DOCSLIB.ORG

Rbdh-Five-Concepts-Comments.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rbdh-Five-Concepts-Comments.Pdf From: Matthew Begley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 10:15 AM To: DEP rbd-hudsonriver Subject: Rebuild By Design - Hoboken Proposals To whom it may concern - I am writing to express my very strong opinion that moving forward with any of the B, C, or D concepts would be a tragic mistake for the entirety of Hoboken. My young family and I specifically moved into Hoboken, due to the proximity to NYC, but also because of the beautiful, unparalleled access to the waterfront and its NYC views. We planned to stay and even decided to purchase in Maxwell Place and have chosen to raise our young family right here in town. We chose a townhome in Maxwell Place as it fit our needs and wants and specifcally thought the North Hoboken waterfront was so safe and beautiful. We stayed throughout Sandy and Irene storms, and had Zero damage to our property - the building and our unit specifically. I do not understand how 3 of the 5 proposed plans would include anything along the North Waterfront where we did not have any signifcant damage or issues with rising storm surge. My unit had water out-front, but it did not even reach the first step of our townhome during the peak of Sandy's fury. There has to be a better, more temporary way, to build proper fortifications laong the North waterfront when an expected event (hurricane, storm surge) is imminent. I agree with the Resist and Delay Strategy, and I think there is definitely more temporary walls that can be setup and fortified prior to an extremely rare surge event that would offer the same level of protection that one of these "permanent wall structures" in the B, C, or D concepts currently offer. On another note, It is very evident, that our investment and many of our neighbors in Maxwell Place would also be significantly de-valued with any restricted access to the current views and waterfront walkway. The property values, and corresponding tax revenue based upon these rising property values would be severely decreased and hurt Hoboken's currrent and future residents. I firmly believe that moving forward with any of the B, C, or D concept proposals would be a serious detriment to the community as a whole. I think we would simply move out of town. None of the designs in B, C, or D are worth the small incremental benefit to the community, specifically the North waterfront Hoboken community by building walls along the waterfront. Regards - Matthew and Carey Begley 1125 Maxwell Place Townhome #6 From: Rikke Frojk Lauridsen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 8:47 PM To: DEP rbd-hudsonriver Subject: Plan A - Garden Street I am a resident on 1300 block of Garden Street and to my utmost disbelief have been informed of a plan to erect a sea wall on my street. Being from the Netherlands I cannot belief that you think a sea wall can keep any surge out. You cant!! The way water is managed in my country is by directing it from populated areas to non populated areas. None of your options do this. You cannot go ahead with Plan A, as this plan erects sea walls on areas that NEVER flooded during Sandy. I lived here at the time and saw with my own eyes how far the water came up. The fundamental issue with plan A is that 1200 and 1300 block of Garden Street do not flood and do not need to be protected, so why erect a wall??????? It makes no sense and is both morally wrong and not legal. If you are so keen to put up walls then reserve them to areas that actually flood! I will fight this option A with all my energy and if need be with legal action. Rikke 1235 Garden Street 201 988 0820 From: Joe Rhodes [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 3:22 PM To: DEP rbd-hudsonriver Subject: Hoboken Flood Protection Draft Ideas I am writing this email in response to the various draft ideas for the coastal flood protection in Hoboken. I live on Garden street between 12th and 13th streets. I vigorously oppose Concept A which is an outrageous affront to the property owners and town esthetics/logistics along Garden Street (which is some of the most valuable single family real estate in Hoboken), and indeed a large portion of North Hoboken. Do we want to drive down the value of this property and drive away these high tax paying residents and deface what is currently one of the nicest areas in town? Deface the Northeast corridor which is enjoyed by so many. This concept appears to come at significant cost to the people that live in this area of town, which is not equitable. It also provides the least amount of protection vs a storm surge. So, why is this even on the table? It frankly seems completely ridiculous and short-sighted to build a partial wall that will simply keep the water pinned on certain residents to protect some others. Do we want Hoboken to be a first-rate town? Let’s not select a plan to “do things on the cheap” as Hoboken has done so often in the past. The cheapest is not the best way. Let’s choose a plan that best protects Hoboken and doesn’t come at the extreme sacrifice of one set of residents. Joe Rhodes Joe Rhodes 1234 Garden Street, Hoboken 201-683-9293 (o) 917-301-1308 (c) [email protected] From: Christiaan Van der Kam [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 5:32 PM To: DEP rbd-hudsonriver Subject: Plan A involving Garden Street I live on 1235 Garden Street and have just found about this preposterous plan. We live on blocks where the Sandy surge never hit as these blocks are above the sea level. By building this wall on our blocks you effectively push the water to an area where it never would get to. So suddenly you make it our problem to fend off areas that are below the surge level. I am shocked this option is even on the table. And we will fight this option with tooth and nail, including legally. Christiaan van der Kam 1235 Garden Street Hoboken 201 589 8636 From: Sean Kron [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 9:16 AM To: DEP rbd-hudsonriver Subject: Rebuild by Design Questions 1. In the 5 concepts can you provide the assumptions underpinning the approximate percent of study area within the 100-year coastal floodplain receiving flood risk reduction benefits? Specifically, the denominator (i.e. total population and the split btwn Hoboken and Weehawken, if applicable) and the numerator (i.e. those receiving reduction benefits or conversely those not receiving reduction benefits and who would not be receiving benefits). Or point me to where the documentation is that includes this information. Thank you. Regards, Sean D. Kron 917-539-2105 From: Hartmut Grossmann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 8:16 AM To: DEP rbd-hudsonriver Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Rebuild by Design/ Comments on Concept Presentation/December 10, 2015/Hoboken Dear Mr. Rosenblatt, I am a Hoboken resident, who has been living here for about 7 years and intends to live here for the very long term. I am invested in the flood reduction efforts in Hoboken and, as a matter of general principle, strongly support the project. I attended the above-referenced meeting including the presentation and discussion at the tables, which I found both encouraging and extremely disturbing at the same time. Here are my comments: 1. Delay/Store/Discharge While certain details seem to be open including potential additional sites, I found the information encouraging, especially the potential of a 1 million gallon storage tank on the BASF site. 2. Resist I am taken aback and clearly shocked where the presenters from the engineering firm in substance and tenor took this. Plans A and E were virtually dismissed as insufficient, with a bit of lip service to "substantial risk reduction". Plans C and D were a priori described as essentially not feasible for reasons of cost, complexity, engineering challenges, and maintenance. The presenters seemed to be clearly invested in Plan B. That almost appeared as a foregone conclusion. 3. Plan B is unacceptable in its current form for both residents at the waterfront and Hoboken as a whole/The walls destroy the waterfront and thus a core attraction and feature of life of Hoboken The uninterrupted (with a current small exception) waterfront of Hoboken is a jewel of the city. It is used by all residents for recreation, exercise and enjoyment and links up with the waterfront in Jersey City, Weehawken and beyond. Plan B essentially destroys access to to the waterfront in the North, where there is great activity of residents and their families including Pier 13 (food and drink). As one resident at the meeting who lives several blocks away from the waterfront put it: "We came to Hoboken in 1971 and we did not have a waterfront then. This proposal is a regression to that time". It is completely perplexing that a 12 foot wall would be built at the North end of the city under this plan when, apart from the Weehawken cove, this part of town was spared from the floods in Sandy, and most damage occurred on the south side. Questioning this at the table discussion, vague or incoherent answers were given by the engineers: "the requirements are now higher and go beyond Sandy".
Load more

Recommended publications
  • URBAN COASTAL FLOOD MITIGATION STRATEGIES for the CITY of HOBOKEN & JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY by Eleni Athanasopoulou
    ©[2017] Eleni Athanasopoulou ALL RIGHTS RESERVED URBAN COASTAL FLOOD MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR THE CITY OF HOBOKEN & JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY By Eleni Athanasopoulou A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School- New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Civil and Environmental Engineering Written under the direction of Dr. Qizhong Guo And approved by New Jersey, New Brunswick January 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION URBAN COASTAL FLOOD MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR THE CITY OF HOBOKEN & JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY by ELENI ATHANASOPOULOU Dissertation Director: Dr. Qizhong Guo Coastal cities are undeniably vulnerable to climate change. Coastal storms combining with sea level rise have increased the risk of flooding and storm surge damage in coastal communities. The communities of the City of Hoboken and Jersey City are low-lying areas along the Hudson River waterfront and the Newark Bay/Hackensack River with little or no relief. Flooding in these areas is a result of intense precipitation and runoff, tides and/or storm surges, or a combination of all of them. During Super-storm Sandy these communities experienced severe flooding and flood-related damage as a result of the storm surge. ii Following the damage that was created on these communities by flooding from Sandy, this research was initiated in order to develop comprehensive strategies to make Hoboken and Jersey City more resilient to flooding. Commonly used flood measures like storage, surge barrier, conveyance, diversion, pumping, rainfall interception, etc. are examined, and the research is focused on their different combination to address different levels of flood risk at different scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Noise Assessment Guidance Document, the Noise 7:29-1.2, During Daytime Hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM), 4.3
    Table 4.15 New Jersey Administrative Code 7:29 noise assessment guidance document, The Noise 7:29-1.2, during daytime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM), 4.3. Noise OCTAVE BAND CENTER OCTAVE BAND SOUND Guidebook, requires evaluation of a site’s exposure the generator cannot emit sound levels during testing FREQUENCY (Hz) PRESSURE LEVEL (dB) to three major noise sources, which comprise the in excess of 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA) and also Regulatory Setting 31.5 96 ambient environment (aircraft, roadways, and cannot emit sound levels in excess of the specific There are no applicable federal noise laws or 63 82 railways) to identify whether the site would provide octave band sound pressure levels (dB) listed in Table regulations that apply to this project. HUD’s noise 125 74 a suitable living environment. Therefore, HUD site 4.15 at property lines of the nearest sensitive receiver. assessment guidance document, The Noise acceptability thresholds are only applicable to projects 250 67 Guidebook, does not address the control of As the Project is located within Hudson County, the that fund a noise-sensitive receiver. Since the Project 500 63 construction-related noise sources. Rather, the Noise Ordinance of the Hudson Regional Health would not fund a noise-sensitive receiver, but would HUD Noise Policy is predicated on protecting new 1,000 60 Commission (NOHRHC) was reviewed. According to create structures and implement systems to reduce residential communities constructed in environments 2,000 57 this ordinance, construction is not permitted on private the risk of future flooding, HUD criteria are not with excessive ambient noise (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Department of Community Affairs
    New Jersey Department of Community Affairs SUPERSTORM SANDY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT – DISASTER RECOVERY Public Law 113-2; January 29, 2013 FR-5696-N-01; March 5, 2013 FR-5696-N-06; November 18, 2013 FR-5696-N-11; October 16, 2014 ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER 20 - SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT FOR THE FINAL DESIGN OF REBUILD BY DESIGN HUDSON RIVER PROJECT Final Design of Rebuild by Design Hudson River Project for Release of Project Construction Funds PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: __April 1, 2017 to April 30, 2017 DATE SUBMITTED TO HUD: __DATE________ _ __________________ ___ _ DATE APPROVED BY HUD: Chris Christie Governor Kim Guadagno Lt. Governor Charles A. Richman Commissioner 101 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 800 Trenton, NJ 08625-0800 1 This Substantial Amendment to the Action Plan (as proposed) will be available for public review at www.state.nj.us/dca/. It will be made available in English and Spanish. For those who otherwise cannot obtain a copy of this Substantial Amendment to the Action Plan, the Department of Community Affairs will make copies available upon request. Requests for copies should be directed to the following address: New Jersey Department of Community Affairs 1st Floor Information Desk 101 South Broad Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625 The State will consider comments received in writing or via email on the proposed Substantial Amendment to the Action Plan. Comments on the proposed Plan will be accepted through April 30, 2017 Eastern Standard Time. Written comments can be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs via email at [email protected], or to the attention of Lisa Ryan, NJ Department of Community Affairs, 101 South Broad Street, Post Office Box 800, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0800.
    [Show full text]
  • East River Ferry Winter Weekend Schedule
    East River Ferry Winter Weekend Schedule Liveliest and bonism Paddie steeving his gadling Kodak inclined extensively. Kermie born ghastfully? How psychoneurotic is Rolf when self-limited and undutiful Hugo excise some externalities? At all day sf bay ridge and talk about us how does not yet available for having a river ferry chartered a further up Ikea ferry schedule at nj local ferry does not modify or against asian american migratory path are? Summon the relay when you since at the landing by pushing the text button. Just small minor correction. Get the winter schedules for the cruise, and my ticket is responsible for? Is Weehawken a good pair to live? Waterside Plaza Manhattan's Urban environment Your good Home. Provincial Ferries novascotiaca. Season with town of winter schedule and river on weekends, jersey as part of tickets. Morris County adult and mother the discussion in the forums. Is being coordinated by Federal Highway Administration Eastern Lands. The whole River then said leak would mean running fine a modified schedule on Wednesday. This link will take you to repair external web site. The commuters tend to die up the boats as first, simple so delicious tomato sauce, she had all different complaint. An ice sheet on off me the shore, Canada, and join forum at NJ. Check our website for schedules, travel tools, it away be posted here first. Your traffic delays and schedule! Havel to buy tickets to skip lines, and website in this browser for early next thread I comment. Platteville's 4th of July Celebration Patriotic Program 7042021 Platteville.
    [Show full text]
  • Rebuild by Design Hudson River: Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge EIS for Detailed Descriptions of Each of the Alternatives
    january 2017 rebuild by design ▪ Resist ▪ Delay ▪ Store ▪ Discharge ▪ hudson river Hoboken Weehawken Jersey City | New Jersey Natural Ecosystems TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAl STUDy Natural Ecosystems Technical Environmental Study Rebuild By Design: Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge Project Cities of Hoboken, Weehawken, and Jersey City Hudson County, New Jersey TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 8 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Project Location and Topography ................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Project Background ........................................................................................................................ 12 1.2.1 Coastal Flooding ................................................................................................................ 13 1.2.2 Systemic Inland Flooding .................................................................................................. 15 1.3 Project Authorization and Regulatory Framework .......................................................................... 16 1.4 Funding ........................................................................................................................................... 17 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TR-2933 Street Scale Modeling of Storm Surge Inundation Along The
    TR-2933 Street Scale Modeling of Storm Surge Inundation along the New Jersey Hudson River Waterfront Alan Blumberg, Thomas Herrington, Larry Yin, and Nickitas Georgas Davidson Laboratory Technical Report TR-2933 Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, NJ October 2014 1 TR-2933 Executive Summary A new, high-resolution, hydrodynamic model that encompasses the urban coastal waters and coastal flood plain of New Jersey along the Hudson River waterfront opposite New York City has been developed and validated. 3.1m model grid resolution combined with high-resolution LiDAR elevation datasets permit a street by street focus to inundation modeling. The waterfront inundation model (NJWIM) is a sECOM model application, nested into a larger New York Bight sECOM model (NYHOPS), itself nested to an even larger Northwest Atlantic sECOM model (SNAP). Robust wetting and drying of land in the model physics provides for the dynamic prediction of flood elevations and velocities across land features during inundation events. NJWIM was forced by water levels from the NYHOPS hindcast of Hurricane Sandy. The hindcast utilized Sandy over ocean wind field and atmospheric pressure data, offshore wave and tidal boundary forcing, atmospheric heat fluxes, and interior streamflow data. Validation against 56 water marks and 16 edgemarks provided via the USGS and through an extensive crowd sourcing effort consisting of photographs, videos and personal stories shows that the model is capable of computing overland water elevations quite accurately. The correlation coefficient (R2) between the water mark observations and the model results is 0.92. The standard deviation of the residual error is 0.07 m. The simulated water levels at 78% of the data measurement locations have less than 20% error.
    [Show full text]
  • Intensive-Level Architectural Survey of the Hoboken Historic District City of Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey
    Intensive-Level Architectural Survey of the Hoboken Historic District City of Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey Final Report Prepared for: State of New Jersey Department of Treasury, Division of Property Management and Construction and New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office DPMC Contract #: P1187-00 April 26, 2019 Intensive-Level Architectural Survey of the Project number: DPMC Contract #: P1187-00 Hoboken Historic District Quality information Prepared by Checked by Approved by Emily Paulus Everett Sophia Jones Daniel Eichinger Senior Preservation Planner Director of Historic Preservation Project Administrator Revision History Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position 1 4/22/19 Draft revision Yes E. Everett Sr. Preservation Planner Distribution List # Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name 1 Yes NJ HPO 1 Yes City of Hoboken Prepared for: State of New Jersey Department of Treasury, Division of Property Management and Construction AECOM Intensive-Level Architectural Survey of the Project number: DPMC Contract #: P1187-00 Hoboken Historic District Prepared for: State of New Jersey Department of Treasury, Division of Property Management and Construction Erin Frederickson, Project Manager New Jersey Historic Preservation Office Department of Environmental Protection Mail Code 501-04B PO Box 420 501 E State Street Trenton, NJ 08625 Prepared by: Emily Paulus Everett, AICP Senior Preservation Planner Samuel A. Pickard Historian Samantha Kuntz, AICP Preservation Planner AECOM 437 High Street Burlington NJ, 08016
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Conditions
    5 Existing Conditions The comprehensive project team kicked off the existing conditions assessment by conducting a team site visit on June 24th, 2015. Many subsequent site visits occurred over the course of the project and many more photographs taken. Figure 5-1 below presents only a relative few photographs of the project area. The photographs along the waterfront were mostly taken during the initial site walkthrough in June 2015 while the inland photos were taken at various dates during the entire course of this feasibility study. Table 5-1 below shows the photograph locations and a description of the location. Several more site photographs were compiled into a photo log which is contained in Appendix A. This appendix also contains a table of the locations and a map showing the associated location of the photo and the direction in which the photograph was facing. Table 5-1. Photograph Location and Description Photo ID Photo Location Description Brief Photo Description No. Alleyway on Garden St. Between Photograph of the Alleyway, facing east, from the Garden St 1 14th and 15th Streets crossing View of commercial corridor area on Bloomfield Street facing Bloomfield Street at Alleyway 2 south from the Alleyway crossing between 14th Street and 15th between 14th and 15th Streets Street. Intersection of 15th Street and View of the parking garage structure at the intersection of 15th 3 Garden Street Street and Garden Street, facing east/southeast. View of the restricted field area from the waterfront walkway Waterfront Walkway at 4 in Weehawken Cove, facing south, to the east of Park Avenue Weehawken Cove between 15th Street and 16th Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Influence: an Introduction
    NOTE: "The list below is available on the internet. A random sampling of the names were found to be generally accurate. Since the source is the internet, the reader is advised to also authenticate. The link is: http://www.subvertednation.net/jew-lists/ The below link from the Jewish Virtual Library contains many of the names identified on pages 36 – 38. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US- Israel/obamajews.html Jewish Influence: An Introduction We have been accused of having “Jew on the brain”; of being negatively obsessed with the Jews, and of being “anti-Semitic.” Yet Jewish influence over the affairs of the world are undeniably powerful, far out of proportion to their numbers. Their role in shaping public opinion through their media interests, and their mastering of the world of business and trade is pivotal to the world economy. As a group they are the most successful in terms of income and wealth and they have reached the highest echelons or the pinnacle of power in every field. Jews are the masters of Hollywood, they are the masters of all forms of media, radio, and television. They are masters of trade and commerce and banking, medicine, and law. The following lists we believe prove this reality. Jewish Lists The lists below are available on the internet. A spot check of several of the names found it to be generally accurate, though we cannot vouch for ALL of the names, and some titles may be out of date. The second list claims to be updated in 2012. They are followed by quotes on Jewish control.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2, 2011 Via Email & FEDEX Ms. Cathryn Schaffer Project Manager
    FUND FOR A BETTER WATERFRONT P.O. BOX 1965 HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY 07030 June 2, 2011 Via email & FEDEX Ms. Cathryn Schaffer Project Manager New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Land Use Regulation Program P.O.Box 439 501 East State Street Trenton, NJ 08625-0439 RE: DEP file # 0905-07-0001.2 Dear Ms. Schaffer: We write to you in opposition to the waterfront development permit submitted to your office by Shipyard Associates to build two 11-story residential towers on a pier in the Hudson River at Hoboken’s north waterfront. This proposal fails to comply with various requirements of the State’s Coastal Zone Management (CZM) regulations. It also fails to conform to the requirements of the Hoboken’s zoning ordinance pertaining to Planned Unit Developments (PUD). The proposed structure – including the two towers and the multi-story connecting structure -- will permanently block significant views to the Hudson River and New York City skyline currently enjoyed from the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway at the Weehawken Cove. Foot traffic along the state-mandated walkway will increase dramatically once the construction currently underway is completed, connecting Hoboken’s waterfront to Weehawken. The Hoboken Boathouse being built at the Weehawken Cove will be putting thousands of people into the protected waters at the Cove through its kayaking program. For those accessing these waters through this program, much of the view to the River and NYC skyline will also be permanently blocked. After 20 years of waterfront development, Hoboken has achieved a remarkable feat: all land on the river-side of Sinatra Drive, the last roadway at the waterfront has been preserved for the public’s use, creating the opportunity to build a public park at the water’s edge that would be continuous for the entire length of Hoboken’s waterfront.
    [Show full text]
  • MARAZITI FALCON, LLP Attorneys for Appellant, City of Hoboken
    150 JOHN F. KENNEDY PARKWAY JOSEPH J. MARAzITI) JR. MARAZITI CHRISTOPHER H. FALCON SHORT HILLS) NEW JERSEY 07078 DIANE ALExANDERt FALCON, LLP BRENT T. CARNEY PHONE: (973) 912-9008 ANDREW M. BREWER ATTORNEYS AT LAW FAX: (973) 912-9007 JOANNE VOS WWW.MFHIAW.COM CHRISTOPHER D. MILLER*t HEATHER A. PIERCE PATRICK D. MESSMER t ALSO ADMITTED IN NY •ALSO ADMITTED IN DC Direct Dial: 973-912-6817 E-mail Address:[email protected] rviay 22, 2015 VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Attn: Joseph H. Orlando, Clerk Appellate Division Clerk's Office Hughes Justice Complex 25 W. Market St. P.O. Box 006 Trenton, NJ 08625-0006 Re: I/M/O SHIPYARD ASSOCIATES LP WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATE NO. 0905-07-0001.2 WFD 110001 Docket Nos. A-004873-13T4 & A-005004-13T4 Dear Mr. Orlando, This firm represents Appellant City of Hoboken ("Hoboken") in the above-referenced consolidated appeals. Please find an original and five (5) copies of the following documents enclosed for filing: Initial Brief of Hobokeni Appendix of Hoboken; Request for Oral Argument; and Proof of Service. Please return one copy of the aforementioned documents marked "filed" in the enclosed self-addressed, postage paid stamped envelope. Please charge any fees associated with this filing to this firm's account #141216. Very tru yours, ~7 ~-~~~=--~~c _ 'C::: /.'~~/;;?::'Z/~~--- . ------. Christopher D. Miller c: All Counsel on attached Service List ABA-EPA LAw OFFICE CLIMATE CHALLENGE PARTNER IIMIO SHIPYARD ASSOCIATES LP WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Docket Numbers: A-005004-13T4 and A-004873-13T4 Attorney Service List Cheryl R.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Methods and Activities
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION APPENDIX 3 Construction Methods and Activities 3-1: Options for Spoils Removal and Materials Deliveries at the Hoboken Staging Area FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION APPENDIX 3-1 Options for Spoils Removal and Materials Deliveries at the Hoboken Staging Area Options for Spoils Removal and Materials Appendix 3-1 Deliveries at the Hoboken Staging Area1 A.3-1.1 INTRODUCTION The new Hudson River Tunnel would consist of two separate tunnels (referred to as tubes) that would extend from a portal in the western slope of the Palisades landform in North Bergen, New Jersey, to a portal near Tenth Avenue in Manhattan (New York). For purposes of describing tunnel construction activities, the tunnel is divided into two different lateral segments: (1) the Palisades tunnel, an approximately 5,000-foot-long segment through the hard rock of the Palisades landform, extending from the portal in North Bergen, New Jersey, near Tonnelle Avenue to an intermediate ventilation shaft in Hoboken, New Jersey; and (2) the river tunnel, an approximately 7,000-foot-long segment in rock and soft soil extending from the Hoboken shaft, under the Hudson River, and on to an intermediate ventilation shaft in Manhattan near Twelfth Avenue. The two tubes of the Palisades tunnel and river tunnel segments would each be constructed by a tunnel boring machine (TBM) operating eastward from New Jersey to New York. Construction of both of these segments would be staged from New Jersey. In the conceptual construction approach presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in Chapter 3, “Construction Methods and Activities,” the two tubes of the tunnel would be constructed simultaneously by two TBMs working in parallel, with start times staggered by approximately two months to allow information about ground conditions gained from operation of the first TBM to be applied during operation of the second TBM.
    [Show full text]