
Comcast maintains existing overhead cable and internet lines in the vicinity of Baumgartner Memorial
Boulevard. An underground service is anticipated to be extended from the nearest available utility pole to
provide telecomm services to the CFT. Similar to electrical service, telecommunications service is
anticipated to be connected to a utility pole at the eastern terminus of the Baumgartner Memorial Access
Road, the project will not result in any cable, internet, or phone service interruptions.
3.16.4. Mitigation
The service of existing underground or overhead utilities in the vicinity of the project will not be disrupted to
provide necessary service to the CFT; therefore, no mitigation is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-67
3.16.5. Conclusion
All required utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electric, and telecommunications are available
in the vicinity of the project and will be extended to provide service to the site. Existing facilities are of
appropriate size and capacity to serve the CFT without degrading the delivery of these utilities to existing
customers in the community. With this being said, there will be no impact to utilities and infrastructure
associated with the development of the CFT.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-68
3.17. Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts
This section assesses the potential for the Build Alternative to result in indirect or cumulative impacts. Potential indirect
effects are generally defined as those induced or “caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in
distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable” (40 CFR § 1508.8(b)). Potential cumulative effects may result from the
incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR §
1508.7).
Past, present, and ongoing projects efforts, and actions in the project area that have the potential to create cumulative
effects include:
o Acquisition of a portion of the former I.T. Williams manufacturing property (1990), which would become
home to Waterfront Park (Block 201, Lot 4);
o Construction of Waterfront Park and restoration of Veteran’s Pier (2003 – 2005) restoring public access to
the Carteret Waterfront and associated 700-foot steel pier at Veteran’s Fishing Pier (2012);
o Construction of the Municipal Marina (2019), bringing 185 public boat slips to Waterfront Park and
providing the only public marina between Perth Amboy and Elizabeth;
o Construction of the Southern Riverwalk (2023) and Northern Riverwalk (anticipated 2024), creating a 1.5
mile waterfront trail and boardwalk system extending from Woodbridge Township to Noes Creek,
respectively, and restoration of the former US Metals recreation pier
The cumulative effects of the project, in combination with past Waterfront revitalization and public access projects, will
result in enhanced public access to the water for both recreation and transportation. No adverse effects on water
quality of the Arthur Kill are anticipated to occur on an individual or cumulative basis; on the contrary, past public
access projects have remediated abandoned industrial operations and restored estuarine habitats along the Kill.
Based on ridership reports and feasibility studies conducted for ferry service in Carteret, it is anticipated that the new
infrastructure could spur development and/or promote population growth in the vicinity; however, the exact extent of
such growth is not currently measurable. Reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect the study area
include:
o Redevelopment of the current A. Duie Pyle trucking site (Block 304, Lot 1) and former Basin Holdings site
(Block 304, Lot 5) to include residential construction to create a transit oriented development centered
around access to the ferry terminal
o Redevelopment of the former DuPont/Agrico site (Block 304, Lot 2.01) to include a mix of commercial
development and recreational open space;
o Expansion of recreational amenities at Waterfront Park;
o Expansion and/or extension of public rights-of-way or easements to promote and improve public access to
the Waterfront in the Chrome Waterfront Redevelopment Area;
o Expansion of ferry fleet through Borough-owned or operator supplied vessels;
o Connection of ferry service to potential future locations in South Amboy, Perth Amboy and Elizabeth;
o Modification of existing NJ Transit bus routes to include a stop at the CFT;
o Need to expand parking on the site or convert existing surface parking areas to structured parking to meet
increased demand; and,
o Flood control improvements along Noes Creek to mitigate coastal flooding and storm surge to central
portions of the Borough.
As the project intends to provide a supplemental transport mode for Manhattan-bound commuters, the Build Alternative
will have no adverse effects in combination with other foreseeable projects that may be made more viable by the
presence and operation of the ferry. It will, however, support those initiatives, as well as other local and regional
planning efforts, by providing for resilient, reliable ferry service for the future.
Depending on the success of commuter ferry service in Carteret, it is possible that demand could outstrip capacity,
either due to limited available parking, or limited ferry timetables based on available vessels and crews. Although the
Borough is under contract to purchase two (2) 149 passenger ferries, it is possible that additional ferries may be
needed to increase capacity of the system. Therefore, the Borough or the Borough’s operator may need to explore
supplementing service in the future, thus further reducing the number of passenger vehicles on area roadways and
thereby improving regional air quality and reducing per capita greenhouse gas emissions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-69
While the construction period of one or more of these projects could overlap with the proposed project’s construction,
significant adverse impacts would not be expected to occur. Construction effects will be temporary and the use of the
vast, 30-acre former DuPont site (Lot 2.01) will provide ample staging and construction space, minimizing disruption to
nearby neighborhoods and potential interference with construction activities for the other planned projects. The
proposed project is not expected to create significant adverse land use, visual quality, or air quality impacts on an
individual or cumulative basis.
The Build Alternative in combination with the other components of the Borough’s Waterfront redevelopment policy will
enhance reliable mass transit service and provide redundancy in the area’s commuter transport modes. In combination
with other Borough initiatives for enhanced public waterfront access, transit-oriented development, and housing density,
the Build Alternative will provide cumulative long term benefits to the Borough and regional transportation network in
terms of reliability and economic efficiency.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-70
3.18. Permits, Approvals, Public Participation and Consultation,
Permit and Approvals
Construction of the CFT required review and approval from various Municipal, Regional, State, and Federal authorities
having jurisdiction of the project area. Below is a exhaustive list of all agencies with which the Borough must interact
regarding this project:
Local Approvals and Consultation
• Borough of Carteret Construction Department
o Building Subcode Approvals (during construction)
• Coordination with DuPont site LSRP (ongoing)
• Public Meetings and Participation
State and Regional Approvals and Consultation
• NJDEP Division of Land Use Regulation (all obtained August 10, 2021)
o Waterfront Development Individual Permit (Waterward and Landward)
o Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit (Verification Method 2)
o Freshwater Wetlands General Permit No. 7 (Human-made Ditches/Swales in Headwaters)
o Freshwater Wetlands General Permit No. 11 (Outfalls/Intake Structures)
o Wetlands Mitigation Council Monetary Contribution Proposal (obtained February 16, 2023)
• NJDEP Division of Water Quality
o NJDPES Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (pending)
• NJDEP State Historic Preservation Office
o Section 106 Consultation
• NJDEP Division of Parks & Forestry
o Natural Heritage Resource Database and Landscape Project Inquiry (obtained March 11, 2020)
• NJDEP Site Remediation Program (SRP)
o Remedial Action Permit (RAP) (submitted by DuPont’s LSRP)
o Response Action Outcome (issued by DuPont’s LSRP pending NJDEP approval of RAP)
• Harbor Safety, Operations, and Navigation Committee of the Port Authority of NY and NJ (connected to
USACE approval)
• Freehold Soil Conservation District (FSCD)
o Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Certification (obtained October 7, 2020)
Federal Approvals and Consultation
• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
o Section 404 Individual Permit (obtained February 25, 2022)
• United States Coast Guard (subsumed in USACE approval)
• NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) (subsumed in USACE approval)
o Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment
• NOAA National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Offices (GARFO)
(subsumed in USACE approval)
o Habitat Conservation District (HCD) Assessment (responded July 16, 2021)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-71
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
o Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
o Section 4(f) of the US DOT Act
• US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
o Section 7 Biological Assessment Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Report
(obtained August 12, 2021)
Records of permits which have been obtained for the project are contained in Appendix 3.17-1.
Services will be required from a Registered Architect for building design and construction, Professional Engineers for
building mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection systems, structural design of the building foundations and
site design. Additional third party consultation will be required from a certified testing laboratory for various construction
testing, including, but not limited to, subgrade inspection, pile-driving oversight, and concrete testing.
Public Participation
The proposed Carteret Ferry Terminal project is a significant piece in the Borough of Carteret's plans to develop its
waterfront, as noted in the Borough of Carteret Municipal Public Access Plan (Submitted draft to NJDEP, June 2015).
The lot adjacent to the proposed location for the ferry terminal has been reconstructed as a waterfront park that
features mini golf, playgrounds, boat ramp, fishing piers, marina, and riverwalk, which will provide passive recreation
along the water. The redevelopment of the brownfield site into a ferry terminal aims to attract public commuters and
provide access to the waterfront.
As is typical for Environmental Assessments, the public is invited to review and comment over a 30-day period. This EA
will be made available for public review on the Borough’s website (www.carteret.net), as well as in physical form at the
Office of the Borough Clerk, 61 Cooke Avenue, 2nd Floor Carteret, NJ.
Comments should be filed within 30 days from the publication of the EA. Comments may be submitted electronically to
ClerksOffice@carteret.net. Comments may also be mailed to:
Borough of Carteret
Attn: Municipal Clerk
61 Cooke Avenue, 2nd Floor
Carteret, NJ 07008
Any comments received during this review period will be addressed in FTA’s Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Due to the long history of the project, public outreach efforts have spanned multiple years. Correspondence and
outreach efforts include the following:
1. Borough Officials Meeting – June 10, 2014
A Borough Officials Meeting was held on June 10, 2014 to discuss the proposed location for the ferry terminal
service and get input from Borough Officials. Overall, strong support for the project was shown from officials at
the meeting.
2. Public Information Center/Open House – June 28, 2016
During the preparation of the Borough’s ferry feasibility studies public input has been sought for feedback on
the studies’ purposes, goals and objectives, alternatives screening and initial selection. On June 28, 2016, the
Borough hosted an open house at the Carteret Public Library to present the initial findings and garner public
input related to the ferry feasibility study. Hard copy direct mailers (258) and e-mail notifications (210) were
distributed to residents, business owners, non-profit organizations, and other community members and
interested parties. The event used an informal, open house format to encourage attendees to interact with the
consultants, ask questions, and provide their input. The format minimized the attendees' time commitment,
while amplifying their opportunities to provide direct feedback.
Planning and policy consultants from Nelson Nygaard were on hand to present display boards on five (5) initial
project stages including: Study Purpose, Goals and Objectives, Alternatives Considered, Alternatives
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 3: Environmental Considerations Page 3-72
Screening, and Initial Screening. After attendees had visited each station and speaking with consultants, they
were asked to fill out a short, one-page survey. The survey asked each respondent to indicate if they agreed or
disagreed with the conclusions displayed at project stage. Attendees were also invited to share written
comments. 52 attendees filled out the survey out of the 122 attendees at the meeting.
Responses from the public were generally positive on all project phases, with many people remarking that the
ferry is the best option. Overall, 90% of respondents agreed with the content of the presentation and 0%
explicitly disagreed. A comment section was also provided on the surveys to allow for more specific feedback.
Attendees also voiced concerns, primarily related to parking and the overall project cost. A memorandum
prepared by Nelson Nygaard including public open house presentation materials and detailed survey response
breakdowns are included in Appendix 3.17-2.
3. Stakeholder Meeting –September 25, 2019
On September 25, 2019, representatives of the Borough of Carteret and NJDOT presented the project, its
purpose and need, its context within the overall development of the Carteret Waterfront Redevelopment, and
its Federal involvement/funding. Representatives of the Borough provided an overview of the Ridership Study
and the use of the "North Jersey Regional Transportation Model maintained by the MPO & NJTPA. The model
was used to estimate the probability of commuter use for the ferry, which determined that an anticipated half of
the ridership would be Borough residents and the other half would be regional residents (specifically from the
Turnpike corridor of northern Monmouth County). The Borough gave a summary of current funding/grants
available to the project. The stakeholders meeting was concluded with an open comment period from meeting
attendees and written comments from the public.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Public Notice
As part of the Army Corps permitting process, the public was notified of the opportunity to provide comments
on the project via a May 20, 2021 notice of receipt of application. The comment period closed on June 19,
2021.
Ferry Operation Support, Consultation, and Coordination
An official letter of support for the proposed Carteret, NJ-Lower Manhattan Passenger Ferry Service, dated October 24,
2017, was provided by The Port Authority of NY & NJ. In addition to the overall support of a passenger ferry service, the
NJ-NY Port Authority did not foresee conflicts with shipping access and harbor navigation to marine terminal facilities
using the same waterways as the proposed ferry route, pending US Coast Guard review of the project, which was
included under the USACE permit received for the project.
Letters of support from Middlesex County Board of Chosen Freeholders, Department of Business Development &
Education, and Department of Infrastructure Management are also provided in Appendix 3.17-3.
It is anticipated that ferry service established in Carteret would be administered through public contract to an
experienced ferry operator. The Borough has been in contact with New York W aterways of Weehawken, NJ, a local
operator that runs commuter ferry service between Monmouth County, NJ and Manhattan as well as various Trans-
Hudson, and East River routes. A test run was conducted using a NY Waterways vessel on June 3, 2015 between
Carteret Waterfront Park and Wall Street/Pier 11. The test run established a travel time of 54 minutes for this route and
was used in further feasibility studies.
In January 2022, the Borough awarded a public bid to New York Waterways for the purchase of a 149-passenger ferry
boat, Theodore Roosevelt, for $2,250,000. A second 149-passenger ferry contract was awarded to Hornblower Marine
of Bridgeport, Connecticut valued at $9,800,000.
Pending completion of the CFT, the Borough will let a publically bid competitive project for an operation of the two ferry
boats and use of the CFT docks.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-1
4. CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND EFFECTS
This Section describes the anticipated construction means and methods and assesses the potential for impacts during
construction of the Build Alternative, including all in-water and upland improvements associated with the CFT. The
assumed construction means and methods are based on current preliminary engineering design and the Borough’s
past experience on similar construction projects. While the construction techniques ultimately utilized for the proposed
project may vary, the potential for environmental impacts and types of mitigation measures described herein will likely
be the same.
Section
As described in Section 3.5, It is important to note that prior to construction commencing on the CFT or terminal
building sites, DuPont, the responsible party for the remediation of historical contamination on Block 304, Lots 2.01 and
2.02 (planned site of the CFT) must obtain an approved Remedial Action Permit from the NJDEP Site Remediation
Program. This will subsequently allow DuPont’s LSRP to issue a Response Action Outcome which will allow the
Borough to close and take title to the property as stipulated in the Land Donation Agreement (Appendix 3.5-1) signed
between the Borough and DuPont.
4.1. Construction Methods
The CFT will be constructed on a vacant, remediated Brownfield site which has been preliminarily designed anticipating
the CFT development project through the recently completed site remediation work on Block 304, Lots 2.01 and 2.02.
As scheduled commuter ferry service to Manhattan is anticipated to begin pending the completion of site and in-water
work in mid-2024, (parking lot, bulkheading, pile installation, floating dock and breakwater construction, and
gangways), it is assumed that the CFT will operate for a period for approximately one year before the ferry terminal
building is completed in 2025. Prior to the completion of the terminal building, the CFT may operate using temporary
shelter and ticketing kiosk for commuters. This being said, the construction phase for the terminal building will need to
minimize impacts for day-to-day operation of the CFT to ensure no disruptions to commuters or ongoing ferry service.
Construction will involve the following activities, discussed below:
• Dredging (completed 2022)
• Mobilizing and staging;
• Utility extensions;
• Installation of footings and foundations;
• Vertical building construction;
• Site work and tie-in to support facilities; and,
• Removal of temporary shelter and facilitates.
4.1.1. Mobilization and Staging
As described above, mobilization of equipment and materials for the terminal building will need to be
undertaken considering that the CFT will be operating commuter ferry timetables throughout the duration of
construction. Prior to construction commencing, the Contractor and Borough will develop a planned lay-down
area for materials and equipment, including cranes. This area will need to be in close proximity to the footprint
of the terminal building, but will respect all regulated areas, including wetlands, transition areas, and limits of
disturbance. A construction entrance for the work area will be established which will allow vehicles and
equipment to access the site from the north from Roosevelt Avenue, via Lot 2.01, to minimize the sediment
tracking through the parking lot and conflicts between commuters and construction equipment. An onsite
temporary construction trailer will be shared by the contractor and construction manager.
All staging and storage will occur on Borough-owned property. No equipment staging or deliveries will be
required from the water and no disturbance beyond the top of bank on Lots 2.01 or 2.02 is anticipated. As all
properties will be owned by the Borough, no temporary construction easements will be required. More
specifically, staging and stockpile areas will be established to the north and west of the CFT building and
parking lot on Lot 2.01 to minimize impacts on the operation of the CFT during construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-2
4.1.2. In-Water Work
Initial in-water work was completed in November 2022 with steel wall installation and dredging of the ferry
berths along the Arthur Kill. The following phase of in-water work will include driving piles for floating docks and
floating breakwaters, installation and assembly of said floating docks and floating breakwaters, and installation
of gangways.
4.1.3. Utilities
Site utilities which will serve the CFT facility will be extended to the site during construction of the CFT parking
lot. This will include the extension of sanitary sewer, water main, natural gas main, underground electrical
service, and underground telecommunications conduits from the adjacent Memorial Boulevard/Waterfront
Access Road. All utilities will be installed under proposed driveways and travel areas for the parking lot to
minimize additional disturbance. It is anticipated that utility mains to the CFT will be completed prior to
construction of the building. As building construction progresses, and as permitted by utility providers, individual
utility services for the building will be extended to the building foundation.
Utility installation will involve common site work construction equipment, including tracked excavators, dump
trucks, rubber tire backhoes, vibratory rollers, and associated machinery. Utility main work to the site is
anticipated to take approximately two (2) to three (3) months. As this work will be conducted concurrent with
the construction of the CFT site work and prior to start of ferry service, there will be no impact to commuters.
4.1.4. Footings and Foundations
Deep pile foundations are anticipated to be required to support the footings for the terminal building given the
poor geotechnical conditions underlying the site. Construction will typically involve driving a number of timber,
steel, or concrete piles into place under the footprint of the Building. Piles may be installed with by means of
vibratory or diesel impact hammers. Impact pile driving will be used to seat the piles at the final tip elevation.
Pile installation will generally involve a hydraulic crawler crane. The total duration of pile driving activities will be
dependent on the number of piles specified for the foundation design and the character of subsurface
conditions encountered during construction; however, is generally anticipated not to last for longer than a
month. The contractor will develop a detailed schedule for pile driving activities, as well as develop a vibration
monitoring plan to ensure seismic effects remain within accepted standards. All pile driving work will be
inspected by a Professional Engineer. Once piles are driven, concrete pile caps will installed as part of the
Building’s foundation.
4.1.5. Vertical Construction
Following the completion of footings and foundations, vertical construction of the building will commence. This
phase will include the foundation walls, building, walls, glazing, and all mechanical, electrical, plumbing, HVAC,
and fire protection systems within the building. Total duration for Building construction will ultimately depend on
the final design, specifications, and material selection. It is anticipated that a similar laydown area will be
utilized for the delivery, storage, and staging of construction materials for the building, with access maintained
for delivery trucks via Lot 2.02 to avoid impacts to commuters.
4.1.6. Site Work and Tie-in to Adjacent CFT Improvements
As vertical construction of the terminal building progresses and nears completion, site work will begin around
the immediate perimeter of the building. The scope of work will include sidewalks, curbing, and exterior building
entrances, and limited surface course paving of parking lot areas that were utilized for staging and laydown.
Work will also include setting the backup generator, landscaping and lighting, and final restoration work.
Upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building by the municipal Construction Officer, the
contractor will complete final fit-out of the building and open the building to commuters. Once opened, the
temporary commuter shelter and ticketing facilities will be dismantled.
4.1.7. General Practices
Construction activities will generally occur during daylight hours between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm, although
certain activities, including material deliveries, may occur outside of typical working hours. If any lighting is
required during construction, it will be limited to the minimum number of lights and wattage necessary to
perform such activities, and down-shielded lights will be used to direct the light only to the area needed and
minimize light spill.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-3
Most construction activities will occur on weekdays, but weekend work may be required for time-sensitive tasks
and to avoid disruption to existing ferry operations.
Erosion and sediment control measures will also be implemented during construction to avoid the transfer of
silt to adjacent waterways and the adjacent parking lot. As the on-site parking lot for the CFT includes multiple
areas of pervious pavement, special care will be taken to ensure sediment is not tracked outside of the
construction area which would clog areas of porous asphalt.
4.1.8. Construction Schedule
A tentative construction schedule for the CFT project is provided below in Table 4.1-1. This schedule
conservatively assumes that DuPont’s remedial action responsibilities for the site are fulfilled by the close of
2023 which will allow the Borough to commence with construction beginning January 2024.
Table 4.1-1: Carteret Ferry Terminal Tentative Project Schedule
Phase Description Duration Start/End Dates
1 Construction: Dredging &
Steel Wall
1 month Nov. 2022 (completed)
2 Design and Bid: CFT Temp.
Site Work & Permanent In-
Water Work
6 months Jun. 2023 – Dec. 2023
3 Construction: CFT Temporary
Site Work and Permanent In-
Water Work
8 months* Jan. 2024 – Aug. 2024
4 Design and Bid: CFT Building 12 months Jun. 2023 – Jul. 2024
5 Design and Bid: Final Site
Work
12 months Jun. 2023 – Jun. 2024
6 Construction: CFT Building 18 months Jul. 2024 – Jan. 2026
7 Construction: Final Site Work 6 months Jun. 2025 – Jan. 2026
*In-water work is subject to annual pile-driving and mudline disturbance moratorium from January 1 –
June 30.
4.2. Short Term Construction Impacts
4.2.1. Land Use, Zoning, and Policy
Construction projects are inevitably noisy, which can be disruptive to nearby land uses. For the Build
Alternative, Waterfront Park will be the closest sensitive land use to the construction activities, located
approximately 250 feet to the south of the site. It is noted that Waterfront Park has been an adjacent land use
to recent construction work, including the construction of the Municipal Marina between 2016 and 2019 and the
remediation of the DuPont/Agrico site on which the CFT is proposed between 2016 and 2020. This Marina
project included extensive pile driving, on-water, and upland site work, and the DuPont/Agrico remediation work
involved ongoing earthwork. During these timespans, there were no significant impacts to the public enjoyment
of the park. With this being said, it is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts on Waterfront Park
from the construction of the CFT.
The nearest residences are separated from the construction zone by vacant lands and existing industrial uses
over approximately one-quarter mile and will generally be well buffered from any disruption.
4.2.2. Community Services
Access to community services, including essential Police, Fire and EMS services will be maintained at all times
during construction. There will be no impact to services provided by the Borough as a result of construction.
4.2.3. Parks and Recreational Resources
The Borough’s Waterfront Park is located approximately 250 feet south of the CFT site. As noted above,
construction activities will generally be buffered from these parks by distance. Neither Waterfront Park, the
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-4
adjacent boat ramp parking lot, nor the park access road, will be used for construction staging or truck access.
All construction activities near the parks will be located within a separate parcel. As indicated below in Section
4.2.12, “Construction Noise Assessment,” noise levels will be maintained within acceptable limits. Therefore,
this construction noise impact is not considered a significant adverse impact. The northern section of the
proposed Arthur Kill Riverwalk project, anticipated to commence construction in early 2023, will be outside of
the limits of the CFT and not be impacted.
Visual impacts to park users will be temporary and include construction equipment, materials, and operations.
The area in the vicinity of Waterfront Park has been the site of several active construction projects in the last
decade, including the development of the municipal marina and site remediation work on the CFT site;
therefore, it is not anticipated that the CFT construction work will be overly disruptive or unfamiliar to residents
and park patrons.
Diesel emissions from construction equipment on the CFT site will be temporary and are not expected to result
in significant impact to local air quality at the park given the separation and prevailing wind directions in the
area (west to east).
4.2.4. Socioeconomic Conditions
Business operations in the project area are expected to be able to continue during construction, and adverse
impacts to local businesses are not anticipated.
4.2.5. Property Acquisition/Displacement
As discussed in Section 3.5, all construction work will take place on Borough-owned property. Therefore, no
property acquisition or temporary easements are required for construction of the CFT.
4.2.6. Visual Resources
Construction is anticipated to take place on the CFT site over the course of approximately 24 months. During
this time, construction equipment will be mobilized both on the upland and in-water portions of the site.
Equipment will include earthmoving machinery (backhoes, dump trucks, and excavators), mobile and crawler
cranes, tractor trailers, and barge-mounted cranes and support vessels. Viewer groups exposed to temporary
construction-related views will be limited to park users in the northern section of Waterfront Park, boaters, and
adjacent commercial/industrial warehouse employees. Motorists will generally be buffered from direct sight
lines from Industrial Highway due to a substantial treeline and warehouses to the west of the site; while
motorists along Roosevelt Avenue will not have direct views of the sight due significant horizontal and vertical
separation from the construction area.
Temporary changes to the visual setting of the site will be minor in nature, as the site is vacant and currently
bears a resemblance to a construction site as ground cover predominantly consists of crushed stone, gravel,
riprap, and dirt. Additionally, the site was an active construction area during the remediation work on the
property conducted by DuPont which employed many similar pieces of equipment, as well as the dredging work
performed by the NJDOT for the berths. For this reason, members of the community unfamiliar with the project
may not assume the condition of the site is “business as usual” for the site and not be readily impacted by the
Borough’s work.
Transitory construction equipment, including over-the-road dump trucks, tractor trailers, and support vehicles
will make use of Roosevelt Avenue to access the site from the northwest. In doing so, trucks will not have
access to the Baumgartner Memorial Boulevard which accesses Waterfront Park, further separating viewer
groups from additional impacts associated with construction. By routing all truck traffic to Roosevelt Avenue,
residential properties located along Industrial Highway and further to the west will be buffered from exposure to
this equipment.
In conclusion, visual resources associated with construction will be temporary and will be carried out on a site
that was an active construction area up until 2020 and therefore no significant impacts will be experienced by
the public.
4.2.7. Historic, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources
No historic properties or architectural resources were identified within the APE; therefore, no impacts to historic
properties or architectural resources will result from short-term construction activities.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-5
As discussed in Section 3.7.1 (Archeological APE), the 2007 Phase IA archeological report concluded that
there were no historic archeological resources within the APE associated with either the pre-Contact and
Contact periods; until the beginning of the 20th century, the salt marsh comprising the APE was not suitable for
habitation. Historic documentation verifies commercial use of the property as a fertilizer manufacturing plant.
Based on these findings, it is unlikely that further archeological investigations would provide new information
about 20th century industrial developments.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.14 (Contaminated Materials), remediation work on the site
performed by DuPont includes an 18” dense-graded aggregate cap, further underlain by amended processed
dredge material (PDM) layer varying between in thickness from approximately 2 to 10 feet. This layer was
placed on the site to raise finished grades above the 100-year flood elevation as part of the Remedial Action
Workplan for the site undertaken by DuPont in anticipation of the eventual CFT project. Earthwork and grading
of the remediation work was coordinated with DuPont to mimic the finished grades of the parking lot in order to
better effectuate the eventual site grading and utility installation work for the CFT site. Due to this forethought,
excavation work is generally not anticipated to penetrate the PDM layer; therefore in-situ soils beneath the cap
or deeper soil layers which may have the potential to contain archeological resources are not anticipated to be
encountered.
Based upon the findings of these Sections, there is insignificant potential for disturbing pre-contact or historic
period archaeological artifacts in the course of construction. However, in accordance with direction provided
tribal nations consulted for this project, in the event that any cultural or historic materials are found during
construction (which may include tools, fossils, bones, pottery, or other materials of unknown origin or
cultural/historic significance), all ground disturbance activities will be ceased immediately. Tribal nations and NJ
SHPO will be consulted for further review and direction for discoveries made on upland portions of the site. The
US Army Corps of Engineers will be notified for historic or archeological remains discovered during in-water
work.
4.2.8. Transportation
4.2.8.1. Vehicular Traffic and Parking
Construction activities and sequencing will be designed to minimize conflicts with vehicular traffic,
particularly vehicles in the CFT parking lot. As described in Section 4.1.1, a small area of the site will
need to be utilized for materials staging and laydown. The footprint of this area will be minimized to the
greatest extent practicable and generally located to the north and west of the CFT building; however,
as the overall parking lot accommodates approximately 700 spaces, it is anticipated that ample parking
will remain for commuter use. In no case will parking areas be reduced to the extent that there will be a
deficit in spaces for daily commuters. The Borough will work in conjunction with the construction
manager, contractor, and ferry operator to ensure any impacts to vehicular traffic are minimized. No
parking spaces in the adjacent Boat Ramp parking lot or Waterfront Access Road are anticipated to be
affected.
All dump trucks and tractor trailers will access the site via established truck routes – Middlesex Avenue
(from the south) or Peter J. Sica Industrial Highway (from the north) and gain access (ingress and
egress) to the site via an existing construction entrance opposite the Borough Department of Public
Works facility on Roosevelt Avenue. The existing access route has been identified as being previously
used for construction access to the site and deemed adequate to handle the anticipated construction
activities. Construction vehicle routes will not result in any impacts to residential zones of the Borough.
4.2.8.2. Marine Traffic
In-water work along the western bank of the Arthur Kill for the construction of in-water works, including,
but not limited to pile driving, dock installation, and gangway and ramp installation will be performed in
accordance with conditions included in the project’s US Army Corps of Engineers permits. These
conditions require that lights installed on the vessels be white and non-flashing, and that vessels be
moved on demand to allow commercial vessels to transit the work area.
Prior to mobilizing to the site, marine contractors will be advised to contact the New York Vessel Traffic
Safety (VTS) supervisor to coordinate operations, as well as the US Coast Guard District 1 to file a
Local Notice to Mariners including the location, nature of the work, duration, equipment on scene and
VHF radio contact information.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-6
Due to the location of the in-water work and its 105-foot separation from the Arthur Kill’s federal
navigational channel and the Carteret boat ramp, no working vessels are anticipated to impede
commercial or recreational vessel operations. No closures or reductions of the navigational channel
are anticipated.
By taking these precautions and based on the location of the work, the in-water construction will not
pose any impact to vessel traffic operating in the Arthur Kill.
4.2.8.3. Transit
No transit lines, including NJ Transit buses, commuter buses, or local shuttles operate in the vicinity of
the project, including any lines on Industrial Highway, Roosevelt Avenue adjacent to the site, or access
roads to the Waterfront. As no lines operate in the area, there will be no impacts to bus routes or
schedules.
4.2.8.4. Pedestrians/Cyclists
Construction vehicles will not utilize the driveways to the CFT as used by pedestrians and cyclists, to
mitigate conflicts between construction vehicles and the public. All construction areas will be fenced
and off-limits to the public.
4.2.9. Air Quality
4.2.9.1. Emissions during Construction
Construction-related air emissions generally include particulate matter in the form of fugitive dust (from
ground clearing and preparation, grading, stockpiling of materials, on-site movement of equipment and
transportation of construction materials), as well as exhaust emissions from material delivery trucks,
construction equipment and worker’s private vehicles. Dust emissions typically occur during dry
weather and periods of construction activities or high wind conditions.
Dust will be controlled by methods prescribed by the New Jersey Standards for Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control and the conditions of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Certification issued
by the Freehold Soil Conservation District for upland work, including water trucks which will be required
on-site to arrest dust during dry periods and high weather conditions.
As potential dust emissions will be generally limited to that emanating from placement of new clean fill,
excavations of the existing clean fill cap, or the underlying processed dredge material (PDM) layer, a
Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) is not anticipated.
Emissions from construction equipment will result in temporary impacts to air quality. FTA’s
Greenhouse Gas Estimator, v3.0 was used to analyze and estimate projected emissions from
construction equipment associated with the CFT project. The “Construction” spreadsheet of the file
was exclusively used to determine emissions output. We note that this spreadsheet tool is assumed to
provide an order of magnitude estimate for the project, which is useful for the purposes of this
assessment – disclosing projected emissions associated with construction. While this tool provides
estimated based on broad industry averages, the specific use of this tool may introduce significant
error. There is no specific transit mode for ferry service. “Bus/BRT” was selected as the closest
applicable mode. One new at-grade station was entered for the calculations. It is noted however that
the majority of site construction associated with this project is made up of the 700-space surface
parking lot, which is a specific input parameter of the tool. A minimal distance of new lane miles (0.10)
was entered to complete the calculations, associated with the approximately length of the parking lot. It
is noted that for assessing the construction phase of the project, the analysis period of 2 years was
selected, corresponding with the anticipated construction schedule.
Based on the FTA tool, the total GHG emissions was 4,229 metric tons of CO2e.
The construction management of the Build Alternative will include general environmental measures
imposed on contractors to minimize impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Construction
work will be planned and executed in a manner that will minimize air emissions and will be
accomplished in light of the site’s proximity to users of the surrounding environment.
Contractors will be encouraged to utilize newer construction equipment which typically operates more
efficiently and with lower fuel consumption rates than older equipment. While diesel construction
equipment is prevalent, contractors will be encouraged to minimize the use of diesel-powered
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-7
equipment where possible. If diesel is necessary, use of biodiesel blend (B20) fuel will be encouraged,
as it can generally be used without any modification in most diesel engines and can reduce emissions
by 15%.
Air quality control measures imposed on the proposed project will include:
• Limiting idling times to less than three (3) minutes on diesel powered engines and gasoline
powered engines pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:27-14 and N.J.A.C. 7:27-15;
• Locating diesel-powered exhausts away from local residential or building air intakes;
• Limiting on-site equipment to operating speeds of 5 mph to reduce dust and particulate pollutants
from tires and brakes;
• Using other dust control measures, including spraying suppressing agent on any soil piles; using
water or appropriate liquids for dust control during demolition, land clearing, grading; and on
materials stockpile or surface; covering open-body trucks when transporting materials; and
removing surface materials promptly;
• Establishing truck haul routes to minimize impact to sensitive receptors such as residential areas,
hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing, and convalescent facilities.
4.2.10. Global Climate Change
4.2.10.1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As with any construction project, construction of the Build Alternative will result in greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions that include direct emissions from on-site non-road construction engines; and
indirect emissions from on-road trucks and worker vehicles supporting construction. In addition,
construction of the Build Alternative will also result in indirect GHG emissions, which are not released
by on-site construction activities, but are nonetheless caused by the proposed project, since GHGs are
emitted during the production and disposal of materials used for construction. For example, GHGs will
be emitted during the extraction, production, and delivery of cement and steel (also known as
embodied emissions).
GHG emissions associated with construction have been assessed qualitatively below. As discussed in
Section 3.9.1, over the lifetime of the project, these will be offset by the increased efficiencies in
commuting by removing individual vehicles from the road. Nevertheless, measures to minimize GHG
emissions during construction are discussed below. W hile any given project is small in the context of
global GHG emissions, projects worldwide have a considerable impact on climate and also an
opportunity to reduce emissions via choices made. Therefore, “When considering GHG emissions and
their significance, agencies should use appropriate tools and methodologies for quantifying GHG
emissions and comparing GHG quantities across alternative scenarios. Accordingly, a comparison of
these alternatives based on GHG emissions and any potential mitigation measures can be useful to
advance a reasoned choice among alternatives and mitigation actions… When conducting the
analysis, an agency should compare the anticipated levels of GHG emissions from … mitigation
actions to provide information to the public and enable the decision maker to make an informed
choice… agencies should consider reasonable mitigation measures and alternatives as provided for
under existing CEQ Regulations and take into account relevant agency statutory authorities and
policies.”
Reducing GHG from construction could be achieved by using biodiesel in construction engines and by
using recycled materials and cement replacements. The extraction, production, and delivery of cement
and steel contribute significantly to GHG emissions. Other mitigation steps to minimize emissions are
as follows:
• Switch to biodiesel blend 20 percent (B20): If all construction equipment could operate on B20,
direct engine emissions could be reduced. B20 can generally be used without any modification
in most diesel engines and is available at a slight cost premium. Some fuel management will
be required to ensure fuels are stored properly. The Borough will evaluate options for
incorporating the use of B20 in construction if practicable, including cost considerations.
• Switch to pure biodiesel (B100): If all construction equipment could operate on B100, direct
engine emissions could be reduced. However, B100 cannot be used in all engines, is available
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-8
at a larger cost premium, and will require a substantial implementation plan. This approach is
not recommended given the difficulties it will introduce.
• Portland cement replacements (PCR): PCRs such as slag or other industrial byproducts,
and/or the increased use of interground limestone, could potentially reduce indirect emissions.
The actual potential amount that could be used will be limited by structural requirements. In
contract documents the Borough will request that PCR be used to the extent practicable, and
require documentation demonstrating the PCR content of all concrete used for the project.
• Recycled aggregate: The reuse of on-site aggregate or the use of recycled concrete aggregate
as a substitute for base stone could potentially reduce indirect emissions. In contract
documents, the Borough will request that on-site aggregate be used to the extent practicable,
and where additional aggregate is required, that recycled concrete aggregate be used if found
to be practicable, including cost considerations. The Borough will require documentation
demonstrating the quantities of each aggregate type used for the project.
• Recycled Steel: ensuring that recycled steel is used where practicable can substantially reduce
emissions. While most steel used for construction in the U.S. is from recycled sources,
specifying it as a requirement and tracking its use can ensure that less virgin steel is used. In
contract documents, the Borough will request that recycled steel be used to the extent
practicable, and require documentation demonstrating the recycled content of all steel used for
the project.
4.2.10.2. Resilience to Future Severe Weather Events
As the project is located in the 100-year floodplain, the contract document will require that the
contractor provide a storm preparedness plan. In the event of a severe storm predicted during
construction, the contractor will take all necessary precautions to prepare the site, secure materials
and equipment to the extent practicable so as to avoid both losses to the project and damage to the
surroundings from project related debris.
4.2.11. Energy
Energy consumption associated with construction of the CFT will come in two main forms: (1) diesel fuel
consumption for construction equipment and vehicles, and (2) temporary electric service for the site. FTA’s
GHG Estimator v3.0 spreadsheet tool was used to estimate energy use during the two year course of
construction. As previously stated in Section 3.11, a 700-space bus station was modelled to determine an
order-of-magnitude estimate on energy consumption as the mode type and scale of construction is a suitable
analog to the CFT. The tool estimated a total energy use associated with construction of 30,789 mmBTU,
annualized at 15,394 mmBTU per year.
A small, temporary electric service is anticipated to be required for construction. This service will generally be
utilized to power a temporary trailer office for the contractor and construction manager. PSE&G electric service
is available adjacent to the project and such a minor load will not put a strain on the local electric grid.
4.2.12. Noise and Vibration
An assessment was conducted to evaluate the effects of construction noise and vibration on nearby land uses
in accordance with the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018 revision (“FTA
Manual”). The main construction stages, activities with the greatest potential to generate noise and/or vibration
impacts, and reasonable equipment assumptions and quantities were identified and evaluated in the noise and
vibration assessments. The analyses specifically considered the noise and vibration impacts associated with
pile driving during foundation installation and in-water pile work as these activities have the greatest potential
noise and vibration generation.
4.2.12.1. Construction Noise Assessment
A qualitative Construction Noise Assessment was conducted to assess construction noise levels. A
qualitative assessment was selected as pile driving work – the stage of the work with the greatest
potential for noise impacts – is anticipated to last less a month. As described in the FTA Manual, both
qualitative and quantitative general noise assessments have been prepared, including the following
elements:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-9
• Equipment expected
Pile driving may be conducted with a combination of both vibratory and impact hammers.
Based on FTA Manual Table 7.1, these pieces of equipment have sound emission levels
measured at 50 feet of 95 and 101 dBA, respectively. Only one piece of equipment is expected
to operate at one time and will generally operate in the absence of other site machinery.
• Quantitative General Assessment
Assuming the above conditions and based on FTA Manual Equation 7.1, sound levels
anticipated at the nearest receptor, Waterfront Park (225 feet south of site), were calculated as
follows for impact pile-driving hammers:
Where:
Leq.equip = Leq(t) at a receiver from the operation of a single piece of equipment over a
specified time period, dBA
Lemission = noise level of equipment at 50 feet, dBA
Adjusage = adjustment factor (1 for general assessments)
D = distance from receiver to equipment, ft
G = ground effects constant (assumed to be 0 given site topography)
As demonstrated in the above calculation, sound levels observed at the property boundary of
Waterfront Park are anticipated to be approximately 87.9 dBA. This sound level slightly
exceeds 85 dBA set by Municipal Ordinance. This represents a worst case scenario for park
users on the periphery of the park. When analyzed for locations where most people
congregate in the park, including picnic areas and Veteran’s Fishing Pier, approximately 320
feet from the CFT site, calculated noise levels are reduced to 84.9 dBA, below the threshold in
the Borough’s noise ordinance.
These values were also compared to FTA’s General Assessment Noise Criteria (Table 7.2),
which set daytime noise levels at 90 dBA for residential areas and 100 dBA for commercial
and industrial areas. Assuming the most conservative residential criteria, there is no
anticipated exceedance in noise level from pile driving operations associated with the CFT
foundation and in-water pile-driving for the docks.
• Duration of construction
Pile driving work associated with the deep pile foundations for the building and docks are
anticipated to have a duration of approximately two (2) months. Work will be limited to the
footprint of the CFT and ferry berth areas. The loudest noise generating activities will generally
be limited to typical work hours (8 AM to 5 PM).
• Schedule
Work will generally be limited to weekday business hours (8 AM to 5 PM).
• Noise monitoring
Given the relatively isolated location of the site and surrounding industrial uses, noise
monitoring equipment is anticipated. Throughout construction, noise will be monitored by
Borough representatives overseeing construction. Should noise be the source of complaints, a
noise monitoring and control plan will be developed to define and suitably abate noise
emissions.
• Public communication
The public will be made aware of pending and ongoing work via signage posted at Waterfront
Park, as well as postings on the Borough’s municipal website and social media accounts.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-10
• Commitment to limited to noise levels
Noise levels will be enforced consistent with §172 “Noise” of the Municipal Ordinance. The
Contractor will file for a variance from the noise ordinance as set forth in §172-8 as noise
levels are anticipated to exceed the 85 dB limit set by ordinance in areas closer to the subject
site.
• Noise control treatments
Throughout construction, all construction will be operated with functioning mufflers to minimize
noise emission. The contractor will also be encourage to utilize vibratory hammers for pile
driving where feasible to reduce noise impacts on the surrounding area.
The analysis concluded that noise generated during construction will not be a significant impact to
surrounding receptors. However, as detailed plans are developed for the site and construction means
and methods are selected, this assessment will be refined to ensure that noise levels remain within
acceptable levels, and be mitigated if necessary.
4.2.12.2. Construction Vibration Assessment
A construction vibration assessment was conducted to consider the potential vibration impacts,
including the potential for structural damage and possible vibration-induced annoyance. The analysis
considered the use of impact pile driving equipment to install the deep pile foundation and dock piles
for the CFT, which is an activity that can result in more vibration than other planned activities.
As set forth in FTA Manual Section 7.2, a qualitative construction vibration assessment was conducted
as the project will require vibratory or impact pile driving. Duration and scheduling of work with the
potential to induce significant vibration levels is consistent with that described in Section 4.2.12.1,
above.
Per FTA Table 4.7, impact pile driving equipment has a typical peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.644
inches per second and a vibration velocity level (Lv) of 104 VdB at 25 feet. The nearest receptor was
determined to the be the timber Waterfront Park Veteran’s Fishing Pier, located approximately 350
feet southeast of the CFT site. FTA Manual Equation 7-2 was used to determine the propagation
adjustment at the Pier:
Where:
PPVequip = equipment peak particle velocity, adjusted for distance, in/sec
PPVref = source vibration level at 25 feet, in/sec
D = distance from equipment to receiver, ft
Impact pile driving equipment was assessed to determine ground-borne vibration related to human
annoyance according to FTA Manual Equation 7-3:
Where:
Lv.distance = root mean squared velocity, adjusted for distance, VdB
Lvref = source vibration reference at 25 feet, VdB
D = distance from equipment to receiver, ft
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-11
The PPV and Lv values determined were compared to vibration damage criteria in FTA Manual Table
7.5 to assess impacts. Veteran’s Pier was assumed to be a non-engineered timber structure
(Structural Category III), which has a construction vibration damage criteria for PPV and Lv of 0.2
in/sec and 94 VdB, respectively. Neither the PPV nor Lv values calculated in the assessment for the
impact pile driving equipment exceed these criteria.
The analysis concluded that the construction of the Build Alternate will not result in potential structural
damage to any nearby structures, and no sensitive land uses are close enough to the pile driving
activities to cause notable annoyance.
4.2.13. Natural Resources
Project construction will not result in impacts to terrestrial communities, wildlife, federally listed and/or New
Jersey-protected species, wetlands, floodplains, or aquatic resources in the study area.
4.2.13.1. Wetlands
Disturbance of existing degraded wetlands and riparian areas on site has been permitted by NJDEP in
conjunction with construction of the project. These disturbances will include installation of an outfall
pipe and drainage ditch. Disturbances will be strictly limited to areas approved by the NJDEP. All
disturbed wetlands will be restored in accordance with NJDEP requirements.
A Freehold Soil Conservation District-certified Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (SESC) plan will
implement measures (i.e., silt fencing, hay bales) to protect adjacent water quality and wetlands
outside of the area of disturbance from stormwater runoff during construction.
4.2.13.2. Water Quality
Construction activities will be conducted so as to minimize any adverse impacts to water quality. SESC
measures employed will limit the migration of soil off-site and into adjacent storm sewer systems.
Additionally, during construction of the CFT, pervious pavement areas in the adjacent parking lot will be
cordoned off from construction vehicles to ensure that stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs)
are not impacted by construction activities. The existing riprap revetment and bulkheading along the
shoreline of Block 304, Lot 2.02 will not be disturbed during construction.
A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) will be developed and implemented by the Contractor
to identify activities and conditions that could potentially cause water pollution and how the facility will
prevent pollution discharge. A copy of the SPPP will be kept on the site at all times in case of
accidental discharge of pollutants.
4.2.13.3. Flood Zones
The use of a portion of the 100-year floodplain within the project area for staging areas and
construction of the CFT will not result in adverse impacts to floodplain resources nor will it result in
increased flooding of adjacent areas. Since construction-related water volume displacement resulting
from the additional fill is within a tidal system, where flooding is influenced by tidal surge emanating
from the Atlantic Ocean through Raritan Bay rather than fluvial sources, no adverse floodplain effects
will occur.
4.2.13.4. Terrestrial Natural Resources
During construction, clearing and grading activities will remove a minor area of invasive vegetation
which has recently colonized the remedial cap on the site. These activities will result in the relocation
of some wildlife from the area but sufficient suitable available habitat should be available nearby to
minimize the potential adverse impacts to affected individuals. No trees are proposed to be removed.
4.2.13.5. Aquatic Natural Resources
As described in Section 3.13.3, no work is proposed within the adjacent Arthur Kill tidal strait and
upland work will be conducted in such a manner as to minimize the effects of siltation and turbidity,
there will be no significant impacts to aquatic biota or essential fish habitat.
4.2.13.6. Threatened and Endangered Species
As discussed in Section 3.13.1.7 and summarized in Table 3.13.3.7-1, the following threatened and
endangered species have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the project area:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-12
Common Name Scientific Name Federal State
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus -Endangered
Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax -Threatened
Osprey Pandion haliaetus -Threatened
Yellow-crowned night heron Nyctanassa violacea -Threatened
Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Endangered -
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Endangered
Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis -Threatened
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus -Endangered
Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus -Concern
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea -Concern
Snowy Egret Egretta thula -Concern
Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor -Concern
Summary of Threatened and Endangered Species
Species Status
Onsite
Immediate Vicinity
Within One (1) Mile
Onsite, Immediate Vicinity and Within One (1) Mile
Table 3.13.3.7-1: Summary of threatened and endangered species.
Section 3.13.1.7 discusses that despite the potential presence of these species, direct or indirect
impacts on any of the subject species are unlikely due to the limited disturbance of the CFT project in
addition to the condition of the current site being largely cleared and vacant of suitable habitat for
fauna.
As part of an ESA Section 7 analysis, the impacts relating to the following stressors have been
analyzed and detailed to determine impacts associated with in-water work and operations of the CFT
and are included in an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment prepared by T&M Associates, dated
November 2020 and included in Appendix 3.13-2:
Sound
Temporary subaqueous sound and vibration impacts must be considered when carrying out
underwater work in the marine environment. Interagency coordination is part of the USACE
and NJDEP permitting process which identified listed species of Atlantic Sturgeon and
Shortnose Sturgeon as occurring within the project area. To mitigate any impacts to these
species, a 20-minute soft start to underwater pile driving will be followed in accordance with
permit conditions in order to reduce sound impacts on sturgeon, winter flounder, and other
species
Habitat Structure and Disturbance
The shoreline has been subject to long-term use and industrial/cargo ship traffic for many
years. As such, the shoreline would be considered previously disturbed and the proposed
project is not anticipated to have adverse impacts on the intertidal and subtidal shallows. No
existing structures are proposed to be removed as part of the scope of work; therefore there
will be no impact to existing habitat structures which may have served fish populations at the
project location.
The location of underwater disturbance predominantly consists of intertidal-subtidal shallows
and degraded wetlands. Submerged aquatic vegetation in this location was not observed
during site inspection nor was it mapped on NJDEP GIS layers. The degraded wetlands onsite
will be restored to provide improved subtidal habitat. Contaminated sediments are proposed to
be removed and nuisance/exotic vegetation will be removed. Upon project completion, the
shoreline will be planted with spartina alterniflora in intertidal areas and spartina patens In
upland areas to restore the already disturbed nature of the habitat as referenced on the permit
plan. This will allow for shoreline restoration, future erosion protection, enhancement of
intertidal shallows and wildlife habitat, and protection from boat wakes/wave attenuation. The
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-13
vegetated shoreline will improve the existing shoreline which is currently disturbed and devoid
of vegetation.
Disturbance will be temporary and not significantly impact protected marine species as in-
water work will be conducted outside of work moratoriums. Improvements associated with
degraded wetlands and mudflat restoration will provide an enhanced habitat for protected
marine species.
Dredging and In-Water Structures
Construction of the ferry berths required the dredging of approximately 18,000 cubic yards of
sediment to an authorized project depth of 17 feet below mean low water. Dredging work was
carried out by NJDOT in November 2022 in accordance with the conditions outlined in the
NJDEP and US Army Corps of Engineers permits for the work, which required coordination
with and approval from, among other agencies, NOAA/NMFS and USFWS. Dredging impacts
were temporary and minimized effects and impacts related to dredging. Seasonal work
restrictions are required for the dredging and marine construction activities from March 1st to
June 30th for anadromous migration and/or February 1st to May 31st to protect winter flounder
early life stages. In its permit for the project, the NJDEP instituted a blanket moratorium
against in-water disturbance from January 1st to June 30th to mitigate effects to protected
marine species.
The in-water construction activities will not take place between January 1st and June 30th to
decrease impacts to the seasonal fish species. All in water work will take place during times
when most of the listed species are not expected to be present with the exception of winter
flounder. Therefore, adverse impacts to the fish species are not anticipated as a result of the
dredging work, which was conducted in November 2022, outside of the January 1 to June 30
moratorium to protect winter flounder and anadromous fish species.
The project scope includes the installation of approximately 58 steel pipe piles to support a 40-
foot by 40-foot floating dock and 200-foot long floating breakwater for the ferry berths. As
discussed, the shoreline is previously disturbed and includes many extant waterfront structures
in the vicinity of the project on adjoining properties, including piers, bulkheads, and docks. The
addition of these additional structures is minor in nature and will not significantly impact
protected marine species.
Water Quality
Temporary impacts to turbidity and sediment suspension associated with dredging were
anticipated in planning for the CFT project. Conditions provided for in NJDEP and USACE
permits for in-water work were respected during dredge work for the ferry slips by
implementing construction techniques and environmental protection guidelines. The material
was dredged with an environmental clamshell bucket and placed on a sealed barge. The
environmental bucket is sealed and aids in reducing the amount of suspended solids in the
water column. After 24 hours, the decant water was allowed to be pumped back into the Arthur
Kill and the sediment transferred to a second adjoining barge.
With respect to the CFT site, NJDEP requires the reduction of total suspended solids,
including suspended silts, oils, floatables, and road contaminants in stormwater runoff
discharged to the Arthur Kill through the use of pervious pavement and other stormwater
infrastructure.
Additionally, the property on which the CFT is to be constructed has been recently remediated
to cap and limit the migration of historic contamination on the site, thereby lessening impacts
to protected marine species which would not have occurred if the site contamination had
otherwise been left unaddressed.
Prey Quality/Quantity
Degraded wetlands onsite will be restored to provide improved subtidal habitat to support
enhanced habitat and increased populations for lower food-chain marine species and juvenile
fish. Upon project completion, the shoreline will be planted with spartina alterniflora (intertidal
zones) and spartina patens (upland zones) to restore the already disturbed nature of the
habitat as referenced on the permit plan. This will allow for shoreline restoration, future erosion
protection, enhancement of intertidal shallows and wildlife habitat, and protection from boat
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-14
wakes/wave attenuation. The vegetated shoreline will improve the existing shoreline which is
currently disturbed and devoid of vegetation. There will be no negative impact to protected
marine species.
Vessels
The long term impacts to EFH include the impacts associated with the presence of two ferry
vessels (i.e. noise, movement, etc.). However, the Arthur Kill is subject to commercial vessels
traveling the waterway daily.
The habitat within the project area is subject to high volumes of commercial and industrial boat
traffic. In addition, the project area is an occasional swing/maneuvering point for large cargo
vessels to turn around to reverse course.
The addition of two other vessels piloted by a licensed captain will not lower water quality to
such an extent that it will interfere with the movement of fish or impact protected marine
species.
For these reasons, construction of the Build Alternative will have no direct or indirect effects on any
threatened or endangered species occurring within the vicinity of the project.
4.2.13.7. Coastal Zones
Project construction is subject to the conditions of the NJDEP Waterfront Development Permit issued
for in-water and upland work on the site. This permit, provided in Appendix 3.17-1, authorizes specific
impact areas and places numerous special conditions on dredging (including dredge and pile driving
moratorium windows), water quality, and material disposal requirements. The Contractor will be
required to comply with all requirements of this and all other permits issued for the project.
4.2.13.8. Sole Source Aquifers
The Build Alternative will not adversely affect the Coastal Plain sole-source aquifer. The proposed
project will not result in a significant increase in impervious surface coverage and would not have the
potential to affect the interaction of the surficial and confined Coastal Plain aquifer. The SESC plans
will implement best management practices to limit the effects of stormwater runoff during construction.
Construction activities would not have the potential to affect groundwater quality of the surficial and
deeper aquifer. No underground storage tanks will be used or installed during construction or operation
of the proposed project. The proposed project will not generate any liquid or solid waste. Should any
contaminated materials be encountered during construction, standard protocols will be followed for the
handling, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials in conjunction with the site’s LSRP.
Neither pile installation nor other landside work will extend to the depth of the Coastal Plain sole-source
aquifer.
4.2.13.9. Contaminated Materials
As discussed in Section 3.15, the proposed project will be overseen by the site’s Licensed Site
Remediation Professional (LSRP). A Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) will be prepared to
address the contamination issues prior to construction activities for the proposed project. The CHASP
will be prepared in accordance with OSHA regulations for Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) (29 CFR 1910.120), OSHA construction safety requirements (29
CFR 1926), and other applicable regulations and guidelines for the field personnel.
A Fill Use Plan (FUP), as described in Section 3.14.3.3 has been prepared to review and approve fill
material brought to the site. The FUP will be implemented in coordination with the LSRP and
Contractor.
A Materials Management Plan (MMP), as described in Section 3.14.3.3 will be required to be prepared
by the contractor to manage any contaminated media encountered during construction. On-site
monitoring will ensure that handling, stockpiling, and disposal of contaminated soil, groundwater, or
any other media is done in compliance with the MMP and all regulatory requirements. The plan will
include methods to minimize and avoid disturbance of contaminated soil, groundwater, or any other
media and will describe procedures for proper storage, disposal, or re-use of contaminated soil.
With the implementation of the measures discussed above to characterize potential areas of concern
in the project area, and, if encountered, the protocols that will be followed for the handling, storage,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 4: Environmental Justice Page 4-15
transport and disposal of contaminated materials, the Build Alternative will not result in adverse
impacts related to contaminated materials.
4.2.13.10. Safety and Security
The project contractor will be ultimately responsible for employee safety and site security on the
project. The contractor shall implement a Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) and shall
follow all OSHA standards for construction safety.
The contractor will be required to maintain continuous chain link security fencing around the site at all
times and to lock gates after work hours. The contractor will be encouraged to install security cameras
on the site to discourage trespassing and vandalism.
Signage will be installed around the site perimeter to prohibit trespassing.
As the work will include in-water work and construction within a coastal flood zone, the Contractor will
be required to prepare a Hurricane and Flood Action Plan, which will detail steps that will be taken to
mitigate damage to the site, equipment, and works in the event a coastal storm is forecast for the site.
Potential actions may include demobilizing critical equipment, laying down cranes, moving equipment
and materials to higher ground, securing or bracing partially constructed structures, and securing or
removing mobile fuel tanks from the site.
4.2.13.11. Community Impacts
Many residents are aware of the Borough’s long held interest in bringing commuter ferry service to
Carteret; however, not all residents or visitors may be aware of the scope or impacts of construction.
Once a construction contract has been awarded for the project, the Borough will publish a press
release on the Borough website and provide updates in its newsletters announcing the start of
construction. This notice will provide residents with the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” of the
project. Part of the purpose of these announcements will be to prepare residents for any temporary
conspicuous impacts of the project.
A groundbreaking ceremony will be scheduled following contractor mobilization to again give residents
a chance to become familiarized with the project. Due to issues with accessing the site,
groundbreaking ceremony or public conference may be held at Waterfront Park, which is more suited
to public gatherings while still being able to give a frame of reference for the site.
Signage will be posted in all public areas adjoining the construction site prohibiting trespassing in the
interest of public safety.
A construction manager or consulting engineer contracted by the Borough to oversee construction will
also serve as a liaison between the Borough, contractor, and public. Updates will regularly be provided
via the Borough’s social media outlets through the Borough’s Public Information Office. Throughout the
project, residents will be encouraged to reach out to the municipal offices with any questions or
concerns related to the ongoing project so that they may be promptly addressed.
4.3. Conclusion
As discussed above, there are a number of potential temporary construction-related impacts that will be appropriately
mitigated based on outside agency approvals, safety standards, and local, state, and federal regulations. Throughout
the construction project, the Borough will provide clear and consistent communication with residents and community
members and actively seek input and any concerns related to the project so that they may be promptly addressed.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 5: Environmental Justice Page 5-1
5. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The purpose of this section of the EA is to perform an Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis which considers the
potential environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects, of the Build Alternative on
minority populations and/or low-income populations and whether any such impacts will fall disproportionately on those
populations. EJ analysis is a required element of NEPA review and is being performed in accordance with federal and
state EJ policies and guidance.
Federal EJ Initiatives
In February 1994, President Clinton issued EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, establishing the Inter-agency Working Group on Environmental Justice and
directing each Federal Agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” The Presidential Memorandum
accompanying EO 12898 emphasized the importance of using the NEPA review processes to promote environmental
justice. It directs Federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social
effects, of their proposed actions on minority and low-income communities when required by NEPA.
In January 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, directing EPA, along with other federal agencies, to
assess whether underserved communities and their members face systemic barriers in accessing benefits and
opportunities through the federal government.
(Source: EPA. “Environmental Justice.” https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice)
State EJ Initiatives
The New Jersey Environmental Justice (“EJ”) Law (N.J.S.A13:1D-157) was signed into law on September 18, 2020.
The law requires the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) to evaluate the potential
contributions of certain facilities to existing environmental and public health stressors, in “overburdened communities”
(OBCs), when reviewing certain permit applications and renewals. “Environmental or public health stressors” are
sources of environmental pollution, including mobile sources of air pollution such as marine vessels.
(Source: NJDEP Office of Environmental Justice. https://dep.nj.gov/ej/communities/)
5.1.1. Affected Environment
Delineation of the Study Area
For the purposes of this review, a ¼-mile radius around the Study Area (Figure 5.1-1) has been evaluated to
determine the potential impacts that the Build Alternative on the waterfront in Carteret might have on the
surrounding community and natural environment. The entirety of the Study Area is located within the Borough
of Carteret.
Methodology for Identifying EJ Populations
Defining the affected environment for the proposed action requires an assessment of the particular
characteristics of the communities affected and identification of those populations who may experience
adverse impacts from the project from an environmental justice perspective. Low income & minority and/or
Indian tribes and indigenous communities are the demographic factors explicitly named in Executive Order
12898 on Environmental Justice. Therefore, determining the presence of any low income, minority, and/or
Indian tribes and indigenous populations in the project area in accordance with NEPA guidance is the first step
in understanding potential for disproportionately high and adverse impacts.
The CEQ’s 1997 EJ Guidance identified the following conditions for the purpose of EJ analysis: “The minority
population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent, or the minority population percentage of the affected area
is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate
unit of geographic analysis.” Subsequently, the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
and NEPA Committee recognized that using percentage thresholds is an established approach to identify
minority populations, but may not always capture the relevant demographic information needed. The New
Jersey EJ Law, defines an Overburdened Community (OBC) as any census block group, as determined in
accordance with the most recent United States Census, in which:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 5: Environmental Justice Page 5-2
• at least 35 percent of the households in Carteret qualify as low-income households (at or below twice
the poverty threshold as determined by the United States Census Bureau);
• at least 40 percent of the residents identify as minority or as members of a State recognized tribal
community; or
• at least 40 percent of the households have limited English proficiency (without an adult that speaks
English “very well” according to the United States Census Bureau).
(Source: NJDEP Office of Environmental Justice. https://dep.nj.gov/ej/communities/)
The EJ Law methodology corresponds with the “No-Threshold Analysis” for identifying minority populations, as
defined in the 2019 Community Guide to Environmental Justice and NEPA Methods. “This analysis is a
process that aims to identify all minority populations regardless of population size. Agencies select an
appropriate geographic unit for review (such as a census block or a block group). Then agencies determine the
total number of minority individuals and the percent minority population for each unit of analysis within the
affected environment.”
EJ Populations in Study Area
For purposes of this EJ analysis, the NJ Environmental Justice Mapping, Assessment, and Protection (EJMAP)
Tool was used to identify EJ Populations. The EJMAP indicates the project site is located on a census block
labeled “adjacent.” Census block groups with zero population and located immediately adjacent to an OBC are
labeled as “adjacent.” Several adjacent census block groups in the area surrounding the project are classified
as low income and minority. According to the NJ EJ Law, existing or proposed facilities located in adjacent
block groups may be required to conduct further analysis in accordance with the Environmental Justice Rules
during state permitting.
(Source: Environmental Justice Mapping, Assessment and Protection Tool (EJMAP) Overburdened
Communities https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ 548632a2351b41b8a0443cfc3a9f4ef6 )
The nearest census tracts (36.01 and 38.02) with a population are adjacent to the census tract (98.00) which
contains the project site. The majority of each of the adjacent tracts are located outside of a one-quarter mile
radius from the Study Area, indicating that the majority of these populations are not located in close proximity to
the proposed location of the CFT. Table 5.1-1 and Section 3.4 Socioeconomic Conditions provide more
detailed information on the demographics associated with the adjacent census tracts 36.01 and 38.02. The
demographic data presented suggests the nearest populated Census Tracts and the greater Borough of
Carteret have an overall lower median household income and greater percentage of minorities in comparison
to the remainder of the State of New Jersey.
Table 5.1-1: Race, Income and Poverty, and Language Data Comparison
(Census Tracts 36.01 and 38.02, Carteret, NJ, USA)
Race and Hispanic Origin Census
Tract
36.011
Census
Tract
38.021
Carteret2 NJ2 USA2
White alone 23.1% 14.2% 40.1% 71.1% 75.8%
Black or African American alone 14.3% 37.7% 12.7% 15.3% 13.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.7% 1.3%
Asian alone 21.8% 12.0% 23.5% 10.3% 6.1%
Native Hawaiian Other Pacific Islander alone 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3%
Two or More Races 13.8% 12.2% 11.4% 2.4% 2.9%
Hispanic or Latino 45.1% 40.0% 39.3% 21.5% 18.9%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 17.3% 8.8% 22.4% 53.5% 59.3%
Income and Poverty Census
Tract
36.012
Census
Tract
38.022
Carteret2 NJ2 USA2
Median Household Income (in 2021 $), 2017-2021 $71,491 $56,941 $74,583 $89,703 $69,021
Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2021 $),
2017-2021
- - $29,672 $46,691 $37,638
Persons in poverty, percent 8.9% 20.1% 8.6% 10.2% 11.6%
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 5: Environmental Justice Page 5-3
Language Census
Tract
36.012
Census
Tract
38.022
Carteret2 NJ2 USA2
Language other than English spoken at home,
percent of persons age 5 years+, 2017-2021,
percentage
72.0% 58.3% 58.9% 31.9% 21.7%
Sources:
1. U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Data. https://data.census.gov/profile?g=1400000US34023003601
2. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221
Existing Stressors
In order to evaluate the existing burden of environmental stressors impacting low-income and minority communities
in the project area, the NJDEP’s EJMAP tool and methodologies were considered during this EJ analysis. The NJ
Environmental Justice Rules require consideration of whether and how any applicable facility seeking a NJDEP
permit in an OBC will contribute environmental or public health stressors in a manner that results in a
disproportionate impact when compared to the OBC’s geographic point of comparison. In developing its
comparison methodology for evaluating stressors in an OBC, the Department first reviewed existing methodologies
to inform its approach. The EPA's EJScreen and California’s CalEnviroScreen are the two best-known
environmental justice evaluation tools available in the US, and as such, formed the foundation of the Department’s
research efforts for establishing its own method of comparison. To facilitate this comparative analysis, the
Department 1) identified justifiable and quantifiable environmental and public health stressors in overburdened
communities, 2) designated a geographic unit of analysis for comparison, and 3) developed a methodology for
determining whether an OBC is currently subject to adverse cumulative stressors.
Twenty-six (26) core environmental and social stressors were incorporated into New Jersey’s method, broken into
6 categories, as seen in the Overburdened Community Stressor Summary provided in Appendix 5.1-1. The
EJMAP tool (Refer to Figure 5.1-2) shows that there is Combined Stressor Total (CST) of 19 individual stressors in
the OBC census block group which contains the project site. The CST for the subject OBC is compared to the
County Non-OBC 50th Percentile, State Non-OBC 50th Percentile, and Geographic Point Comparison (GeoPC). The
GeoPC is the lower (e.g. most protective value) of the non-OBC State or relevant county values. If an OBC block
group CST value is higher than the GeoPC, that OBC is subject to adverse cumulative stressors. EJMAP shows
that the CST exceeds the GeoPC in this instance, and that the OBC census block group is within the “Higher than
the 50th Percentile” (i.e. the median or middle value when a data set is ordered from least to greatest) non-OBC
values. Therefore, this OBC is subject to adverse cumulative stressors.
(Source: Environmental Justice Mapping, Assessment, and Protection (EJMAP): Technical Guidance; NJDEP.
June 6, 2022. https://www.nj.gov/dep/ej/ejmap-tg.pdf )
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 5: Environmental Justice Page 5-4
Figure 5.1-2: EJMAP Combined Stressor Summary
(Source: Screenshot from Environmental Justice Mapping, Assessment and Protection Tool (EJMAP) Stressor
Summary. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/548632a2351b41b8a0443cfc3a9f4ef6 )
5.1.2. No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative would not have any impacts on current land use so no environmental impacts to
minority and low-income populations would occur. The area would remain undeveloped and local residents
would continue to have limited commuter transportation options available. Addition of local and reliable
commuter transportation options is an especially important opportunity for low-income and unemployed
populations in the Borough.
5.1.3. Build Alternative
As summarized in Table 5.1-1, the potential environmental impacts identified across the various assessment
areas are primarily limited to temporary impacts resulting from construction of the Build Alternative.
Accordingly, construction of the Carteret Ferry Terminal is not expected to cause any significant adverse
impacts and/or worsen the disproportionate impact of the identified environmental stressors on minority and
low-income populations in the greater Study Area.
From an economic and social perspective, the project provides a reliable mode of transportation which may
increase access to jobs and other opportunities for surrounding populations. Potential alleviation of certain
environmental stressors offered by the Build Alternative includes local and regional reductions in GHG
emissions and air pollution associated with an overall reduction in on-road automobile transportation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 5: Environmental Justice Page 5-5
5.1.4. Mitigation
Appropriate mitigation will be employed to alleviate any temporary impacts associated with the construction of
the CFT. There will be consistent communication with the community regarding its needs.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 6: Section 4(f) Evaluation Page 6-1
6. SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: HISTORIC, PARKLAND, WATERFOWL AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION
6.1. Introduction
This Section addresses the requirements of Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of
1966. Section 4(f) applies to publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public or
private historic sites of national, State, or local significance. Section 4(f) requirements are set forth in 49 U.S.C. 303
as amended and 23 CFR 774.
This Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared for the proposed Project, which includes construction of a
commuter ferry terminal. The facility will serve ferry boats traveling between Carteret, NJ and Midtown and Lower
Manhattan in New York City, NY.
Section 4(f) prohibits U.S. DOT agencies, such as FTA, from approving the use of any Section 4(f) property for a
transportation project, unless a determination is made that:
1. There is no prudent and feasible alternative that would avoid the use of the Section 4(f) resource; and,
2. The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to that property.
The Section 4(f) regulations define three types of “use” of Section 4(f) property (23 CFR Part 774.17):
1. When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility;
2. When there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse to the preservation purpose of Section 4(f) as
determined by the criteria in 23 CFR 774.13(d); and
3. When there is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property, which occurs “when the transportation project
does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) resource, but the proximity impacts are so severe that the
protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are
substantially impaired” (23 CFR Part 774.15(a)).
The types of Section 4(f) use are further described below:
Permanent Incorporation: The permanent incorporation of land into a transportation facility occurs when land from
a Section 4(f) property is purchased outright for a transportation facility, or when a project acquires the property
interest that allows permanent access onto a property such as a permanent easement for maintenance. This
permanent incorporation is considered a “use” of Section 4(f) property.
Temporary Occupancy: Temporary occupancy results when Section 4(f) property, in whole or in part, is required for
project construction-related activities. The property is not permanently incorporated into a transportation facility but
the activity is considered to be adverse in terms of the preservation purpose of Section 4(f). Under the provisions of
23 CFR 774.13(d), a temporary occupancy does not constitute a Section 4(f) use if the following conditions are
met:
1) The duration is less than the time needed for the project’s construction and there is no change in
ownership of land;
2) The scope of work is minor, in that both the nature and magnitude of changes to the 4(f) property are
minimal;
3) No permanent, adverse physical impacts are anticipated, and there will be no temporary or permanent
interference with the protected activities, features, or attributes of the property;
4) The land is fully restored, and returned to a condition at least as good as that which existed prior to the
project; and
5) The agreement of the official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property regarding the above
conditions is documented.
If one of more of these conditions is not met, there is a use of the Section 4(f) property, even though the duration of
construction related activities is temporary.
Constructive Use: A constructive use involves no physical use of the Section 4(f) property via permanent
incorporation of land or a temporary occupancy of land into a transportation facility. According to 23 CFR Part
775.15, a constructive use occurs when the project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 6: Section 4(f) Evaluation Page 6-2
features or attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. This
includes situations where the projected noise level increase attributable to the project substantially interferes with
the use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of a property protected by Section 4(f). It also includes situations
where the proximity of the proposed project substantially impairs esthetic features or attributes of a property
protected by Section 4(f), where such features or attributes are considered important contributing elements to the
value of the property.
6.2. Project Description
The proposed Project includes construction of the following elements:
o 700-space commuter surface parking lot;
o 12,500-square foot footprint ferry terminal building; and,
o Dredging and bulkheading to support in-water docking facilities for two (2) 149-passenger ferry boats,
including a 40-foot by 40-foot floating dock, 200-foot long floating breakwater and associated piles, ramps,
and gangways.
The Project is proposed to be constructed on Block 304, Lots 2.01 and 2.02 in the Borough of Carteret, Middlesex
County, New Jersey. The subject property is a currently vacant former industrial properties which have been
remediated by the party responsible for historic contamination of the site, DuPont.
6.3. Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Project is to provide a convenient and reliable transportation alternative in the form of ferry
service for commuting between the Borough of Carteret and New York City, while satisfying socio-economic,
environmental, and public needs of the residents of the Borough of Carteret.
This project supports at least four of the six goals articulated for investment by the North Jersey Transportation
Planning Authority, the authorized Metropolitan Planning Organization, in Plan 2040, the Regional Transportation
Plan for Northern New Jersey:
o Provide affordable, accessible and dynamic transportation systems responsive to current and future
customers.
o Protect and improve the quality of natural ecosystems and the human environment.
o Retain and increase economic activity and competitiveness.
o Select transportation investments that support the coordination of land use with transportation systems.
Transportation options from Carteret to Manhattan are limited and result in limited access and opportunities for the
growing residential population of Carteret and surrounding communities. Despite the rapid growth in population and
with more residents commuting to New York City, transportation infrastructure has struggled to keep pace:
o Transportation options between the Borough of Carteret and Manhattan are limited and result in
constrained access and opportunities for residents of the area.
o The New Jersey Turnpike operates at, or above, capacity during peak periods. Travel times are, therefore,
unpredictable. Delays, both for those on buses and in cars, are common leading to increased cost in terms
of time and money.
o The two New Jersey Transit bus routes to Manhattan that serve the Borough of Carteret are subject to
traffic congestion and may be at capacity by the time buses pass through Carteret.
o There is no direct rail access to or from the Borough of Carteret.
o There are portions of Woodbridge Township, Rahway, and points in Middlesex and Monmouth Counties
that are within the potential catchment (market) area of the proposed ferry. ·
Utilizing the properties in question and understanding the need for new water-based mass transit to New York City,
the Borough has identified commuter ferry service to Manhattan as a viable option to meet this need.
6.4. Section 4(f) Applicability
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 6: Section 4(f) Evaluation Page 6-3
6.4.1. Historic Resources (Section 106 Area of Potential Effects)
An Area of Potential Effects (APE) was established to determine the affected environment of the proposed
Project. An archaeological APE for the site was determined in consultation with the NJDEP State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). It was originally agreed that the archaeological APE would be comprised of all
areas where ground disturbance would occur, including any dredging of in-water sediments. Additionally, an
architectural APE was agreed to include the property to be developed, adjoining parcels, and those in the
immediate viewshed of the proposed construction.
Archaeological investigations were initiated in 2007 and documented in a report entitled Phase IA
Archaeological Survey prepared by Richard Grubb and Associates. As the site is vacant, this report found there
were no historical archaeological resources or architectural resources present within the APE. Since the 2007
Phase IA survey, site remediation activities were undertaken by DuPont to address hazardous materials
contamination prior to acquisition of the site by the Borough of Carteret. Remedial actions consist of a sitewide
deed restriction, stabilization in place of contaminated soils, and a sitewide cap comprised of clean fill material
with vegetative cover. Consideration of the findings of the 2007 Phase IA resources survey report together with
the progress of the remediation project resulted in agreement amongst NJDOT and the NJ SHPO that no
further investigations were required to address the potential impacts on land.
Further consultation with NJ SHPO on the APE for the proposed project, which includes in-water activities,
determined the need for further archaeological investigations in an in-water survey. Therefore, the underwater
portion of the APE was defined as the result of consultation between NJDOT and NJDEP SHPO to include any
areas of in-water disturbance and the proposed dredging area plus a 50-foot buffer.
A Phase I Underwater Archaeological Investigation was conducted in June 2020 by Dolan Research, Inc. to
examine an APE that was approximately 580 feet long by 170 feet wide and situated between the federal
navigational channel of the Arthur Kill and the tidal mudflats along the Carteret shoreline. Water depths in the
APE ranged less than one (1) foot along the shoreline to more than 40 feet at the federal channel. North of the
APE, the remains of an abandoned dock complex extend along the shoreline The investigation utilized remote
sensing to assess the presence or absence of potential submerged cultural resources within the underwater
portions of the APE. One (1) magnetic target, two (2) sonar targets, and one (1) combined magnetic-acoustic
(sonar) targets were identified in the APE. However, none of the targets were suggestive of potential
submerged cultural resources. Furthermore, no shipwrecks were identified within the APE by the Dolan report
or as identified by NOAA’s Office of the Coast Survey. No additional underwater archeological work was
recommended.
Due to the project’s proximity to the New Jersey and New York border, technical assistance and comments
were sought from the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY SHPO). Inquiries were specifically m ade
with reference to the potential to affect historic properties within the Borough of Staten Island, which is within
the viewshed of the proposed project area. Consultation was specifically sought with respect to the former
Fresh Kills Landfill, which is the final resting place for materials removed from the World Trade Center site
following the events of September 11th. New York SHPO stated that Freshkills Park is not considered eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NR).
Three (3) federally-recognized tribes: the Shawnee Nation, Delaware Nation, and Delaware Tribe, were
consulted in relation to historic, archaeological, or cultural resources within the APE. The tribes conferred that
no known historic properties or cultural resources would be negatively impacted by the project.
Conclusion: The proposed Project does not result in the use of any Section 106 historic properties or
resources.
6.4.2. Parkland
The proposed project will not result in the use of any parklands and recreational facilities or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges. It will not require any physical occupation of such resources and will not adversely affect
such resources so as to result in a constructive use. Although the Borough of Carteret’s Waterfront Park is
adjacent to the project site in question, the proposed project will not result in the use of these parklands or
recreational facilities. Furthermore, the proposed Northern Riverwalk project, anticipated to be constructed on
Block 304, Lot 2.01, and connection to the Project site is not yet under construction and will not be opened to
the public until completion of the ferry terminal project. Construction of the ferry terminal will not interfere with
construction of the Northern Riverwalk project. Neither project will require temporary easements or use of any
other public parkland in the vicinity of the Project site.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARTERET FERRY TERMINAL AUGUST 2023
Section 6: Section 4(f) Evaluation Page 6-4
It is further noted that as Waterfront Park is located within the vicinity of the project, the Borough has exercised
due diligence in reviewing potential environment impacts on the public’s use and enjoyment of the park,
including an examination of visual resources, noise, groundborne vibration, air quality, traffic, and temporary
construction impacts. All analyses are found in Section 3 and Section 4 of the Project’s Environmental
Assessment.
The Project will not require any physical occupation of these resources during construction or operation and will
not adversely affect them so as to result in a permanent incorporation, temporary occupancy, or constructive
use. Therefore, Section 4(f) does not apply to these parklands and recreational facilities.
Conclusion: The proposed Project does not result in the use of any parkland or recreational areas.
6.4.3. Waterfowl and Wildlife Protection Areas
No waterfowl or wildlife refuges are present within the Project area or in the vicinity of the Borough of Carteret.
Conclusion: The proposed Project does not result in the use of any waterfowl or wildlife protection areas.
6.5. Coordination
The proposed Project has been coordinated with NJ SHPO, NY SHPO, the Shawnee Nation, Delaware Nation, and
Delaware Tribe, NOAA, and consulting and interested parties. Records of consultation is provided in the Appendix
3.7-3 to this report.
This draft Section 4(f) Evaluation will be made available to the Department of the Interior and other officials with
jurisdiction for coordination and comment for a period of 45 days. Comments will be addressed in a Final Section
4(f) Evaluation.
6.6. Conclusion
Based on the above considerations, research, and review of documentation, there will be no Section 4(f) uses
applicable to the Project related to parklands, historical resources, or waterfowl and wildlife protection areas.