4.18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

4.18 Indirect and Cumulative Effects

A. INTRODUCTION

This section describes the indirect and cumulative effects of the No Build and Build Alternatives. According to Council on Environmental Quality regulations, ‘indirect effects’ are defined as those effects caused by an action, that occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducement and other changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air quality, water quality and other natural systems. Effects and impacts, as used in these regulations, are synonymous. Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions that may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the sponsoring agency believes that the effects would be beneficial.

These regulations also define ‘cumulative impact’ as the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person that would undertake such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time.

Based on the type and extent of impacts of the Build Alternative, and other planned or proposed projects within the project area and beyond the project area where additional rail service would be provided (see Chapter 2 and Section 4.2), indirect and/or cumulative effects for FEIS issue areas and resources would occur. Mitigation of these effects is described in each subsection.

Table 4.18-1 presents a summary of these long-term indirect and cumulative impacts by issue area and resource, for analysis year 2030, followed by further discussion for New Jersey, the Hudson River, and New York. Indirect and cumulative effects related to construction of the Build Alternative are addressed in Section 5.18.

B. FUTURE NO BUILD CONDITIONS

NEW JERSEY As discussed in Section 4.2, several major developments and infrastructure investments in the project area are proposed in New Jersey, irrespective of access improvements that would be afforded by the Build Alternative. These projects are included in the No Build Alternative, and some of them have been included in population and other growth projections by the NJTPA, and included by NJ TRANSIT in its rail ridership forecasts. Based on available information from NJTPA, much of that activity would likely be under construction during the same general timeframe as the Build Alternative. In New Jersey, an approved 4.7 million square-foot Allied Junction office and conference center development at Frank R. Lautenberg Station is one of these projects. The timeframe, exact size, and configuration of the Allied Junction office and conference center are not certain, since its master development plan is being revised. Another project, the Secaucus Transit Village Redevelopment Plan, includes about 2,100 new residential units, a 500-room hotel and conference center, and up to 150,000 SF of commercial uses, including restaurants, boutiques, coffee shops, and professional offices. The Secaucus Transit Village is located adjacent to and clustered around Frank R. Lautenberg Station. These projects would place increasing demands on the NJ TRANSIT commuter rail network and local roadways.

4.18-1 Access to the Region’s Core FEIS

TABLE 4.18-1: LONG-TERM INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2030)

FEIS Long-Term Section Issue Area Referenced Indirect Cumulative Public 3.1 New Jersey and New York: Enhanced New Jersey: Impetus for positive Transportation accessibility for passengers of rail managed growth by municipalities of lines converging on and located west development near transit stations along of Frank R. Lautenberg Station. rail lines on which service would increase. Station Access and 3.2 New Jersey and New York: Increased Parking 3.3 local traffic near stations, increased Roadways station parking demand, increased grade crossing closures, as service frequency would increase. Pedestrians 3.4 New York: Added pedestrian movements, taxi and bus trips on street network. Negative impact to certain sidewalks, crosswalks, and subway stairs. Negative traffic impacts at Herald Square. Freight Movement 3.5 New Jersey and New York: Increased train frequency causing potential impacts on freight rail scheduling in off-peak periods and potential for increased conflicts between passenger rail, vehicles, pedestrians and freight rail movements. Land Use, Zoning 4.2 New Jersey: Positively support New Jersey and New York: Positively and Public Policy development at Frank R. Lautenberg support development at numerous Station and nearby transit-oriented locations within and beyond the project development. area. New York: Positively support intent of Hudson Yards rezoning/ redevelopment and other west Midtown development. Demographics, 4.3 New Jersey and New York: Positive New Jersey and New York: Positive Neighborhoods and improved access to employment improved access to employment Community opportunities and job retention, opportunities and job retention, Facilities community, institutional, educational, community, institutional, educational, and recreational facilities within and and recreational facilities within and beyond the project area. beyond the project area. Environmental 4.4 New Jersey and New York: Enhanced New Jersey and New York: Enhanced Justice accessibility for residents and accessibility for residents and workers workers within and beyond the within and beyond the project area. project area. Source: Transit Link Consultants, 2008.

4.18-2 4.18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

TABLE 4.18-1: LONG-TERM INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2030) (CONTINUED)

FEIS Long-Term Section Issue Area Referenced Indirect Cumulative Visual and 4.5 New Jersey and New York: Positive New Jersey and New York: Positive Aesthetic impacts associated with increased impacts associated with increased Conditions activity within established rail activity within established rail corridors; corridors; negative increased train negative increased train service service frequency, additional parking, frequency, additional parking, and and station access activity. station access activity. Air Quality 4.6 New Jersey and New York: Positive New Jersey and New York: Positive air impacts related to increased rail usage quality impacts. and diversion from auto trips. Noise and 4.7 New Jersey and New York: Negative New Jersey and New York: Negative Vibration impacts to sensitive receptors impacts to sensitive receptors associated associated with increased train with increased train service. service. Ecology 4.8 New Jersey and New York: Negative New Jersey: Negative loss of wetlands impact caused by additional station, and other terrestrial/aquatic resources in parking, and roadway access on the NJ Meadowlands. ecological resources beyond the project area. Water Resources 4.9 New Jersey, Hudson River, and New New Jersey, Hudson River, and New York: Positive impact due to York: Positive impact due to increased increased controls and monitoring. controls and monitoring. Negative Negative impact due to additional impact due to additional stormwater stormwater runoff. runoff and two modified outfalls and one new outfall in the Hackensack River. Parklands 4.10 New Jersey, Hudson River and New New Jersey, Hudson River and New York: Positive impact associated with York: Positive impact associated with increased train frequency and access. increased train frequency and access. Soils and Geology 4.11 New Jersey, Hudson River, and New New Jersey, Hudson River, and New York: Positive impact with York: Positive impact with productive productive reuse of excavated tunnels reuse of excavated tunnels material as material as fill for proposed Kearny fill for proposed Kearny Rail Yard and Rail Yard and new railroad new railroad embankments. embankments. Contaminated 4.12 New Jersey, Hudson River, and New New Jersey, Hudson River, and New Materials York: Negative impacts associated York: Negative impacts associated with with movement of disturbed movement of disturbed contaminants in contaminants. conjunction with other planned projects. Safety and Security 4.13 New Jersey, Hudson River, and New New Jersey, Hudson River, and New York: Negative impacts associated York: Positive impacts to safety and with operation of dual-power security measures. equipment in new tunnels and NYPSE. Source: Transit Link Consultants, 2008.

4.18-3 Access to the Region’s Core FEIS

TABLE 4.18-1: LONG-TERM INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2030) (CONTINUED)

FEIS Long-Term Section Issue Area Referenced Indirect Cumulative Economic Impacts 4.14 New Jersey and New York: New Jersey and New York: Positively Positively support job retention and support job retention and existing/proposed businesses. existing/proposed businesses. New Jersey and New York: Positive New Jersey and New York: Positive increased access to jobs and resultant increased access to jobs and resultant income, retail sales and tax revenues. income, retail sales and tax revenues. Energy 4.15 New Jersey and New York: Positive New Jersey and New York: Positive permanent impacts to reduced fuel permanent impacts to reduced fuel consumption with auto trip diversion consumption with auto trip diversion to to rail. rail when considered with other planned projects. Electric and 4.16 None None Magnetic Fields Utilities 4.17 New Jersey and New York: Positive New Jersey and New York: Positive impacts to the quality and condition impacts to the quality and condition of of utility lines and service within the utility lines and service within the project area. project area.

Archaeological, Ch.6,7, and New Jersey and New York: Section New Jersey and New York: Section 106 Historic and Appendix 8 106 and Section 4(f) use evaluations and Section 4(f) use evaluations beyond Section 4(f) beyond the project area in support of the project area in support of applicable Resources applicable environmental guidelines. environmental guidelines. Source: Transit Link Consultants, 2008.

4.18-4 4.18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

No commuter parking would be included as part of either project. Other projects, such as the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project (a bridge replacement or reconstruction project over the Hackensack River, sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration and NJ TRANSIT), EnCap Golf Holdings, Meadowlands Rail Link, and Meadowlands Xanadu Redevelopment Project, have been approved or are planned within the New Jersey Meadowlands District. These projects would also encroach on wetlands and other terrestrial aquatic resources, developed properties, and contaminated sites within the New Jersey Meadowlands. Therefore, the estimated extent of impacts in the areas of transportation, land use, terrestrial/aquatic resource and any other resource area, have been identified in this section and in other chapters/sections of this FEIS.

NEW YORK In New York, the most significant future developments are the No. 7 Line Subway Extension and major rezoning and land use activity in the Hudson Yards area of midtown Manhattan, including expansion of the Javits Convention Center and transfer of development rights from the U.S. Postal Service Farley Building to other nearby blocks, such as the eastern side of Eighth Avenue between West 33rd Street and West 34th Street. The approved Hudson Yards Rezoning establishes regulatory conditions to grow and develop Manhattan’s West Side, enabling commercial and residential development, including more than 24 million SF of office space; 13,600 residential units; 1 million SF of hotel space; and 1 million SF of retail. This activity would result in significant long-term impacts to land use, neighborhood character, noise, and transportation, and construction-related impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic. These impacts are documented in a FGEIS for the Hudson Yards Rezoning, although the actual adopted zoning resolution reflects a different extent and mix of land uses than addressed in that document. The adopted zoning and land use are included in the No Build Alternative for this FEIS, as described in Section 4.2 and Chapters 4 and 5. Findings of the Hudson Yards FGEIS (Hudson Yards Alternative S mitigated) have been designated as the baseline conditions for the Build Alternative long-term and construction- related traffic circulation, transit, pedestrian, air quality, and noise assessments. In addition to identified FEIS No Build projects, there are other new West Side development initiatives, including MTA’s Western Rail Yard and New York State’s Moynihan Station project, which would need to be considered only as additional information about them becomes available. This decision to not include these projects in the No Build baseline condition was discussed with and agreed to by MTA, New York City and New York State agencies during ARC DEIS, SDEIS and FEIS preparation. Direct construction-related impacts are described in Section 3.6 and Chapter 5.

C. LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE

NEW JERSEY TRANSPORTATION Public Transportation. Creation of additional train capacity between Frank R. Lautenberg Station and midtown Manhattan would result in additional rail service throughout central and northern New Jersey. This positive impact is evident when analyzing reported “user benefits” from the NJ TRANSIT travel demand model between the No Build and the Build Alternatives. User benefits include travel time savings, transfers, out-of-pocket transportation cost savings, and service frequency changes. Over 88 percent of the average daily production or origin-based user benefits (those benefits accruing in counties where the trips begin) would be realized in New Jersey, and over 85 percent of the average daily attraction or destination-based user benefits (those benefits accruing in counties where the trips end) would be realized in Manhattan (see Tables 4.18-2 and 4.18-3). Essex County is projected to benefit the most from the Build Alternative from an origin or production perspective, followed by Middlesex, Bergen, Union, and Monmouth counties. Together, these counties account for 63.4 percent of the production-based benefits. Essex County accounts for nearly half of the 10.5 percent of destination-based

4.18-5 Access to the Region’s Core FEIS user benefits that would accrue in New Jersey, followed by Middlesex, Bergen, Union and Hudson counties. This distribution of benefits would be expected, given that the Build Alternative would improve accessibility for residents of communities along the North Jersey Coast Line, Pascack Valley Line, Main/Bergen Lines/Port Jervis Line, Montclair-Boonton Line, and Raritan Valley Line, as these lines would meet at Frank R. Lautenberg Station and then travel into Manhattan. In the Build Alternative, peak hour train service through Newark (Penn Station and Broad Street Station) would increase by 30 percent (11 trains) over a No Build frequency of 37 trains. Public transportation is further described in Section 3.1.

TABLE 4.18-2: SHARE OF ORIGIN-BASED (PRODUCTION-BASED) USER BENEFITS BY STATE AND COUNTY WITH THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2030)

State/County Percent of User Benefits* NEW JERSEY Essex County 14.6% Middlesex County 14.2% Bergen County 14.1% Union County 11.1% Monmouth County 9.5% Passaic County 5.6% Morris County 5.2% Somerset County 4.4% Hudson County 3.2% Mercer County 2.7% Ocean County 1.0% Burlington County 0.9% Hunterdon County 0.7% Sussex County 0.6% Warren County 0.6% Subtotal 88.2% NEW YORK Orange County 3.8% Rockland County 2.7% New York Other** 2.9% Subtotal 9.3% Pennsylvania*** 2.4% TOTAL 100.0% Source: Transit Link Consultants, 2008. * User Benefits are calculated as cumulative travel time savings in minutes. ** New York Other refers to the five boroughs of New York City, Westchester County and areas east. *** Pennsylvania includes portions of Bucks, Northampton and Monroe counties.

4.18-6 4.18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

TABLE 4.18-3: SHARE OF DESTINATION-BASED (ATTRACTION-BASED) USER BENEFITS BY STATE AND COUNTY WITH THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE (2030)

State/County Percent of User Benefits* NEW JERSEY Essex County 4.1% Middlesex County 1.4% Bergen County 1.3% Union County 1.2% Hudson County 1.0% Morris County 0.4% Passaic County 0.3% Monmouth County 0.3% Mercer County 0.2% Somerset County 0.2% Warren County 0.0% Sussex County 0.0% Ocean County 0.0% Hunterdon County 0.0% Subtotal 10.5% NEW YORK New York County (Manhattan) 85.5% New York Other** 4.0% Subtotal 89.5% TOTAL 100.0% Source: Transit Link Consultants, 2008. * User Benefits are calculated as cumulative travel time savings in minutes. ** New York Other refers to the five boroughs of New York City, Westchester County and areas east.

The distribution of origin-based user benefits by Census Tract is presented on Figure 4.18-1. To best distribute production-based user benefits, the benefits of a given tract were divided by its respective land area (square miles). Results are presented on Figure 4.18-2.

Only positive indirect and cumulative impacts would be created for public transportation; therefore, no mitigation will be required.

Stations/Parking, Roadways and Pedestrians. Build Alternative increased service levels and forecast ridership would result in additional passenger boardings along the NJ TRANSIT commuter rail network beyond the project area where additional rail service would be provided. As described in Section 3.2, such boarding increases would also cause increased station area parking demand. Parking capacity shortfalls have been forecast for four representative stations: the Delawanna and Wesmont Stations on the Main/Bergen Line; the North Hackensack Station on the Pascack Valley Line and the South Amboy Station on the NJCL. The forecast parking capacity shortfalls have been addressed as direct Build Alternative impacts in Section 3.2. This increased activity would create additional local street traffic, increased pedestrian movements and increases in the number of grade crossing closures at stations. These indirect transportation effects would be incremental, accruing over time as ridership would increase. Furthermore, the specific locations of increased station access activity would change as the Build Alternative operating plan would be implemented, and adjusted to respond to changes in land use, demographics or customer preferences that might influence service levels by line.

4.18-7 Dutchess Litchfield Sullivan Legend

[ Wayne New Haven Train Stations Putnam ARC Build Alternative Lackawanna Pennsylvania Orange Main Line + Bergen County Line Existing Rail Network Pike User Benefits: Average Weekday (Units - CumulativeFa Travelirfield Time New YorkYork Savings in Minutes) Luzerne Westchester 0 - 2,000 Rockland Sussex Pascack Valley Line 2,001 - 5,000 New Jersey Passaic Monroe 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 15,000 Main Line Bergen Morris-Essex Line 15,001 - 60,000 Carbon Bergen County Line

Westchester Warren Morris Bronx Bronx Morristown Line

Essex Suffolk New York ARC Build Alternative Northampton Gladstone Branch Hudson Nassau

Queens New York

Union Raritan Valley Line Kings

Lehigh Richmond Hunterdon Somerset Northeast Corridor/North Jersey Coast Line

Middlesex Berks 0 13 26 Miles 1 inch equals 13 miles Bucks Source: Transit Link Consultants, 2008

Mercer Monmouth Access to the Region’s Core Final Environmental Impact Statement Montgomery North Jersey Coast Line Figure 4.18-1 User Benefits by Census Tracts

Chester Production (Origin)-Based (NJ, NY) Burlington Ocean

Insert Not to Scale Delaware Philadelphia Dutchess Litchfield Sullivan Legend

[ Wayne New Haven Train Stations Putnam ARC Build Alternative Lackawanna Pennsylvania Orange Existing Rail Network Pike

Main Line + Bergen County Line User Benefits: Average Weekday (Units - CumulativeFa Travelirfield Time New YorkYork Savings in Minutes) Luzerne Westchester 0 - 2,000 Rockland Sussex 2,001 - 5,000 New Jersey Passaic Monroe 5,001 - 10,000 Pascack Valley Line 10,001 - 15,000 Morris-Essex Line Bergen Bergen County Line 15,001 - 60,000 Carbon Main Line

Westchester Warren Morris Bronx Bronx

Essex Suffolk Morristown Line New York ARC Build Alternative Northampton Gladstone Branch Hudson Nassau

Queens New York

Union Raritan Valley Line Kings

Lehigh Richmond Hunterdon Somerset Northeast Corridor/North Jersey Coast Line

Middlesex Berks 0 13 26 Mile 1 inch equals 13 miles Bucks Source: Transit Link Consultants, 2008 Mercer Monmouth Access to the Region’s Core Final Environmental Impact Statement Montgomery North Jersey Coast Line Figure 4.18-2 User Benefits by Census Tracts Controlling for Land Area

Chester Production (Origin)-Based (NJ, NY) Burlington Ocean

Insert Not to Scale Delaware Philadelphia Access to the Region’s Core FEIS

When the ARC project advances and the parking needs at individual stations can be better estimated, the planning necessary for site selection, traffic impact analysis, and analysis for compatibility with surrounding land uses will occur. As the planning for these additional parking needs advances, each potential site will be subject to an environmental review under NEPA (if federally funded), tiering from the ARC FEIS. If state or locally funded these sites would be subject to state and/or local environmental review requirements. Public outreach and any meetings with governmental officials regarding any parking site development and decision-making processes will be planned.

This increased demand would be addressed with: additional station parking; parking expansion at intercept locations along major highways; development of new stations to distribute ridership; expansion/extension of existing rail services; bicycle and pedestrian access; improvement of transit access to stations through feeder or alternate bus service under NJ TRANSIT’s Community Shuttle Bus Service program; community input to design in a manner that encourages alternate transportation opportunities to access stations; and implementation of Smart Growth/Transit-oriented Development (“Transit Villages”) in various New Jersey communities.

These actions would be analyzed and documented as part of NJ TRANSIT’s ongoing Station Access Program (SAP). These positive initiatives are proactive measures to manage potential negative indirect impacts on local transportation networks stemming from changes in service frequencies and increased ridership. NJ TRANSIT’s process for identifying and evaluating the need for and location of these additional facilities is described in Section 3.2, and would include local and stakeholder outreach, as well as appropriate environmental reviews.

Freight Movement. Increased train frequency with the Build Alternative, both in peak and non-peak hours, in the project area would have no indirect or cumulative impacts on rail freight movements, because no freight services would operate on NJ TRANSIT-owned rail lines in the project area. Beyond the project area in New Jersey, increased train frequency would cause negative indirect and cumulative impacts on passenger and freight rail scheduling, particularly in the off-peak periods when freight would move on NJ TRANSIT-owned lines (e.g., Pascack Valley Line, Main/Bergen County Lines, North Jersey Coast Line). Build Alternative-related increases in service frequency and passenger activity throughout the day, especially at grade crossings and stations, would also cause greater potential for conflicts between passenger vehicles, pedestrians and freight rail movements. Freight movement is further described in Section 3.5.

Potential conflicts with future freight movement schedules would be addressed with amendments to existing agreements between NJ TRANSIT and freight operators. Existing agreements where freight is operated on NJ TRANSIT lines guarantee freight service levels by railroad, line and time of day. Amendments to these agreements would identify schedule or infrastructure improvements necessary to keep both the freight railroads and NJ TRANSIT service at agreed-to levels. Negative impacts with regard to increased potential conflicts between roadway and rail traffic at grade crossings would be mitigated with the installation of state-of-the-art crossing warning systems for vehicles and pedestrians, and the implementation of established NJ TRANSIT programs to educate the public about proper behavior with respect to at-grade crossings, and railroad operations in general.

LAND USE, ZONING AND PUBLIC POLICY The Build Alternative would result in significant rail capacity increases, increased reliability and redundancy, and overall accessibility benefits from New Jersey to Manhattan. While implementation of such positive rail transportation improvements could contribute to commercial real estate investment decisions and/or housing choices, this factor alone would not influence economic development or residential settlement. The proposed rail transportation improvements would also indirectly support and benefit the land use proposals contained in Hudson County’s Master Plan, as described in Section 4.2.

4.18-10 4.18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

For example, the 4.7 million SF Allied Junction office space and conference center development and the Secaucus Transit Village Redevelopment Plan, as described earlier in this section, are planned within the project area near Frank R. Lautenberg Station (also see Section 4.2). These activities have been planned without the Build Alternative, owing to property location immediate to the NEC, Frank R. Lautenberg Station, and NJ Turnpike Interchange 15X. Improved Build Alternative train service frequencies would support development of this already attractive land.

Certain sub-segments of households and types of businesses would seek to be located near transit nodes or multi-modal transportation systems. In this regard, NJ TRANSIT has met with each municipality within the project area to discuss the Build Alternative, and periodically coordinates with municipalities throughout its system with regard to train scheduling and commuter parking requirements, particularly with respect to any proposed origins or destinations of rail trips in the respective municipalities. Typically, municipalities that would most directly benefit from improved rail services (e.g., a community with a rail station or access to a rail station) would review their comprehensive plans (i.e., land use, housing, circulation), zoning, and parking on a regular basis with transit operators, including NJ TRANSIT.

Such review would ensure that municipal policies would appropriately prepare for, and would respond to, transportation improvements to support redevelopment opportunities.

Municipalities that would benefit from improved rail services would review their redevelopment and comprehensive plans, zoning, and parking with NJ TRANSIT, as part of the ongoing dialogue that NJ TRANSIT conducts with municipalities through which its service operates. This coordination would support the municipalities in managing, preparing for and responding to growth potential and new development or redevelopment. NJ TRANSIT will assist these municipalities to incorporate increased rail service, parking and station access for rail passengers in their growth and development plans (see Sections 4.2 and 5.2). NJ TRANSIT will work with municipalities to identify ways to respond that are compatible with local land use plans to maximize the potential benefits.

DEMOGRAPHICS, NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES Positive indirect Build Alternative impacts on social conditions would relate to enhanced accessibility for residents and workers within and beyond the project area. By improving train service throughout the day, the Build Alternative would improve access to and support employment opportunities and job retention, as well as usage of community, institutional, educational and recreational facilities in New Jersey and Manhattan. Demographics, neighborhoods and community facilities are further described in Section 4.3.

Only positive indirect and cumulative impacts would be created for residents and workers; therefore, no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Positive indirect Build Alternative impacts on low-income and minority populations would relate to enhanced accessibility for residents and workers within and beyond the project area. By improving train service throughout the day, the Build Alternative would provide more travel options for low-auto- ownership households. Additional train service would also improve access to and support low-income and minority population employment opportunities and job retention, as well as usage of community, institutional, educational and recreational facilities in New Jersey and Manhattan. Accrual of these benefits would also be related to available bus or shuttle-type access to and from rail stations, for individuals located beyond walking distance that do not own an automobile. Environmental Justice is further described in Section 4.4.

4.18-11 Access to the Region’s Core FEIS

Only positive indirect impacts would be created for low-income and minority populations as a result of enhanced accessibility; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Negative indirect impacts and cumulative impacts as a result of increased service frequency and associated infrastructure and equipment would be mitigated with context-sensitive design of rail-related buildings and infrastructure consistent with their surroundings, relative to scale, building materials, color and site placement. The increased activity within these established rail corridors would create an impetus for this continued investment in visual and aesthetic improvements.

AIR QUALITY The Build Alternative and its associated increased train service frequency, convenience of a one-seat ride to Manhattan, improved service reliability and reduced travel times would create a more attractive alternative to the auto as a means of reaching employment, community, institutional, educational and recreational facilities in New Jersey and Manhattan. These positive impacts would encourage continued diversion from auto trips to rail trips, which would contribute to reductions in emission burdens and overall positive indirect air quality impacts. These positive impacts, when considered in combination with other major NJ TRANSIT rail initiatives, such as the Northern Branch, Monmouth-Ocean- Middlesex County Rail, West Trenton Rail Line, and Passaic-Bergen DMU, and the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project, and their positive potentials for auto diversion to rail trips, would represent a positive cumulative air quality impact for the New Jersey portion of the region. Since only positive indirect impacts would be created for air quality as a result of the Build Alternative, no mitigation is required. Air quality is further described in Section 4.6.

NOISE AND VIBRATION The Build Alternative would result in negative indirect impacts to nearest sensitive receptors, associated with increased train service frequency and increased station-related activity. These impacts would increase as ridership would increase to take advantage of this enhanced rail service. Negative indirect noise and vibration impacts to adjacent sensitive receptors beyond the project area can be mitigated through coordination with affected property owners regarding acceptable measures, such as insulation, double-glazed windows, or air conditioning, or through track bed improvements. These measures will be evaluated for feasibility on a case-by-case basis. Noise and vibration is further described in Section 4.7.

ECOLOGY The Build Alternative would result in 19.1 to 24.9 acres of negative permanent impacts to wetlands and 111.5 acres of negative permanent impacts to upland vegetative species in the New Jersey Meadowlands, including the proposed Kearny Rail Yard site (82 acres). These losses would be relatively minor, considering that a total of over 7,700 wetland acres and 3,000 upland vegetated acres exist in the New Jersey Meadowlands. These existing aquatic and terrestrial resource totals represent a fraction of the extent of resources that existed 100 years ago or even decades ago. However, considering the environmental regulations and mitigation requirements within the New Jersey Meadowlands that have been promulgated since the early 1970s, the extent of losses of these resources has been slowed, and

4.18-12 4.18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects through restoration, enhancement, and conservation measures, the quality and quantity of these resources has increased.

These impacts, when considered with long-term terrestrial/aquatic impacts of other projects in the New Jersey Meadowlands, such as the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project, Allied Junction, the Secaucus Transit Village Redevelopment Plan, Meadowlands Rail Link, Encap Golf Holdings, Meadowlands Xanadu Redevelopment Project, and other transportation-related projects, would constitute negative cumulative impacts to about 50 to 60 acres of wetland resources in the New Jersey Meadowlands. Progress on these and other transportation and development projects would be monitored relative to their actual cumulative terrestrial/aquatic impacts when considered with the Build Alternative.

In addition, it is conceivable that some of the additional station, parking, and roadway access that would be associated with increased service frequency on NJ TRANSIT rail lines beyond the project area, could potentially result in negative effects to ecological resources in New Jersey. This impact would also be negative from an indirect and cumulative standpoint.

Permanent negative impacts to wetlands will be mitigated through the development and implementation of a compensatory wetland mitigation plan. Details of this mitigation plan are found in Section 4.8. Continued dialogue with the Meadowlands Interagency Mitigation Advisory Committee (MIMAC), which includes members of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), NJDEP, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the NJ Meadowlands Commission (NJMC), will continue, until a compensatory plan will be developed that would mitigate ARC-associated impacts and those impacts of additional NJ TRANSIT and other projects, such as the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project, located within the New Jersey Meadowlands. Ecology is further described in Section 4.8.

WATER RESOURCES The Build Alternative would involve direct encroachment on the Hackensack River in the New Jersey portion of the project area, due to the modification of two proposed outfalls and one new outfall, associated with the proposed Kearny Rail Yard. Encroachment would be relatively minor, however, because proposed major rail improvements would be restricted mainly to areas within or adjacent to existing rail rights-of-way. A tributary of Penhorn Creek would be encroached upon to accommodate additional NEC tracks south of the existing NEC right-of-way, and new tracks would be placed on either an embankment or a viaduct, depending on the distance from the new tracks to nearest land uses. With a viaduct, the Build Alternative would positively support the continued enhancement, due to increased controls and monitoring, of the quality of rivers and estuaries in the New Jersey portion of the project area. To mitigate for possible long-term impacts on water resources, the Build Alternative design would be sensitive to and supportive of the on-going and proposed remediation by others of the Koppers Coke Site in Kearny, relative to its future redevelopment as the proposed Kearny Rail Yard of the Build Alternative. Also considered would be the status of any remediation of the adjoining contaminated Diamond Shamrock and Standard Chlorine sites, which are not part of the proposed rail yard site. Relative to the Koppers Coke site, NJ TRANSIT would continue to work closely with the Hudson County Improvement Authority, Beazer East, and NJDEP to optimize remediation of this site, prior to its redevelopment as the proposed Kearny Rail Yard. This remediation would restrict the flow of contaminants from the site to the Hackensack River, and would contribute to the positive cumulative impact of the water quality of the river and its tributaries. Any redevelopment on the Koppers Coke site (new and modified outfalls with the Build Alternative and additional outfalls on the Koppers Coke site beyond proposed Kearny Rail Yard limits) would add stormwater flow to Penhorn Creek and the Hackensack River. The closure of the Koppers Coke site and proposed stormwater treatment measures would result in an improvement in water quality entering watercourses, particularly the Hackensack River and Penhorn Creek. Moreover, potential incorporation of Low Impact Development practices in the

4.18-13 Access to the Region’s Core FEIS proposed Kearny Rail Yard and other Build Alternative components would reduce project-specific stormwater runoff and overall related cumulative impacts. Water resources are further described in Section 4.9.

PARKLANDS The Build Alternative would create positive indirect and cumulative impacts to parklands. The Build Alternative would not preclude development of greenways and bike/pedestrianways as proposed by Hudson County along the Hackensack River and nearby abandoned rail lines. The proposed design would also enable access to Laurel Hill and other parklands near the NEC. Furthermore, Build Alternative increased train frequency and access would represent a more attractive means of reaching parklands and recreation areas in New Jersey and Manhattan, resulting in a potential positive indirect impact. Accrual of these benefits would also be related to available bus or shuttle-type access to and from rail stations, for individuals located beyond walking distance that do not own an automobile Since the proposed project would not result in any negative indirect or cumulative impacts to parklands, no mitigation will be required. Parklands are further described in Section 4.10.

SOILS AND GEOLOGY About 312,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated from the Build Alternative tunnels in New Jersey, and then would be removed and samples tested. Based on the results of the tests, the material would be disposed of or deposited appropriately, as part of an NJDEP-approved remediation strategy and for development of the proposed Kearny Rail Yard on a portion of the Koppers Coke site in Kearny, New Jersey or for proposed rail embankments in Secaucus. This productive re-use of excavated material would constitute a positive indirect impact of the Build Alternative. Soils and geology are further described in Section 4.11.

CONTAMINATED MATERIALS Build Alternative construction-related activity would cause negative long-term indirect impacts of movement of disturbed contaminants to adjoining properties and natural resources, such as the Hackensack River and other estuaries and wetland areas within the New Jersey Meadowlands. These Build Alternative impacts, when considered with similar expected disturbances to other known contaminated sites by proposed/planned projects, such as the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project, Allied Junction, the Secaucus Transit Village Redevelopment Plan, EnCap Golf Holdings, Meadowlands Rail and Meadowlands Xanadu Redevelopment project, would constitute negative cumulative impacts. Contaminated materials are further described in Section 4.12.

Negative indirect or cumulative impacts related to contaminated materials would be mitigated by restricting the movement of contaminants from one site to another nearby site or water body, through enactment of Construction Contaminant Management Plans that would include engineering (capping) and institutional controls (deed notices) to address construction-related disturbance to avoid long-term impacts. In addition, since NJ TRANSIT proposes to purchase the northern 31-acre portion of the Malanka Landfill, a closure plan for the property will be developed and implemented, which would provide additional mitigation of potential contaminant movement. Coordination with other developments in the NJ Meadowlands will also be based on collectively containing contamination on-site, or disposing of it off-site at an approved facility.

4.18-14 4.18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects equipment in the Palisades tunnels would cause negative indirect impacts of transporting diesel fuel through this restricted area. Negative indirect or cumulative safety and security impacts related to operation of dual-power locomotives will be mitigated by equipping the locomotives with storage tanks within which the fuel would be protected and any physical force would be absorbed. Safety and security is further described in Section 4.13.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Build Alternative would support New Jersey since it would continue to sustain and improve its economic vitality. In particular, the Build Alternative would support employment opportunities and job retention and existing and proposed businesses, especially in municipalities through which NJ TRANSIT rail service would traverse, within and beyond the project area. Therefore, the Build Alternative would contribute to positive indirect and cumulative economic impacts for the region, including employment opportunities, development potentials and associated tax ratables and personal and corporate income tax revenues. Economic impacts are further described in Section 4.14.

ENERGY The Build Alternative and its associated increased train service frequency, convenience of a one-seat ride to Manhattan, improved service reliability and reduced travel times would create a more attractive alternative to the auto as a means of reaching employment, community, institutional, educational and recreational facilities in New Jersey and Manhattan. These positive impacts would encourage continued diversion from auto trips to rail trips, which would contribute to reductions in fuel consumption and overall positive indirect energy impacts. These positive impacts, when considered in combination with other major NJ TRANSIT rail initiatives, such as the Northern Branch, Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex County Rail, West Trenton Rail Line, and Passaic-Bergen DMU, and the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project, and their positive potentials for auto diversion to rail trips, would represent a positive cumulative energy impact for the New Jersey portion of the region. No mitigation will be required, since the Build Alternative would only create positive indirect or cumulative impacts. Energy is further described in Section 4.15.

ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS No positive or negative indirect or cumulative impacts would result from the Build Alternative, and no mitigation is proposed or required as part of the project. Electric and magnetic fields are further described in Section 4.16.

UTILITIES The Build Alternative would require relocation of numerous utility lines throughout the New Jersey portion of the project area. Prior to this relocation, new utility lines would be installed and activated to avoid service disruptions. Many of the lines that would be relocated and replaced are located in older urban municipalities and have been in service for decades. Therefore, this relocation program would create positive indirect impacts to the quality and condition of utility lines within the project area. In addition, Amtrak proposes to upgrade NEC traction power substations along its line in New Jersey, beyond the ARC project area. Approximately 17 percent of this upgrade would be attributable to supporting proposed ARC operations. This substation upgrade would result in cumulative impacts to these existing facilities within the Amtrak power system.

NJDOT has committed funding to support Hudson County in moving the existing St. Paul’s pump station further west to avoid conflicts with future relocated freight tracks and the Secaucus Connection of the Build Alternative. NJ TRANSIT has been coordinating with Hudson County on this pump station issue and the relocation concept that will be lead by the County to: advance the relocation project into final design; secure required permits; acquire property interests; and construct a culvert extension and a new

4.18-15 Access to the Region’s Core FEIS relocated pump station. The relocation of the pump station is considered an indirect effect of the Build Alternative, but with no adverse long-term impacts.

The proposed project would not result in any negative indirect or cumulative impacts to utilities; therefore, no mitigation would be required. Utilities are further described in Section 4.17.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, HISTORIC RESOURCES AND SECTION 4(f) USE Any proposed improvements associated with increased rail service beyond the project area would be evaluated based on applicable federal, state or local environmental guidelines and procedures. Supporting these environmental analyses would be evaluations relative to any direct or indirect (contextual) effects to known or potential archaeological resources, National Register-eligible historic resources or parklands and recreational areas that would be caused by these improvements. This evaluation of those effects would be conducted consistent with Section 106 guidelines (see Chapters 6 and 7) for archaeological resources and historic resources, respectively. For both of these resource types and for parklands and recreational areas, the evaluation would also address whether use of these properties would fall under Section 4(f) regulations and property protection (see Appendix 8). For each resource, alternatives would be identified and analyzed to avoid the resource. If no prudent or feasible alternative to avoid the resource would be available, then measures to minimize harm to the affected resource would be identified and evaluated. Procedures for addressing effects to these resource types (archaeological and historic) are also contained in the Programmatic Agreement in this FEIS.

HUDSON RIVER No indirect and cumulative impacts would occur in this portion of the project area to the following environmental factors, and, therefore, no mitigation will be required: • Transportation • Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy • Demographics, Neighborhoods and Community Facilities • Environmental Justice • Noise and Vibration • Air Quality • Ecology • Contaminated Materials • Economic Impacts • Energy • Electric and Magnetic Fields • Utilities • Archaeological Resources • Historic Resources • Section 4(f) use

WATER RESOURCES Build Alternative tunnels construction by the boring method, rather than an immersed tube technique, would minimize river bottom and eliminate water column disturbance. This method would not cause negative long-term indirect impacts of river bottom disturbance and resultant contaminant propagation to water quality and aquatic species and habitat. Therefore, the Build Alternative would positively support the continued enhancement of the quality of the Hudson River. Water resources are further described in Section 4.9.

4.18-16 4.18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

PARKLANDS The Build Alternative would not create negative cumulative impacts to parklands. Therefore, no mitigation is required. However, increased train frequency and access that would result from implementation of the Build Alternative would represent a more attractive means of reaching parklands and recreation areas in the Hudson River, including the waterside portion of Hudson River Park, resulting in a potential positive indirect impact. Accrual of these benefits would also be related to available bus or shuttle-type access to and from rail stations, for individuals located beyond walking distance that do not own an automobile. Parklands are further described in Section 4.10.

SOILS AND GEOLOGY About 385,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated from the Build Alternative tunnels in the Hudson River, and then would be removed and samples tested. Based on the results of the tests, the material would be disposed of or deposited appropriately, as part of an NJDEP-approved remediation strategy and for development of the proposed Kearny Rail Yard on a portion of the Koppers Coke site in Kearny, New Jersey or for new track embankments in Secaucus. This productive re-use of excavated material would constitute a positive indirect impact of the Build Alternative. Potential negative indirect or cumulative impacts associated with the removal of excavated tunnels material would be mitigated through testing of materials prior to disposal, and disposal of contaminated materials at an approved dumpsite. Soils and geology are further described in Section 4.11.

NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION Public Transportation. Most of the user benefits resulting from the Build Alternative in New York would be destination- or attraction-based in Manhattan. However, Orange County and Rockland County in New York would also realize positive origin- or production-based impacts (user benefits), as shown on Figures 4.18-1 and 4.18-2 and in Tables 4.18-1 and 4.18-2. These indirect and cumulative accessibility benefits would be expected since the Build Alternative would improve rail capacity to Manhattan from Frank R. Lautenberg Station, where the Pascack Valley, Main/Bergen and Port Jervis lines serving these two counties meet.

Creation of additional train capacity between Frank R. Lautenberg Station and midtown Manhattan would contribute to enhanced accessibility from Orange and Rockland Counties. This positive impact is evident when analyzing reported “user benefits” from the NJ TRANSIT travel demand model (i.e., the difference between the No Build and Build Alternatives), which include travel time savings, out-of-pocket transportation costs, and service frequency changes. Since only positive indirect and cumulative impacts would be created for public transportation, no mitigation will be required. Public transportation is further described in Section 3.1.

Stations/Parking, Roadways and Pedestrians. Some passengers of NJ TRANSIT rail lines meeting at Frank R. Lautenberg Station would access rail stations nearest their residences in Orange and Rockland Counties via autos. Therefore, increased capacity for rail access to Manhattan would generate some additional local street traffic near NJ TRANSIT rail stations beyond the Build Alternative project area in

4.18-17 Access to the Region’s Core FEIS

New York (see Section 3.3), increase station area parking demand (see Section 3.2), increase pedestrian movements (see Section 3.4) and increase the number of grade crossing closures where train frequency increases would occur. These negative indirect transportation effects would be incremental, accruing over time as ridership in Orange and Rockland Counties would increase. Ridership forecasts and parking demand for the Build Alternative by line segment in Orange and Rockland Counties are provided in Section 3.2.

These effects would be addressed by NJ TRANSIT’s ongoing program of enhanced rail station access, which includes: incremental increases in station parking; parking expansion at intercept locations along major highways; development of new stations to distribute ridership; expansion/extension of existing rail services; community-based shuttle buses; bicycle and pedestrian access; and implementation of Transit- oriented Development in Orange and Rockland Counties. These positive initiatives are proactive measures to manage potential negative indirect impacts on local transportation networks stemming from changes in service frequencies and increased ridership. NJ TRANSIT’s process for identifying and evaluating the need for and location of these additional facilities is described in Section 3.2, and would include on-going cooperation with Metro-North Railroad, local and stakeholder outreach, as well as appropriate environmental reviews.

The Build Alternative would add pedestrians to certain sidewalks, street corners and subway station elements in Manhattan (see Section 3.4), related to the increased Build Alternative ridership on NJ TRANSIT trains to Manhattan and the additional entrances that would be created for NYPSE. Also added would be taxi and bus trips for Build Alternative passengers exiting the new station on Manhattan street segments. These additions, combined with similar additional trips related to projected development/infrastructure investments associated with the No. 7 Subway Line Extension and Hudson Yards Rezoning and other west Midtown projects and initiatives, including MTA’s Western Rail Yard and New York State’s Moynihan Station projects, (some of which are already included in the No Build Alternative), would result in long-term negative cumulative impacts to pedestrian (see Sections 3.4 and 3.6), public transportation (see Sections 3.1 and 3.6), and roadway vehicle movements (see Sections 3.3 and 3.6) in Manhattan.

In Manhattan, location and design of Build Alternative station entrances will be based on optimizing pedestrian flows on sidewalks and commuter rail station and subway station stairs. Coordination with city agencies and other stakeholders relative to these proposed pedestrian nodes and similar elements from other proposed projects on the west side of Manhattan would control and manage surface and subsurface circulation conditions (see Sections 3.4 and 3.6).

Indirect local traffic and parking effects resulting from increased service on lines beyond the project area in Orange and Rockland Counties would be addressed through continued planning and parking management. NJ TRANSIT administers a long-standing, successful system-wide parking program, and would coordinate and work with municipalities to help address these indirect effects, relative to rail service increases and development potentials, under separate initiatives.

Freight Movement. Increased train frequency with the Build Alternative, both in peak and non-peak hours in the project area, would have no indirect or cumulative impacts on rail freight movements, because no freight services would operate on NJ TRANSIT-owned rail lines in New York. Beyond the project area, increased train frequency would cause negative indirect and cumulative impacts on passenger and freight rail scheduling, particularly in off-peak periods when freight would move on NJ TRANSIT-owned lines. Build Alternative-related increases in service frequency and passenger activity throughout the day, especially at grade crossings and stations, would also cause greater potential for conflicts between passenger vehicles, pedestrians and freight rail movements in Orange and Rockland Counties. Freight movement is further described in Section 3.5.

4.18-18 4.18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Potential conflicts with future freight movement and schedules will be addressed through agreements between NJ TRANSIT and freight operators. Negative impacts with regard to increased potential conflicts between roadway and rail traffic at grade crossings will be mitigated with the installation of state-of-the-art crossing warning systems for vehicles and pedestrians, and the implementation of established NJ TRANSIT programs to educate the public about proper behavior with respect to at-grade crossings, and railroad operations in general.

LAND USE, ZONING AND PUBLIC POLICY The Build Alternative would be consistent with and support the intent of the Hudson Yards rezoning initiative and other development initiatives, such as MTA’s Western Rail Yard and New York State’s Moynihan Station projects (i.e., to revitalize the underdeveloped West Side of midtown Manhattan and strengthen Manhattan’s role as the region’s economic core). Such support would constitute a positive indirect impact. Coordination with New York City development agencies will continue through ARC design and construction phases.

The Hudson Yards FGEIS predated the ARC environmental assessment process, and did not specifically include the Build Alternative in its direct, indirect, or cumulative analyses, indicative of the already attractive draw of Manhattan for employment and other activities. Therefore, indirect or cumulative land use impacts in New York, associated with the Build Alternative, would be insignificant, and no mitigation is required.

The Build Alternative would result in significant rail capacity increases, increased reliability and redundancy, and overall accessibility benefits from Orange and Rockland Counties to Manhattan. While implementation of such positive rail transportation improvements could contribute to commercial real estate investment decisions and/or housing choices, this factor alone would not influence economic development or residential settlement. Improved Build Alternative train service frequencies would support general population growth in this already attractive area. It is conceivable that increased rail accessibility could contribute to increased land values for nearby properties and associated building costs. It would be the responsibility of the affected communities to recognize this situation, and plan for future land use, consistent with the demographics of the municipality. Certain sub-segments of households and types of businesses would seek to be located near transit nodes or multi-modal transportation systems. In this regard, NJ TRANSIT has met with each municipality within the project area to discuss the Build Alternative, and periodically coordinates with municipalities throughout its system, including those in Orange and Rockland Counties, with regard to train scheduling and commuter parking requirements, particularly with respect to any proposed origins or destinations of rail trips in the respective municipalities.

Municipalities within the project area, and beyond it in Orange and Rockland Counties, that would directly benefit from improved rail services (e.g., a community with a rail station or access to a rail station) would review their comprehensive plans (i.e., land use, housing, circulation), zoning, and parking with NJ TRANSIT and Metro-North Railroad, as part of the ongoing dialogue that the two agencies conduct with municipalities through which their service operates. This coordination would support the municipalities in managing, preparing for and responding to growth potential and new development or redevelopment. NJ TRANSIT, in coordination with Metro-North Railroad, would assist these municipalities to incorporate increased rail service, parking and station access for rail passengers in their growth and development plans (see Sections 4.2 and 5.2).

DEMOGRAPHICS, NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Build Alternative would improve access to midtown Manhattan; however, social patterns and community character changes likely to occur on the Far West Side of midtown Manhattan, such as improved safety, enhanced community facilities, increased property values, job creation and overall

4.18-19 Access to the Region’s Core FEIS increased neighborhood ambience, would be directly attributable to activities encouraged by the Hudson Yards Rezoning, Javits Convention Center Expansion, No. 7 Subway Line infrastructure investments and West Chelsea rezoning. Further changes in the community would be attributable to new development initiatives, such as MTA’s Western Rail Yard and New York State’s Moynihan Station (East) projects. The extent of these rezoning activities is listed in Section 4.2. While the Build Alternative would help to accommodate growth and change in Manhattan, particularly in Midtown, its contribution to indirect socioeconomic impacts in the New York portion of the project area would be minimal, relative to these other initiatives forecasted for Manhattan’s West Side.

Positive indirect Build Alternative impacts on social conditions would relate to enhanced accessibility for residents and workers within and beyond the project area, including Orange and Rockland Counties. By improving train service throughout the day, the Build Alternative would improve access to and support employment opportunities and job retention, as well as usage of community, institutional, educational and recreational facilities in Orange and Rockland Counties and Manhattan. It is conceivable that increased rail accessibility could contribute to increased land values for nearby properties and associated building costs. It would be the responsibility of the affected communities to recognize this situation, and plan for future land use, consistent with the demographics of the municipality. Since only positive indirect and cumulative impacts would be created for residents and workers, no mitigation will be required. Demographics, neighborhoods, and community facilities are further described in Section 4.3.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Positive indirect Build Alternative impacts on low-income and minority populations would relate to enhanced accessibility for residents and workers within and beyond the project area, including Orange and Rockland Counties. By improving train service throughout the day, the Build Alternative would provide more travel options for low-auto-ownership households. Additional train service would also improve access to and support low-income and minority population employment opportunities and job retention, as well as usage of community, institutional, educational and recreational facilities in Orange and Rockland Counties and Manhattan. Accrual of these benefits would also be related to available bus or shuttle-type access to and from rail stations, for individuals located beyond walking distance that do not own an automobile. Since only positive indirect impacts would be created for low-income and minority populations as a result of enhanced accessibility, no mitigation will be required. Environmental Justice is further described in Section 4.4.

VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CONDITIONS Negative indirect and cumulative impacts would be created with the increased service frequency and the physical presence of increased trains, additional parking and station access activity (pedestrian, shuttle bus) associated with the Build Alternative. These negative impacts would occur within and beyond the project area, including Orange and Rockland Counties. Increased activity within these established rail corridors would positively reinforce their role and importance in shaping and influencing local land use patterns. This increased activity would also create a positive impetus for continued investment in and maintenance of rail-related facilities for the benefit of users of the increased service and adjacent land owners in Orange and Rockland Counties. Negative indirect impacts and cumulative impacts as a result of increased service frequency and associated infrastructure and equipment beyond the project area will be mitigated with context-sensitive design of rail-related buildings and infrastructure consistent with their surroundings, relative to scale, building materials, color and site placement. Visual and aesthetic conditions are further described in Section 4.5.

4.18-20 4.18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects alternative to the auto as a means of reaching employment, community, institutional, educational and recreational facilities in Orange and Rockland Counties and Manhattan. These positive impacts would encourage continued diversion from auto trips to rail trips, which would contribute to reductions in emission burdens and overall positive indirect air quality impacts. These positive impacts, when considered in combination with other major NJ TRANSIT rail initiatives, such as the Northern Branch, Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex County Rail, West Trenton Rail Line, and Passaic-Bergen DMU and the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project, and their positive potentials for auto diversion to rail trips, would represent a positive cumulative air quality impact for the New York portion of the region. Since only positive indirect impacts would be created for air quality as a result of the Build Alternative, no mitigation will be required. Air quality is further described in Section 4.6.

NOISE AND VIBRATION The Build Alternative would result in negative indirect impacts to nearest sensitive receptors, associated with increased train service frequency and increased station-related activity in Orange and Rockland Counties. These impacts would increase as ridership would increase to take advantage of this enhanced rail service. Negative indirect noise and vibration impacts to adjacent sensitive receptors beyond the project area in Orange and Rockland Counties can be mitigated through coordination with affected property owners regarding acceptable measures, such as barriers, insulation, double-glazed windows, or air conditioning, or through track bed improvements. These measures would be evaluated for feasibility on a case-by-case basis. Noise and vibration are further described in Section 4.7.

ECOLOGY No indirect or cumulative ecologic impacts would occur in Manhattan since these resources exist in very minor amounts. However, it is conceivable that some of the additional station, parking, and roadway access that would be associated with increased service frequency on NJ TRANSIT rail lines beyond the project area, would negatively impact ecological resources in Orange and Rockland Counties. This impact would also be negative from an indirect and cumulative standpoint. Permanent impacts to wetlands will be mitigated through the completion of compensatory wetland mitigation, which may include the purchase of credits from an agency-approved wetland mitigation bank; a negotiated monetary contribution; the completion of wetland mitigation in the form of creation, restoration, enhancement, or preservation; or a combination thereof. Continued dialogue with the USACE, NYSDEC, USFWS, and other regulatory agencies will be based on avoiding or minimizing cumulative impacts of the Build Alternative and other development projects (see Sections 4.8 and 5.8).

WATER RESOURCES The Build Alternative would not involve direct encroachment on any rivers or estuaries in the New York portion of the project area. Therefore, the Build Alternative would positively support the continued enhancement of the quality of rivers and estuaries in the New York portion of the project area, due to increased controls and monitoring. Since no negative indirect or cumulative impacts to water resources would occur, no mitigation will be required. Water resources are further described in Section 4.9.

PARKLANDS The Build Alternative would not create long-term positive or negative indirect or cumulative impacts to Hudson River Park. Increased train frequency and access that would result from implementation of the Build Alternative would represent a more attractive means of reaching parklands and recreation areas in Orange and Rockland Counties and Manhattan, resulting in a potential positive indirect impact. Accrual of these benefits would also be related to available bus or shuttle-type access to and from rail stations, for individuals located beyond walking distance that do not own an automobile. Since no negative indirect or cumulative impacts to parklands would occur, no mitigation will be required. Parklands are further described in Section 4.10.

4.18-21 Access to the Region’s Core FEIS

SOILS AND GEOLOGY About 1.3 million cubic yards of material would be excavated from the Build Alternative tunnels in Manhattan, and then removed and samples tested. Based on the results of the tests, the material would be disposed of or deposited appropriately, as part of an NJDEP-approved remediation strategy and for development of the proposed Kearny Rail Yard on a portion of the Koppers Coke site in Kearny, New Jersey of for new track embankments in Secaucus. This productive re-use of excavated material would constitute a positive indirect impact of the Build Alternative. Potential negative indirect or cumulative impacts associated with the removal of excavated tunnels material would be mitigated through testing of materials prior to disposal, and disposal of contaminated materials at an approved dumpsite. Soils and geology are further described in Section 4.11.

CONTAMINATED MATERIALS Construction-related activity would cause negative indirect impacts of movement of disturbed contaminants to adjoining properties. These long-term Build Alternative impacts, when considered with similar expected disturbances to other known contaminated sites with proposed/planned projects, on Manhattan’s West Side or in Orange and Rockland Counties, would constitute negative cumulative impacts. Potential negative indirect or cumulative impacts related to contaminated materials will be mitigated by restricting the movement of contaminants from one site to another nearby site, and through enactment of Construction Contaminant Management Plans that would include engineering (capping) and institutional controls (deed notices) to address construction-related disturbance to avoid long-term impacts. Mitigation will be coordinated with NYSDEC and county and local agencies to collectively contain contamination on-site, or dispose of it off-site. Contaminated materials are further described in Section 4.12.

SAFETY AND SECURITY Improvements outlined in the Build Alternative Safety and Security Management Plan (SSMP) and other related programs, when viewed collectively with safety and security measures developed as part of Homeland Security Initiatives, would create a positive cumulative impact to safety and security in the New York portion of the region, and specifically along the NEC. Potential negative indirect or cumulative impacts related to safety and security concerns related to operation of dual-power locomotives will be mitigated by equipping the locomotives with storage tanks within which the fuel would be protected and any physical forces would be absorbed. Safety and security is further described in Section 4.13.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Build Alternative would support Manhattan and Orange and Rockland Counties, as they would continue to sustain and improve their economic vitality. In particular, the Build Alternative would support employment opportunities and job retention and existing and proposed businesses, especially in Manhattan and in municipalities in Orange and Rockland Counties through which NJ TRANSIT rail service would traverse, within and beyond the project area. Therefore, the Build Alternative would contribute to positive indirect and cumulative economic impacts for the region. Since the Build Alternative would not create any negative indirect or cumulative economic impacts, no mitigation will be required. Economic impacts are further described in Section 4.14.

4.18-22 4.18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects consumption and overall positive indirect energy effects. These positive impacts, when considered in combination with other major NJ TRANSIT rail initiatives, such as the Northern Branch, Monmouth- Ocean-Middlesex County Rail, West Trenton Rail Line, and Passaic-Bergen DMU, and the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project, and similar type initiatives sponsored by Metro-North Railroad, Long Island Rail Road, or other operators in Manhattan and Orange and Rockland Counties, would represent a positive cumulative energy impact for the New York portion of the region. Since the Build Alternative would only create positive indirect or cumulative energy impacts, no mitigation will be required. Energy is further described in Section 4.15.

ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS No positive or negative indirect or cumulative impacts would result from the Build Alternative and no mitigation is required. Electric and magnetic fields are further described in Section 4.16.

UTILITIES The Build Alternative would require relocation of numerous utility lines in Manhattan. Prior to this relocation, new utility lines would be installed and activated to avoid service disruptions. Many of the lines that would be relocated and replaced have been in service in Manhattan for decades. Therefore, this relocation program would create positive indirect impacts to the quality and condition of utility lines and service within the project area. In addition, Amtrak proposes to upgrade NEC traction power substations along its line in New York, beyond the ARC project area. Approximately 17 percent of this upgrade would be attributable to supporting proposed ARC operations. This substation upgrade would result in cumulative impacts to these existing facilities within the Amtrak power system.

Since the Build Alternative would not create any negative indirect or cumulative impacts to utilities, no mitigation will be required. Utilities are further described in Section 4.17.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, HISTORIC RESOURCES AND SECTION 4(f) USE Any proposed improvements associated with increased rail service beyond the project area would be evaluated based on applicable federal, state or local environmental guidelines and procedures. Supporting these environmental analyses would be evaluations relative to any direct or indirect (contextual) effects to known or potential archaeological resources, National Register-eligible historic resources or parklands and recreational areas that would be caused by these improvements. This evaluation of these effects would be conducted consistent with Section 106 guidelines (see Chapters 6 and 7) for archaeological resources and historic resources, respectively. For both of these resource types and for parklands and recreational areas, the evaluation would also address whether use of these properties would fall under Section 4(f) regulations and property protection (see Appendix 8). For each resource, alternatives would be identified and analyzed to avoid the resource. If no prudent or feasible alternative to avoid the resource would be available, then measures to minimize harm to the affected resource would be identified and evaluated. Procedures for addressing effects to these resource types (archaeological and historic) are also contained in the Programmatic Agreement in this FEIS.

4.18-23