DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report River Road/Hudson Waterfront Corridor Strategy: a Phase Two Study June 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report River Road/Hudson Waterfront Corridor Strategy: a Phase Two Study June 2013 River Road/Hudson Waterfront Corridor Strategy: A Phase Two Study Bergen County, New Jersey FINAL REPORT Final Report River Road/Hudson Waterfront Corridor Strategy: A Phase Two Study June 2013 Prepared for: Bergen County, New Jersey North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority Prepared by: in association with: and Amercom Corporation This report has been prepared as part of the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority’s Subregional Studies Program with financing by the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or its use thereof. River Road/Hudson Waterfront Corridor Strategy: A Phase Two Study Bergen County, New Jersey FINAL REPORT Kathleen A. Donovan County Executive BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS David L. Ganz Chairman Joan M. Voss Vice Chairwoman John A. Felice Chair Pro Tempore Maura R. DeNicola John D. Mitchell Steven A. Tanelli Tracy Silna Zur Bergen County Department of Planning and Economic Development Robert S. Garrison, Esq. Department Director Kenneth Aloisio, AICP, P.P. Project Manager Donna Orbach, AICP, P.P. Christopher Helms, AICP, P.P. June, 2013 River Road/Hudson Waterfront Corridor Strategy: A Phase Two Study Bergen County, New Jersey FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Public Outreach and Interagency Coordination ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Environmental Screening ........................................................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.5 Transit Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.7 Conceptual Improvements ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1.8 Concept Improvement Components ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.9 Bicycle Access to/from the George Washington Bridge (GWB) – Conceptual Design Recommendations ......... 10 1.10 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) ................................................................................................................... 11 1.11 Implementation Matrix ........................................................................................................................................... 12 1.12 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 12 2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 14 3. Public Outreach and Interagency Coordination ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Project Team Coordination ................................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Project Website ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) ................................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Public Information Centers .................................................................................................................................... 17 3.5 NJ TRANSIT Coordination .................................................................................................................................... 17 3.6 Online Survey ........................................................................................................................................................ 18 4. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 4.1 General Roadway Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Environmental Screening ...................................................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Commuting Patterns ............................................................................................................................................. 26 4.4 Related Plans, Projects, Policies, and Ordinances ............................................................................................... 27 4.5 Crash Data ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 4.6 Pedestrian Facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 29 4.7 Transit Facilities .................................................................................................................................................... 33 4.8 Traffic Signals ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 4.9 Hudson River Waterfront Walkway ....................................................................................................................... 41 4.10 Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................................................................... 41 5. Conceptual Improvements ............................................................................................................................................ 52 5.2 Concept Improvement Components ..................................................................................................................... 55 5.3 Multimodal Level of Service Summary .................................................................................................................. 61 River Road/Hudson Waterfront Corridor Strategy: A Phase Two Study Bergen County, New Jersey FINAL REPORT 5.4 Bicycle Access to/from the GWB – Conceptual Design Recommendations......................................................... 63 6. Transit Oriented Development ...................................................................................................................................... 64 6.1 Understanding TOD .............................................................................................................................................. 65 6.2 Existing Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................................ 65 6.3 Mapping for TOD Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 67 6.4 Identifying TOD Opportunity Areas ....................................................................................................................... 73 6.5 Concept Plans ....................................................................................................................................................... 82 6.6 Implementation Guidance ..................................................................................................................................... 90 7. Implementation Matrix ................................................................................................................................................... 93 7.1 Action Implementation Matrix ................................................................................................................................ 94 8. Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 100 River Road/Hudson Waterfront Corridor Strategy: A Phase Two Study Bergen County, New Jersey FINAL REPORT TABLE OF APPENDICES A. Community Outreach and Interagency Coordination Materials A.1 Project Website A.2 County Meetings A.3 Technical Advisory Committee Meetings A.4 Public Information Center Meetings A.5 NJ TRANSIT Meetings A.6 Online Survey Results A.7 County Engineering
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jersey City’S Premier Office Destination on the Vibrant Hudson Waterfront
    Second to None Jersey City’s Premier Office Destination on the Vibrant Hudson Waterfront 360° Views Connected Amenities Efficiency Availability Infrastructure Specifications Grow NJ Incentives 360° Views With an unobstructed window line on all four façades, 3 Second Street at Harborside boasts spectacular waterfront views of the Hudson River, World Trade Center, Lower Manhattan and the Empire State Building. Enjoy the changing sunlight, sparkling water and dramatic New York City skyline every day. Connected Located just minutes from Lower Manhattan, 3 Second Street at Harborside is a premier Class A office destination at the heart of the Hudson Waterfront in Jersey City. The building is easily accessed by an extensive underground and above-ground transportation network. Just 7 minutes from the World Trade Center on the PATH train to NYC, 3 Second Street offers convenient access to NY Penn Station, the Holland Tunnel, Newark Liberty International Airport and Hoboken Terminal via NJ Transit trains and buses, NY Waterway ferries and Amtrak. The Harborside Light Rail station is one block away, connecting to Newport and Hoboken. Abundant on-site surface parking is available at a ratio of 0.8/1,000 SF for those office workers and tenant visitors that drive. Citi Bike share stops are very proximate. Whether tenants live in New Jersey, Manhattan or one of the outer boroughs, 3 Second Street provides an extremely convenient commuting connection. Amenities 3 Second Street at Harborside provides tenants with a variety of on-site and nearby amenities along the Jersey City waterfront. With the newly opened Ground Connection café and coffee bar, first-class lobby with concierge services, a new tenant lounge complete with large screen TV and Wi-Fi, and outdoor seating at the adjacent waterfront park, tenants have many meeting place alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Annual Message to the Legislature 1972
    You are viewing an archived copy from the New Jersey State Library FREE LlB:IARY E /~- 111~imMjflji~~~~!11 . of fhii_'r;ei~~;::: 3 2222 04358 8294 Fe n .";) "1972 P!.lbJ[c Documents SECOND Dq;~rtment ANNUAL MESSAGE William T. Cahill GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY To The Legislature January 11, 1972 You are viewing an archived copy from the New Jersey State Library CONTENTS Introduction 1 Institutions and Agencies 4 Mental Health 8 Correctional Reform 9 Parole Reform 13 County Jails 14 Juvenile Justice 15 Health 19 Health Facilities 20 Health Services and Care 20 War on Disease 21 Elementary Education 24 Higher Education 27 Environmental Protection 29 Agriculture-Open Space 33 Catastrophies 35 Transportation 36 Highway Transportation 36 Bus Transportation 37 Rail Transportation 39 Law Enforcement and Justice 40 Narcotics 43 Public Trust 45 Consumer Protection 46 Labor and Industry 48 Industrial Development 48 Manpower 49 Protection of the Worker 51 Hudson Waterfront 52 Insurance 55 Off-Track Betting 56 Pension Benefits 58 The Judicial System 58 Conclusion 60 You are viewing an archived copy from the New Jersey State Library INTRODUCTION Today I stand before this Legislature at the midpoint of my Administration as the chief executive of the State of New Jersey. While my first two years in office were marked by substantial progress, it is my personal conviction that the second half of my term holds the clear potential to be the most significant period in New Jersey history. Let me recall another significant period in our history! Twenty­ five years ago our State faced major problems in coping with the post World War II era.
    [Show full text]
  • New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan
    NEW YORK CITY CoMPREHENSWE WATERFRONT PLAN Reclaiming the City's Edge For Public Discussion Summer 1992 DAVID N. DINKINS, Mayor City of New lVrk RICHARD L. SCHAFFER, Director Department of City Planning NYC DCP 92-27 NEW YORK CITY COMPREHENSIVE WATERFRONT PLAN CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMA RY 1 INTRODUCTION: SETTING THE COURSE 1 2 PLANNING FRA MEWORK 5 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5 LEGAL CONTEXT 7 REGULATORY CONTEXT 10 3 THE NATURAL WATERFRONT 17 WATERFRONT RESOURCES AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 17 Wetlands 18 Significant Coastal Habitats 21 Beaches and Coastal Erosion Areas 22 Water Quality 26 THE PLAN FOR THE NATURAL WATERFRONT 33 Citywide Strategy 33 Special Natural Waterfront Areas 35 4 THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT 51 THE EXISTING PUBLIC WATERFRONT 52 THE ACCESSIBLE WATERFRONT: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 63 THE PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT 70 Regulatory Strategy 70 Public Access Opportunities 71 5 THE WORKING WATERFRONT 83 HISTORY 83 THE WORKING WATERFRONT TODAY 85 WORKING WATERFRONT ISSUES 101 THE PLAN FOR THE WORKING WATERFRONT 106 Designation Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas 107 JFK and LaGuardia Airport Areas 114 Citywide Strategy fo r the Wo rking Waterfront 115 6 THE REDEVELOPING WATER FRONT 119 THE REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT TODAY 119 THE IMPORTANCE OF REDEVELOPMENT 122 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT ISSUES 125 REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 127 THE PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT 128 7 WATER FRONT ZONING PROPOSAL 145 WATERFRONT AREA 146 ZONING LOTS 147 CALCULATING FLOOR AREA ON WATERFRONTAGE loTS 148 DEFINITION OF WATER DEPENDENT & WATERFRONT ENHANCING USES
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Passaic River Restoration Project and Newark Bay Study
    Lower Passaic River Restoration Project and Newark Bay Study r.'l"r.'' ~ u.s. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ~ LowerLower PassaicPassaic RiverRiver RestorationRestoration ProjectProject andand NewarkNewark BayBay StudyStudy Community Involvement Plan June 2006 PREPARED BY: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 104 Corporate Park Drive White Plains, NY 10602 FOR: US Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Contract No. DACW41-02-D-0003 Community Involvement Plan Lower Passaic River Restoration Project / Newark Bay Study Community Involvement Plan (CIP) Preface We are pleased to release this Community Involvement Plan (CIP) for the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project / Newark Bay Study. The partner agencies are committed to active and open public involvement throughout the life of this project. This CIP provides a toolbox of options for keeping the public informed and for soliciting input. Each respective agency has its own set of guidance with regard to public involvement. This CIP does not attempt to capture every possible outreach initiative among all six partner agencies or fit one specific CIP template. This CIP is divided into two parts to enable the reader to go directly to the sections of greatest interest, and also contains charts and graphics to enable the reader to see at a glance project activities and opportunities for public involvement. Part One includes the following: 1.1 Overview: discusses the purpose and scope of the CIP, as well as legal authorities. 1.2 Project Background: outlines the problems being addressed by the project and describes the project areas and the unique federal-state partnership that is supporting the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Goals and Objectives Ii. Land Use Plan
    I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOALS ........................................................................................................................................................ I-2 OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................. I-3 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. I-3 Housing.................................................................................................................................................... I-7 Circulation ................................................................................................................................................ I-8 Economic Development ......................................................................................................................... I-10 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................... I-11 Conservation ......................................................................................................................................... I-12 Community Facilities ............................................................................................................................. I-13 Parks and Recreation ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS
    New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS Table of CONTENTS Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the Author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration. New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN Page left blank intentionally. Table of CONTENTS Acknowledgements The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Division of Multimodal Services thanks the many organizations and individuals for their time and contribution in making this document possible. New Jersey Department of Transportation Nicole Minutoli Paul Truban Genevieve Clifton Himanshu Patel Andrew Ludasi New Jersey Freight Advisory Committee Calvin Edghill, FHWA Keith Skilton, FHWA Anne Strauss-Wieder, NJTPA Jakub Rowinski, NJTPA Ted Dahlburg, DVRPC Mike Ruane, DVRPC Bill Schiavi, SJTPO David Heller, SJTPO Steve Brown, PANYNJ Victoria Farr, PANYNJ Stephanie Molden, PANYNJ Alan Kearns, NJ TRANSIT Steve Mazur, SJTA Rodney Oglesby, CSX Rick Crawford, Norfolk Southern Michael Fesen, Norfolk Southern Jocelyn Hill, Conrail Adam Baginski, Conrail Kelvin MacKavanagh, New Jersey Short Line Railroad Association Brian Hare, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation David Rosenberg, New York State Department of Transportation Consultant Team Jennifer Grenier, WSP Stephen Chiaramonte, WSP Alan Meyers, WSP Carlos Bastida, WSP Joseph Bryan, WSP Sebastian Guerrero, WSP Debbie Hartman, WSP Ruchi Shrivastava, WSP Reed Sibley, WSP Scudder Smith, WSP Scott Parker, Jacobs Engineering Jayne Yost, Jacobs Engineering
    [Show full text]
  • Stjpreme Cotjet of the United States
    ; 1 STJPREME COTJET OF THE UNITED STATES. Monday, October 11, 1915. The court met pursuant to law. Present: The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice McKenna, Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice Day, Mr. Justice Hughes, Mr. Justice Van Devanter, Mr. Justice Pitney, and Mr. Justice McReynolds, Adrian Riker, of Newark, N. J. ; Clarence C. Caldwell, of Howard, S. Dak. ; Alex. Simpson, of Jersey City, N. J. ; Robert Szold, of Chi- cago, 111. ; Leo F. Wormser, of Chicago, 111. ; William S. Haskell, of New York City, N. Y. ; Alfred D. Lind, of New York City ; Edward P. Holmes, of Lincoln, Nebr. George W. Berge, of Lincoln, Nebr.; ; Harold J. Adams, of Buffalo, N. Y. ; Morton S. Cressy, of Chicago, 111. Ralph D. Hurst, of Greensburg, Pa. ; James A. George, of Dead- ; wood, S. Dak.; Harry J. Dingeman, of Detroit, Mich.; Edwin P. Matthews, of Dayton, Ohio; James W. McCarter, of Washington, D. C. ; J. Sidney Condit, of Chicago, 111. ; Edw. W. Everett, of Chi- cago, 111. ; John C. Bane, of Pittsburg, Pa. ; Jeremiah F. Hoover, of Newark, N. J.; Colin S. Monteith, of Columbia, S. C; Frank G. Tompkins, of Columbia, S. C. ; Rush B. Johnson, of Chicago, 111.; of Alphonso C. Stewart, St. Louis, Mo. ; Wiley E. Jones, of Phoenix, Ariz.; Percy Sommer Benedict, of New Orleans, La.; John B. A. Wheltle, of Baltimore, Md. ; Burdette B. Webster, of Baltimore, Md. George W. Lindsay, of Baltimore, Md. George P. Decker, of ; Rochester, N. Y. ; Leslie C. Hardy, of Phoeniz, Ariz.; Martin A. Schenck, of New York City; and Charles K. Wheeler, of Paducah, Ky., were admitted to practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Terminal, in Bayonne, New Jersey, Has One Clear Advantage
    The New Yorker: PRINTABLES Page 1 of 14 WATCHING THE WATERFRONT by WILLIAM FINNEGAN Mobsters, terrorists, and the docks of New York Harbor. Issue of 2006-06-19 Posted 2006-06-12 Global Terminal, in Bayonne, New Jersey, has one clear advantage over most of its competitors for container-ship business in New York Harbor: it’s a straight shot from the Narrows, the harbor’s entrance. From Global’s wharf to Ambrose Seabuoy, out in the Atlantic, where arriving ships meet the pilots, the distance is only fourteen miles. Maurice Byan, the president of Global, told me that ships ca save four hours by docking at his pier, which looks across at lower Manhattan, rather than turning wes and going through the Kill Van Kull and up into Newark Bay, where the biggest container terminals ar in Port Newark and Elizabeth, or to Howland Hook, on the western shore of Staten Island. Also, ships that dock at Global don’t need to pass under the Bayonne Bridge, which is becoming a problem as container ships grow ever larger. Last year, a freighter had to remove its radio towers to make it. Global, at a hundred acres, is a relatively small terminal, but it’s busy. Byan took me on a tour of the pier in his pickup truck, navigating between walls of containers and dodging big, fast-moving equipment—forklifts, bladed stackers, top loaders, and huge rubber-tired gantries, six stories high. “Empty field!” Byan yelled, pointing at some tall piles of multicolored containers, each one eight feet wide by eight feet high and forty feet long, with “CHINA SHIPPING” and “HANJIN” and “P & O NEDLLOYD painted on the sides.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN for the LOWER PASSAIC RIVER
    COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN for the LOWER PASSAIC RIVER JULY 2017 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN for the LOWER PASSAIC RIVER JULY 2017 Prepared by: LOUIS BERGER 412 MOUNT KEMBLE AVENUE MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-1946 +1.973.407.1000 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............ IV COMMUNITY FEEDBACK .......... 20 INTRODUCTION ................. 2 3.1 Highlights of Community Involvement to Date .................20 OVERVIEW 4 3.2 Timeline of Major Community 1.1 Purpose of the Community Involvement Activities ................21 Involvement Plan ....................4 3.3 Overview of 2016 Community 1.2 Scope of the Community Interview Process ...................22 Involvement Plan ....................5 3.4 Key Community Concerns . .22 1.3 Agency Partnerships and 3.4.1 Superfund Cleanup Activity Concerns 22 Legal Authorities.....................6 3.4.2 Redevelopment and River Access Concerns 23 PROJECT BACKGROUND.......... 8 3.4.3 Health and Quality of Life Concerns 23 3.4.4 Outreach Concerns and Suggestions 23 2.1 History of Contamination ..............8 2.2 Description of Project Area.............10 2.3 Project Activities.....................12 COMMUNITY PROFILE ............ 24 2.4 The Cleanup Plan for the Lower 8.3 Miles 14 4.1 Land Use Characteristics and 2.5 Next Steps .........................15 Infrastructure .......................24 4.1.1 Redevelopment 25 2.6 Remedial Design (RD) and Remedial Action (RA) .................16 4.1.2 Transportation Infrastructure 25 2.7 Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance ..18 4.1.3 Drinking Water, Sewers and Power 25 4.1.4 Flood Control 26 2.8 Local Workforce Participation During Construction ......19 4.1.5 Recreation 26 4.2 Population and Demographics..........26 4.2.1 Population 27 4.2.2 Age 27 4.2.3 Household Income 27 4.2.4 Race and Ethnicity 28 4.2.5 Immigrant and Minority Population and Linguistic Trends 28 4.2.6 Environmental Justice 29 4.2.7 Education 29 IV COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN FOR THE LOWER PASSAIC RIVER COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 5.2.14 Public Meetings and ACTION PLAN..................
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the New York City District
    DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW YORK CITY DISTRICT. -By F. J. H. Merrill, N. H. Dartoii, Arthur Hollick, B. D. Salisbury, li. E. Dodge, Bailey Willis, and H. A. Pressey. GENERAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE DISTRICT. By Richard E. Dodge and Bailey Willis. Position. The district described in tins folio is Gedney, and Main channels. Ambrose and Swash Harlem River and Spuyten Duyvil Creek the Coastal Plain in general are low peninsulas sepa­ bounded by the meridians of 78° 45' and 74° 15' channels have a least depth of 3-J- fathoms, while water is but 2 to 3^ fathoms deep. rated by estuaries, in which the tide ebbs and west longitude from Greenwich and the parallels Gedney and Main channels are nowhere less than Newark Bay is an extensive water body, but it flows. These peninsulas are composed of beds of of 40° 30' and 41° north latitude. It covers one- 5 fathoms deep. Within the bar the Lower Bay i is not available for sea-going commerce, as the clay, sand, and gravel, or mixtures of these mate­ quarter of a square degree, equivalent, in this is from 4 to 12 fathoms deep well out from shore, depth is but 2 fathoms or less, except in a little rials constituting loam, and are extensively devel­ latitude, to 905.27 square miles. The map is but toward the New Jersey and Staten Island j channel near the outlet connecting with the Kill oped in Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. divided into four atlas sheets, called the Paterson, shores the water shoals to 3 fathoms or less over \ van Kull.
    [Show full text]
  • INFORMATION Sandy Hook Pilots
    INFORMATION Sandy Hook Pilots 2015 Tide Tables NOTICE THIS PUBLICATION CONTAINS TIDE AND/OR TIDAL CURRENT PREDICTIONS AND ASSOCIATED INFORMATION PRODUCED BY ANDOBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OFCOMMERCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA), NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE. THESE PREDICTIONS ARE RECEIVED PRIOR TO OCTOBER OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND ARE SUBJECT TO REVISION BY NOAA WITHOUT NOTICE. TIDES MAY VARY WITH WEATHER CONDITIONS. ALL OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS PUBLICATION IS OBTAINED FROM SOURCES BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE. WE DISCLAIM LIABILITY FOR ANY MISTAKES OR OMISSIONS IN ANY OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. THE TIME OF TIDES SET FORTH IN THESE TABLES IS GIVEN AT EASTERN STANDARD TIME. PLEASE NOTE: SLACK WATER TIMES ARE AN ESTIMATE BASED ON PILOT OBSERVATIONS AND THEIR ACCURACY CANNOT BE GUARANTEED. Compliments of THE UNITED NEW YORK SANDY HOOK PILOTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION and THE UNITED NEW JERSEY SANDY HOOK PILOTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION 201 Edgewater Street Staten Island, N.Y. 10305 www.sandyhookpilots.com Masters or Agents are requested to advise Pilots of any change in arrival time 12 hours in advance. New York Pilots ........................................... 718.448.3900 New Jersey Pilots .......................................... 718.448.3900 Hell Gate Pilots ............................................. 718.448.3900 Long Island Sound Pilots .............................718.448.3900 Hudson River Pilots ......................................718.815.4316 Dispatch Email ........... [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • NJDEP Bulletin, 09/03/97
    You Are Viewing an Archived Copy from the New Jersey State Library DEP Bulletin TABLE OF CONTENTS September 3, 1997 Volume 21 Issue 17 Application Codes and Permit Descriptions Inside Front Cover General Application Specific Decision Application Codes Permit Descriptions General Information Front Page Public Hearings Contested Case Hearings DEP Events of Public Interest Appeals on Applications DEP Subscription Information DEP Public Hearings and Events of Interest Section A Administrative Hearings and Appeals Section B Environmental Impact Statement and Assessments (EIS and EA) Section C Permit Applications Filed or Acted Upon Division of Land Use Regulation Section DI CAFRA Permit Application DI-8 Freshwater Wetlands General Permit DI-12 Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit DI-18 Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation DI-26 Freshwater Wetlands Transition Waiver DI-26 Stream Encroachment DI-30 Waterfront Development DI-34 Waterfront Development General Permit DI-36 Division of Water Quality Section DII Treatment Works Approval (TWA) DII-38 Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste Section DIII Transfer Stations/Material Recovery Facilities DIII-41 Incinerator DIII-41 Class B Recycling Centers DIII-42 Vegetative Waste Composting DIII-42 Sanitary Landfills DIII-43 Hazardous Waste Facilities DIII-45 DEP Permit Liaisons and Other Governmental Contacts Inside Back Cover Christine Todd Whitman, Governor,,New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ,Robert C. Shinn, Jr., Commissioner You Are Viewing an Archived Copy from the New Jersey
    [Show full text]