FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 1 of 21

NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET

This worksheet provides directions for sponsoring agencies for providing the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) with the initial evaluation and information needed to make a determination as to

whether design changes or refinements should move forward into a more detailed environmental 

evaluation process, or whether new information or changed circumstances require a more detailed 

environmental evaluation as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Upon submission of this examination worksheet and supporting documentation to the FRA, the FRA can 

then make an initial determination as to whether to approve the revision request as consistent with current 

documentation, continue with further environmental examination of the proposed design change or 

refinement, or to modify or forego the proposed change. If you have any questions regarding the 

completion of this worksheet, you should contact designated FRA environmental staff to discuss your 

project change.

DIRECTIONS

Please answer the following questions, fill out the checklists and impact table, and attach maps showing 

the previously approved design and the proposed design and the impact on project footprint and parcel 

acquisitions as defined in the previously approved environmental document.

PROJECT TITLE:

Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

LIST CURRENT APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS (e.g., EIS/ROD, EA/FONSI, REEXAMINATION, SUPPLEMENTAL EIS, etc.). If Re-examination, briefly describe.

Title: FEIS Date: Oct 2008 Type and Date of Last Federal Action: Record of Decision (Dec. 23, 2008 -

See Attachment A for ROD. FRA is in possession of the October 2008 FEIS.

Title: NEPA Re-Evaluation Date: May 2010 (See Attachment B) Type and Date of Last 

Federal Action: Affirmed Existing ROD (FRA Approval Letter dated Mar 30, 2011 – See Attachment C)

Title: NEPA Re-Evaluation Date: Jan 2011 (See Attachment B) Type and Date of Last Federal

Action: Affirmed Existing ROD (FRA Approval Letter dated Mar 30, 2011 – See Attachment C)

IS THE PROJECT CURRENTLY IN? PRELIMINARY DESIGN FINAL DESIGN

 CONSTRUCTION DESIGN/BUILD

REASON FOR EVALUATION

The ROD and its re-evaluations are more than 5 years old due to delay in construction funding. Since the 

ROD, the design has progressed, and two re-evaluations of the environmental impacts of the design 

changes were documented in the 2010 and 2011 NEPA re-evaluations (see Attachment B). This reexamination covers all design changes post-ROD, including those addressed in the prior NEPA reevaluations. It should be noted that the 2010 and 2010 re-evaluations were full NEPA re-evaluations that 

comprehensively examined all substantial design changes. This NEPA re-examination references the prior 
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 2 of 21

NEPA re-evaluations, where applicable. It also assesses new circumstances and environmental conditions 

to document any changes since the 2008 ROD. This NEPA re-examination is being submitted at this time 

due to FRA’s Pre-Award Authority (see Attachment D) and the forthcoming construction contract award.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN REFINEMENT, NEW CIRCUMSTANCES, OR NEW 

INFORMATION RELEVANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (40 CFR 1502.9) -

The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) in cooperation with the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has proposed the Portal 

Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project to enhance the capacity and improve rail operations across the 

Hackensack River. The existing Portal Bridge is a two-track moveable swing-span bridge between the 

Town of Kearny and the Town of Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey. It was constructed by the 

Pennsylvania Railroad in 1907 and began revenue operations in 1910. The existing Portal Bridge poses 

reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational inflexibility. The swing span and the miter rail 

configuration pose maintenance difficulties and the bridge’s low vertical clearance results in severe 

conflicts with maritime uses.

The goals of the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project are: to enhance the capacity and improve 

the operation of the Portal Bridge rail crossing of the Hackensack River; to improve service reliability; to 

enhance passenger safety and security; to minimize conflicts with maritime traffic; and to optimize 

existing infrastructure and planned improvements, while minimizing impacts on the surrounding 

environment. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and NJ TRANSIT prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 

Section 4(f) Evaluation in October 2008 to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 

project. FRA was the lead federal agency for the EIS. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) were cooperating 

agencies for the environmental review. A Record of Decision (ROD) was published by FRA in 

December 2008. 

The ROD selected a Preferred Alternative which would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a twotrack moveable southern bridge built on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for a grade 

separated crossing. In the ROD, the FRA also adopted commitments to minimize and/or mitigate harm 

from the selected alternative to parklands and open space, historic resources, ecology, coastal zone 

management and to minimize hazardous materials and construction impacts. Since that time, NJ 

TRANSIT and Amtrak have completed preliminary and final engineering and secured multiple 

environmental permits. As the design process evolved, several aspects of the design were modified and 

improved. These design changes were analyzed for environmental implications through two NEPA reevaluations, in 2010 and 2011 (see Attachment B). The re-evaluation (validated and reaffirmed by FRA 

on March 30, 2011, as shown in Attachment C) concluded that the revised design for the Preferred 

Alternative would not result in any new significant adverse environmental effects. The revised design 

would neither exacerbate any adverse effects disclosed in the FEIS nor increase the need for mitigation 

measures discussed in the ROD. In fact, the proposed design changes would reduce some potential 

impacts in key environmental areas such as wetlands and contaminated materials. 

The table below presents a summary of the design milestones and the NEPA chronology.
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 3 of 21

NEPA 

Document

Date Design Level Notes

Final EIS October 2008 Conceptual 

engineering (10%)

• 3-track fixed north bridge

• 2-track moveable south bridge

• Approach structures primarily 

embankment fill

• Acquisition of active business

• FRA issued Record of Decision (Dec 

2008)

NEPA ReevaluationMay 2010 Preliminary 

engineering complete 

(30%)

• South bridge modified to fixed bridge 

and network tied arch design

• Approach structures for north and 

south bridges were changed from 

primarily embankment fill to entirely 

elevated structure, reducing property 

impacts

• Other design refinements to replace 

embankment with retaining wall 

and/or elevated structure and reduce 

property impacts (Landfill 1A and 

PES)

• FRA approved re-evaluation (Mar 

2011)

NEPA ReevaluationJanuary 2011 Preliminary 

engineering complete 

(30%) and begin Final 

Engineering (North 

Bridge only)

• North bridge modified from 3-track to 

2-track fixed bridge

• Phased construction, with north 

bridge constructed first

• Documented advancements in 

permitting and agency coordination

• Other design refinements to reduce 

contaminated materials impacts

• FRA approved re-evaluation (Mar 

2011)

NEPA ReexaminationAugust 2016 North bridge – final 

engineering complete 

June 2013 (100%, 

referred to herein as 

the “final design”)

South bridge – remains 

at preliminary 

engineering complete 

(30%)

• Design advancements—all heavy civil 

infrastructure elements; all railroad 

systems elements; constructability and 

impact reductions; included state-ofthe-art safety, security, and 

technological advancements 

• Coordinated with all railroad and 

local police, along with host 

community fire and EMS services

• Advanced permitting to completion 

with USACE, USCG, NJDEP, and 

others
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 4 of 21

Conclusion

On May 5, 2016, FRA issued Pre-Award Authority, retroactively from April 1, 2016 (see Attachment D) 

for commencement of work activities related to the TIGER T2015 grant for the acceleration of the 

construction contract award; specifically, this work has enabled NJ TRANSIT to complete the Bid Phase 

of Construction Contract, GC.01 and advance to the contract award phase. This is the first of several 

future contracts for the eventual construction and completion of the new northern bridge alignment. While 

the design of the northern bridge alignment has not changed since the last NEPA re-evaluation, more than 

five years has passed since FRA’s March 30, 2011 validation and reaffirmation. Therefore, this NEPA reexamination is being submitted at this time to reaffirm the validity of the ROD and to facilitate the 

extension of the US Coast Guard Section 9 Bridge permit required to commence GC.01 construction. As 

demonstrated in this NEPA re-examination and its attachments, the final design for the Preferred 

Alternative (as compared to the 2008 FEIS) would not result in any new significant adverse 

environmental effects. The final design would neither exacerbate any adverse effects disclosed in the 

FEIS nor increase the need for mitigation measures discussed in the FEIS and ROD. This re-examination 

also discusses any relevant changes in circumstances and environmental conditions since the 2008 ROD.

As explained in the sections below, the project team did not identify any new circumstances or 

environmental conditions that would change the conclusions of the FEIS or ROD. The sections below 

note several additional environmental investigations that have been performed since the 2008 ROD (e.g., 

archaeological Phase IB testing, contaminated materials Phase II testing), as well as new background 

conditions that were identified as part of this NEPA re-examination process (e.g. new background air 

quality attainment designations). 

HAVE ANY NEW OR REVISED LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR JURISDICTIONS AFFECTING THIS 

PROJECT BEEN ISSUED SINCE APPROVAL OF THE LAST ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT? If yes, 

please explain.

NO 

YES 

As described below, several permits and approvals have been issued for the Portal Bridge Capacity 

Enhancement Project, including those from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), among others. These permits and approvals 

address the revised laws and regulations that are applicable to the project, including: USACE Section 

10/404 Permit; USACE Nationwide General Permit No.12; USCG Section 9 Bridge Permit; NJDEP 

Waterfront Development Permit and Water Quality Certificate; and other federal, state, and local 

approvals. See Attachments E and F for more detail regarding the applicable permits. 

WILL THE DESIGN REFINEMENT, NEW CIRCUMSTANCES OR NEW INFORMATION HAVE THE

POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A CHANGE IN THE DETERMINATION OF IMPACTS FROM WHAT WAS 

DESCRIBED IN THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR ANY OF THE AREAS 

LISTED BELOW? For each impact category, please indicate whether there will be a change in impacts. 

Please continue to the impact table at the end of this worksheet and for topical areas checked “No” please 

provide a written explanation of how the conclusion was reached and for topical areas checked “Yes” 

please provide detailed descriptions of the impacts as initially disclosed, new impacts and a discussion of 

the changes. Topic areas checked “Not Applicable” or “N/A” do not need additional explanation.

Transportation Yes No N/A

Land Use and Economics Yes No N/A
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 5 of 21

Acquisitions, Displacements, and Relocations Yes No N/A

Socioeconomics and Communities Yes No N/A

Environmental Justice Yes No N/A

Visual Resources and Aesthetics Yes No N/A

Air Quality Yes No N/A

Noise and Vibration Yes No N/A

Ecosystems (Vegetation and Wildlife) Yes No N/A

Water Resources Yes No N/A

Energy and Natural Resources Yes No N/A

Geology and Soils Yes No N/A

Hazardous Materials and Wastes Yes No N/A

Public Services Yes No N/A

Utilities Yes No N/A

Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resources Yes No N/A

Tribal Lands or Interests Yes No N/A

Parklands and Recreation Yes No N/A

Construction Yes No N/A

Indirect and Cumulative Yes No N/A

Does this change result in the acquisition of properties not identified in the EA/EIS?

Yes No

If yes, explain the change:

Will the design refinement, new information or new circumstances result in revised documentation 

or determination for permits or other approvals under the following federal regulations?

Endangered Species Act Yes No

Magnuson-Stevens Act Yes No

Farmland Preservation Act Yes No
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 6 of 21

Section 404, Clean Water Act Yes No

Section 401, Clean Water Act Yes No

Section 408, Rivers & Harbors Act Yes No

Floodplain Management Act Yes No

Hazardous Materials Yes No

Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act Yes No

Uniform Relocation Act Yes No

Section 4(f) Resources Yes No

Section 6(f) Lands Yes No

Wild & Scenic Rivers Yes No

Coastal Barriers Yes No

Coastal Zone Yes No

Sole Source Aquifer Yes No

National Scenic Byways Yes No

Other: Yes No

If you checked “Yes” to any of these, describe how the changes impact compliance and any actions 

needed to ensure compliance of the project with these updates: 

Will these changes in project, circumstances, or other information likely result in any of the 

following:

Public Controversy Yes No

Public Outreach Yes No

Agency Coordination Yes No

Tribal Coordination Yes No

Are there any schedule implications associated with these changes?

Yes No

If yes, explain:

Construction Phase was delayed due to funding constraints.

Will any of these questions result in the need to do further coordination with agencies? Briefly 

Explain:

Yes, monthly reporting intervals to the FRA during the Grant period and coordination with all permitting 

agencies in accordance with approved permits.

Please state other considerations not included in the form:

All relevant permits mentioned above (NJDEP, US Army Corps) have been extended. US Coast Guard 

Section 9 Bridge Permit No. 4-13-1 is in process for an extension.
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 7 of 21

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

• Attachment A - FRA’s Original ROD dated December 23, 2008;

• Attachment B - NJ TRANSIT’s Cover Letters dated May 20, 2010 and January 2011 

requesting a Re-evaluation of the Original ROD dated December 2008 and the 

corresponding re-evaluation documents referenced in the cover letters;

• Attachment C - The FRA’s reaffirmation validity letter dated March 30, 2011 signed by 

David Valenstein;

• Attachment D - Pre-Award Authority e-mail from FRA dated Thursday, May 5, 2016;

• Attachment E – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. NAN-200901222-M1 under 

Section 10/404 Permit Extension, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. NAN-2016-

00890-WCA under Nationwide General Permit Number 12; 

• Attachment F – New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Permit Number 

0900-09-0005.2 WFD150001, Waterfront Development Permit & Water Quality 

Certificate;

• Attachment G - New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office, Continuing Consultation 

Comments (dated January 23, 2013).

FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 9 of 21

IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of HowConclusion was Reached

Example—Water Resources Initial design included 0.60 

acres of new impervious 

surface for the parking lot.

Modified design changes the 

striping pattern and results in 

0.75 acres of new impervious 

surface. 

YES - The new design results 

in 0.15 more impervious 

surface than initially planned.

The change in impervious 

surface was calculated by 

comparing the revised PE 

drawings, dated 10/18/2013, 

with the PE drawings, dated 

5/7/2013, submitted with the 

EA.

Example— Acquisitions, 

Displacements, and 

Relocations

Initial design included 12 

property acquisitions (9

acres) - 5 full property 

acquisitions and 7 partial 

acquisitions. No residential 

or commercial displacements 

are required.

NO There is no change in 

property acquisitions as 

determined through a 

comparison of the initial 

design, dated 11/1/2013, and 

modified design plans, dated 

1/15/2014. Design changes 

impacted a limited area

within existing ROW.

Transportation The FEIS and ROD identified 

rail and maritime 

transportation benefits from 

the project, due to the 

replacement of the existing 

moveable bridge, which is 

more than a century old. The 

FEIS and ROD described a 

three-track fixed Northern 

Bridge and a two-track 

moveable Southern Bridge 

(for a total of five tracks).

Yes-as shown in the table 

above, the Northern Bridge 

was changed to a two-track 

fixed bridge and the Southern 

Bridge was changed from a 

moveable bridge to a fixed 

bridge during preliminary

design. The 2010 and 2011 

NEPA Re-evaluations 

documented that no new 

impacts would occur from 

these design changes. See 

Attachment B for more 

information on effects 

resulting from the design 

The higher-level fixed 

Southern Bridge would 

require Amtrak and NJ 

TRANSIT trains to travel on a 

steeper grade. The design 

change would benefit marine 

traffic, as it would entirely 

eliminate the need for bridge 

openings.

NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak 

conducted rail operations 

simulation modeling 

throughout the design process, 

most recently at the 

conclusion of the final design. 

This modeling confirmed no 

adverse impacts to 

transportation would result 

from the design changes.
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 10 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of HowConclusion was Reached

change. No additional impacts 

to transportation would result 

from the final design.

Land Use and Economics The FEIS and ROD 

determined the project would 

not result in adverse impacts 

to land use, zoning, public 

policy, or socioeconomic 

conditions. 

The surrounding land uses, 

public policies, master plans, 

and demographics have not 

changed substantially since 

the FEIS and ROD. 

No changes to land use, 

zoning, public policy, or 

socioeconomic conditions 

would result from the final 

design.

Recent site visits, meetings 

with relevant agencies (e.g., 

NJMC/NJSEA), and review 

of demographic information 

were used to confirm that 

conditions in the study area 

remain largely unchanged.

Acquisitions, Displacements, 

and Relocations

The FEIS and ROD noted that 

multiple properties may be 

fully or partially acquired for 

the construction of the 

replacement bridges to allow 

for the expansion of the ROW 

and the construction of 

embankments. Impacts as 

identified in the FEIS 

included full and partial 

takings, including the full 

taking Diamond Shamrock 

property.

Yes – As analyzed in the 2010 

and 2011 NEPA Reevaluations, the preliminary 

design allows for certain 

buildings and businesses to 

remain by the use of retaining 

walls instead of the proposed 

embankment in these areas. It 

also eliminated the possible 

need for the full taking of the 

Diamond Shamrock property.

The preliminary design 

modified the entire alignment 

across Diamond Shamrock to 

be on elevated structure.

Therefore, an aerial bridge 

easement will be used instead 

of full property taking. The 

final design would not result 

in any additional changes to 

property acquisition beyond 

what was analyzed in the 

The final design would not 

result in any additional 

changes to property 

acquisition beyond what was 

analyzed in the previous 

NEPA re-evaluations.

In certain locations, the 

change from embankment fill 

to retained fill (i.e., retaining 

walls) reduced the property 

impacts. During final design, 

the acreages of each proposed 

taking was calculated by 

survey generating the 

individual property parcel 

maps (IPMs) and metes and 

bounds descriptions.
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 11 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of HowConclusion was Reached

previous NEPA reevaluations. 

Socioeconomics and 

Communities 

The FEIS and ROD

concluded that the project 

would not result in any 

adverse impacts to 

socioeconomics or 

community character.

No new impacts. No. Through site visits and a 

review of demographic 

information, NJ TRANSIT 

and Amtrak confirmed that 

the socioeconomic conditions 

and community character 

remain essentially unchanged 

since the FEIS and ROD. The 

study area predominantly 

comprises industrial uses, 

warehouses, Brownfields 

properties, wetlands, and 

transportation rights-of-way. 

No new residential areas have 

been established since the 

FEIS and ROD. 

Environmental Justice The FEIS and ROD

determined that the project 

would not result in 

disproportionately high 

impacts to minority or lowincome communities.

No new impacts No. NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak 

performed site visits 

throughout preliminary and 

final design to confirm that no 

new residential areas have 

been established since the 

FEIS and ROD. The design 

changes would not result in 

any new impacts to lowincome or minority 

communities.

Visual Resources and 

Aesthetics

The FEIS and ROD stated that 

the project would not 

Yes - The prior NEPA reevaluations analyzed the The conceptual design 

presented in the FEIS and 

Renderings of the twin 

bridges were produced to 
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 12 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of HowConclusion was Reached

substantially affect the visual 

character of the study area nor 

block important views to and 

from visual resources.

visual and aesthetic 

consequences from 

preliminary design, which 

changed the Southern Bridge 

from a low-level lift bridge to 

a higher-level fixed structure 

(network tied arch). No 

additional visual or aesthetic 

changes would result from the 

final design, and no 

meaningful changes to the 

visual landscape in the study 

area were identified.

ROD included two different 

bridge types at different 

heights. As analyzed in the 

2010 and 2011 NEPA reevaluations, the preliminary 

design was modified to

include twin bridges, which 

will provide more visual 

congruity in the Hackensack 

River View Corridor. The 

revised design for the 

Southern Bridge would not 

alter the conclusions of the 

FEIS and ROD.

assist in the visual assessment. 

Field surveys were used to 

confirm that no meaningful 

changes to the visual 

landscape in the study area 

have occurred since the FEIS 

and ROD. Additionally, NJ 

TRANSIT and Amtrak have 

continued to coordinate with 

NJSHPO throughout 

preliminary and final design 

to ensure no adverse visual 

impacts.

Air Quality The FEIS included an 

estimate of pollutant 

emissions based on capital 

construction costs and similar 

transportation projects within 

the region. It was determined 

that the estimated annual 

emission rates of each 

pollutant would be well below 

the conformity thresholds. 

Since the project would not 

exceed the de minimis

thresholds for any criteria 

pollutant either during 

construction or operation, it 

would therefore satisfy 

General Conformity 

requirements. The project 

No new impacts. The revised design would not 

result in any changes to 

emissions.

The air quality analysis 

(including construction costs, 

estimated pollutant emissions, 

and projected ridership 

changes) performed for the 

FEIS was reviewed to ensure 

applicability with the final 

design. Background air 

quality conditions were also 

reviewed during final design 

to assess changes, and again 

during this NEPA reexamination process. Since 

the FEIS, Hudson County’s 

attainment status for PM2.5 

has changed from nonattainment to maintenance. 

This does not affect the 
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 13 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of HowConclusion was Reached

would not increase the 

number of peak hour trains or 

measurably reduce vehicle 

miles traveled in the region. 

The FEIS therefore concluded 

the project would not result in 

a measurable effect on air 

quality.

conclusions of the FEIS and 

ROD.

Noise and Vibration Portions of the Laurel Hill 

Park expansion parcel near 

the NEC would be subject to 

moderate and severe noise 

impacts under all alternatives, 

including the No Action 

Alternative.

Yes - The preliminary design 

entailed the use of structure 

requiring driving piles at 

specific pier locations in lieu 

of embankment fill with 

surcharging. As documented 

in the prior NEPA reevaluations, this design 

change may result in greater 

short-term noise levels in the 

vicinity of the Janatex and 

Diamond Shamrock

properties. However, there are 

no sensitive receptors in the 

vicinity of this construction 

and ambient noise levels are 

already elevated in the area

due to the presence of the 

NEC and NJ TRANSIT and 

Amtrak operations. 

The final design would not 

result in any additional 

changes in noise or vibration 

impacts.

NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak 

performed field surveys 

throughout preliminary and 

final design, as well as during 

this NEPA re-examination 

process. No new sensitive 

receptors (schools, residents, 

etc.) were identified. The 

major noise sources identified 

in the original FEIS (rail and 

highway noise) are still 

dominant sources of 

background noise. 

Ecosystems (Vegetation and 

Wildlife)

In the FEIS and ROD, the 

preferred alternative was 

estimated to require the filling 

Yes, As stated in the prior 

NEPA re-evaluations, the 

preliminary design drawings 

As compared to the FEIS and 

ROD, the preliminary design 

reduced impacts to waters and 

The permits described above 

(NJDEP, USACE, etc.) 

required extensive ecological 
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 14 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of HowConclusion was Reached

of 5.7 acres of wetlands and 

0.8 acres of open water for a 

total of 6.5 acres. The FEIS 

also concluded that no longterm adverse impacts to water 

quality or stormwater would 

result, and identified several 

terrestrial and aquatic species 

known to be present within 

the study area. 

were submitted to NJDEP, 

USACE and USCG in support 

of their respective permit 

applications, documenting

impacts to 3.1 acres of 

wetlands, 1.2 acres of tidal 

and sub-tidal shallows and 0.6 

acres of open water for a total 

of 4.9 acres of impact. Since 

the FEIS and ROD estimates 

did not distinguish sub-tidal 

shallows as a separate 

category only the total 

numbers are relevant. 

wetlands from 6.5 to 4.9 acres

(reduction of 1.6 acres). No 

additional impacts to 

wetlands, water quality, 

aquatic species, or terrestrial 

species resulted during the 

progression from preliminary 

design to final design.

field surveys and detailed 

calculations of the revised 

design’s temporary and 

permanent impacts to 

wetlands and open water. The 

data used to support the 

permits was compared against 

the estimates provided in the 

FEIS to determine the change 

in impact. The permits 

implement the construction 

work windows and mitigation 

measures that were 

conceptually described in the 

FEIS and ROD as project 

commitments.

Water Resources The FEIS and ROD disclosed 

that the project would require 

construction in the 100-year 

floodplain. It concluded the 

project would not result in any 

long-term adverse impacts to 

water quality or stormwater in 

the study area or alter the flow 

characteristics of the 

Hackensack River.

Yes – As described in the 

prior NEPA re-evaluations, 

the preliminary design 

replaced filled embankment 

with viaduct structure in some 

locations. This change 

reduces the overall amount of 

fill that would be placed 

within the floodplain. During 

final design, NJ TRANSIT 

and Amtrak evaluated the 

project in light of post-Sandy 

flood elevations. One

communications equipment 

support slab at the 

westernmost project limit was 

raised one foot above the 

The final design does not 

change impacts to water 

resources, beyond what was 

previously analyzed as part of 

the prior NEPA reevaluations. 

The NJDEP Waterfront 

Development Permit required 

a comprehensive analysis of 

stormwater management and 

floodplains, which was 

compared to the stormwater 

and floodplain analysis in the 

FEIS. As stated under “New 

Impacts,” NJ TRANSIT and 

Amtrak evaluated the entire 

project corridor to evaluate 

the need for design 

adjustments based on postSandy conditions. Executive 

Order 13690 (Establishing a 

Federal Flood Risk 

Management Standard and a 
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 15 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of HowConclusion was Reached

newly established flood 

elevation.

Process for Further Soliciting 

and Considering Stakeholder 

Input) was issued in 2015, 

updating approaches for 

establishing the flood 

elevation and hazard area 

used in siting, design, and 

construction. While USDOT 

does not yet have approved 

guidance for implementing 

EO 13690, as part of final 

design and this NEPA reexamination, NJ TRANSIT 

and Amtrak reviewed the 

project plans to confirm that 

no significant adverse impacts 

to floodplains would result 

from the project.

Energy and Natural 

Resources*

*Note: While the term 

“natural resources” is used 

in this context to refer to 

energy-related resources 

such as oil, the EIS and ROD 

use the term to refer to 

ecological systems (wetlands, 

forests, etc). Please see the 

“Ecosystems” sections above. 

The FEIS and ROD 

determined the project would 

not increase the number of 

peak hour trains or 

measurably reduce vehicle 

miles traveled in the region. 

The FEIS therefore concluded 

the project would not result in 

a measurable effect on energy

and the consumption of 

natural resources such as oil.* 

No new impacts. No change in impacts. The rail operations simulation 

modeling discussed above 

confirmed no increase in the 

number of peak hour trains, 

and confirmed the conclusions 

of the FEIS and ROD.
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 16 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of HowConclusion was Reached

Geology and Soils The FEIS and ROD described 

disturbance to subsurface 

soils, as explained below in 

“Hazardous Materials and 

Waste”.

Yes – As detailed in the 

previous NEPA reevaluations, the preliminary 

design lessened disturbance to 

subsurface soils, as explained 

below.

The preliminary design 

involves less disturbance to 

subsurface soils than what 

was presented in the FEIS and 

ROD. This is due to a 

reduction of fill material 

resulting in less impact and 

compression of the subsurface 

soils. The final design does 

not generate any additional 

changes to geology and soils.

During the preliminary and 

final engineering phases, an 

extensive geotechnical boring 

program was implemented to 

assess and identify all 

subsurface strata including 

depth and type of rock. This 

investigation confirmed the 

background environmental 

conditions. The use of 

elevated structure in the final 

design, rather than 

embankment fill (as identified 

in the FEIS and ROD) reduces 

the need for consolidation of 

soils in the contaminated 

areas.
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 17 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of How Conclusion was Reached

Hazardous Materials and 

Wastes

The FEIS and ROD

concluded that the project 

would entail subsurface 

disturbance in areas with a 

known degree of 

contamination, including 

chromite ore processing 

residue sites such as the 

Diamond Shamrock property. 

To prevent exposure 

pathways, the project would 

include appropriate health and 

safety and investigative/ 

remedial measures in 

consultation with the 

appropriate regulatory 

agencies.

In terms of the changes since 

the FEIS and ROD, as 

analyzed in the prior NEPA 

re-evaluations, the 

preliminary design reduced 

adverse effects during 

construction on the Diamond 

Shamrock (Southern Bridge) 

and Janatex (Northern Bridge) 

properties. These properties 

are undergoing remediation 

by the site owner. The 

original conceptual design 

presented in the FEIS and 

ROD had embankment fill for 

the tracks approaching the 

Northern and Southern 

Bridges. The preliminary

design replaced the 

embankment fill with elevated 

structure supported by deep 

foundations. 

As described in the prior 

NEPA re-evaluations, the 

preliminary design involves 

less disturbance to 

contaminated materials than 

what was presented in the 

FEIS and ROD. The final 

design does not result in any 

additional impacts to 

hazardous materials.

During the preliminary and 

final design phases, site 

investigations were completed 

for all affected parcels. Based 

on these investigations and 

the supplemental research 

performed as part of this 

NEPA re-examination, no 

additional contaminates sites 

were identified, beyond those 

in the FEIS and ROD. 

Additionally, coordination 

with NJDEP Site Remediation 

has continued throughout 

design.

Public Services The FEIS and ROD did not 

identify any impacts to public 

services, such as fire and 

police services.

The final design added 

various safety and security 

measures, such as 

strengthened fender and 

dolphin systems, motion 

detectors, and provisions for 

CCTV cameras. There are no 

physical attributes that would 

result in additional 

No change in impacts The project team developed a 

Safety and Security Plan 

during the final design phase 

and incorporated comments 

and requirements from NJ 

TRANSIT, Amtrak, and local 

police and emergency 

management services. The 

input from this effort created a 
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 18 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of How Conclusion was Reached

environmental impacts. robust safety and security 

protocol for any incidents 

during long-term revenue 

operations.

Utilities The FEIS explained that the 

project would require 

relocation of Amtrak’s 138kV 

transmission lines, and 

relocation of other utilities 

would be coordinated with the 

utility providers to minimize 

service disruptions.

No new impacts. No change in impacts. Ongoing coordination with 

Amtrak and other utility 

providers.

Historic, Cultural and 

Archaeological Resources

The FEIS and ROD 

determined the project would 

involve modification of an 

area sensitive for human 

remains and funerary 

archaeological artifacts 

relating to the Historic 

Cemeteries of Hudson 

County. The project would 

also have an adverse effect to 

the existing historic Portal 

Bridge and other historic 

resources (see Attachment B). 

A Memorandum of 

Agreement among FRA, 

NJHPO, Amtrak, and NJ 

As detailed in the prior NEPA 

re-evaluations, the 

preliminary design would not 

result in any new historic or 

archaeological impacts. The 

Phase IB archaeological 

testing program was 

implemented and confirmed 

that the burials associated 

with the Historic Cemeteries 

of Hudson County do not 

appear to extend into the area 

of potential effect.

No changes in impacts. As explained in Attachments 

B and G, a Construction 

Protection Plan, an 

archaeological Phase IB, an 

Unanticipated Discoveries 

Plan, and other cultural 

resources documents were 

submitted to and approved by 

NJHPO (in accordance with 

the signed MOA).
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 19 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of How Conclusion was Reached

TRANSIT was signed prior to 

issuance of the ROD.

Tribal Lands or Interests The FEIS did not discuss 

tribal lands because none 

were identified.

NA NA NA

Parklands and Recreation The FEIS and ROD explained 

that the project would require 

the acquisition of 2 acres of a 

14.9 acre parcel conceptually 

planned for an expansion of 

Laurel Hill Park.

No new impacts No changes in impacts. During final design, the 

acreages of each proposed 

taking was calculated by 

surveys generating the 

individual property parcel 

maps (IPMs) and metes and 

bounds descriptions. This 

confirmed the conclusions of 

the FEIS and ROD with 

respect to parklands and 

recreational resources and 

Section 4(f). Additionally, as 

stated above, NJ TRANSIT 

and Amtrak performed field 

surveys during final design

and as part of this NEPA reexamination and no new parks 

or recreational resources were 

identified.

Construction The FEIS and ROD stated the 

project has the potential to 

result in temporary adverse 

impacts during the 

construction period, including 

open space, wetland and water 

Yes – The 2010 NEPA reevaluation explained changes 

to planned construction 

platforms in various locations. 

These changes did not result

in any additional impacts. As 

The overall construction 

schedule will be longer than 

presented in the FEIS and 

ROD due to phased funding 

and construction of the 

Northern and Southern 

NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak 

performed a constructability 

assessment during final 

design, including an 

evaluation of construction 

phasing, scheduling, staging, 
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 20 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of How Conclusion was Reached

resources, cultural resources, 

noise, and contaminated 

material effects. These 

construction-related impacts 

(such as dust and elevated 

noise levels) would be 

temporary and minimized to 

the extent feasible by the 

adoption of specific 

mitigation measures. The 

FEIS and ROD envisioned the 

simultaneous construction of 

the Northern and Southern 

Bridges.

documented in the prior 2011 

NEPA re-evaluation, a phased 

approach to the project was 

developed after the FEIS and 

ROD. The preliminary design 

involves sequenced 

construction of the Northern 

and Southern Bridges, which 

was addressed in the 2011 

reevaluation. Due to funding, 

the Northern Bridge will be 

constructed first. While the 

total construction period 

would be greater, construction 

activities would be less 

intensive than envisioned in 

the FEIS and ROD. 

Bridges. The final design does 

not change construction 

impacts, beyond what was 

described in the prior NEPA 

re-evaluations.

and likely equipment. The 

assessment confirmed that no 

additional significant adverse 

construction impacts would 

occur. 

Indirect and Cumulative The FEIS and ROD described 

the project’s potential to result 

in indirect and cumulative 

effects, such as the cumulative 

impacts to wetlands within the 

New Jersey Meadowlands 

District, and the cumulative 

benefits to rail transportation

(in combination with the 

Access to the Region’s Core 

Project [ARC]).

Yes – As described in the 

prior NEPA re-evaluations, 

the project-related wetland 

impacts have been reduced as 

compared to the FEIS and 

ROD. The final design would 

not result in additional 

changes to wetland impacts.

Changes to the project during 

preliminary and final design

would not result in any 

additional secondary and 

cumulative impacts from the 

project. In fact, the revised 

design and reduced impacts to 

wetlands would lessen the 

potential for cumulative 

impacts to the ecological 

resources of the New Jersey 

Meadowlands. Since the time 

of the FEIS and ROD, the 

ARC project was cancelled. 

Nonetheless, Amtrak’s 

Gateway Program and other 

The wetland impacts were 

calculated and refined through 

the permitting process, 

described above. With respect 

to cumulative transportation 

benefits, NJ TRANSIT and 

Amtrak continually 

coordinate planned projects 

along the NEC to avoid 

adverse impacts and optimize 

benefits. 
FRA NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EXAMINATION WORKSHEET Page 21 of 21

Impact Category Impacts as Initially 

Disclosed New Impacts Change in Impacts Explanation of How Conclusion was Reached

NEC improvement projects, 

together with the Portal 

Bridge project, are expected 

to result in an overall

cumulative transportation 

benefit. Additional capacity 

along the NEC would likely 

result in some adverse effects, 

such as increased noise levels, 

as well as benefits, such as 

decreased vehicle miles 

traveled, reduced energy 

consumption, and improved 

regional air quality. 

Other NA NA NA NA
ATTACHMENT A 
ATTACHMENT B 
May 20, 2010

David Valenstein

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

W38-303

Washington, DC 20590

Re: NEPA Reevaluation for the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

Record of Decision dated December 23, 2008

Dear Mr. Valenstein:

Following your recent conversation with Mr. Thomas Schulze of NJ TRANSIT, enclosed 

is a NEPA Reevaluation for the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project. As you 

are aware, FRA issued a Record of Decision for the project on December 23, 2008, 

based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (dated October 2008). Since that 

time, NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak have proceeded with preliminary engineering and are 

now in the final design stage. The NEPA Reevaluation serves to update FRA about 

several important design elements that have changed since the Record of Decision. As 

concluded in the document, these design changes will not result in any increased 

environmental impacts.

Should you have any questions about the enclosed document or require additional 

information about the status of the project, please do not hesitate to contact me at 

973-491-8971.

Sincerely,

Nicholas L. Marton, Project Director

Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

Attachments

Cc: S. Santoro, NJT

J. Mesure, NJT

C. Ingoglia, NJT

R. Cross, Portal Partners
1 May 2010

Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project—NEPA Reevaluation

A. INTRODUCTION

New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) in cooperation with the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has proposed 

the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project to enhance the capacity and improve rail

operations across the Hackensack River. The existing Portal Bridge is a two-track moveable 

swing-span bridge between the Town of Kearny and the Town of Secaucus in Hudson County, 

New Jersey. It was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1907 and began operation in 

1910. The existing Portal Bridge however, poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and 

operational inflexibility. The swing span and the miter rail configuration pose maintenance 

difficulties and the bridge’s low vertical clearance results in severe conflicts with maritime uses. 

The goals of the project are: to enhance the capacity and improve the operation of the Portal 

Bridge rail crossing of the Hackensack River, to improve service reliability, to enhance 

passenger safety and security, to minimize conflicts with maritime traffic and to optimize 

existing infrastructure and planned improvements, while minimizing impacts on the surrounding 

environment.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and NJ TRANSIT prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluation in October 2008 to analyze the potential environmental 

impacts of the proposed project. FRA was the lead federal agency for this EIS. The Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the U.S. 

Coast Guard (USCG) were cooperating agencies for the environmental review. A Record of 

Decision (ROD) was published by FRA in December 2008. The ROD selected a Preferred 

Alternative which would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable 

southern bridge built on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for a grade separated 

crossing. In the ROD, the FRA also adopted commitments to minimize and/or mitigate harm 

from the selected alternative to parklands and open space, historic resources, ecology, coastal 

zone management and to minimize hazardous materials and construction impacts. 

Preliminary engineering for the project, which began in September 2008, has recently been 

completed. The design specifications, construction plans, and cost estimates prepared during 

preliminary engineering have included changes to the project since the publication of the ROD. 

The purpose of this re-evaluation is to determine if the aforementioned design changes would 

result in significant adverse environmental impacts not identified in the FEIS and whether 

additional NEPA documentation is required.

B. LIST OF CHANGES

As described below, the design changes to the Preferred Alternative include changes to the main 

river structures, tracks and embankments, and construction access.
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

May 2010 2

MAIN RIVER STRUCTURES

The conceptual design of the FEIS Preferred Alternative included a three-track fixed northern 

bridge, and a two-track moveable southern bridge, built on new northern and southern 

alignments respectively. In the FEIS design, the northern bridge would consist of three simplysupported steel through trusses. The truss main members would be welded closed-box shapes. 

The main center span would be 414 feet long and the two flanking side spans would each be 346 

feet long, resulting in a total structure length of 1,106 feet. The height of each North Bridge truss 

span would vary from 50 feet high at the ends to a maximum of 60 feet high at the middle of the 

span (measured from the centerline of the bottom chord to the centerline of the top chord). The 

highest point of the northern bridge would be 115 feet above mean high water (MHW). The 

northern bridge would be 51 feet in width, as measured from center of truss to center of truss. 

The FEIS concept of the southern bridge included a two-track moveable bridge design. The main 

span would be a vertical lift through truss and the two flanking side spans would be simplysupported fixed-span through trusses. The length and height of the truss spans would be the 

same as those of the northern bridge. The highest point of the southern bridge would be 110 feet 

above MHW in the closed position and 115 feet above MHW in the open position. The bridge 

would be 37 feet in width as measured from center of truss to center of truss. 

Subsequent to issuance of the ROD, Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT began the preliminary 

engineering phase of the project. Additional field surveys and coordination with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), USCG, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) were conducted as part of the preliminary engineering efforts. 

Furthermore, a new structural design was developed (i.e. a network tied arch) that resulted in a 

shallower deck increasing the clearance between mean high water (MHW) and the bottom of 

steel. This updated design indicated that it would be possible to construct a fixed bridge on the 

southern alignment and still maintain acceptable operating grades. Since a fixed bridge would be 

preferable to a moveable bridge and would eliminate bridge openings, the project design was 

modified to include a two-track fixed southern bridge 50 feet above MHW.

Therefore, under the current post-ROD design, the northern bridge consists of three simplysupported steel network tied arch spans (see Figure 1). The arch main members, ribs and chords 

would be welded steel closed-box shapes. A network of diagonally placed multi-strand cables 

would connect the arch ribs to the tie chords. The three main spans would be 392 feet long as 

measured between bearing centerlines, resulting in a total structure length of 1,196 feet. The 

height of each tied arch would vary and would reach a maximum of 80 feet at the middle of the 

span (measured from the centerline of the bottom chord to the centerline of the top chord). The 

highest point of the northern bridge would be approximately 136 feet above MHW. The northern 

bridge would be 55 feet in width, as measured from center of arch rib to center of arch rib. 

The southern bridge would be a two-track fixed bridge with 42.5 feet in width as measured from 

center of arch rib to center of arch rib (see Figure 1). This would provide 14 feet of clearance 

between track centerlines and 10 feet of clearance from the centerline of the tracks to the inside 

face of the arch ribs. The length and height of the tied arch spans, the pier spacing, the horizontal 

and vertical clearances, and other details of the bridge and the approach spans would be similar 

to those of the northern bridge, described above.
NEPA Reevaluation

3 May 2010

TRACKS AND EMBANKMENTS

There are a number of modifications to the tracks and embankments resulting from the 

completion of preliminary engineering.

 The approach structures supporting the tracks within the Diamond Shamrock and Janatex 

properties were changed from primarily embankment fill to entirely elevated structure. This 

change was initiated to avoid surcharging the contaminated soil, potentially resulting in the 

lateral and vertical displacement of contaminated groundwater and as well as stability issues 

during construction. It will also maintain access to accommodate the planned remediation 

activities on both sites between the pier locations. 

 At the 1-A Landfill, approximately 700 feet of track was placed on structure rather than fill, 

as previously designed, to avoid impacts to the landfill liner and slurry wall. Preliminary 

engineering revealed a conflict between the proposed track alignment and the existing slurry 

wall and therefore the design had to be modified to elevate the track over the slurry wall and 

eliminate additional stresses. This change also has the added benefit of reducing wetland 

impacts.

 During preliminary engineering, track alignments within the impact area were revised to 

reduce costs, simplify construction, satisfy operational requirements of the railroads, and 

potentially reduce property acquisition. As a result, the alignments of Track 5 and 6 on the 

south side of the project (along the Diamond Shamrock and Riverbend Wetland Preserve 

properties) were shifted approximately 70 feet northward slightly reducing the property 

acquisition and wetland impacts. Near Swift Interlocking, Track 6 was moved 14 feet to the 

south. 

 At the Professional Environmental Systems property (Block 286, Lot 40) a retaining wall (as 

opposed to embankment) will be used to avoid the acquisition of an active business. Under 

previous designs, the property would have been acquired in full for the expansion of the 

project’s right-of-way (ROW).

It must also be noted that the aforementioned design changes were accommodated in the 

post ROD study boundaries, i.e. the project study footprint has remained constant.

CONSTRUCTION ACCESS

WESTERN PORTION

It is anticipated a temporary construction platform in Cedar Creek Marsh will no longer be 

required under the current construction plan. Instead, the current plan is to construct the 

retaining wall by sequentially proceeding from land into and along the marsh. There is no 

change in the actual project footprint at this location, i.e. the ROD study boundaries are 

unchanged, only the method of construction.

CENTER PORTION (HACKENSACK RIVER AREA)

In order to simplify construction staging, widened storage and staging areas are now required on 

the temporary work platforms that will be located over open water and wetland areas to allow 

construction access to the project site. These changes were necessitated mostly for construction 

vehicle maneuverability and turning. The width of the elevated platforms will increase from 

approximately 27 feet wide to approximately 32 feet wide, but the number of piers will remain 

unchanged. 
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

May 2010 4

EASTERN PORTION

In this portion of the study area, several construction platforms would no longer be required 

under the current construction plan:

 Two platforms on south side of the study area, east of the Boonton Line 

 Four lateral cross platforms on the north side of the study area, west of Boonton Line, in 

Laurel Hill Park

 No property acquisition will be required for access within the Malanka Landfill since NJ

TRANSIT’s Access to the Region’s Core Project will be acquiring the entire property in 

fee for that project’s loop tracks and tracks connecting to Secaucus and Portal Bridge.

C. CHANGES TO THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

The changes in the project’s design would not alter the project’s Purpose and Need. The facts 

surrounding the project’s problem statement and its goals and objective remain the same as 

documented in the FEIS.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

The preferred alternative remain the same and all major design elements are unchanged.

TRANSPORTATION EFFECTS

With respect to transportation, the major difference resulting from the revised design is that the 

southern bridge will be fixed, while the FEIS based design would have necessitated openings

several times a month. As the moveable southern bridge was designed to minimize the number 

of openings and the related adverse effects on rail operations when openings occurred, the 

revised design will avoid that problem entirely. The revised design will however, result in a 

greater grade for the NJ TRANSIT trains that will traverse the bridge. Nevertheless, simulation 

modeling has confirmed that no adverse effects would occur to rail operations from the track 

design in this location, i.e. grades area acceptable. Because the bridge will no longer be opened 

to accommodate marine vessels, this design change will also benefit marine traffic.

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

LAND USE AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS

With respect to property acquisition and displacement several changes have occurred. The FEIS 

noted that multiple properties may be fully or partially acquired for the construction of the 

replacement bridge to allow for the expansion of the ROW and the construction of 

embankments. 

In the FEIS, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor ROW 

owned by the Jana Corporation would be fully acquired to expand the ROW for the new 

northern bridge. This would not change. Also on the northern side of the ROW, a 4-acre 

industrial parcel on the north side of the right-of-way (owned by Professional Environmental 

Systems) was to be acquired. This operating business was to be relocated in the FEIS plan. 
NEPA Reevaluation

5 May 2010

However, the new design allows for the building and the business to remain by the use of a 

retaining wall instead of the proposed embankment in this area. The FEIS also proposed a 

possible full taking of the Diamond Shamrock property on the south side of the alignment for the 

preferred alternative. Currently, there is a potential to reduce this acquisition from a full to a 

partial taking. This is also intended to minimize the project’s disturbance of contaminated 

materials on this property which is under a remedial consent order with New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 

The proposed project acquisition of a 1.1-acre portion of the Malanka Landfill (Secaucus 

Brownfield Redevelopment, LLC) will not be required since NJ TRANSIT will be acquiring this 

property in full as part of the Access to the Region’s Core Project. 

The revised design would have no effect on the conclusions documented in the FEIS regarding 

the preferred alternative’s potential effects on land use, zoning, public policy and social 

conditions. Overall, the property acquisition will be slightly less than estimated in the FEIS. 

HISTORIC RESOURCES

As part of the project’s commitment in the FEIS and ROD with respect to historic resources

pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, several stipulations were agreed to as part of a MOA 

between NJ TRANSIT, Amtrak, the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO) and 

FRA. Three of the stipulations have either been completed or are in progress:

1. Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT, in coordination with FRA, shall conduct ongoing consultation 

with NJHPO regarding the design of project elements;

2. An archaeological Phase 1B field investigation shall be conducted to determine the 

potential for the project to disturb human remains associated with the Historic Cemeteries of 

Hudson County; and

3. NJ TRANSIT will submit an Application for Project Authorization to the NJHPO Historic 

Sites Council (HSC) pursuant to the New Jersey Register of Historic Places Act. 

Item 1 above was initiated. In April 2009, NJ TRANSIT submitted an Application for Project 

Authorization to NJHPO and NJHSC, which analyzed alternatives to encroaching on the State 

Register of Historic Places-the listed Portal Bridge and presented proposed designs for the 

replacements structures. NJ TRANSIT also presented this information at a meeting of the 

NJHSC on April 16, 2009. The NJHSC was amenable to the new design, and on April 24, 2009, 

issued a Resolution authorizing the request to remove the Portal Bridge on the condition that NJ 

TRANSIT “develop a thorough feasibility study including a cost and schedule analysis for the 

relocation of the [swing span of the] bridge.” In accordance with NJHSC’s request, NJ 

TRANSIT submitted a Feasibility Study for the relocation of the Portal Bridge on January 26, 

2010. Final approval of the Feasibility Study from NJHPO and NJHSC is pending. 

With respect to Item 2, The Phase 1B archaeological testing program was completed in June 

2009 after receiving approval from NJHPO on the field investigation methodology in March of 

2009. A report was submitted to NJHPO on August 6, 2009, that concluded that the burials 

associated with the Historic Cemeteries of Hudson County do not appear to extend into the 

archaeological Area of Potential Effect. Therefore, it was shown that the project would not have 

an adverse effect on this resource and no further investigation was necessary. NJHPO concurred 

with this finding in a letter dated September 29, 2009.
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

May 2010 6

VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS

In terms of visual and aesthetic considerations the revised design for the southern bridge would 

not alter the conclusions of the FEIS. While the two bridges were designed similarly in the 

FEIS, there was a five-foot difference in total elevation between the two. They would now be the 

same. Furthermore, the network tied arch would provide an attractive design for the twin 

crossing. As discussed above, under Historic Resources, NJHPO has reviewed the new design 

and the HSC authorized the replacement of the existing structure. Similar to the previous design, 

the project would not substantially alter the visual character of the study area or block views to 

or from the area.

AIR QUALITY

The changes in the project design would not change rail operations and service plan as discussed 

in the FEIS. Therefore, the conclusions of the FEIS with respect to the project’s long-term 

effects on air quality remain unchanged. Short-term effects during construction would be similar 

under either design. 

NOISE AND VIBRATION

Similar to the air quality discussion above, the project design changes would have minimal 

effect on the FEIS’s conclusion regarding long-term future noise and vibration levels within the 

study area. During construction, the revised design may result in greater short-term noise levels 

in the vicinity of the Diamond Shamrock and Janatex properties. This is due to the fact that the 

use of structure in place of filled embankment and surcharge would require driving piles at 

specific pier locations. However, in either case, there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of 

this construction and ambient noise levels are already elevated in the area due to the presence of 

existing Northeast Corridor tracks and NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak operations. 

ECOLOGY

The ecology chapter of the FEIS examined water quality, floodplains, wetlands and wildlife. 

During preliminary engineering (PE), updated wetland and ecological surveys were performed 

in addition to the previously discussed design revisions. This additional work has resulted in a 

reduction in the amount of wetland disturbance due to the preferred alternative. In the FEIS, the 

preferred alternative was estimated to require the filling of 5.7 acres of wetlands and 0.8 acres of 

open water for a total of 6.5 acres. The revised design, which was submitted to NJDEP, USACE

and USCG in support of their respective permit applications, will require impacts to 3.1 acres of 

wetlands, 1.2 acres of tidal and sub-tidal shallows and 0.6 acres of open water for a total of 4.9

acres of impact. Since the FEIS estimates did not distinguish sub-tidal shallows as a separate 

category only the total numbers are relevant. Therefore, the revised design will reduce impacts 

to waters and wetlands from 6.5 to 4.9 acres.

Temporary impacts to wetlands will also be reduced substantially due to the elimination of 

several construction platforms. In the FEIS, temporary impacts due to the preferred alternative 

were estimated at 7.7 acres including platforms over open water. With the elimination of the 

construction platforms in Cedar Creek Marsh and the two east of the Boonton Line, temporary 

impacts to wetlands have been reduced by more than 3.5 acres. 

Potential impacts to floodplains will also be reduced with the revised design due to the 

additional viaduct structure, in lieu of filled embankment, on the western approaches to the river 
NEPA Reevaluation

7 May 2010

crossings. Potential effects on terrestrial, avian and aquatic wildlife would remain the same as 

discussed in the FEIS. 

CONTAMINATED MATERIALS

During the PE phase, site investigations have been completed for all of the acquisition parcels 

required for construction of the preferred alternative. The results of the analysis have been 

consistent with the findings of the FEIS preliminary site assessments. Detailed remedial action 

plans are being developed which will be submitted to NJDEP prior to construction. Soil and 

groundwater management plans are also being prepared to minimize the potential adverse effects 

from disturbance within areas where contaminated soil and groundwater is present. 

In terms of the changes since the FEIS, much of the revised design has been developed to avoid 

adverse effects during construction on the Diamond Shamrock and Janatex properties. These 

properties are contaminated with chromite ore processing residue (COPR) and are undergoing 

remediation by the site owner of Diamond Shamrock, the Occidental Chemical Corporation, and 

its subsidiary Tierra Solutions. Since the COPR material was generated on the Diamond site and 

used for fill on the Janatex property, the same parties are also responsible for the remediation on 

that property. 

For both sites, the original design had the tracks approaching the northern and southern bridges 

supported on embankments. Due to the poor bearing conditions of the site’s surficial geology, a 

lengthy ground surcharge would have been required to compress the underlying soils. This 

surcharge would require a method of expelling groundwater from the existing surface soils. This 

method presented two issues with respect to existing contaminated soil at the sites. First, there 

was concern with the migration of contaminated groundwater below the confining layer, since 

vertical drains would be required to surcharge the soil in a timely manner. Second, the 

placement of a large embankment would hinder or complicate any future remediation that may 

be necessary underneath the approach tracks. 

Ground disturbance would only be required at the pier locations used to support the structure. 

The piers would be approximately 115 to 120 feet apart. They will be supported by driven pipe 

piles. The pipe piles will be driven within a sheet-pile supported excavation that has had the 

contaminated soils removed beforehand. Therefore, small areas surrounding each pier location 

will be remediated and protected from further migration of contaminants into the remediated 

area by the sheet pile wall. This construction method will eliminate the need for wick drains and 

any possibility of downward migration of contaminants. Furthermore, it will allow for 

remediation of contaminated soils below the viaduct structure if the need arises in the future. 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

None of the design changes would effect the project’s earlier coastal zone consistency 

determination. In addition, the project’s Waterfront Development permit application submitted 

to NJDEP has an updated compliance statement that confirms these conclusions. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

None of the project design changes would result in any disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to low-income or minority populations.
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

May 2010 8

SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Changes to the project during preliminary engineering would not result in any additional 

secondary and cumulative impacts from the project. In fact, the revised design and reduced 

impacts to wetlands would lessen the potential for cumulative impacts to the ecological 

resources of the New Jersey Meadowlands. 

SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

Changes to the project developed during preliminary engineering would not result in any 

additional use of Section 4(f) properties.

D. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Based on the discussions above, it can be concluded that the revised design for the preferred 

alternative would not result in any new significant adverse environmental effects. The revised 

design would neither exacerbate any adverse effects disclosed in the FEIS nor increase the need 

for mitigation measures discussed in the ROD. In fact, the proposed design changes would 

reduce some potential impacts in key environmental areas such as wetlands and contaminated 

materials. 
January, 2011

David Valenstein

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

W38-303

Washington, DC 20590

Re: NEPA Reevaluation for the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

Record of Decision dated December 23, 2008

Dear Mr. Valenstein:

Following the January 25 meeting in your office with NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak, enclosed 

is a NEPA Re-evaluation for the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project. As you 

are aware, FRA issued a Record of Decision for the project on December 23, 2008, 

based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (dated October 2008). Since that 

time, NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak have proceeded with preliminary engineering and are 

now in the final design stage. The NEPA Re-evaluation serves to update FRA about 

several important design elements that have changed since the Record of Decision. As 

concluded in the document, these design changes will not result in any increased 

environmental impacts.

Should you have any questions about the enclosed document or require additional 

information about the status of the project, please do not hesitate to contact me at 

973-491-8971.

Sincerely,

Nicholas L. Marton, Project Director

Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

Attachments

Cc: S. Santoro, NJT

J. Mesure, NJT

C. Ingoglia, NJT

S. Silverman, NJT

R. Cross, Portal Partners
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project—NEPA Reevaluation

A. INTRODUCTION

New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) in cooperation with the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has proposed 

the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project to enhance the capacity and improve rail

operations across the Hackensack River. The existing Portal Bridge is a two-track moveable 

swing-span bridge between the Town of Kearny and the Town of Secaucus in Hudson County, 

New Jersey. It was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1907 and began operation in 

1910. The existing Portal Bridge however, poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and 

operational inflexibility. The swing span and the miter rail configuration pose maintenance 

difficulties and the bridge’s low vertical clearance results in severe conflicts with maritime uses. 

The goals of the project are: to enhance the capacity and improve the operation of the Portal 

Bridge rail crossing of the Hackensack River, to improve service reliability, to enhance 

passenger safety and security, to minimize conflicts with maritime traffic and to optimize 

existing infrastructure and planned improvements, while minimizing impacts on the surrounding 

environment.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and NJ TRANSIT prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluation in October 2008 to analyze the potential environmental 

impacts of the proposed project. FRA was the lead federal agency for this EIS. The Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the U.S. 

Coast Guard (USCG) were cooperating agencies for the environmental review. A Record of 

Decision (ROD) was published by FRA in December 2008. The ROD selected a Preferred 

Alternative which would include a three-track fixed northern bridge, a two-track moveable 

southern bridge built on a new alignment, and a duck-under structure for a grade separated 

crossing. In the ROD, the FRA also adopted commitments to minimize and/or mitigate harm 

from the selected alternative to parklands and open space, historic resources, ecology, coastal 

zone management and to minimize hazardous materials and construction impacts. 

Preliminary engineering for the project, which began in September 2008, was completed in 

August 2010. The design specifications, construction plans, and cost estimates prepared during 

preliminary engineering have included changes to the project since the publication of the ROD. 

Additionally and following recent discussions with both the FRA and Amtrak, Final Design and 

projected construction of the North Bridge will precede that of the proposed South Bridge. 

Furthermore, design of the North Bridge will be premised upon a two-track fixed bridge 

structure. Therefore, current schedule projections indicate that the South Bridge design and 

construction may commence at a future date following design and/or construction of the North 

Bridge. The purpose of this re-evaluation is to determine if the aforementioned design changes 

would result in significant adverse environmental impacts not identified in the FEIS and whether 

additional NEPA documentation is required.
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

B. LIST OF CHANGES

As described below, the design changes to the Preferred Alternative include changes to the main 

river structures, tracks and embankments, and construction access.

MAIN RIVER STRUCTURES

The conceptual design of the FEIS Preferred Alternative included a three-track fixed northern 

bridge, and a two-track moveable southern bridge, built on new northern and southern 

alignments respectively. In the FEIS design, the northern bridge would consist of three simplysupported steel through trusses. The truss main members would be welded closed-box shapes. 

The main center span would be 414 feet long and the two flanking side spans would each be 346 

feet long, resulting in a total structure length of 1,106 feet. The height of each North Bridge truss 

span would vary from 50 feet high at the ends to a maximum of 60 feet high at the middle of the 

span (measured from the centerline of the bottom chord to the centerline of the top chord). The 

highest point of the northern bridge would be 115 feet above mean high water (MHW). The 

northern bridge would be 51 feet in width, as measured from center of truss to center of truss. 

The FEIS concept of the southern bridge included a two-track moveable bridge design. The main 

span would be a vertical lift through truss and the two flanking side spans would be simplysupported fixed-span through trusses. The length and height of the truss spans would be the 

same as those of the northern bridge. The highest point of the southern bridge would be 110 feet 

above MHW in the closed position and 115 feet above MHW in the open position. The bridge 

would be 37 feet in width as measured from center of truss to center of truss. 

Subsequent to issuance of the ROD, Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT began the preliminary 

engineering phase of the project. Additional field surveys and coordination with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), USCG, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) were conducted as part of the preliminary engineering efforts. 

Furthermore, a new structural design was developed (i.e. a network tied arch) that resulted in a 

shallower deck increasing the clearance between mean high water (MHW) and the bottom of 

steel. This updated design indicated that it would be possible to construct a fixed bridge on the 

southern alignment and still maintain acceptable operating grades. Since a fixed bridge would be 

preferable to a moveable bridge and would eliminate bridge openings, the project design was 

modified to include a two-track fixed southern bridge 50 feet above MHW.

Therefore, under the current post-ROD design, the northern bridge consists of three simplysupported steel network tied arch spans (see Figure 1). The arch main members, ribs and chords 

would be welded steel closed-box shapes. A network of diagonally placed multi-strand cables 

would connect the arch ribs to the tie chords. The three main spans would be 392 feet long as 

measured between bearing centerlines, resulting in a total structure length of 1,196 feet. The 

height of each tied arch would vary and would reach a maximum of 80 feet at the middle of the 

span (measured from the centerline of the bottom chord to the centerline of the top chord). The 

highest point of the northern bridge would be approximately 136 feet above MHW. The northern 

bridge would be 55 feet in width, as measured from center of arch rib to center of arch rib. 

The southern bridge would be a two-track fixed bridge with 42.5 feet in width as measured from 

center of arch rib to center of arch rib (see Figure 1). This would provide 14 feet of clearance 

between track centerlines and 10 feet of clearance from the centerline of the tracks to the inside 

face of the arch ribs. The length and height of the tied arch spans, the pier spacing, the horizontal 
NEPA Reevaluation

and vertical clearances, and other details of the bridge and the approach spans would be similar 

to those of the northern bridge, described above.

As noted above, the design of the proposed Northern Bridge has now been modified to support 

the construction and operation of a two-track system resulting in a deck of 42.5 feet in width as 

measured from center of arch rib to center of arch rib (see Figure 1). This would provide 14 feet 

of clearance between track centerlines and 10 feet of clearance from the centerline of the tracks 

to the inside face of the arch ribs. The length and height of the tied arch spans, the pier spacing, 

the horizontal and vertical clearances, and other details of the bridge and the approach spans 

would be similar to those of the northern bridge, described above.

TRACKS AND EMBANKMENTS

There are a number of modifications to the tracks and embankments resulting from the 

completion of preliminary engineering.

• At the 1-A Landfill, approximately 700 feet of track was placed on structure rather than fill, 

as previously designed, to avoid impacts to the landfill liner and slurry wall. Preliminary 

engineering revealed a conflict between the proposed track alignment and the existing slurry 

wall and therefore the design had to be modified to elevate the track over the slurry wall and 

eliminate additional stresses. This change also has the added benefit of reducing wetland 

impacts.

• At the Professional Environmental Systems property (Block 286, Lot 40) a retaining wall (as 

opposed to embankment) will be used to avoid the acquisition of an active business. Under 

previous designs, the property would have been acquired in full for the expansion of the 

project’s right-of-way (ROW).

It must also be noted that the aforementioned design changes were accommodated in the 

post ROD study boundaries, i.e. the project study footprint has remained constant.

CONSTRUCTION ACCESS

WESTERN PORTION

It is anticipated a temporary construction platform in Cedar Creek Marsh will no longer be 

required under the current construction plan. Instead, the current plan is to construct the 

retaining wall by sequentially proceeding from land into and along the marsh. There is no 

change in the actual project footprint at this location, i.e. the ROD study boundaries are 

unchanged, only the method of construction.

CENTER PORTION (HACKENSACK RIVER AREA)

In order to simplify construction staging, widened storage and staging areas are now required on 

the temporary work platforms that will be located over open water and wetland areas to allow 

construction access to the project site. These changes were necessitated mostly for construction 

vehicle maneuverability and turning. The width of the elevated platforms will increase from 

approximately 27 feet wide to approximately 32 feet wide, but the number of piers will remain 

unchanged. 
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

EASTERN PORTION

In this portion of the study area, several construction platforms would no longer be required 

under the current construction plan:

• Two platforms on south side of the study area, east of the Boonton Line 

• Four lateral cross platforms on the north side of the study area, west of Boonton Line, in 

Laurel Hill Park

C. CHANGES TO THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

The changes in the project’s design would not alter the project’s Purpose and Need. The facts 

surrounding the project’s problem statement and its goals and objective remain the same as 

documented in the FEIS.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

The preferred alternative remains the same and all major design elements are unchanged.

TRANSPORTATION EFFECTS

With respect to transportation, the major difference resulting from the revised design is that the 

southern bridge will be fixed, while the FEIS based design would have necessitated openings

several times a month. As the moveable southern bridge was designed to minimize the number 

of openings and the related adverse effects on rail operations when openings occurred, the 

revised design will avoid that problem entirely. The revised design will however, result in a 

greater grade for the NJ TRANSIT trains that will traverse the bridge. Nevertheless, simulation 

modeling has confirmed that no adverse effects would occur to rail operations from the track 

design in this location, i.e. grades area acceptable. Because the bridge will no longer be opened 

to accommodate marine vessels, this design change will also benefit marine traffic.

Additionally and as previously discussed, the Northern Bridge design now accommodates a twotrack fixed bridge structure versus a three- track previously identified.

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

LAND USE AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS

With respect to property acquisition and displacement several changes have occurred. The FEIS 

noted that multiple properties may be fully or partially acquired for the construction of the 

replacement bridge to allow for the expansion of the ROW and the construction of 

embankments. 

In the FEIS, an 11.1-acre industrial parcel on the north side of the Northeast Corridor ROW 

owned by the Jana Corporation would be fully acquired to expand the ROW for the new 

northern bridge. This would not change. Also on the northern side of the ROW, a 4-acre 

industrial parcel on the north side of the right-of-way (owned by Professional Environmental 
NEPA Reevaluation

Systems) was to be acquired. This operating business was to be relocated in the FEIS plan. 

However, the new design allows for the building and the business to remain by the use of a 

retaining wall instead of the proposed embankment in this area. The FEIS also proposed a 

possible full taking of the Diamond Shamrock property on the south side of the alignment for the 

preferred alternative. Acquisition of this property is deferred following the proposed phasing of 

the design and construction of three South Bridge. Nevertheless, there is a potential to reduce 

this acquisition from a full to a partial taking. This is also intended to minimize the project’s 

disturbance of contaminated materials on this property which is under a remedial consent order 

with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 

The revised design would have no effect on the conclusions documented in the FEIS regarding 

the preferred alternative’s potential effects on land use, zoning, public policy and social 

conditions. Overall, the property acquisition will be slightly less than estimated in the FEIS. 

HISTORIC RESOURCES

As part of the project’s commitment in the FEIS and ROD with respect to historic resources

pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, several stipulations were agreed to as part of a MOA 

between NJ TRANSIT, Amtrak, the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO) and 

FRA. Three of the stipulations have either been completed or are in progress:

1. Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT, in coordination with FRA, shall conduct ongoing consultation 

with NJHPO regarding the design of project elements;

2. An archaeological Phase 1B field investigation shall be conducted to determine the 

potential for the project to disturb human remains associated with the Historic Cemeteries of 

Hudson County; and

3. NJ TRANSIT will submit an Application for Project Authorization to the NJHPO Historic 

Sites Council (HSC) pursuant to the New Jersey Register of Historic Places Act. 

Item 1 above was initiated. In April 2009, NJ TRANSIT submitted an Application for Project 

Authorization to NJHPO and NJHSC, which analyzed alternatives to encroaching on the State 

Register of Historic Places-the listed Portal Bridge and presented proposed designs for the 

replacements structures. NJ TRANSIT also presented this information at a meeting of the 

NJHSC on April 16, 2009. The NJHSC was amenable to the new design, and on April 24, 2009, 

issued a Resolution authorizing the request to remove the Portal Bridge on the condition that NJ 

TRANSIT “develop a thorough feasibility study including a cost and schedule analysis for the 

relocation of the [swing span of the] bridge.” In accordance with NJHSC’s request, NJ 

TRANSIT submitted a Feasibility Study for the relocation of the Portal Bridge on January 26, 

2010. Final approval of the Feasibility Study from NJHPO and NJHSC is pending. 

With respect to Item 2, The Phase 1B archaeological testing program was completed in June 

2009 after receiving approval from NJHPO on the field investigation methodology in March of 

2009. A report was submitted to NJHPO on August 6, 2009, that concluded that the burials 

associated with the Historic Cemeteries of Hudson County do not appear to extend into the 

archaeological Area of Potential Effect. Therefore, it was shown that the project would not have 

an adverse effect on this resource and no further investigation was necessary. NJHPO concurred 

with this finding in a letter dated September 29, 2009.
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS

In terms of visual and aesthetic considerations the revised design for the southern bridge would 

not alter the conclusions of the FEIS. While the two bridges were designed similarly in the 

FEIS, there was a five-foot difference in total elevation between the two. They would now be the 

same. Furthermore, the network tied arch would provide an attractive design for the twin 

crossing. As discussed above, under Historic Resources, NJHPO has reviewed the new design 

and the HSC authorized the replacement of the existing structure. Similar to the previous design, 

the project would not substantially alter the visual character of the study area or block views to 

or from the area.

The replacement of the three-track design with a two-track version of the North Bridge does not 

alter the visual and aesthetic considerations referenced above.

AIR QUALITY

The changes in the project design and phasing of North Bridge construction in advance of the 

South Bridge would not change rail operations and service plan as discussed in the FEIS. 

Therefore, the conclusions of the FEIS with respect to the project’s long-term effects on air 

quality remain unchanged. Short-term effects during construction would be similar under either 

design. 

NOISE AND VIBRATION

Similar to the air quality discussion above, the project design changes would have minimal 

effect on the FEIS’s conclusion regarding long-term future noise and vibration levels within the 

study area. During construction, the revised design may result in greater short-term noise levels 

in the vicinity of the Janatex properties. This is due to the fact that the use of structure in place of 

filled embankment and surcharge would require driving piles at specific pier locations. 

However, in either case, there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of this construction and 

ambient noise levels are already elevated in the area due to the presence of existing Northeast 

Corridor tracks and NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak operations. 

ECOLOGY

The ecology chapter of the FEIS examined water quality, floodplains, wetlands and wildlife. 

During preliminary engineering (PE), updated wetland and ecological surveys were performed 

in addition to the previously discussed design revisions. This additional work has resulted in a 

reduction in the amount of wetland disturbance due to the preferred alternative. In the FEIS, the 

preferred alternative was estimated to require the filling of 5.7 acres of wetlands and 0.8 acres of 

open water for a total of 6.5 acres. The revised design, which was submitted to NJDEP, USACE

and USCG in support of their respective permit applications, will require impacts to 3.1 acres of 

wetlands, 1.2 acres of tidal and sub-tidal shallows and 0.6 acres of open water for a total of 4.9 

acres of impact. Since the FEIS estimates did not distinguish sub-tidal shallows as a separate 

category only the total numbers are relevant. Therefore, the revised design resulting in the 

construction of two fixed bridges will reduce impacts to waters and wetlands from 6.5 to 4.9 

acres. Construction of a two-track fixed North Bridge versus a three-track may result in further 

de-minimus reductions in permanent impacts. Similarly, temporary impacts may also be reduced 

in addition to those reductions discussed below. 
NEPA Reevaluation

Temporary impacts to wetlands will also be reduced substantially due to the elimination of 

several construction platforms. In the FEIS, temporary impacts due to the preferred alternative 

were estimated at 7.7 acres including platforms over open water. With the elimination of the 

construction platforms in Cedar Creek Marsh and the two east of the Boonton Line, temporary 

impacts to wetlands have been reduced by more than 3.5 acres. 

Potential impacts to floodplains will also be reduced with the revised design due to the 

additional viaduct structure, in lieu of filled embankment, on the western approaches to the river 

crossings. Potential effects on terrestrial, avian and aquatic wildlife would remain the same as 

discussed in the FEIS. 

CONTAMINATED MATERIALS

During the PE phase, site investigations were completed for all of the acquisition parcels 

required for construction of the preferred alternative. The results of the analysis have been 

consistent with the findings of the FEIS preliminary site assessments. Detailed remedial action 

plans are being developed which will be submitted to NJDEP prior to construction. Soil and 

groundwater management plans are also being prepared to minimize the potential adverse effects 

from disturbance within areas where contaminated soil and groundwater is present. 

In terms of the changes since the FEIS, much of the revised design has been developed to avoid 

adverse effects during construction on the Diamond Shamrock (South Bridge) and Janatex 

(North Bridge) properties. These properties are contaminated with chromite ore processing 

residue (COPR) and are undergoing remediation by the site owner of Diamond Shamrock, the 

Occidental Chemical Corporation, and its subsidiary Tierra Solutions. Since the COPR material 

was generated on the Diamond site and used for fill on the Janatex property, the same parties are 

also responsible for the remediation on that property. 

For both sites, the original design had the tracks approaching the northern and southern bridges 

supported on embankments. Due to the poor bearing conditions of the site’s surficial geology, a 

lengthy ground surcharge would have been required to compress the underlying soils. This 

surcharge would require a method of expelling groundwater from the existing surface soils. This 

method presented two issues with respect to existing contaminated soil at the sites. First, there 

was concern with the migration of contaminated groundwater below the confining layer, since 

vertical drains would be required to surcharge the soil in a timely manner. Second, the 

placement of a large embankment would hinder or complicate any future remediation that may 

be necessary underneath the approach tracks. 

Ground disturbance would only be required at the pier locations used to support the structure. 

The piers would be approximately 115 to 120 feet apart. They will be supported by driven pipe 

piles. The pipe piles will be driven within a sheet-pile supported excavation that has had the 

contaminated soils removed beforehand. Therefore, small areas surrounding each pier location 

will be remediated and protected from further migration of contaminants into the remediated 

area by the sheet pile wall. This construction method will eliminate the need for wick drains and 

any possibility of downward migration of contaminants. Furthermore, it will allow for 

remediation of contaminated soils below the viaduct structure if the need arises in the future. 

The design and construction of a two-track North Bridge will likely further reduce ground 

disturbance where excavation surrounding pipe pile location areas within sheet pile containment 

may present a smaller foot print than that for a three-track supporting structure. 
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

None of the design changes would effect the project’s earlier coastal zone consistency 

determination. In addition, the project’s Waterfront Development permit application submitted 

to NJDEP has an updated compliance statement that confirms these conclusions. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

None of the project design changes would result in any disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to low-income or minority populations.

SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Changes to the project during preliminary engineering and early final engineering would not 

result in any additional secondary and cumulative impacts from the project. In fact, the revised 

design and reduced impacts to wetlands would lessen the potential for cumulative impacts to the 

ecological resources of the New Jersey Meadowlands. 

SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

Changes to the project developed during preliminary engineering and early final engineering 

would not result in any additional use of Section 4(f) properties.

D. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Based on the discussions above, it can be concluded that the revised design for the preferred 

alternative would not result in any new significant adverse environmental effects. The revised 

design would neither exacerbate any adverse effects disclosed in the FEIS nor increase the need 

for mitigation measures discussed in the ROD. In fact, the proposed design changes would 

reduce some potential impacts in key environmental areas such as wetlands and contaminated 

materials. 
ATTACHMENT C 



ATTACHMENT D 
1

Suriano, Ben J. (CEDCBJS)

From: Denton, Adam (FRA) <adam.denton@dot.gov>

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 11:34 AM

To: Suriano, Ben J. (CEDCBJS)

Cc: Longley, Michael (FRA)

Subject: Pre-Award Approval- TIGER Portal Bridge

Ben,

The NJT request for pre‐award authority to incur eligible project‐related expenses prior to obligation of the

Portal Bridge TIGER grant.  The intention of this request is to allow NJT to proceed with work that is necessary

to accomplish the project, with the goal of awarding a construction contract as soon as possible following

grant obligation and accelerating the ultimate deliver of this critical project.  NJT is allowed to apply eligible

costs incurred during this pre‐award period to the grant and OST and FRA approved a pre‐award authority

date of April 1, 2016.  The required project‐related work to be performed by contractors and NJT staff

between April 1 and the expected obligation date is estimated to cost $250,000.  NJT’s project‐related

activities within this period will include the following:

 Engage NJT’s in‐house project team including the project manager, procurement officer, risk

management department, etc.

 Commence reviews of applicable materials.  Reviews to include contract legal review, office of business

diversity review, etc.

 Direct the current engineer‐of‐record, Portal Partners, for their attendance at the pre‐bid conference.

 Provide any responses to Requests for Information during the bid process.

 Negotiate with the construction manager, AECOM, for a change order to their existing contract with

NJT in preparation for the field office oversight of the construction contractor’s daily activities and

schedules.

 Coordinate with the property owner, Amtrak, as needed.

Justification of Pre‐Award Authority Request:

This approval allows NJT to apply eligible costs to the grant for work that is necessary to accomplish the

project and that will accelerate the construction contract award; specifically, this work will  accelerate the Bid

and Construction Contract Award phase by developing a final Construction Bid Package for advertisement

(NJT’s goal is to advertise in May 2016).  NJT will not award the construction contract until the grant

agreement is executed.  NJT acknowledges that it accepts all risks associated with this work, including cost‐

related risk if, for some unforeseeable reason, the grant agreement between NJT and FRA is not executed, and

that, in such a case, DOT or FRA will not reimburse NJT for any costs incurred.  The following table details the

costs to be incurred prior to obligations by FRA Standard Cost Category (SCC).

SCC Work Scope Project Budget TIGER

Program

Costs

State Costs

80.01 Professional Services—

Project Development

$555,600 $100,000

80.02 Professional Services— $555,600 $100,000
2

Engineering  

80.03 Project Management $278,700 $50,000

FRA Recommendation:

OST and the FRA, including FRA's Office of Chief Counsel, has reviewed the proposed pre‐award activities and

associated costs, which are limited to professional services and NJT staff‐related expenses, and confirms that

these categories of expenses are eligible for reimbursement under the terms of the Grant Agreement.  The

requested costs are allowable under the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Federal Grants  and are

necessary in order to accomplish the project.  (2 C.F.R. §§ 200.430; 200.458; 200.459). NJT accepts the risk for

costs incurred prior to obligation, or if the Grant Amendment is never executed.  In addition, this pre‐award

activity is subject to all the other terms of the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery

(TIGER) Grant Agreement, including cost eligibility provisions.

FRA approves NJT’s request for pre‐award authority so that NJT can begin incurring project costs retroactively

starting on April 1, 2016 as outlined above.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Adam Denton

East Coast Team Lead  

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

West Building 3rd Floor – Office W38‐311

Washington, DC 20590

(202) 493‐6329 Work
ATTACHMENT E 






















ATTACHMENT F 












ATTACHMENT G