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.

Join us for World Water Day to Walk Against PennEast Pipeline

From the NJ Sierra Club:

This year for “World Water Day” we are walking along the Delaware & Raritan Canal, one of the many water resources that would be impacted by the proposed PennEast Pipeline. We are joining to protect our water from this proposal that will threaten the drinking water for millions of people. The PennEast Pipeline will cut an ugly scar through communities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania as well as cross over 88 waterways, including the Delaware River and D&R Canal.

On Sunday, March 20th we will walk for three miles along the D&R Canal towpath to bring awareness to the impact PennEast Pipeline will have on our water resources and surrounding residents along the proposed route.

The Lower Delaware River has been designated by the federal government as Wild and Scenic for its aesthetic and environmental value. However, PennEast Pipeline will ruin this area’s cultural and historic value by impact 39 parks, 44 wetlands, 33 farms and other open space areas, including the D&R Canal Park, Goat Hill, and Baldpate Mountain. This pipeline will not only promote fracking and climate change, it will cause water and air pollution, but is a safety hazard.

Walk with us on the D&R Canal towpath from Bulls Island State Park to Prallsville Mills and learn how to stop the pipeline. We will discuss the pipeline’s environmental impacts, stage of its application to various agencies, and how to get involved.

The walk will be three miles and cars will bring us back to original destination.

When: Sunday, March 20nd at 10 AM

Where:

Bulls Island State Park

2185 Daniel Bray Hwy

Stockton, NJ 08559

Other details: Bring water, snacks and lunch. Leashed pets are welcome. Kids of all ages are also encouraged to attend. Hiking boots are not required but may be easier to walk in if path is slick. This event is rain or shine.

PLEASE carpool since parking is limited. You can e-mail toni.granato@sierraclub.org to find a carpool in your area.

RSVP: Toni Granato at toni.granato@sierraclub.org.

Delaware Riverkeeper trains pipeline protesters

Delaware Township resident, artist & fierce pipeline opponent Jacqueline Evans tells the reporter the truth about PennEast & their unwanted & unneeded pipeline!

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/2016/03/06/delaware-riverkeeper-trains-pipeline-protesters/81212372/

LAWRENCEVILLE – About 25 Central Jersey property owners and concerned citizens have joined a growing group of community activists monitoring the wetlands and other sensitive sites along the proposed route of the PennEast pipeline in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

They were part of a training session conducted Saturday at Rider University by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the same organization that filed suit against FERC last week for conflict of interest in regulating the construction of pipelines.

The attendees at Saturday’s session were all New Jersey residents. A similar group in Pennsylvania was trained the previous Saturday.

Faith Zerbe, director of monitoring for the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, led the training, which included but was not limited to identifying the wetlands that community groups contend will be adversely affected if the PennEast pipeline is built and identifying the endangered native species of flora and fauna whose habitats will be affected. Zerbe said the pipeline route is about 114 miles long, although it gets modified from time to time as the PennEast consortium of companies reroutes the pipeline to meet certain conditions on the ground. She said changes had come as recently as this past week.

Should it be built, PennEast’s 36-inch pipeline will begin in the fracking fields of Pennsylvania near Wilkes Barre and extend across the Delaware River into Hunterdon County, then follow the river south into Mercer County. The route affects 87 waterways, 54 wetlands, 23 parks and 31 easements across the two states. Impacted sites include the Delaware and Raritan Canal and  several unnamed tributaries to the Delaware River.

“We are going through the PennEast aquatic resource reports to see what threatened and endangered species they have identified,” Zerbe said. “Then we are going out to find those species on the ground now, and we will continue to monitor them. Sometimes, the people who write these reports only consult maps and reports. They don’t actually visit the sites, and the maps and charts they consult may be out-of-date. Our monitoring can help prove how sensitive these resources are and help convince the regulatory authorities not to allow the pipeline to be built. ”

Some of the animals and plants that were discussed in the monitors’ training include the Indiana and Northern Long-eared bats, the Dwarf Wedge Muscle, the Atlantic and Short-nosed Sturgeon, the Bald Eagle, the Timber Rattlesnake, the Northern Flying Squirrel, the Bobolink, the Red-headed Woodpecker, the Wood Turtle, and the White-fringed orchid. A complete list of the endangered and threatened species in New Jersey can be found at http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/tandespp.htm.

In this preconstruction stage, Zerbe said, the monitors are really looking at wetlands and wildlife, to better bolster their arguments against the pipeline’s construction.

“We hope the pipeline is never built,” Zerbe added.

“The number of residents who have come out for this training shows clearly that we, the people, are not going to stop fighting this pipeline; rather, we are amping up our efforts. We will not let PennEast destroy our environment for profit,” said Kim Robinson, a Hopewell resident.

Delaware Township resident Jacqueline Evans owns a 6.51-acre farm on wetlands, with a stream flowing over one corner, as well as spring seeps and a pond. She raises goats, chickens, ducks and bees, practicing organic farming. She says if the PennEast pipeline is built, it will destroy her farm and her livelihood, and the stress is making her sick and scaring her three children.  But she is determined to fight it.

“In 1994, a 36-inch gas pipe exploded in Edison, creating a huge fire and a crater that was at least 100 feet,” Evans said. “That pipe had 980 psi (pounds per square inch). But because the PennEast pipeline would cross two states, it would be built to federal standards, which are lower than New Jersey standards, so it would be a weaker pipe with about 1480 psi,” she said. “In  the Edison fire, there was a safety valve every 2.5 miles and they still had trouble shutting it off. In the PennEast pipeline, they’re only going to have a safety valve every 10 miles. In fact, I had a 38-minute discussion with Jeff England, the project manager for UGI, the contractor for PennEast, and he said it would probably be even longer between safety valves because the area is less densely populated.”

Evans also pointed out the pipeline would be 150 to 180 feet from her house. If the Edison explosion created a crater that was at least 100 feet wide, she thinks that 150 feet isn’t enough of a safety buffer for her family, given her understanding that PennEast would use a weaker pipe with fewer safety features and at a much higher pressure.

For this and other reasons, she’s committed to fighting the pipeline to the fullest extent she can. She said that the pipeline proposal already has made it impossible to sell homes in Delaware Township, thus depriving her of her ability to send her daughters to college or to take care of her aging mother. And, she added, most mortgages have a clause that if a mortgagee leaves a property under conditions that have caused it to lose value, the mortgagor can call the loan to be paid in full.

Although she feels stressed, she said the opposition to the pipeline has united her community.

“We have wonderful people (in Delaware Township) and I have made so many great friends. This gives me strength,” she said.

Zerbe said that the Delaware Riverkeeper Network will be conducting more training sessions for people who want to monitor the sensitive wetlands and native species along the route. To find out more about future training sessions, contact her at faith@delawareriverkeeper.org or call her office at 215-369-1188, ext 110.

PennEast applies for water discharge permit on pipeline

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-penn-east-drbc-20160228-story.html

PennEast’s application for a 114-mile natural gas pipeline is being reviewed by the Delaware River Basin Commission, one of the many regulatory agencies whose approval is needed for the project to move forward.

PennEast has applied for a surface water withdrawal and discharge permit from the DRBC, said PennEast spokeswoman Patricia Kornick.

The permit would grant the pipeline company the ability to conduct hydrostatic testing and horizontal directional drilling, which is a method of boring to install underground pipe beneath bodies of water, roads or other environmentally sensitive areas.

The 13,539-square-mile Delaware River Basin includes parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Delaware. As currently proposed, 100 miles of PennEast’s pipeline would cross through the basin, from milepost 14.4 in Luzerne County to milepost 111.9 in Mercer County, N.J.

The pipeline would cross 209 bodies of water in the basin area, as well as the Delaware River, just south of Riegelsville from Durham Township in Bucks County to Holland Township in Hunterdon County, N.J.

Those who come to DRBC for approval must demonstrate their project does not conflict with the commission’s comprehensive plan, which includes policies, rules and regulations intended to prevent “substantial adverse impact” on the basin’s water resources, said Clarke Rupert, DRBC spokesman.

PennEast submitted its application to the DRBC on Feb. 8, which posted the submission on its website Thursday. DRBC officials are in the early stages of their review and don’t yet know how long that process could take, Rupert said.

The DRBC will accept public comments and hold public hearings on the application, though as of Friday it wasn’t clear when or how many public hearings would be held.

The DRBC is just one of multiple federal and state agencies participating in the review process, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the lead agency tasked with approving interstate utility projects such as PennEast’s pipeline.

While FERC considers the input of other agencies, it can still grant approval of the project without the approval of other agencies, FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen said.

If one of the other agencies does not grant approval it could potentially hold up PennEast’s construction of the pipeline, Young-Allen said, adding that she could not recall another such project being delayed for not getting all the necessary approvals. PennEast is hoping to receive FERC approval later this year and begin construction in 2017.

The DRBC is among about 20 agencies PennEast has requested input or permits from, Kornick said. The process paves the way for safe construction and minimal impact on communities and the environment, she added

Other agencies involved in PennEast’s review process include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

For its part, FERC is in the process of preparing a draft environmental impact statement on the project. PennEast submitted its application for FERC’s review in September. Young-Allen was unsure Friday how much longer it could take to prepare the draft. Once the statement is prepared, there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on it.

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network is pleased DRBC is participating in the review process and is urging the commission to hold seven public hearings separate from FERC’s own public hearings on the application, said Delaware River Keeper Maya van Rossum.

The network wants the DRBC to come to the main areas of the basin that will be affected by the project and hear those residents, she said.

If the DRBC does not grant permits for the project, van Rossum believes that could be enough to put a halt to the pipeline, though she acknowledged that DRBC does not usually deny such permits.

According to Delaware Riverkeeper Network figures, there have been 11 pipeline projects within the Delaware River Basin since 2011. Those include upgrades to existing pipelines. In addition, there are currently 11 new pipeline projects proposed to be installed in the basin area, including PennEast’s project.

Information on how to participate in DRBC’s review is on the agency’s website: nj.gov/drbc.

Cheaper gas means N.J. pipelines on the rise

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/business/cheaper-gas-means-n-j-pipelines-on-the-rise/article_110c26d6-dd9e-11e5-8304-f31cbf10e138.html

As more natural gas comes from the Marcellus shale, corporations are capitalizing on low prices with a proliferation of pipelines in New Jersey, experts say.

More than a dozen New Jersey pipeline projects have been in service, under construction or waiting for approval at the state or federal level in the past 12 months.

Increased natural gas supply and low prices have led to more pipelines nationwide, experts said.

But opponents and environmentalists worry about the long-term implications of extracting and burning the fossil fuel, as well as the pipelines’ effects on both the environment and the landscape.

Experts expect modest growth in pipelines in the next several years before demand slows.

“The pace of industrial growth after 2020 should cut in about half,” said Sam Andrus, senior director of North American gas service for IHS Inc., a Colorado-based information and analysis company. “So what that means is we expect to see a significant slowdown after 2020, from an exploration and production standpoint. And from a pipeline standpoint, that will slow as demand slows.”

Doug O’Malley, president of Environment New Jersey, wonders when these projects will stop.

“This isn’t about one pipeline at this point,” O’Malley said. “This is about whether we’re going to allow pipelines to be built unfettered.”

O’Malley believes the influx of projects is a sign of corporations attempting to move customers toward a fuel that may become costlier than it is today: “To build gas infrastructure now when prices are low, so consumers will be on the hook when they inevitably rise.”

Pipeline transportation is a $27 billion industry in the United States, according to IHS.

It’s becoming a big one in New Jersey, too.

The Cape Atlantic Reliability Project will serve the B.L. England plant in Upper Township while feeding natural gas throughout Cape May and Atlantic counties. The pipeline would stretch 22 miles from Maurice River Township in Cumberland County to B.L. England and includes a 10-mile route through protected Pinelands. The cost will be upward of $100 million, according to Folsom-based South Jersey Industries, parent company of South Jersey Gas.

New Jersey Natural Gas’ Southern Reliability Link, which will stretch 30 miles and serve three counties, including Ocean County, is projected at $178 million.

And the PennEast Pipeline, a 118-mile project that stretches from Luzerne County in northeast Pennsylvania to Mercer County, is estimated at a $1 billion total investment. South Jersey Industries is a 20 percent partner in the project as well.

“This is what’s going on in New Jersey and other Northeastern states that want to tap into production sites with the PennEast Pipeline,” said Darryle Ulama, industry lead analyst at research firm IBISWorld. “Even with higher utilization of existing pipelines, new construction is necessary to open up new delivery channels and expand transport capacity.”

Andrus said the current pipeline surge should remain modest through 2025, and that building a pipeline offers “a lot of capacity in one shot.”

He expects natural gas consumption to rise significantly over the next two decades.

“The pipeline capacity has to be built to service the market,” Andrus said.

Marissa Travaline, director of stakeholder relations for South Jersey Industries, believes lower cost and the reliability of natural gas will continue to drive customers toward the fuel.

“We believe that the cost effectiveness of this fuel choice and our proximity to an abundant domestic supply within the Marcellus and other shale formations can provide our region with significant benefits,” Travaline said.

But there has been criticism of the use of natural gas and the growth in the number of pipelines throughout the United States.

In South Jersey, one of the biggest objections has been the B.L. England pipeline. In December, the state Board of Public Utilities voted to allow the project to proceed without oversight by local zoning boards. It voted three previous times on the issues of its construction, its safety for residents and rerouting of an interconnection station for the project.

Natural gas also has been criticized for the dangers of fracking, or hydraulic fracturing — the process of drilling down for miles into the rock, then drilling horizontally and applying pressure until the rock is cracked. This can sometimes lead to water and air pollution and can be detrimental to the areas of the drilling, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Travaline said South Jersey Gas has worked in consultation with the BPU in maintaining an environmentally safe operation for the Cape Atlantic Reliability project.

“There will be no forest clearing or impact to the Pinelands,” Travaline said.

New Jersey Natural Gas spokesman Michael Kinney said the company’s project, the Southern Reliability Link, will provide resiliency to their customers.

Kinney said 85 percent of the company’s peak day supply of gas comes from a single interstate pipeline.

“The SRL would provide a feed to a second interstate pipeline at the southern end of our system,” he said.

PennEast Pipeline Submits Application to Delaware River Basin Commission

You’ll have to follow the link – it won’t allow me to copy & paste.

PennEast Pipeline Submits Application to Delaware River Basin Commission

Petition from NJCF

The proposed PennEast pipeline would tear up parks, farms, and open spaces that have been preserved from development. Add your name to the fight to stop PennEast. Sign the petition: http://goo.gl/pe422w — at Ted Stiles Preserve At Baldpate Mountain.

When it comes to pipeline easement offers, experts say read the fine print

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/watchdog/mc-penn-east-offers-011916-20160222-story.html

As Arthur Dent surveys his Kidder Township property with the meticulously landscaped garden surrounding the in-ground swimming pool, he has a hard time picturing 250 feet of natural gas pipeline cutting through his backyard oasis.

PennEast Pipeline wants to run the piping between Dent’s fiberglass pool and septic mound, and offered Dent and his wife, Leonie, $11,890 plus an additional $3,000 for damages that could occur during construction.

It’s not just the money that concerns Dent, but also the fine print in his offer.

“It looks like they can come in whenever they want and add additional structures,” Dent said.

Dent is so frustrated, he said he wishes PennEast would just buy his entire property so he can move.

“You see what they are going to do, and that’s not where we want to live,” he said.

Dent is among more than 500 property owners who have begun receiving offers from PennEast to purchase permanent easements for its planned pipeline that would carry natural gas from Wilkes-Barre to Mercer County, N.J.

Easements are legal documents that grant access to property to a nonowner for a specific purpose. In this case, PennEast is making offers for access to the properties, with the right to replace or alter the size of the pipeline and install additional utility lines, including fiber-optic cables, data acquisition, telecommunication lines in the same easements, according to offers shared with The Morning Call.

Using that easement, PennEast could then sell off the rights for thousands of dollars, legal experts said.

“What’s equally, or possibly more important, than the compensation for property in these cases is negotiating a robust easement agreement that provides protection going forward,” said Carolyn Elefant, a former attorney for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is in charge of approving interstate utility projects such as PennEast’s.

Requests to install additional utility lines in the right of way are standard in most pipeline easement agreements.

But these agreements would give PennEast more rights than it would lawfully acquire if it were forced to use eminent domain, said Elefant, now an attorney in Washington, D.C., who represents landowners potentially affected by the pipeline.

Besides provisions about future lines, legal experts said property owners also should pay close attention to property appraisals and damage compensation.

When easement negotiations break down, the law gives utilities the right to use eminent domain to take properties for projects that benefit the public good.

In the case of utilities, eminent domain would limit the easement to the project under FERC consideration. In the case of PennEast, that would be a single pipeline.

Still, having easements for future lines has its advantages for utilities.

“If a landowner does not retain those rights,” Elefant said, “the pipeline can sell them off, potentially for tens of thousands of dollars.”

She noted that fiber-optic cable companies “will pay a considerable amount of money to be able to lay cable in an easement.”

Further, Elefant said, it’s easier to install additional pipelines in an existing right of way than to find another route and start from scratch.

The MB Line, a 17-mile extension built in Maryland by Columbia Gas Transmission, was installed in or adjacent to existing right of ways, she said.

Another Columbia expansion, The East Side Project, used existing right of ways to install 9.5 miles of pipeline in Chester County and 9.5 miles in Gloucester County, N.J.

In such cases, she said, the compensation for a second line is minimal — “largely for damages and remediation rather than for the property value.”

Standard contract language

PennEast’s application is pending FERC approval. The company hopes to receive approval this year so it can begin construction and be operational by 2017.

The company is not planning to construct another pipeline, but includes language on additional lines in initial contract offers as standard practice, said Patricia Kornick, a spokeswoman for PennEast.

“If a landowner is not comfortable with certain provisions in the initial easement agreement — or wants to add provisions — PennEast encourages landowners to discuss their preferences with the PennEast land agent,” she said.

More than 50 landowners have signed offers since October, when PennEast began sending them to the about 565 landowners along the pipeline’s 118-mile route, said Simon Bowman, head of land acquisition at PennEast.

Monetary amounts in offers shared with The Morning Call vary and include payment for damages such as the removal of trees, for temporary right of way and for the permanent easement where the 36-inch-round pipeline will be buried.

PennEast is working with Western Land Services, a Tunkhannock, Wyoming County, land management company, which is making offers to landowners and negotiating on PennEast’s behalf.

The company looked at the value of neighboring and similar properties to make offers to landowners, Bowman said.

“What is best for both the landowner and us is to have a bilateral negotiation where we can talk with the landowner and offer them a premium value,” Bowman said. “If it goes [to eminent domain], it involves a lot of cost and additional time.”

Property owners interviewed by The Morning Call said the provision allowing easements for multiple lines was among the items that immediately drew attention when they received offers in the mail.

They said monetary offers don’t seem to begin to cover the value of their land or the damage it would incur, let alone any issues caused by future lines.

Guy Wagner, who owns Wagner Farm in Lower Nazareth Township, said he was offered $72,000 for a permanent easement and $29,000 for damages across 10 acres of his 100-acre property.

“The land won’t be able to be farmed efficiently anymore. The pipeline will cut right through the center of it on a diagonal. They don’t care how much damage they do to it,” Wagner said.

Jeff Porter, an owner of Porters’ Pub in Easton, hired an attorney to review his contract.

PennEast is offering Porter $6,660 to install 31 feet of pipeline on a sliver of the three-quarter acre property Porter purchased in Durham Township, Bucks County, where he hopes to open a cafe. Of the $6,660 PennEast is offering, $3,000 is specified to cover damages.

Porter’s property, which borders the Delaware River, is on Route 611, about 9 miles south of Easton. Porter said it is the last property PennEast has to cross before the pipeline passes under the river.

“I know for a fact my property would be worth less if I have this pipeline running through it. It’s going to depress the value a lot more than $6,660.”

His attorney, David Juall of Durham, is a member of the Concerned Citizens Against the Pipeline group.

Juall said property owners like Porter should question appraisal values. Juall has seen several contracts and is concerned none of them includes a formal appraisal of the landowner’s property, or lists the criteria for how the company determined the value.

A typical appraisal includes how much the land is worth in its current state, and how much it would be worth once it has an easement running through it.

PennEast’s offers only provide a monetary figure and do not outline how the company came up with the valuation.

Carl Engleman, a Reading attorney representing nine landowners, said property owners should seek the advice of an attorney.

“I am advising [my clients] not to sign without negotiating an addendum to the contract first,” he said. “With the deals I negotiate with my clients, I make sure the easements are exclusive easements, meaning the only thing that can go in the ground is an underground pipeline, nothing else, unless it is necessary for safe operation of the pipeline.”

Engleman believes the amount of money PennEast is offering is a decent starting point, but the offers do not adequately compensate landowners for the harm they are going to suffer.

For example, those with agricultural property could stand to lose multiple years of crops when their land is disrupted, Engleman said.

Dave Messersmith, an educator and pipeline expert for the Penn State Cooperative Extension in Wayne County, said the viability of farmland after the pipeline installation depends how the company handles the soil during installation.

It takes about three years before soil can start generating crops again because it is compacted during construction, Messersmith said.

Messersmith said it’s common for a pipeline operator to pay full crop damage during the year of construction and then some percentage over the next couple years after the site is restored.

Eminent domain

Utilities usually will send a final offer to property owners still without signed contracts. If the property owner declines the offer, the company will file suit against the hold-out landowners, Elefant said.

The lawsuit will ask the court for the right to take property so the company can begin construction of the pipeline. It will also ask the court to settle damages.

Whether landowners wind up better off going to trial, Elefant said, “that depends.”

A Philadelphia County judge recently ruled that a lawsuit trying to stop Sunoco Pipeline from using eminent domain on its Mariner 2 project in southern Pennsylvania can proceed, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

The Clean Air Council, one of the plaintiffs, argued that since the natural gas the pipeline would carry would end up overseas, it would not benefit the public good. Thus, the company would not be a utility, rendering it unable to use eminent domain.

But Elefant cautions that negotiating an easement might yield the landowner more in the long run. There is no guarantee how much money the court might award if it goes to eminent domain.

“Although I can pretty much guarantee that the pipeline’s offers up front will be far too low, in some instances they can be negotiated up to a point that they might be worthwhile when weighing the costs and benefits of trial,” she said.

PENNEAST EASEMENT OFFERS

What: PennEast Pipeline has filed an application with the Federal Regulatory Commission to build a 118-mile natural gas pipeline from Wilkes-Barre to Mercer County, N. J.

Easements: It has begun making initial offers to acquire permanent easements from the approximately 565 landowners along the path. Easements are legal documents that grant access to property to a non-owner for a specific purpose.

Initial offers: Besides money for the easement and to cover damages from construction, the company wants easement rights for future utility lines, including fiber-optic cables, data acquisition and telecommunication lines in the same easements.

What’s next: Landowners can negotiate, accept or reject offers. With rejected offers, PennEast could acquire easements in court through eminent domain.

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.

Links to PennEast’s responses to FERC’s request for more info

If you haven’t seen the response yet, I will post the links.  They also posted the updated route info.

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160222-5213

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160222-5257

There’s a lot of reading here – it’s keeping us all very busy.