HELFRECHT: NJNG pipeline isn’t needed

http://www.app.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/03/08/southern-reliability-link-pipeline/81475244/

For the past year and a half, hundreds of citizens from Bordentown to Upper Freehold have spent countless hours and sleepless nights organizing, attending town and county meetings, and writing letters to the state Board of Public Utilities, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state and federal officials because of the grave concerns raised by New Jersey Natural Gas’ Southern Reliability Link.

NJNG claims the pipeline, which to the north will cut through Plumsted before terminating in Manchester, is needed to enhance “resiliency, reliability, and provide redundancy of the gas supply” in the event another superstorm Sandy hits, or if a disruption in the current Texas Eastern Transmission interstate supply system occurs.

But here are the facts:

•NJNG’s “disruption” was caused by Sandy’s destruction of the Mantoloking Bridge, which resulted in the detachment of the gas distribution main on the bridge. Fires started all over the barrier island due to other breaches in the gas distribution lines.

•There was no curtailment of gas transmission through the Texas Eastern interstate supply that feeds the NJNG system from Middlesex County. When queried in direct testimony by the BPU as to how many disruptions of this type have occurred in the past 60 years, NJNG could not point to even one such incident.

•There was no service loss west, north, or south of Brick or Toms River, or in any of the bayside communities in Ocean County. NJNG made the conscious decision to shut off all gas service to the barrier island. But that does not constitute a failure of the system.

•Even if a redundant interstate supply had been feeding the southern end of the NJNG system, all gas service would still have been shut off to the barrier island for safety reasons, to mitigate fire or explosion risks and to allow emergency personnel to safely respond.

•NJNG engaged the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst to describe a military “need” at the behest of the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, which told NJNG it would have an easier time getting the pipeline approved. The base had no need then, and its mission is not compromised today.

•Joint Base personnel asked a simple question to which NJNG tersely responded that they knew of “no calculation” describing a “blast area,” adding “that term typically is used by anti-pipeline groups who are looking to raise fear of a pipeline installation.” Every pipeline operator in the U.S., whether interstate or intrastate, knows full well such a calculation does exist and is used on a daily basis. It is found in the Code of Federal Regulations.

•In its petition to the BPU, NJNG demands waiver of all local ordinances, road opening applications, permits and the BPU’s own safety regulations that require pipelines operating at 250 psi or higher be built no closer than 100 feet to habitable structures. The Municipal Land Use Law is supposed to give municipalities the strength to guide — or even resist — development of unwanted or unusual land uses within their jurisdictions. Here is a case of the state-created body called the BPU and the state-legislated Municipal Land Use Law being thrown into irreconcilable conflict, leaving the BPU omniscient and municipalities impotent. The BPU commissioners are nominated at the pleasure of the sitting governor, so there are political influences that also prevail. The citizens get a raw deal.

•A Williams/Transco interstate transmission pipeline extension and new compressor station are required for the Southern Reliability Link. This noisy machinery operates 24/7, will leak methane, “blow down” to regulate pressure, and has the potential for explosion with effects for at least a 1-mile radius. And there are associated health problems.

•This whole project is tied to Penn East’s pipeline project now being challenged by nearly 40 municipalities along its route into Hopewell Township and in which there is a partial-ownership interest by New Jersey Resources, the parent company of NJNG.

How does one countenance such blatant lying? Why will no one face up to the fact that this is not a needed infrastructure?

This is not a “done deal.” There would be permits required from the state Department of Environmental Protection as well as FERC. Join now and raise your voices loudly opposing the BPU’s potential approval of this project. Please visit http://www.responsible-pipeline.com to learn more.

Walter Helfrecht is webmaster of Responsible-Pipeline.com and treasurer of the Crosswicks-Doctors Creek Watershed Association. He lives in Upper Freehold.

Workers recover at least 3,000 gallons of oil from broken pipeline in Bayonne park, DEP says

Tell me again how safe pipelines are?

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/02/workers_recover_at_least_3000_gallons_of_oil_from.html#incart_river_home

BAYONNE — An underground pipeline in a Bayonne park that was discovered to be leaking yesterday has spewed at least 3,000 gallons of oil and is currently undergoing repairs, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

DEP spokesman Larry Hajna said today that the leaking pipeline — located in Halecky-IMTT Park at the east end of 27th Street — was reported to the DEP at 12:40 p.m. yesterday, but that it’s not known when the line actually broke.

“Responders are out on the scene. They’re excavating and using vacuums to pull up the oil,” Hajna said, adding that as of about 3:30 p.m., workers had recovered roughly 3,000 gallons of the stuff.

The DEP said the leak has not affected any waterways, and that it’s not a threat to public health and safety.

IMTT, a liquid storage and handling facility, owns the pipeline and took it out of service several months ago to carry out repairs and upgrades, but the leak is stemming from residual oil left in the out-of-service line, Hajna said.

“Presuming that there are no other leaks in the pipeline, and that we have the leak identified, there will be no more going into the environment. It will be collected by the vacuuming operation,” he said. “There is an area that has soil saturated with oil and that will have to be excavated and backfilled with clean fill at some point.”

IMTT has assumed responsibility for cleaning up the area, and will be reimbursing the state for any costs incurred by the DEP when the DEP initially responded to the emergency, DEP spokeswoman Caryn Shinske added.

The DEP identified the oil that has leaked as “Number 2 fuel oil,” which is also known as heating oil and is used for “domestic heating or for moderate capacity commercial/industrial burner units,” according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s website.

The DEP said it’s not known whether the leak has been stopped and when repairs on the broken pipeline will be completed.

Meanwhile, contrary to the DEP’s version of events, Tim Boyle, head of the Bayonne Municipal Utilities Authority, said the leak is coming from a line that is in service. Asked about the discrepancy, the DEP said IMTT said the line is out of service.

When contacted, IMTT couldn’t immediately provide information on the matter, or provide information in response to other inquiries.

Boyle also said authorities were notified last night about the oil leak, as opposed to yesterday afternoon.

Earlier today, Bayonne police, IMTT firefighters, IMTT-contracted engineering firm Mott MacDonald, SUEZ, Ken’s Marine Service, The Napp-Grecco Company and other agencies and contractors were at the site of the clean-up.

NJCF’s FERC submission regarding PennEast’s poor performance

This is great – many thanks to the New Jersey Conservation Foundation!

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160223-5010

February 22, 2016
Docket No. CP15-558-000
PennEast Pipeline Project
New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s Technical Comments on FERC’s Environmental Information requests to PennEast, dated February 10, 2016 and November 24, 2015, and PennEast’s response of December 14, 2015.
PennEast fails to fully respond to FERC’S requests
A number of the information requests in FERC’s February 10, 2016 document are reiterations of requests made by FERC on November 24, 2015. This proves once again that PennEast’s response of 12/14/2015 was clearly inadequate and incomplete. PennEast has yet to provide enough information to complete a rigorous DEIS. Without a complete response and information we strongly request that FERC immediately suspend review of PennEast’s application. In a letter October 28, 2015, the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), cautions that “before an applicant submits this kind of large scale project” requiring numerous permits, both the applicant and FERC must demonstrate the need for the project. If this need is established “viable alternate routes must be explored prior to advancing the EIS …” PennEast has neither established the public need for this project, nor seriously explored alternative routes. The NJ Conservation Foundation plans to file substantive comments on this point, and in answer to PennEast’s proposed Answer, under separate cover.
The NJDEP also calls for a rigorous alternatives analysis, one which would include using current roadways as well as the no-build alternative. Under NEPA, the alternatives analysis must also include data from which FERC can evaluate other options to meet identified needs, including renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. PennEast still has not provided data that could support a meaningful or comprehensive alternatives analysis. The NJ Conservation Foundation plans to file substantive comments on this point, and in answer response to PennEast’s proposed Answer, under separate cover.
In both documents, FERC asks PennEast to address voluminous correspondence from NJ Natural Lands Trust(NJNLT). As early as March 2015, NJNLT requested PennEast to explore alternatives to the current route which would cross the Gravel Hill Preserve and Project Area in Holland Township. These properties are a critical habitat for many threatened and endangered species and high priorities for the citizens of New Jersey. NJNLT even went so far as to sketch out alternative routes for PennEast, which PennEast has continued to ignore. In FERC’s February 10, 2016 request, they ask PennEast for the second time to explore this alternative and provide an engineering and environmental analysis of the alternative. PennEast’s only response to these detailed requests in their December 14 document was that they “…are engaged in ongoing consultations with the Natural Lands Trust…” These consultations are not satisfactory if FERC had to ask PennEast to address this issue a second time.
2
Stream impacts still not addressed by PennEast
In its response to FERC’s Environmental Information Request, PennEast repeatedly avoids addressing the fact that the proposed pipeline would cross 49 C-1 designated streams in New Jersey. These waters have received this designation because they are of the highest resource value, and provide habitat to threatened and endangered species. Many experts believe and are on record stating that there is no practicable way to cross these C1 designated streams without degrading their water quality and causing irreparable impact.
The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) must include a stream-by-stream analysis of the species and water quality impacts of the proposed C-1 crossings. Currently, according to both FERC and NJDEP, PennEast has not provided the information that would be necessary for such a study. Such information would need to be obtained through on the ground field investigation, and cannot be based on desk-top or aerial data.
NJ DEP notes “…trenched crossings will likely result in adverse impacts to state listed species and subsequently result in potential permitting issues at the State level…Department geologists have suggested that directional drilling may be problematic at these and various other locations along the proposed ROW. We urge FERC to require PennEast to address this concern and provide documentation that fully assesses whether directional drilling is a practical and feasible option…” PennEast does not address this comment.
In Data Request # 27, FERC asks PennEast to “provide a description of any waterbody construction or restoration measures proposed for the crossing of streams designated as C-1 in New Jersey”. PennEast responds that construction and restoration will follow NJ Laws and regulations. They do not provide actual descriptions or plans explaining how they will or can comply with state laws and regulations, nor how they will prevent degradation of 49 C-1 streams. They provide no evidence or data, no mitigation plans, no channel construction plans, no boring plans, no excavation plans, no restoration plans, no planting plans, no monitoring plans, no data or mapping regarding threatened and endangered species. We strongly urge FERC to suspend review of the PennEast application until all of the necessary data and analysis are completed and submitted.
Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is sometimes mentioned as a way to minimize negative impacts to environmental resources. PennEast only proposes using it 10 times in New Jersey. Of the 49 C-1 stream crossings, HDD is proposed for only 4 crossings and BORE for 4 crossings. The remaining 41 C-1 crossings will use dry crossings. HDD should be required for all C-1 stream crossings. In order to use HDD, extensive geological, boring, construction and blasting studies and plans are necessary. See below for New Jersey Geological and Water Survey’s (NJGWS) concerns regarding the lack of geotechnical information that PennEast has provided FERC and NJ DEP. NJGWS comments regarding these issues have not been addressed by PennEast.
This is particularly disturbing since attempts to use HDD on the Transco Leidy line have failed, resulting in an attempt by Transco to seek major modifications to their NJDEP permits. The proposed modifications, if permitted, would result in serious negative impacts to critical wetlands habitat. Before HDD is accepted as a viable methodology, it should be thoroughly studied to make sure it is feasible. The geology where Transco’s HDD failed is very similar to the geology underlying much of the PennEast route. If HDD is not viable for C-1 stream crossings, the ability of the proposed pipeline to meet water quality standards for C-1 waterways and avoid serious damage is likely impossible.
PennEast submissions lack adequate studies, plans and data, and contain numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies
PennEast has thus far refused to provide complete information and has not addressed FERC’s and NJDEP’s comments and requests for information from NJ Geological and Water Survey comments, which extend to 7 pages in their October 28, 2015 letter. NJGWS is justifiably concerned that PennEast’s filings do not include
3
geotechnical assessments. According to NJGWS, the seismic hazard analysis, quarry blasting study, arsenic risk assessment, karst hazard study and geotechnical horizontal directional feasibility study included in the resource reports contain little or no data. PennEast has only one response to the 25 comments of the NJGWS letter. NJGWS states that there is inaccurate information about NJ geology in section 2.2.1.2, as well as mischaracterization of the hydrogeology of the Newark basin ( which makes up nearly 90% of the project area) in Section 2.2.5. In their comments on Section 6.1.1, NJGWS quotes the resource report as stating “…USGS mapping, included in appendix D indicates…” Yet NJGWS continues that “ there are no references of any USGS geological maps in Appendix D. Please note that USGS never mapped or published any geologic mapping of many of the detailed areas shown. PennEast should cite the specific publication and properly reference any maps they use, not general statements of government agencies.”
There are many discrepancies between resource report 6 and its appendices according to NJGWS. Referring to Section 6.1.3 Geological investigation of Horizontal Directional Drill Crossings, NJGWS states “The report indicates that geological investigations of 10 HDD crossings are complete or ongoing as of September 2015. Appendix O, Part A indicates that only 2 of 10 drill sites have geotechnical reports that are nearly complete while the remaining sites are not started or awaiting access for some or all of the borings. For the sites in NJ there is no specific information that can be reviewed.”
The fact that PennEast addresses only one comment in NJGWS’s 7 pages of comments demonstrates once again that the company is inadequately addressing data gaps in its application, and persists in advancing incomplete information. PennEast completely ignores the valuable insights and data gaps helpfully detailed in NJGWS comments. NJ Conservation Foundation again urges FERC to suspend review of PennEast’s application, and postpone the DEIS until such time as PennEast submits a complete application with accurate information.
Minimal surveying leaves glaring data gaps
Survey access continues to be a problem for PennEast, especially in New Jersey. The Endangered and Non-game Species Program repeatedly comments that PennEast’s survey efforts do not meet ESPN requirements, and that their consultants and survey protocols have not been adequately vetted. In New Jersey, PennEast has only surveyed 13 parcels for important species. There are potentially 500 parcels that will need surveying.
Survey opportunities are limited for many species and habitat types. The NJ DEP’s November 4, 2015 letter states “PennEast has proposed that construction of this pipeline begin in February 2017 and be completed in November 2017. This proposed construction schedule does not, at this time, appear to be attainable…” PennEast responds “ Acknowledged. PennEast will continue to evaluate schedule and timing restrictions as the project advances.” Attachment 7, p.10. In fact, in order to protect grassland birds, Kestrals and Long Tailed Salamanders, all of which are documented along the proposed route, tree clearing and “in- water “ work are only permitted in October and November. There are also timing restrictions for bats, owls, trout and wood turtle. There are some habitats along the proposed route that will have timing restrictions in place all year long.
PennEast has not provided the information necessary to allow for a proper evaluation of the proposed project
The NJ DEP and FERC cannot fully evaluate or base any findings or permits for this project on desktop surveys. FERC must require PennEast to collect the data and produce the complete and accurate reports needed to evaluate the project.
FERC should require the following additional data and analysis:
 Stream by stream analysis
 Geo-technical analysis
 Analysis of HDD for all C-1 stream crossings
 Construction plans
4
 Avoidance plans for cultural, natural, open space and agricultural resources
 Other items noted in November 24, 2015 letter that PennEast has failed to address.
Important requests FERC has made which continue to go unanswered by PennEast:
 Mitigation plans
 Reforestation plans
 Riparian area restoration plans
 Updated list of parklands, preserves and sanctuary lands. FERC asks that they be identified by milepost, and that mitigation and minimization plans to reduce impacts to visitors be provided.
In conclusion, NJ Conservation Foundation reiterates the request to FERC that we made jointly with the Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association in a letter dated January 21, 2016, submitted on our behalf by the Eastern Environmental Law Center, and Columbia University Environmental Law Clinic. We urge FERC to suspend the NEPA review of the proposed PennEast pipeline until PennEast responds fully and completely to FERC’s important and appropriate requests made in the letters dated November 24, 2015, and February 10, 2016.
PennEast has failed to adequately respond to FERC’s requests, including missing the 10-day deadline to respond to FERC’s letter dated February 10, 2015. As FERC has noted, this information is prerequisite to the preparation of a draft environmental impact study, and thus that process should not move forward in its absence.
Please contact Tom Gilbert, Campaign Director- Energy, Climate & Natural Resources, New Jersey Conservation Foundation at 908-234-1225 ext. 305 with any questions.

Preservation group’s report says Pinelands protections suffered year of setbacks

http://www.shorenewstoday.com/upper_township/preservation-group-s-report-says-pinelands-protections-suffered-year-of/article_0af9dc92-d732-11e5-86f6-07ee6b8762fc.html

SOUTHHAMPTON – Pinelands protections suffered one of their worst years ever, according to the annual State of the Pinelands report released last week by the Pinelands Preservation Alliance.

The report focuses on the state of Pinelands protections and rates how specific government actions over the past year have either helped or harmed the Pinelands. The report rates the actions of government officials and agencies that include the governor, Pinelands Commission, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), state Legislature, local government, and others.

“This is one of the worst years that we have experienced in terms of setbacks to Pinelands protections,” said Richard Bizub, Director for Water Programs, in a press release. “In the nine years we have been issuing this report there has always been some good to balance out the bad.  Whether it was the denial of a large inappropriate development project, promising appointments to the Pinelands Commission, or the creation of a plan to better protect Barnegat Bay, there has always been some promising advances to better protect the natural resources of the Pinelands.

“This year we were hard pressed to find the silver lining,” Bizub said.

The report is critical of state agencies for what it claims is waiving or ignoring rules governing development in the Pinelands. The construction of high pressure natural gas pipelines through the Pinelands are the major threats identified by the PPA.

Two pipelines from two different companies, New Jersey Natural Gas and South Jersey Gas, have been proposed in New Jersey. The 22-mile pipeline proposed by South Jersey Gas would allow the B.L. England power plant to convert from oil and coal to natural gas, as part of a $400 million project proposed by its owner, R.C. Cape May. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has said the plant’s remaining coal boiler must be closed in two years.

As proposed, the pipeline would travel along the right of way on Route 49 from Maurice River Township to Tuckahoe, and then down Route 631 through Petersburg, before turning north and using the power line right-of-way parallel to the train tracks to the B.L. England power plant.

The pipeline would also increase reliability for Cape May County customers, according to South Jersey Gas. The company says the pipeline would travel along the right of way on Route 49.

Pinelands Commission staff and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities have signed off on the project, but the New Jersey Sierra Club and Environment New Jersey filed suit in January to stop it.

New Jersey Natural Gas’ proposed 28-mile pipeline would travel from Chesterfield in Burlington County to Manchester Township in Ocean County.

The PPA report says that ratepayers would foot the bill for both projects. The Pinelands Commission has refused to officially vote on either project, according to the report.

“This abrogation of its responsibilities sets a terrible precedent for an independent state agency that the public depends on to ‘preserve, protect and enhance the natural and cultural resources of the Pinelands National Reserve,’” according to the release.

The report says the DEP has also taken troubling actions over the past year. The DEP started but then stopped an effort to prevent off-road vehicles from destroying habitat in Wharton State Forest, according to the report. DEP also proposed rules that would weaken storm water management, flood hazard control and coastal zone management, the report says.

The report is also critical of the state Senate for voting to replace former Pinelands Commission member Robert Jackson with Robert Barr, of Ocean City. Jackson voted against the South Jersey Gas pipeline in 2014.

The state Legislature also approved a bill allowing “low-impact recreation” on Pinelands fields, according to the report.

“This is not good government. You don’t change the rules that protect a globally significant ecosystem for the sake of one company,” PPA executive director Jaclyn Rhoads said in the release. “These rules have been in place for more than 35 years.”

Some good outcomes came about in 2015, according to the report. It says the annual Pinelands Short Course sponsored by the Pinelands Commission continues to grow in popularity. Thousands of citizens took action over the past year to push state agencies and policymakers to protect the Pinelands, according to the report

The complete report is available at www.pinelandsalliance.org.

FERC submission from Debbie King

You tell ’em Debbie!

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160129-5478

Deborah King, Stockton, NJ.
It was extremely disturbing to learn from a video posted on the Internet
that a surveyor hired by PennEast was trespassing on my property last
week while I was not at home, despite the fact that I have sent certified
letters denying access to my land to PennEast and Western Land Services.
My farm is no longer on the proposed route, but apparently these rogue
surveyors think that they can just pull into anyone’s private property
with impunity.
Clearly, PennEast thinks it doesn’t have to play by the rules. But will
FERC and DEP just accept their fictitious findings as fact?
These attempts to circumvent people’s property rights and gain
information illegally are utterly deplorable and pathetic.
We landowners have every right to deny access to our properties, and if
PennEast cannot legitimately gain the crucial information they need to
proceed, well, that’s just tough luck. PennEast took that risk when they
targeted preserved farmland and C-1 streams and precious waterways, and
now they are losing. Too damn bad.
PennEast: it is time for you to cut your losses, pack up and go home.
We will never roll over and allow you to permanently despoil our land,
pollute our rivers, contaminate our streams, poison our water, deforest
our woods, injure our wildlife, blast our bedrock, defile our land,
interfere with our livelihoods, destroy our property values, harm our
health and scare our children just so you can make a quick buck.

BPU approves $130M N.J. Natural Gas pipeline

http://www.nj.com/burlington/index.ssf/2016/01/bpu_approves_130m_nj_natural_gas_pipeline.html#incart_river_home

The board’s approval is contingent on NJNG getting permit approval from the state Department of Environmental Protection, the affected towns and counties and the Pinelands Commission.

The board still has to decide whether NJNG can have local zoning and planning board approvals waived.

Since its inception, the project has faced stiff opposition from residents, officials and environmental groups.

Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, called the pipeline unnecessary.

“This pipeline is not for resiliency; it is for growth and development along the coast,” he said. “The pipeline will cause an ugly scar through the Pinelands … affect the safety of communities and farming viability in the area and … add pollution to our air and water and promote climate change, putting our environment, our health and our safety at risk.”

Tittel said that residents’ concerns have been ignored.

“The BPU does not listen to the people, they just do what the utility companies want,” he said. “Putting in this pipeline will be like putting a blowtorch in people’s backyards.”

DTCAP Update and Action Alert

Happy New Year to all! As 2016 gets underway, it is an important time to renew our collective commitment to fight and defeat the PennEast pipeline!

In the past month, there have been several important new developments including some new route changes, the filing of PennEast’s response to a request for detailed information from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the formation of a directly- impacted property owner’s group, the selective release of offers to some impacted landowners before Christmas and several important actions at the state level. The following is a description of recent events as well as a call to action on concrete actions you can take today to continue our collective fight against this destructive project!

Where We Stand in the FERC Process

PennEast filed its formal application for a “Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity” for the PennEast pipeline project on September 24, 2015. (The docket number to use in all communications is now #CP15-558 for any written comments or correspondence to FERC during the project review process.) Since that time, an amazing number of individuals and organizations have filed with FERC to intervene in this proceeding.

Intervention means that the individual/entity has filed as” having an interest” or stake in the review and outcome of this project. Intervenor status gives one the right to submit and receive all documents, filings, comments and developments from FERC, PennEast and all interested intervenors as the project review proceeds. Intervention status also gives an individual or entity the right to appeal FERC’s ultimate decision on this project.

It is important to note that you can still file to be an intervenor in the proceeding but FERC must approve your status as a late-filing intervenor. For information on filing as an intervenor click here. FERC has recently approved new intervenors so it is not too late!

It is also important to note that even if you are not a filed intervenor – YOU CAN STILL SUBMIT COMMENTS TO FERC ON THE PENNEAST PROJECT (Docket # CP15-558). For Instructions on filing comments before FERC, click here.

In addition, DTCAP is organizing efforts for a targeted FERC Comments Campaign as discussed below.

Status of FERC’s Project Review

We are in a critical stage of project review – and the last opportunity to file comments about the project’s need and impact before FERC issues its draft Environmental Impact Statement or EIS to all cooperating agencies and the public for review and comment. The EIS is FERC’s “independent analysis” of any environmental impacts that could occur if the PennEast pipeline is constructed, maintained and operated. It drives the final decision-making and if approved, the future parameters of the project.

Although the specific timing of FERC’s release of the EIS is unknown, some believe that it could occur in March 2016, which leaves us limited time to submit our important comments on this project!

DTCAP FERC Comment Campaign

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires FERC to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from this project as well as public concerns covering a broad range of issues including geology, water quality, wetlands protections, historical features, safety and even the recreational use of our lands- to name a few. Many of you, along with DTCAP, citizens groups, environmental organizations, professional associations and hundreds of other individuals have commented during the pre-filing process on these impacts. Unfortunately, these comments need to be re-filed or re-stated at the current stage of the FERC process to be part of FERC’s consideration as it drafts its EIS.

We urge you to re-file any previously submitted comments NOW to ensure their consideration by FERC. This is especially important since hundreds of postcards from PennEast employees and individuals from outside our region supporting the project have been filed with FERC.

DTCAP has begun a targeted FERC Comment Campaign to facilitate your participation in the comment process. Over the next few weeks, DTCAP will identify top issues areas and sample talking points for you to utilize in filing your individual comments to FERC. It is critically important that you participate in this effort to share our issues, information, concerns and voice with FERC before the EIS issues.

TARGET ISSUES THIS WEEK:

Call for Re-opened Scoping/Intervention Process, Delay of the Release of a FERC EIS until Key Environmental Responses are Provided by PennEast, and Voice or re-file your issues concerning the impact of the construction of the pipeline to your property, livelihood, water and septic.

The Facts

On December 14, 2015, PennEast filed a Supplemental Information Filing to FERC which included two key components:

One aspect of this filing was to announce that PennEast was adopting five “minor deviations” from the route it filed with its September 24th application. These route changes include three areas in Hunterdon County (Deviation Nos. 1701, 1702 and 1900). It identifies a confidential list of newly impacted homeowners from these route changes and continues to run through the Rosemont Historic Agriculture District (ID# 4591). These newly impacted homeowners have not been given sufficient time to evaluate the pipeline’s impact on their property and the scoping period should be re-opened as a result.

The second aspect was PennEast’s response to a comprehensive information request from FERC on November 24th about the route and its impacts. In this response, we learned that:

PennEast acknowledges that it will be unable to provide significant information concerning certain key environmental issues until the first quarter of 2016.

In addition, PennEast’s response to FERC’s inquiry about items identified by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in letters filed with the Commission on November 4, 2015 and November 17, 2015, is that they are discussing a mitigation plan with NJDEP as part of on-going preapplication coordination.

PennEast promises to submit its plan to NJDEP concurrent with the permit applications in the future. How can a draft EIS be issued with incomplete data and while mitigation plans with NJDEP are still under discussion? How can the public respond?

PennEast admits that it will have to blast virtually the entire length of the route in Hunterdon County including Holland, Kingwood, Delaware and Hopewell townships, thus putting homes, wells, septic systems, livestock and our farming economy at risk of significant damage;

PennEast claims that there are only two wells that are located within 150 feet within the construction zone and only one of these wells qualifies as a water source. The DEP has filed a comment challenging PennEast on this issue and FERC has yet to respond. This is an opportunity to challenge this issue. Nearly all landowners in Hunterdon County have well water. Any property within 150 feet of the construction zone counts as a well located within 150 feet of the construction zone. Tell FERC about your well and septic that could be compromised by this project!

PennEast continues to ignore the fact that the Rosemont Historical Agricultural District is a recognized historical area (ID#4591) and has not provided FERC plans to avoid this federally protected area as requested. The current plan has the pipeline cutting through this historic district!

PennEast does not yet have a plan to mitigate the loss of trees and vegetation and has no timeline for one. Instead, they are hoping that they can convince agencies that buying some other land and conserving it will suffice to mitigate the damage from the construction of the pipeline.

Based upon this significant route change, the lack of a detailed response by PennEast on core issues relevant to the development of an EIS, and the short time period provided for newly impacted homeowners to intervene and respond to the new pipeline route, DTCAP asks you to file a comment to FERC this week on one or more of these issues as follows:

SAMPLE COMMENTS/TALKING POINTS – Use one or more of the talking points, personalize as indicated in bold, and file your comment. Thank you!

Address to:

Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888First Street NE, Room 1A

Washington, D.C. 20426

Re: Docket No. CP15-558, Proposed PennEast Pipeline

Dear Secretary Bose:

I am (identify yourself as a resident of __Township, an impacted homeowner, etc.) I am providing comments on the PennEast Pipeline Project, Docket #CP15-558, specifically in response to the December 14, 2015 filing of Supplemental Information to FERC by PennEast.

Deviating from the route filed on the September 24, 2015 application is a clear indication that PennEast still knows little about the area in which it plans to build a pipeline and is seeking to rush through the FERC process regardless of impacts. This could have devastating results that leaves local residents, landowners and farmers with land that is not inhabitable or functional and will permanently impact our properties and our way of life.

FERC has a duty to provide a fair and comprehensive review process and should therefore re-open the scoping period for public comment on the new route changes as they did in January 2015. Re-opening the scoping period allows the newly impacted landowners needed time to explore the impacts of the project on their properties and to provide unique, relevant information and raise concerns about project impacts.

Similarly, FERC must re-open the intervener sign-up period to provide newly impacted landowners the necessary to participate in these proceedings. FERC has a fiduciary duty to fully evaluate this project and to provide the public, and most importantly, impacted homeowners, full access to FERC processes.

In addition, since PennEast admits it cannot provide information regarding significant environmental issues including mitigation plans required by the NJDEP, the EIS must be delayed until PennEast can demonstrate that it complies with all NJDEP requirements and fully satisfies all information requests from FERC, impacted land owners and the public.

In its December14, 2015, PennEast continues to willfully ignore facts that have been clearly submitted as part of the public record of this project. For example, PennEast continues to fail to recognize the existence and federally protected status of the Rosemont Historic Agricultural District (ID# 4591). PennEast continues to ignore the unique status of this region, its use as a working agricultural environment and the listing of this region on the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places. Despite numerous comments about the unique and vital character of this region, PennEast has refused to make any effort to avoid this region or respond to public comment. FERC has a duty to address this issue prior to the issuance of the EIS.

Another issue where PennEast has either ignored public comment or blatantly misrepresented information to FERC concerns the issue of private wells along the proposed route. This issue has heightened importance in light of PennEast’s announcement that it plans to blast throughout the entire proposed route in New Jersey during construction.

In its recent response, PennEast asserts the obviously inaccurate claim that there are only two wells located within 150 feet of the construction zone. Despite the numerous comments of individual landowners about the location of their private wells within close proximity to the project area over the past year, PennEast deliberately misrepresents this vital and pervasive environmental impact for its own ends. Landowners in both Hunterdon and Mercer counties along the route rely on private well water for their homes. I do. My well is located approximately____feet from the construction zone of the proposed route.

FERC has a duty to investigate this issue and protect impacted homeowners from a direct threat to the habitability of local properties and the health and welfare of local residents. The location of private wells is readily available for search through government records and does not require field surveys. PennEast’s misrepresentation here shows bad faith, negligence and a blatant disregard for the welfare of residents along the pipeline route.

As a landowner, I feel seriously threatened by PennEast’s plans to blast virtually the entire length of the pipeline in New Jersey. The blast could damage our home’s foundations, wells and septic tanks, not to mention killing wildlife, destroying habitat and frightening livestock. Penn East proposes to construct via blasting and open-cut techniques for stream crossings which will result in severe pollutant and sediment runoff, increase the likelihood of changing the channels in the stream corridor, and result in severe impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. The geology and depth to bedrock in our region is incompatible with Penn East’s proposed blasting and trenching techniques and will result in irreparable and permanent damage to our homes, neighborhood and livelihoods. This is unacceptable.

For these reasons, I ask FERC to re-open the scoping and intervenor filing periods as noted, to delay the issuance of any EIS on this project until PennEast provides comprehensive answers to all impact areas and to ultimately reject this destructive, unnecessary pipeline project. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

PennEast Opponents Prep Property Owners, Seeking to Putting Power into People’s Hands

PennEast Opponents Prep Property Owners, Seeking to Putting Power into People’s Hands

After providing an overview of the FERC process, Ms. Garti outlined the strategies being used to challenge the Constitution pipeline project in her home state of New York, focusing on the collateral approvals that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires, including historic, clean water and wetlands. She also provided property owners and the assembled community groups with suggestions for effective comment delivery during what she called the most critcal phase of the administrative process, the DEIS (“Draft Environmental Impact Statement”) period, stressing the importance of providing a variety of feedback and information for FERC to consider, as compared to simple volume of form-based or repeat comments.

Also on hand were representatives from the newly-formed HALT PennEast property owners group, including Vincent DiBianca, a former local Hopewell resident.  DiBianca explained that their goal is to stress that PennEast has “insufficient public good to trump property rights.” The group recently announced their hiring of Washington DC law firm Wiley Rein to take on the PennEast project.

During the question and answer period, some local property owners expressed concern about whether it was futile to challenge what some say is an inevitable FERC “rubber stamp” approval. But the mood quickly turned to optimism based on the support of local legislators and the prospect of the State level (NJDEP and DRBC) approvals needed.  Those, the speakers suggested, are the real opportunities for a successful challenge and, even with FERC approval of the project, PennEast will be hard-pressed to pass the historic, water, wetlands and other environmental hurdles handled by other agencies.

Patricia Sziber, Executive Director of Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space, one of the event’s co-hosts summed up the sentiment in the room:  “We are in this to the finish.”

Homeowner group wants to HALT PennEast pipeline

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/01/homeowner_group_wants_to_halt_penneast_pipeline.html#incart_river_index

or Jacqueline Evans, the fight against the PennEast pipeline isn’t about tree hugging, necessarily. She’s also fighting for her business.

Evans owns an organic farm in Stockton, Hunterdon County, and the proposed 36-inch natural gas conduit is proposed to run through it, potentially negating her organic certification, endangering her livelihood and the way of life she’s worked to achieve.

“We’re fighting for our concept of the American dream,” Evans said. “I think it will destroy our agricultural community. There are going to be businesses who can’t make money.”

Evans was among the 62 people who have formed a community group aimed at stopping the PennEast pipeline, which is proposed to run from northeastern Pennsylvania to Hopewell Township. The $1.2 billion project is under consideration by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The group calls itself HALT (Homeowners Against Land Taking) PennEast, and its members, enlisted from Hunterdon and Mercer counties, claim to be “in it for the long haul,” according to Vince DiBianca, of Delaware Township.

“We’re not a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) group,” DiBianca said. “The case we’re building is that we don’t believe there’s any public good in this project. We don’t want it relocated off our properties, we’re organizing to stop it.”

The group has hired some K Street firepower for their efforts. Steven Richardson, an attorney with longtime Washington D.C.-based firm Wiley Rein and former deputy director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, has been retained by the group, DiBianca said.

“We’re serious, we’re united, we’re organizing and we’re in it for the long haul,” DiBianca said. “We’re standing up to protect our property rights and to stop this unwanted, unneeded and harmful pipeline.”

A very thorough FERC comment

One of our fierce fighters in the war against PennEast has submitted a detailed comment to FERC about the continuing behavior conducted on behalf of the pipeline company.

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160119-5032

“I am writing to express a great deal of concern over PennEasts proposed crossing of
my home. They have out right lied when stating in documents to FERC that they are not
within 150 feet of any well. The line is about 110 feet from my well that supplies water to
my 3 young children and I, our farm animals and our organic farm. The proposed line
crosses a C1 stream onto my property, goes straight through a series of ever growing
sink holes and springs, on the bank of a spring fed pond and through a wetland buffer.
All this is information easily obtained through the vast low(300-500’ over my home)aerial
surveying conducted by PennEast over the last 5 month with planes and helicopters,
which occurred nonstop 7 days of the week form sun up to sun down, with only the
exception of Thanksgiving day. This information is also available through research of
NJDEP maps, which show my property as being entirely wetlands. My property in fact
looks like an oasis of wetlands in an area of dry land, so I am baffled as to why
PennEast would aim straight for it.
I called to ask Jeff England that very question and he first said he thought it was for
environmental reasons, however with a little research he later phoned back to say they
were avoiding a neighbor’s federally preserved farm and wetlands. When I reported that
my lands were entirely wetlands he said not according to his map. When I mentioned
how close he was to my well, he said they were unaware of that as well. He seemed to
have little concern for any of these issues. He offered to have a representative come out
and educate me on the pipeline, which I found insulting especially after he admitted that
the safety shutoff valves would likely be more than 10 miles apart because there were
fewer people where I live. I told him I love my children just as much as the mothers in
the city and their life was no less valuable than a child in a city. Again no response. We
had the same exchange over PennEasts choice to go with the weakest pipe possible.
The rushed building of pipelines in this country has lead to an increase in leaks,
explosions and illness. January 7, 2016 the BBC reports that Governor Jerry Brown
declared a state of emergency in Porter Ranch, a suburb of Los Angeles, California.
More than 2,000 people have been evacuated from their homes, many feeling ill. 6,500
have applied for help and health officials are saying long term effect from exposure to
methane gas are unknown. The leak started in October and has yet to be mitigated.
The article states,”Gas is spewing into the atmosphere at a rate so fast that the well
now accounts for about a quarter of the state’s total emissions of methane- an
extremely potent greenhouse gas.”
The article talks about methane gas being a short lived pollutant that stays in our
atmosphere a relatively short period of time, however cautions with a quote from the
California Air Resources Boar, “when measured in terms of how they heat the
atmosphere, their impacts can be tens, hundreds, or even thousands of times greater
than that of carbon dioxide.”
SoCal Gas says it could be March before the leak is fixed, that is nearly half a year of
displacement, unknown side effects, drop in property values for the citizens of Porter
Ranch. The article ends with a quote from Ms. Paula Cracium, President of the Porter
Ranch Neighborhood Council, “The stain of this disaster is going to be felt for a long
time”. This does not bode well for PennEast and their hurry to push their pipe through
without proper studies and review, weakest pipe allowable, safety valves placed as far
apart as possible with no regard for the safety of the families who live in New Jersey.
I went on to tell him his planes were flying over my twin boys entire 3rd grade class
playing on a mound of hay while their parents watched while a plane flew 300 feet over
them repeatedly. This is illegal, dangerous and irresponsible. My 9 year old twins had to
explain that they did this all the time, because we won’t let them on our land. I had to
explain this to the parents who were horrified. This was reported to the FAA, who told
me this nonstop flying is referred to as a “nuisance operation” and they take it seriously.
I know my property rights and I have refused to allow PennEast on my small organic
farm, to drill through the heavy stone releasing arsenic into my water and the aquifer
that supplies water to Delaware Township and Stockton, to take away my farmland
assessment, to jeopardize my and my children’s health with ruining air quality
increasing our asthmatic episodes, taking away our ability to safely play and enjoy our
home with friends. I will lose money from farming and painting in my studio. No one
wants to visit a house that could blow up leaving only a vast crater behind. So why
would I want to cooperate with a lying corporation to ruin my home, my community and
my children’s future?
The stress PennEast has caused my children and I in the last 5 months alone is worthy
of a law suit. The continual flying vibrating my metal roof has led to stomach and
intestinal problems documented by several doctors. I ended up in the hospital with
internal bleeding as a result. My children fear retaliation from PennEast as signs get
stolen and vandalized on the actual line crossing on our property, a chain locking our
gate cut and stolen, and trespassing with the use of an uninformed local cop paid for
hire. I asked Jeff England why they would hire a local police officer and he said,
“Sometimes people video tape the surveyors…” He said they don’t like when that
happens and the surveyors need protection.
I asked Mr England, “From what? What have we ever done to you?” He had nothing to
say. I also asked him why they were trespassing on my property that day as I had sent 3
certified letters with return receipts to PennEast and UGI, so I have proof they were
received. He responded he saw that they received them as my property was highlighted
in red on his computer, which meant denied access. When I asked why they had not
sent me a letter stating they had received my letters and would not trespass as they had
with my ex-husband he had nothing to offer. PennEast stood on my property with a local
police officer standing next to them with absolutely no warning. My 9 year old son was
home sick that day and had to witness me nearly have a nervous breakdown as I called
an on duty cop to file a report and neighbors flocked to my aid. This is not something
anybody should endure, especially a child. I asked Mr. England why not hire a private
firm for “protection”, if they wanted to have good relations with our town and he said
they had in the past. This leads me to believe it is another example of the so many ways
PennEast bullies us and tries to divide us to their advantage. Because of this amazing
community, that has not happened. All these tactics have made us stronger, more
unified and more determined. Any survey information submitted by PennEast for my
property was obtained illegally. I have denied access and will continue to do so.
November 3, 2015 on election night at 10:00pm, a helicopter hovered over the houses
on the line in Delaware Township for 10-15 minutes each. They looked to be 200 feet
high and shook our house scaring my children from their beds. I called the police and a
reporter who witnessed this and filed a report. My children went to sleep trembling and
feeling threatened. It took me until 11:00pm to get them to sleep on a school night.
Unbelievable. I am afraid to ask what is next, because PennEast has lied, denied and
bullied us in ways that seem so unAmerican that it leaves me questioning the system I
was taught was suppose to be diplomatic and fare. PennEast hasn’t responded
adequately to the citizen’s of New Jersey’s responses to FERC. I hope FERC will have
PennEast answer our questions. PennEast has told Delaware Township Board of Health
they would not come to a meeting addressing health concerns, in fact they are not
attending any town council meetings. They act as if they filing with FERC is a done deal
and they don’t have to put any effort into it. To them it doesn’t matter if they call the
Delaware River the Hudson, If they supply you with survey information of the wrong
quarry and out right lie about their practices and intentions. They don’t hesitate to
submit maps with trees missing, let alone buildings and fences.
On January 13th, 2016 at 8:15am I saw a man in a truck marked USCI with Texas
plates driving back and forth on the pipeline route on Sergeantsville Road, Stockton, NJ.
The truck made illegal u turns and drove into driveways to turn around, which is illegal. I
had to take my children to school, when I returned I saw it was still there so I followed it
for a mile and a half. It pulled over and a man about 6’4” got out and asked with the why
I was following him. I stayed in my car with the window cracked and said I wanted to
know what he was doing. He said he was “working for a pipeline company.” I asked
which one and he said he would not tell me. Later when I went to file a police report with
Sgt. Elliot Grey of the Delaware Township Police Department, he told me that he pulled
him over just before I followed him after witnessing him driving back and forth and
turning in driveways. He asked to see the man’s work ID when he said he was
surveying and the man said he had none. Sgt. Grey asked for his work order papers
and he said he didn’t have those either. Sgt. Grey told him this was illegal surveying and
he would have to leave. The man then said he was working for the state through NJ Dig
to locate pipes for excavation to be done and showed him the order on his computer,
which stated UGI ordered surveying on Worman Road(where I live), Sergeantsville
Road and Sandy Ridge. UGI and PennEast have been informed by Delaware Township
that they were not to survey on our roads as it is illegal, yet they still did it and with
someone who has no work ID or proper papers, who gave me and the police two
different stories. When photos of this truck were posted my neighbor said this truck with
a surveyor came to their property on January 4th, 2016 and said he was part of the
crew putting solar on their roof. This was a lie and further trespassing. PennEast is
breaking the law and lying continually. Again, any survey information you are receiving
from my property at 112 Worman Road, Stockton, NJ has been obtained illegally and
should not be accepted.
The money and time to protect myself from these people and their unscrupulous ways
has been substantial, however with our future and lives at stake I have no other choice
than to fight this with everything I have got. I will not lay down and let PennEast destroy
me, my children, my community or my state. I am not alone, rather I am part of a
growing majority. I am asking FERC to review this rushed application carefully, as it is
severely flawed, shows no need, will only provide 12 jobs at best in the state of New
Jersey, does not benefit the public in anyway. Instead it costs us money(Insurance
increases, loss of property value, loss of property income, loss of tourism and business)
and threatens our health and safety.”