Princeton Hydro’s Review of Transco’s NESE NJDEP Permit Applications

(June 2018)

I. Executive Summary

Princeton Hydro has been retained by the Eastern Environmental Law Center (“EELC”)
to review Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company (“Transco’s”) proposed Northeast Supply
Enhancement (NESE) Project relative to ecological impacts and regulatory compliance. We have
already reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) for the NESE Project
issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) on March 23, 2018; EELC
submitted our report on the DEIS with its comments to FERC on May 14, 2018. This report
focuses on the following Transco permit applications for the NESE Project that have been
submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”): Freshwater
Wetlands Individual Permit, Coastal Wetlands Permit, In-Water Waterfront Development
Individual Permit, and Upland Waterfront Development Individual Permit.

In preparing this report, Princeton Hydro reviewed and evaluated information on the
NESE Project provided by Transco to NJDEP, which included the permit applications
themselves, various environmental reports, and several project plans. Additionally, Princeton
Hydro reviewed Transco’s stormwater management plan because the proposed stormwater
management facilities present the potential to impact (1) regulated resources (such as wetlands)
and (2) surface water quality.

Our review of Transco’s application revealed a number of important issues that should
preclude any serious consideration regarding an approval of this Project. A few of the key issues
we identified in the documents are summarized below.

1. Transco’s Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit application fails to make any

realistic attempt to satisfy the requirements at 40 CFR 230, as required by N.J.A.C.
7:7A-7.2(b)8. Incorporation of these requirements into the impact analysis is essential
to a realistic determination of impacts, including secondary impacts. As such the
Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit application remains incomplete and thus fails
to adequately illustrate compliance with the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act and
New Jersey’s requirement to fully satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.

2. With regard to site selection, Transco’s site selection process site for Compressor
Station 206 is derived from its alternative analysis designed for FERC and is not
consistent with the requirements of either the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act or
the Clean Water Act. It is for this reason that the identification of a preferred site
resulted in a short list of five sites that would all require substantial impact to forested
wetlands. Transco’s alternatives analysis lacks sufficient sophistication to identify a
non-wetland site. It is also important to understand that Transco is the owner of the

1 
 
 
 selected site and it is therefore not in its best interest as it relates to regulatory
compliance to find an alternative site since it would impact Transco’s goal of
providing gas for the 2019/2020 winter heating season.

3. Stormwater Management: Based on our analysis of Transco’s stormwater basin

design, it is apparent from the multiple design errors that the proposed basin falls well
short of meeting the minimum requirements or design standards for a bio-retention
facility as required by the NJDEP. In addition, Transco failed to understand that the
proposed facility will be classified as a Class IV Dam, in accordance with New Jersey
Dam Safety Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:20). These and other design errors reveal
significant technical design flaws that preclude compliance with New Jersey’s
Stormwater Management rules. Importantly, N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2(b)15 requires a
project such as the one proposed to comply in its entirety with the Stormwater
Management Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:8 in order to satisfy the requirements for an
Individual Permit.

4. The presence of acid producing clays was not mentioned a single time in any of the
applications to the NJDEP even though there are several references to the underlying
Magothy geologic formation. Once these acid-producing clays are exposed to the air,
they are difficult to stabilize due to the inability of plants to establish in soils with a
pH near 3. The identification of these soils and areas in which they will be exposed
should be considered an essential element of an analysis of secondary impacts.

5. With regard to offshore water resources, the construction of the Project will have
significant water quality impacts in Raritan Bay. This includes potentially significant
impacts (1) from the resuspension of sediments and other contaminants and (2) to
habitats due to the disturbance of shellfish beds and other benthic resources. In
addition, the construction of the Project will potentially impact Atlantic sturgeon and
other protected species, depending on the timing and methodology of construction.
While these and other impacts from the Project could be significant, the precise
nature and magnitude of such impacts is uncertain at this time and depends on
additional details regarding the construction of the Project. There is too much impact
to a state that will receive no direct benefit from the completion of the proposed
Project, as all of the natural gas conveyed through the proposed pipeline will be
provided solely to NY.

Based on Princeton Hydro’s examination and evaluation of the material currently

available to the public related to the Transco NJDEP permits listed above – and Transco’s
stormwater management plan -- it is our professional opinion that this Project fails to fully
comply with New Jersey’s Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act1, Flood Hazard Area Control
Act2, Wetlands Act of 19703, Waterfront Development Law4, these statutes’ related regulations,

                                                            
1
 N.J.S.A. 13:9B‐1 et seq. 
2
 N.J.S.A. 58:16A‐50 et seq. 
3
 N.J.S.A. 13:9A‐1 et seq. 
4
 N.J.S.A. 12:5‐3 et seq. 

2
and the Stormwater Management Act Rules. Therefore, NJDEP must deny the applications for
these permits related to Transco’s NESE Project.

II. Onshore Water Resources (Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit, In-Water

Waterfront Development Individual Permit, Upland Waterfront Development
Individual Permit)

A. Overview of Deficiencies

Transco’s Freshwater Wetlands (“FWW”) Individual Permit (“IP”) application, prepared

by Amy S. Greene Environmental Consultants, Inc. and dated June 22, 2017, does not satisfy the
minimum relevant requirements as set out in New Jersey’s Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act
Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:7A, Subchapter 7.5 Overall, this permit application (1) only provides a
general account of the natural resources associated with the project site; (2) fails to satisfy the
requirements of an alternatives analysis designed to meet the minimum requirements of New
Jersey’s Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (“FWPA”), which seeks to first avoid and then
minimize wetland impacts before engaging in mitigation; and (3) does not sufficiently describe
the Project’s impacts to regulated resources, including wetlands and surface waters. In addition,
the stormwater management facilities proposed for Compressor Station 206 are poorly and
improperly designed and will fail to meet the NJDEP’s minimum stormwater management
standards.

As the NJDEP is well aware, New Jersey regulations related to the preparation of a
FWPA Individual Permit application necessitate a greater level of environmental analysis than is
currently provided in Transco’s FWW IP application under review. The FWW IP application
contains a number of oversights, omissions, and errors that need to be addressed before this
Project can satisfy the minimum permit requirements set forth by the NJDEP. Regulatory
compliance is a prerequisite for Transco to be able to implement the proposed project, yet the
FWW IP application submitted to the NJDEP is currently deficient and will require substantial
changes in order to fully comply with even the minimum requirements of New Jersey’s permit
program.

Transco states on page 6 of their FWW IP application the following: “The Project has
been designed to minimize impacts to the greatest extent practicable while still achieving the
Project goals and objectives. Reduction of wetland and transition area impacts makes the current
proposed plan the most environmentally responsible alternative (refer to the Alternative Analysis
above). Impacts to wetlands and transition area have been minimized by reducing disturbance
areas to the greatest extent practicable while still allowing for activities necessitated for
successful implementation of the proposed Project” (emphasis added). It is important to
understand that rhetoric such as that of the preceding quote, especially in the context of the
highlighted section, does not mean that the NESE Project is consistent with the FWPA -- it just
indicates that Transco has minimized impacts to its own satisfaction. The following sections will

                                                            
5
Here -- and throughout its discussion of Transco’s Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit application -- Princeton
Hydro is citing to the “old” Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules (i.e. prior to the December 18, 2017
amendments), in accordance with DEP’s comments in 49 N.J.R. 834(a) (May 1, 2017). 

3
describe the deficiencies in Transco’s FWW IP application and the various reasons why it is not
consistent with the FWPA.

Importantly, New Jersey’s assumption of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”)
does not negate the need for the applicant and the NJDEP to follow the requirements of the
CWA 404(b)(1) guidelines in the development of this individual permit application. The
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act specifically indicates the need to comply with 40 CFR
230.10(c) at N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2(b)8. This section states that the proposed regulated activity “Will
not cause or contribute to a significant degradation, as defined at 40 CFR 230.10(c), of ground or
surface waters.” Failure to fully understand the implications of the reference to 40 CFR 230.10
will preclude the applicant from being able to fully comply with both the FWPA and the CWA.
Rather than take the time to understand the meaning of this requirement, Transco’s FWW IP
application simply states on page 12 of Section 2 (item #8) the following: “The Project will
incorporate a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Best Management Practices will be
employed to minimize impacts on surface water quality during construction.” Based on this
misapplied single sentence response to this important requirement, it is apparent in Transco’s
FWW IP application that no effort was made to actually understand the implications of the
reference to 40 CFR 230.10(c). In part, 40 CFR 230.10(c) states the following: “(c) Except as
provided under section 404(b)(2), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted
which will cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the United States.
Findings of significant degradation related to the proposed discharge shall be based upon
appropriate factual determinations, evaluations, and tests required by subparts B and G, after
consideration of subparts C through F, with special emphasis on the persistence and permanence
of the effects outlined in those subparts.” It is important to note that this section of the
guidelines leads to the inclusion of other key sections of 404(b)(1), such as the need to identify
secondary impacts that an applicant must be able to address in order to illustrate compliance.
Compliance with this Federal requirement has not been addressed and must be provided in order
to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

In this regard, it is essential to understand the Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”)

between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the NJDEP. This MOA explicitly states
(in Section IV. Program Maintenance, A. Duty to Maintain Program Compatibility) that the
“State Program will be conducted in conformance with applicable regulations and definitions
found in 40 C.F.R. Parts 230 and 233.”6 As such, it is the responsibility of the NJDEP to make
sure the applicant fully satisfies the requirements of the relevant portions of 40 CFR 230 instead
of allowing Transco to circumvent this important section of the Freshwater Wetlands Protection
Act as well as the CWA. In the absence of any realistic attempt by Transco to satisfy the
compliance requirements at 40 CFR 230, this FWW IP application remains incomplete and thus
fails to adequately illustrate compliance with the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act. The
NJDEP has assumed jurisdiction of Section 404 of the CWA and thus cannot be less restrictive
than the US Army Corps of Engineers when conducting an analysis of alternatives. Here,
Transco’s “alternatives analysis” does not fully comply with either the FWPA or the CWA. To
fully comply with section 404 of the CWA, an alternatives analysis must be prepared in
accordance with the 404(b)(1) guidelines (CFR 40 Part 230, Section 404(b)(1)).

                                                            
6
A copy of the MOA is provided in Appendix A. 

4
 The following sections provide a more detailed description of some of the FWW IP
application’s deficiencies, which would justify the NJDEP’s decision to deny Transco’s FWW IP
application.

B. Alternatives Analysis for Compressor Station 206

Transco’s preliminary review identified a preferred site as well as four other parcels that
could potentially host proposed Compressor Station 206. Regrettably, the alternatives analysis
resulted in five finalists that would all have significant wetland impacts. Interestingly, Transco’s
alternatives analysis states that “Transco undertook an exhaustive study to identify and evaluate
potential compressor station locations.” It is obvious when reviewing Transco’s FWW IP
Application that the alternatives analysis was not only far from exhaustive, but is also at odds
with the FWPA and CWA regulations. The FWPA – in Sections N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.1 through 7.5 -
- provides various requirements that must be addressed by an applicant, including the preparation
of an alternatives analysis. The analysis of alternatives set forth in the FWPA has its genesis in
Section 404 of the CWA and, as such, must follow the 404(b)(1) guidelines. Through the MOA
discussed above New Jersey has an obligation to fulfill the requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, including the 404(b)(1) guidelines.

The requirements to satisfy the FWPA are far more rigorous than those presented by
Transco to FERC in its National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) analysis for that federal
agency’s DEIS. The analysis of alternatives required by FERC for the DEIS routinely lacks
sufficient detail to adequately respond to the requirements of either the FWPA or the 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Under a 404(b)(1) analysis, it is critical for the applicant to identify and choose the
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (“LEDPA”) for the project. As such, it
is incumbent upon an applicant to demonstrate to the reviewing agency that its proposed project
and site present the LEDPA. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is prohibited from issuing a
permit for anything less than the LEDPA, and so too is the NJDEP. Here, Transco’s FWW IP
application did not truly seek to identify the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative for the NESE Project and instead -- after reviewing 41 sites -- selected a short list of
five sites that all included significant wetland resources and will result in significant wetland
impacts. Transco’s January 2018 document submitted to NJDEP (entitled “Supplemental
Information to Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit”) provides the total permanent wetland
impacts for the five sites in Table 4B-2, which is summarized here:

Transco Permanent
Permanent Wetland Forested Wetland State Open
Site Transition Area
Impact Impacts Water Impacts
Nos. Impacts
1 10.28 acres 10.22 acres 0.05 acres 11.38 acres
2 4.98 acres 4.98 acres 0.16 acres 6.36 acres
3 3.73 acres 2.64 acres 0 acres 2.45 acres
8 1.27 acres 0.34 acres 0.06 acres 11.53 acres
27 5.75 acres 5.14 acres 0 acres 7.90 acres

Although the prerequisites for a FWW IP under the FWPA have unique requirements as set forth
under section 404 of the CWA, Transco initially relied heavily on the alternatives analysis done
for FERC in Transco’s Resource Report No. 10 (dated June 2017). The alternatives analysis

5
provided in the FWW IP is essentially a paraphrased version of Transco’s Resource Report No.
10 and, as such, is not fully responsive to the requirements of the FWPA.

Transco’s selected site for Compressor Station 206 is derived from the alternative
analysis provided in Resource Report No. 10-- an alternatives analysis that is not consistent with
the requirements of either the FWPA or the CWA. Contrary to the objectives of both the CWA
and the FWPA, Transco selected a site with significant wetland impacts --including the
permanent loss of 2.64 acres of forested wetland. Transco states in their FWW IP application, in
response to NJAC 7:7A-7.2(b)2, that the basis for its selection is that “Impacts to wetlands and
transition area have been minimized by reducing disturbance areas to the greatest extent
practicable while still allowing for activities necessitated for successful implementation of the
proposed Project.”7 As previously discussed, this statement is inconsistent with the requirements
of the FWP and the CWA, which mandate that an applicant must first avoid impacts and then
seek to minimize them. The alternative analysis used by Transco did nothing to satisfy the
requirement to avoid wetland impacts. This alternatives analysis actually states that the five
parcels selected were the sites “with the least potential impact on wetlands based on a review of
NJDEP mapping.”8 Transco’s approach to identifying a site lacks sufficient sophistication to
satisfy the objective of avoiding impacts to wetland resources. At this juncture it is important to
point out that the FERC process regarding impacts to resources such as wetlands differs from
that of the CWA and FWPA in that impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through
the implementation of mitigation measures. The approach used in Transco’s alternatives analysis
should be deemed unacceptable by the NJDEP as it fails to satisfy the most basic premise of the
FWPA -- applicants are directed to seek an alternative that does not involve a freshwater
wetland. Transco’s alternative analysis was sufficiently flawed to circumvent the objective of
identifying of a location that would provide a non-wetland alternative and, thus, it fails to satisfy
the robust requirements of the FWPA.

As indicated above, Transco’s FWW IP application did not respond to the minimum
requirements for a FWW IP under the FWPA. Although Transco describes the project as being a
non-water dependent activity, this compliance statement is inconsistent with the requirements of
the FWPA Rules. In order to satisfy the minimum standards for a FWW IP, an applicant must
satisfy the conditions set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.4(b), which states:

There shall be a rebuttable presumption that there is a practicable alternative to a

non-water dependent activity in a freshwater wetland or in a special aquatic site,
which alternative does not involve a freshwater wetland or special aquatic site,
and that such an alternative would have less of an impact on the aquatic
ecosystem.

The FWPA Rules, at N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.4, define “practicable alternative” as:

[O]ther choices available and capable of being carried out after taking into
consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
                                                            
7
Transco, Application for NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit, p. 6 [“Section 4: Standard Requirements
for All Individual Permits (N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2)”] (June 22, 2017). 
8
 Transco, Application for NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit, p 4.3 (New Jersey Alternatives, June 2017) 

6
 purposes, and may require an area not owned by the applicant which could
reasonably have been or be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to
fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity.

Outside of unsubstantiated statements and rhetoric, Transco fails to demonstrate that the
proposed activity could not be accomplished at another location that would completely avoid
impacts to freshwater wetlands. Importantly, as is the case with many alternative analyses,
alternatives are often designed to fail and, in this case, the failure is based on a variety of issues
(including wetlands, size of property, and shape of property). For example, with regard to
Compressor Station 206, Transco’s screening process only looked at individual parcels rather
than multiple parcels that -- if combined -- may have provided the opportunity for a non-wetland
alternative. In addition, Transco failed to consider properties that may be currently occupied or
previously developed in its attempt to identify sites that would avoid impacts to freshwater
wetlands.

Transco’s alternatives analysis indicates that its preliminary review process resulted in
the identification of five parcels (Sites 1, 2, 3 (Transco’s proposed site), 8, and 27) that could
potentially host Compressor Station 206 and that each of these sites were evaluated further. As
previously indicated, alternatives are often designed to fail and in this case the failure is based on
Transco’s screening criteria. As an example, parcel 5 (a site adjacent to Parcels 8 and 27), was
initially dismissed because it possessed too much wetland as per NJDEP mapping. Based on
Transco’s remote sensing approach to wetland delineation, however, it is likely that – based on a
review of the most recent remote sensing maps provided by Transco in the January 2018
supplement to their NJDEP FWW IP application -- less wetland may be present on Parcel 5 (and
possibly other parcels) than indicated by NJDEP mapping. In addition, Parcel 27 was dismissed
as having a greater amount of wetland impact than Parcel 3. The wetlands delineated for Parcel
27 were initially based only on remote sensing data. It is, however, interesting to point out that
the wetlands spanning the property boundary between Parcels 8 and 27 were not identified as a
wetland in the NJDEP’s Letter of Interpretation (LOI) received for Parcel 8 and were
subsequently removed from the Parcel 8 wetland mapping. Although the wetland identified via
remote sensing on Parcel 8 was removed, the balance of the wetland that extended onto parcel 27
remained unchanged, and thus formed the basis for the high level of wetland impact used to
eliminate this site from consideration.

Based on the mistaken identification of wetlands on Parcel 8 by Transco, an updated

evaluation of the wetlands on Parcel 27 should have been performed. Although the remote
sensing-based interpretation of wetland was to have included topography along with other
resource (such as soils survey information), the results are inconsistent with the Light Detection
and Ranging (LIDAR) generated topography done on Parcels 8 and 27 (Block 5.02, lot 69) by
Princeton Hydro.9 The area that Transco indicated to be wetland actually resides on a drainage
divide (a landscape position that does not normally support a wetland determination) that extends
into Parcel 5. The area is also mapped as possessing soils of the moderately well drained
Keyport soil series. As such, the accuracy of Transco’s remote sensing identification of wetlands
is at best questionable and thus casts doubt on the efficacy of their alternatives analysis.

                                                            
9
See figure in Appendix B (LIDAR Generated Topography, Parcels 8 and 27). 

7
 In addition, Parcel 8 was determined to have less wetland impact than that contemplated
for Parcel 3 but was eliminated from consideration due in part to the presence of “regulated open
water features” (Transco, Supplemental Information to Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit,
July 17, 2017). It was further indicated that these features may present permitting challenges
under the Flood Hazard Area Control Act. However, if these features are man-made drainage
ditches, which is what they appear to be as two of the features connect at a 90-degree angle, they
may not meet the definition of a regulated water. If that is the case, the filling of a ditch would
be far less difficult and would likely result in far less ecological impact than a regulated water or
State Open Water under either New Jersey’s Flood Hazard Area Control Act or the FWPA.
Lastly, as indicated previously, the combination of adjacent parcels such as 8, 27, and 5 would
also serve to reduce wetland impacts as well as move the compressor station further from
residences. Transco’s analysis did not contemplate the identification of adjacent parcels as a
means to reduce wetland impacts and instead limited its selection criteria to individual parcels.

With regard to site selection, it is not our intent in the above discussion to identify an
alternate site for Transco but to point out the problems and lack of objectivity in Transco’s
alternatives analysis. It is also important to understand that Transco is the owner of Parcel 3 (see
section 2.3.4 of the DEIS for this Project) and it is therefore not in their best interest as it relates
to FWPA compliance to find an alternative site since it would impact Transco’s goal of
providing gas for the 2019/2020 winter heating season.10

The timing of gas delivery also appears to be important to FERC as the DEIS uses, at
least in part, Transco’s requested in-service date as a way to eliminate from consideration the
expansion of another pipeline system and states in section 3.2.1 that the expansion of another
pipeline system “in place of NESE would result in an unreasonable delay to meet the requested
in-service date of the customers of the NESE Project.” However, due to Transco failure to
adequately respond to the requirements of the FWPA in its alternatives analysis, the NJDEP
should not feel compelled to place any importance on Transco’s in-service date and instead
require full compliance with all of New Jersey’s applicable regulations.

Lastly, the selection of five sites -- through Transco’s alternatives analysis -- that are all
forested with areas of forested wetland highlights yet another flaw in the company’s analysis.
Transco’s Chesterfield compressor station (DLUR File # 0300-15-0002.2, FWW150001)
resulted in approximately 4.7 acres of mostly emergent wetland impact. Importantly, the
NJDEP’s decision document of March 13, 2017 indicated that wetlands on an alternative site
would have had far greater environmental impact because it was forested. The NJDEP provided
the following text to describe their rational for the decision:

Some of the forested wetlands on the alternate site have been wooded wetlands
since as far back as 1930. The remainder of the trees in the forested wetlands
were established by 1987 and possesses approximately 50% mature trees ("crown
cover"). The quality of wetland functions served by a forested wetland are
heightened due to the undisturbed vertical structure of the vegetation. Rain water

                                                            
10
See Transco’s NESE website (“Williams is developing the Northeast Supply Enhancement project to expand the
existing Transco natural gas pipeline system by the 2019/2020 winter heating season to provide important gas
supply that will help the City reach its clean air goals.”), available at http://northeastsupplyenhancement.com/. 

8
 storage is increased due to uptake by the various strata of vegetation, including
herbaceous, shrub, saplings and mature trees. Very little sediment is released from
a forested wetland during rain events as the soil is not disturbed and the canopy
slows rain water. The habitat diversity of the forested wetlands is high. There are
at least five vegetation strata of habitat present within the existing forested
wetlands. They include ground level, herbaceous, shrub, sapling, and mature tree
canopy. Together these strata form an ecosystem. Each level provides foraging,
resting and breeding habitat to various species. For instance, the ground level
provides foraging habitat for worm eating birds such as robins, and insectivore
mammals such as opossum. The species that use each layer vary by strata and
seasonal behavior. The various layers of vegetation provide food at different times
of the year. Forested wetlands have a greater habitat diversity than modified
agricultural wetlands. In addition to habitat and food sources available within
forested wetlands, resting and perching locations are often provided for birds
foraging in adjacent farm fields.11

Although it is apparent that Transco has conveniently forgotten the details of this recent
permit decision12, Princeton Hydro is hopeful that the NJDEP remains consistent in its view of
the value of New Jersey’s forested wetlands and requires Transco to perform a more robust
alternatives analysis designed to satisfy the requirements of the FWPA.

The proposed NESE Project is a development project proposed by a private, for profit
entity and should be held to the same regulatory standards as any other development project and
not given any deference. The excessive level of proposed wetland impacts identified in
Transco’s FWW IP application could have been avoided if New Jersey’s wetland regulations
were given any serious consideration during Transco’s far from exhaustive site selection
analysis. Instead, Transco applied a relatively simplistic alternatives analysis and selected a site -
- one that it already owns -- that will result in extensive wetland impacts.

C. Impact Minimization and Secondary Impacts

The 404(b)(1) Guidelines require an alternatives analysis which addresses how impacts to
waters and wetlands (Waters of the United States) have been avoided and minimized. New
Jersey’s Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act incorporates the same standards; through
assumption of the Section 404 program of the CWA, New Jersey’s standards cannot be less
restrictive than the US Army Corps of Engineers’ standards. As such, the alternatives analysis
should address practicable alternatives to the discharge of dredged and fill material for each
individual crossing of a wetland and/or waterbody. Transco’s alternatives analysis and FWW IP
application instead provide a rather broad-brush approach to describing avoidance and
minimization.

The FWW IP application indicates that Transco implemented “several measures related
to Project routing, workspace design, and construction methods to avoid and minimize impacts
                                                            
11
NJDEP’s decision document of March 13, 2017 regarding Transco’s Chesterfield compressor station, Garden
State Expansion Project. 
12
 Id. 

9
to regulated features.” The FWW IP application also indicates that the “Project has been
designed to minimize impacts to the greatest extent practicable while still achieving the Project
goals and objectives.” It is apparent after review of the various application materials that the key
portion of the aforementioned phrase is related to achieving project goals rather than truly
attempting to minimize impacts. The following subsections provide a few examples of why the
FWW IP application lacks objectivity as it relates to avoidance and minimization of wetland
impacts.

Transco indicates that it narrowed workspaces from 90 feet to 75 feet at some wetland
and waterbody crossings. There are two points to be made relative to this comment, the first
being Transco’s selection of the word “some” to describe the application of a 75 foot workspace.
Review of the plans indicate that these 75 foot work spaces are not common. In addition, the 90
foot workspace should be viewed as Transco’s ideal width and not a standard in which to
illustrate minimization as minimization measures could be applied differently along the length of
the pipeline13. It is also important to acknowledge that Transco was able to construct the Leidy
line through Princeton Ridge for its entire 1.34 mile length with a 50 foot wide workspace.
Transco must be made to illustrate for each individual crossing of a wetland and State open water
why the extent of impact cannot be further reduced.

The recent release by FERC of the NESE DEIS provides a somewhat more detailed view
of the impacts associated with this pipeline project compared to the information presented in the
FWW IP application. If one can look past the rhetoric in the DEIS, which states that “Transco
also located the [Additional Temporary Workspace (“ATWS”)] needed to construct the Project
to avoid wetlands, and would utilize the [horizontal directional drill (“HDD”)] method to
specifically avoid permanent impacts on wetlands and waterbodies at two locations along the
Madison Loop,” 14you will find that the Project will still impact a significant amount of wetland -
- 41.2 acres in New Jersey alone, including approximately 20 acres of forested wetland. In
addition to the aforementioned impacts, the project would also remove 35.3 acres of upland
forest and the impacts, as stated in the DEIS (Section 4.12.3.8 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual
Resources), on forested uplands “would be long term or permanent because trees would take up
to 50 years or longer to become reestablished and would not be allowed to become reestablished
directly over the pipeline.”

With regard to the use of HDD, the HDD work area constitutes a considerable portion of
the wetland impacts associated with the Madison Loop. The temporary workspace associated
with the HDD at milepost 8.80A and B are associated with an access road. This workspace is
much longer than most HDD-related workspaces at approximately 750 feet long. The workspace
terminates at its western end in a wetland and connects to an access road. This would appear to
be a candidate for minimization.

A substantial area of the HDD Temporary workspace is located in wetland, State open
water, or wetland transition area. Proposed HDD workspaces should be evaluated for

                                                            
13
 Application for NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit, p. 7 [“Section 4: Standard Requirements for All
Individual Permits (N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2)”] (June 22, 2017). 
 
14
 FERC DEIS  page 4‐64 

10
minimization or relocation to avoid wetland impacts. For example, the workspace at MP 9.25
crosses two streams, forested wetland, and forested wetland transition area. These are significant
impacts and should be carefully vetted through the permit application review process.

All of the over 1-acre HDD entrance site at milepost 11.48 is located in coastal wetlands
designated as being of exceptional resource value. To reduce impacts to this exceptional
resource value wetland, the DEIS indicates that “Transco would implement its Project-Specific
Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Transco Plan) and Project-Specific
Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Transco Procedures) (see
appendices E and F, respectively). These are based on the mitigation measures described in the
FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (FERC Plan) and
Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (FERC Procedures), but
include several proposed site-specific modifications to the FERC Procedures (see tables 2.3-1
and 2.3-2).”15 One of the procedures to reduce impacts is the use of timber mats to support
equipment in inundated or saturated wetlands. However, as is typical throughout the DEIS, no
site-specific information regarding the character of the wetland or the efficacy of using mats in a
tidal wetland as it relates to wetland impacts is provided. It is also important to acknowledge that
workspace at HDD entry points is equipment intensive and according to the DEIS "typically
includes the drilling rig, control cab, office, storage trailers, power generators, drill string pipe
storage, water trucks, water storage, other heavy equipment, and a drill entry pit. The workspace
would also include facilities and equipment to manage drilling fluid and drill cuttings.”16 If all
this equipment is to be used on timber mats, then an understanding of compaction to the
wetlands substrate should be an essential component of the impact analysis as it would
significantly impact the recovery of wetland vegetation. Moreover, information in Transco’s
recent filing to FERC on May 11, 2018 included information related to dewatering. The figure
entitled Topography and Hydrogeological Project Profile17 indicates that the estuarine wetland at
milepost 11.48 is likely to be subject to dewatering. Importantly, dewatering the coastal wetland
at milepost 11.48 will exacerbate compaction. Impacts to wetlands associated with dewatering
along the Madison Loop were not discussed in the FWW IP application. This is yet another
example of an impact to regulated resources that was not even considered in the preparation of
the FWW IP application. Although dewatering of the trench was discussed in the Waterfront
Development and Wetlands Act of 1970 IP application, the discussion focused on the need to
prevent the pipe from floating and included no mention of the impacts to the wetlands that may
occur as a result of dewatering.

Lastly, the DEIS states that “Workspaces required at HDD entry and exit points are
locations with an increased likelihood of inadvertent releases of drilling fluids and are typically
located away from the waterbodies crossed to minimize potential impacts.”18 At the HDD entry
site located at Milepost 10.48, the entire site is located in an estuarine wetland within 30 feet of a
tidal stream. The placement of an HDD entry site in an exceptional resource value wetland
should also be avoided because it is not consistent with federal or New Jersey wetland
regulations because of the likelihood of “inadvertent releases” as stated above.

                                                            
15
FERC DEIS Section 2.3, page 2-13 
16
FERC DEIS, page 2-28 
17
See Appendix C (Topography and Hydrogeological Project Profile). 
18
FERC DEIS page 4-91 

11
 The DEIS does not provide any substantive documentation that the impacts associated
with the HDD activity at milepost 10.48 would be reduced to less-than-significant levels and
simply relies on the implementation of Transco’s procedures to cure impacts. Once again, this
approach is inconsistent with the requirements of the FWPA and the CWA regarding avoidance
and minimization and, importantly, the DEIS provides no basis outside of rhetoric to
demonstrate that this area can be successfully restored. In contrast, the preparation of a FWW IP
application designed to fulfill the requirements of the FWPA and the CWA must be based on
factual determinations supported by data. Transco’s FWW IP application fails to satisfy that
standard.

The need to determine secondary impacts should also be an important element of any
FWW IP application and is a requirement of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Secondary impacts as
defined in the 404(b)(1) guidelines are “effects on an aquatic ecosystem that are associated with
discharge of dredged or fill materials, but do not result from the actual placement of the dredged
or fill material.” No discussion of secondary impacts was provided in the FWW IP application
even though these types of impacts are likely. A few examples of secondary impacts are
provided below.

 Steep Slopes – Although no discussion of the impacts associated with steep slopes was
provided in the FWW IP application, steep slopes were briefly discussed in Section 7:7-
9.32 of Transco’s Waterfront Development & Wetlands Act of 1970 Individual Permit
Application (dated July 6, 2017), where it was indicated that steep slopes “within the
HDD workspace may be temporarily re-graded to accommodate equipment storage.”
However, as there are no proposed contours on the plans, it is impossible to determine the
extent of the grading contemplated by Transco. This is important as it relates to the
potential for determining secondary impacts as well as concerns relative to stabilization.
Moreover, it is important to point out that there is no such thing as “temporary regrading”
and Transco must show the horizontal and vertical extent of the proposed grading,
especially in regulated areas such as wetland transition area and riparian zones, in order
to realistically determine impacts.

Transco’s failure to clearly document on the plans19 the extent of regrading and the use of
made up terms such as “temporary regrading” serve to deceive the reader into thinking
that the impacts are not substantial. Importantly, the information provided in the FWW IP
and Waterfront Development & Wetlands Act of 1970 IP applications is not sufficient to
realistically determine the severity of the impacts at each of the specific regulated
crossings. However, the recent NESE DEIS provides more insight on what should be
anticipated to occur within areas of steep slopes bordering the Project area. According to
Section 2.3.1.3 (“Clearing and Grading”) of the DEIS, “Grading would be conducted
where necessary to provide a reasonably level work surface. More extensive grading
would be required in uneven terrain and where the right-of-way crosses steep slopes and
side slopes.”20 Areas, such as at Milepost 10.05, are forested wetland transition area
                                                            
19
 NJDEP Land Use Permit Plans for the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project, Proposed 26” Madison Loop,
PS&S. dated 6/07/2107 and last revised 1/11/2018. 
20
FERC DEIS page 2-21 

12
 bordering an exceptional resource value wetland on slopes in excess of 35%. Because
these are regulated transition areas that are associated with exceptional resource value
wetlands, the minimization of impacts is imperative since it is required in order to
comply with the FWPA. In this case, the ATWS was widened well beyond the 75feet
proposed for most of the Project. Importantly, the severity of the impacts to this forested
transition area cannot be reasonably assessed because the magnitude of the proposed
grading or excavation is not shown on the plan sheets and the specific characteristics of
the forest have not been determined. The soils are mapped as being Evesboro sand, a soil
series often associated with Pine barren communities. As Cheesequake State Park is
situated nearby and possesses pine barren communities, it is possible -- if not likely --
that this part of the Madison Loop possesses pine barren communities. These are rare
communities in Middlesex County and will be difficult to restore. Moreover, the
restoration of pine barren plant communities is difficult and to do so on steep slopes that
will be subject to some unknown disturbance regime will only further complicate any
restoration effort. However, the DEIS approaches the restoration of forest communities
in a simplistic manner by simply stating that “Following construction, disturbed areas
would be restored to current conditions to the extent possible in accordance with
Transco’s Plan and Procedures and any specific requirements identified by landowners or
agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over or interest in private forest land.”21 The
Waterfront Development & Wetlands Act of 1970 IP application also states that “Transco
will implement a Project-specific Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and
Maintenance Plan (Transco Plan), which is included with Transco's application for a
USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] Permit.” Failure to stabilize areas adjacent to
wetlands would result in impacts to the wetlands associated with sedimentation long after
the Project is completed. The FWW IP and Waterfront Development & Wetlands Act of
1970 IP applications to the NJDEP avoid inclusion of any level of detail or science which
would inform an analysis of environmental impacts and instead rely on an unsupported,
rhetoric-based approach to mitigation.

 Geology –The underlying geology of the part of New Jersey in which the Madison Loop
is proposed to be built is a
concern as the area is
underlain by a geologic
formation that possesses
pyritic clays. These
sulfide-bearing marine and
estuarine sediments are
potential acid-soil
producers. The
development of acid-
sulfate soils occurs when
sulfide minerals, such as
pyrite, oxidize upon
exposure to air. These
materials are exposed
                                                            
21
FERC DEIS 4-191–192. 

13
 through erosion or,
anthropogenically,
through earth-moving
activities. Once these
acid-producing clays are
exposed to the air, they
are difficult to stabilize
due to the inability of
plants to establish in soils
with a pH near 3. The
presence of these clays
was not indicted in any of
Transco’s reports to either
the NJDEP or to FERC.
Importantly, the absence
of plants in these areas is
frequently related to aluminum toxicity driven by the low pH levels. Review of the
wetland delineation report submitted to the NJDEP appears to illustrate the presence of
these dark gray acid-producing clays at the ground surface in several photographs, such
as those on pages 411, 418, 502 and 518.22 The two photographs included in this
subsection of our report were taken from the Williams Transco Wetland report (dated
June 2017) and both show un-vegetated areas of a dark gray material, which Princeton
Hydro believes to be exposed acid-producing clay due to the dark gray color and total
absence of vegetation. The exposure of these acid-producing clays to air as a result of
project activities will complicate restoration efforts and slope stability, which in turn may
impact downgradient wetlands and surface waters.

We are also concerned that if HDD borings pass through acid-producing clay deposits,
any discharges into wetlands or wetland transition areas will be far more significant as it
relates to the severity of the impact. We are also concerned about the integrity of the pipe
and other infrastructure elements of the pipeline that may pass through acid-producing
clays. Importantly, Transco never mentioned the presence of these problematic clays in
its document.

The examples provided above are limited to those types of areas that warrant a substantially
greater level of scrutiny and analysis in order to truly minimize impacts to sensitive resources.
However, Transco should provide a thorough, factually-based analysis as set forth in the
404(b)(1) Guidelines for each impacted wetland and State open water that includes a discussion
as to why the impacts to each regulated area cannot be avoided or minimized. Moreover, in
order to objectively make a determination of impacts, a thorough characterization of each
wetland and transition area that is anticipated to be impacted by project activities must be
performed. In the absence of this type of analysis, it is simply not possible to realistically assess
impacts or to determine whether an impacted area can be adequately mitigated.

                                                            
22
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, New Jersey Wetland Delineation Report  

14
D. Impact Analysis

The NESE DEIS states that “Construction of the NESE Project would directly affect
wetland soils, vegetation, and habitats, and could affect hydrology characteristics. Compaction
and rutting of soils during construction could alter natural hydrologic patterns of the wetlands
and potentially inhibit seed germination and regeneration of vegetation species. Reduced
biological productivity could also result if topsoil and subsoil become mixed or if invasive
vegetative species are introduced. Construction clearing activities and disturbance of wetland
vegetation could also temporarily affect the wetland’s capacity to buffer flood flows and/or
control erosion. Construction could also impact wetland water quality, including changes in
temperature, biochemistry, or water chemistry; increased turbidity and sedimentation; release of
hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, lubricants); or addition of nutrients.”23 Although these impacts
are specifically mentioned in the DEIS, no mention of these impacts to wetlands was provided in
the FWW IP application. As such, the severity of the impacts identified in the FWW IP
application understate the impacts to regulated resources.

The impacts described in the DEIS are all likely to occur to some degree even with the
proper implementation of the proposed mitigation measures referenced throughout the DEIS.
Moreover, the DEIS states that “Impacts on forested wetlands would be much longer, and may
include changes in the density, type, and biodiversity of vegetation. Given the species that
dominate the forested wetlands crossed by the Project, recovery to preconstruction conditions
may take up to 30 years or more.”24 It is these types of impacts that complicate the successful
restoration of disturbed sites and facilitate the colonization of invasive species. This is why
avoidance of forested wetlands forms the basis for decision making relative to a wetland permit
application’s regulatory compliance. It is also important to understand the existing functions and
services of each of the regulated areas that will be impacted in order to realistically determine the
short-term and long-term effects of the regulated activity on New Jersey’s natural resources. The
requirement to make Factual Determinations can be found at 40 CFR 230.11, (404(b)(1)
guidelines. This has not been done.

E. Public Interest

The FWPA regulations for a FWW IP require consideration of seven different elements
designed to determine whether a project is in the public interest. Rather than address each of the
seven different requirements at N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2(b)(12) to demonstrate how public interest is
being satisfied, in its FWW IP application Transco simply relies on its description of “Project
Benefit” -- including in the Purpose and Need Section of Resource Report No.1 Project
Description25 -- to satisfy this regulation. Similar language is used by Transco in its application
to FERC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“FERC Certificate”) (dated
March 2017).26 Transco’s application to FERC states on page 15 that “Although it is not possible
to eliminate all effects of the Project, Transco will mitigate adverse effects to the extent
practicable. The public benefits the Project offers are far more substantial than its potential
                                                            
23
FERC DEIS, Section 4.3.4.3, page 4-63 
24
Id. 
25
 Williams. Resource Report 1 – General  Project Description. Pages 1‐4 to 5. 
26
See http://northeastsupplyenhancement.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/7c-Natural-Gas-Certificate-
Application.pdf. 

15
adverse effects.” This language is based on the requirements of the FERC Certificate process and
should not be considered equivalent to satisfying the “public interest” requirements of the FWPA
when evaluating the merits of a FWW IP application. Instead, the NJDEP must focus its review
on all of the requirements set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2(b)(12), as it would normally do for any
other development project.

The application for a FERC Certificate requests applicants to describe the purpose and
commercial need for the project, the transportation rate to be charged to customers, proposed
project facilities, and the way in which the company plans to comply with all applicable
regulatory requirements. In contrast, the FWPA at N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2(entitled, “Standard
requirements for all individual permits”) defines “public interest” very differently.

N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2(b)(12)(i) requires the NJDEP to consider whether the “public interest
in preservation of natural resources” is being served by a project. Here, the impacts to over 20
acres of wetland, including the 3.73 of permanent impact realted to the compressor station,
associated with this FWW IP application is proof that Transco failed to give any serious
consideration to the protection of New Jersey’s natural resources when selecting the preferred
site for Compressor Station 206. N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2(b)(12)(iii) requires the NJDEP to consider
“the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods, to accomplish the
purpose of the proposed regulated activity.” As discussed above in this report, Transco’s
alternatives analysis was flawed. As previously stated, all five of Transco’s short list of sites
possessed a significant amount of wetland resources and its selection was based on picking the
site with the least amount of wetland and transition area impact “while still allowing for
activities necessitated for successful implementation of the proposed Project.” Therefore, NJDEP
should be able to confidently conclude that the Project is not serving the public interest by
preserving natural resources unless Transco shows that no suitable alternative locations exist that
can satisfy the requirements of the FWPA.

The NJDEP cannot allow Transco to rely solely on the language it developed to satisfy
the FERC Certificate process and its claim that the NESE Project is in the public interest.
Instead, the NJDEP must consider the language and intent of N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1, et seq., the
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act. The Legislative findings and declarations are particularly
applicable here:

The Legislature therefore determines that in this State, where pressures for
commercial and residential development define the pace and pattern of land use, it
is in the public interest to establish a program for the systematic review of
activities in and around freshwater wetland areas designed to provide
predictability in the protection of freshwater wetlands; that it shall be the policy
of the State to preserve the purity and integrity of freshwater wetlands from
random, unnecessary or undesirable alteration or disturbance; and that to
achieve these goals it is important that the State expeditiously assume the
freshwater wetlands permit jurisdiction currently exercised by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Federal Act…and implementing
regulations.27
                                                            
27
N.J.S.A. 13:9B-2 (emphasis added). 

16
The NJDEP has an obligation, based on its own definition of public interest “in this
State,”28 to protect freshwater wetlands and, thus, should not consider the language used
in a FERC application as being analogous to the NJDEP’s independent evaluation under
the FWPA. Just because the Project may ultimately obtain a FERC Certificate, this does
not obviate the NJDEP’s obligation to fully apply all of the requirements of the FWPA to
this Project and therefore evaluate Transco’s FWW IP application against those rigorous
standards.

F. Stormwater Management Plan for Compressor Station 206

Stormwater management is an integral element of all development projects, and the

proper design of stormwater management facilities is important to the maintenance of surface
water quality. The FWPA at N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2(b)(8) requires that the NJDEP issue a FWW IP
only if the regulated activity “Will not cause or contribute to a significant degradation, as defined
at 40 C.F.R. 230.10(c), of ground or surface waters.” In addition, compliance with the
Stormwater Management Rules is also important as it relates to satisfying the requirement for a
FWW IP at N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2(b)15. This requirement cites to N.J.A.C. 7:7A–2.11, which states
that a project that meets the definition of “major development” at N.J.A.C. 7:8-1.2 “shall comply
in its entirety with the Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:8.” N.J.A.C. 7:8-2.2(a) lists
the goals of the stormwater management rules and includes the following goals:

 “2. Minimize, to the extent practical, any increase in stormwater runoff from any
new development;”29
 “3. Reduce soil erosion from any development or construction project;”30
 “4. Assure the adequacy of existing and proposed culverts and bridges, and other
in-stream structures;”31
 “5. Maintain groundwater recharge;”32
 “7. Maintain the integrity of stream channels for their biological functions, as well
as for drainage;”33
 “8. Minimize pollutants in stormwater runoff from new and existing development
in order to restore, enhance and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the waters of the State, to protect public health, to safeguard fish and
aquatic life and scenic and ecological values, and to enhance the domestic,
municipal, recreational, industrial and other uses of water;”34 and
 “9. Protect public safety through the proper design and operation of stormwater
management basins.”35

                                                            
28
 Id. 
29
N.J.A.C. 7:8-2.2(a). 
30
Id. 
31
Id.  
32
Id.  
33
Id.  
34
Id.  
35
Id. 

17
As such, an understanding of the design of the proposed stormwater management facility is
essential to evaluating not only the Project’s potential impacts to regulated resources like
wetlands but also its potential impacts to the surface water quality of Carters Brook and
tributaries to which runoff from the site will drain. The management of nonpoint source
pollutants as well as the quantity in a properly designed stormwater facility is important to the
long-term maintenance of New Jersey’s surface water quality.

The New Jersey Stormwater Management Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:8 establish the design and
performance standards for new (proposed) development, including groundwater recharge, runoff
quantity controls, runoff quality controls, and buffers around Category One (C1) waters.
N.J.A.C. 7:8-2.2 (entitled, “Goals of stormwater management planning”) states that all
stormwater management plans and stormwater control ordinances shall be designed to, among
other things,: 1. “Minimize, to the extent practical, any increase in stormwater runoff from any
new development”36; 2. “Reduce soil erosion from any development or construction project”37;
3. “Maintain groundwater recharge”38; 4. “Prevent, to the greatest extent feasible, an increase in
nonpoint pollution”39; 5. “Maintain the integrity of stream channels for their biological functions,
as well as for drainage”40; and lastly, 6. “Minimize pollutants in stormwater runoff from new and
existing development in order to restore, enhance and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the State, to protect public health, to safeguard fish and
aquatic life and scenic and ecological values.”41

Page 20 of Transco’s FWW IP application simply indicates that the proposed stormwater
management plan for Compressor Station 206 is “in compliance with the Stormwater
Management Rules.” However, our review of the stormwater management report for Compressor
Station 206 (prepared by AECOM and dated June 2017) reveals several significant technical
flaws that preclude compliance with New Jersey’s Stormwater Management rules. Importantly,
many of the concerns we have identified are due to AECOM’s failure to provide all of the
information required to satisfy New Jersey’s regulations.

Based on our review of the proposed Compressor Station 206 stormwater management
plan, we believe that the plan neither (1) satisfies the above-referenced goals of the Stormwater
Management Rules nor (2) complies with the minimum standards set forth in N.J.A.C. 7.8 for the
following reasons: (i) an increase in discharge, (ii) lack of information on the plantings, (iii)
insufficient information regarding GSR-32 and infiltration testing, (iv) inaccurate information on
the drainage area delineations, and (v) concerns with the design of the basin and the potential
sediment load that could result due to lack of stabilization and standing water. Compliance with
the Stormwater Management Rules is also important as it relates to satisfying the requirement for
a FWW IP at NJAC 7:7A-7.2(b)15. This requirement for a FWW IP cites to N.J.A.C. 7:7A–2.11,
which states that a project that meets the definition of “major development” at NJAC 7:8-1.2
“shall comply in its entirety with the Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:8.” In
addition, based on the depth of the proposed basin, the proposed facility will require that it be
                                                            
36
Id. 
37
Id. 
38
Id. 
39
Id. 
40
Id. 
41
Id. 

18
classified as a Class IV Dam, in accordance with New Jersey Dam Safety Regulations (N.J.A.C.
7:20).

We reviewed the proposed stormwater design for compliance with NJDEP’s standards
and regulations. In particular, soil evaluation and infiltration, hydrology and hydraulic modeling,
and basin design were evaluated and are discussed below in detail. Our review was based on
updated information included in the AECOM Stormwater Management Report (last revised in
August 2017) and the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (last revised January 2018) -- both
originally dated June 2017 -- as well as on design plans entitled “Northeast Supply Enhancement
Project Proposed Compressor Station 206” (dated January 5, 2018).

The following subsections describe the failures of the proposed stormwater plan for
Compressor Station 206 in further detail.

1. Soils and Infiltration Evaluation

Sheet 1 of 1 of the Test Pit Location Plan (“Location of Test Pits”)42 shows the locations
of additional test pits (TP-3 to TP-7). No detailed logs were submitted for these test pits-- the
only location information was provided on the sheet entitled “Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC Northeast Supply Enhancement Project Compressor Station No. 206 Test Pit
Location Plan Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey” (dated August 11, 2017). We
are aware that Transco made a request to the NJDEP in their August 16, 2017 letter to Charles
Welch (NJDEP) requesting input on the location and methods to be employed for the additional
pits. However, it is currently unclear if the additional soil characterization was ever performed
and submitted to the Department. Additionally, the location of the original soils investigation,
TP-1 and TP-2, is faintly shown on the Location of Test Pits. This document indicates that all of
the completed test pits are located in proximity to the proposed stormwater basin.

An understanding of site soils and geology is essential to designing a stormwater facility

that will satisfy the NJDEP’s design requirements. Failure to adequately understand site-specific
soil and geologic constraints is a common reason for basin failures, especially basins designed to
accommodate infiltration.

Transco conducted an evaluation of onsite soils via two methods: borings and test pits.
Eleven borings were created in the footprint of the proposed Compressor Station 206 structures
and four test pits were completed within the proposed basin. The borings were progressed to
refusal , in this case when the boring encountered bedrock,43 ( which was, on average,
approximately 7.5 feet below the surface grade; the deepest boring reached a depth of 14.58 feet
and the shallowest boring reached a depth of 5 feet. The bottom of the proposed basin is
proposed to be at an elevation of 259 feet and will require excavations between 1 and 6 feet.
Given the shallow depth to diabase bedrock at and near the Compressor Station, it is important
that Transco collect site specific data within the area of the proposed basin. The concern

                                                            
42
See Appendix D (Figure 1: Location of Test Pits as reported on the Test Pit Location Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, dated
August 11. 2017). 
43
See Table 2 in the Williams report entitled Appendix 6D to Resource Report 6 Geotechnical and Vibration
Analysis Report for Compressor Station 206. 

19
regarding shallow bedrock was acknowledged by Transco in their August 16, 2017 response
letter to the NJDEP. Transco proposes that, if shallow bedrock is encountered, they will simply
provide two feet of soil over the diabase bedrock. This is a naive approach to resolving the issue
of shallow diabase bedrock and will require modelling -- including a mounding analysis -- to
show that the basin will function in accordance with NJDEP requirements.

On the Location of Test Pits document, the test pits were identified as TP1A, 1-B, 2-A,
and 2-B, with only two of the four falling within the proposed basin bottom. These pits had
refusal depths of 72, 96, 48, and 20 inches, respectively. Based on the test pit results within the
basin footprint, it is likely that portions of the basin will be close to or will encounter bedrock.
The depth to shallow bedrock will limit the basin’s ability to satisfy the NJDEP’s recharge
requirement. As previously indicated, no detailed logs were provided for the Test Pits (TP 3
through 7) as only the proposed location information and the proposed test pit depth was
provided on the Location of Test Pits document (see table below).

Table 1: Test Pit Location Table as derived from Test Pit Location Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, dated
August 11, 2017.

Based on the boring logs, it is likely that bedrock could be encountered or be close to the surface
after basin grading. Additionally, the NRCS web soil descriptions for the soils onsite include
soils with a restrictive layer as shallow as 48 inches. This information is relatively consistent
with the information provided for TP-1 and TP-2. But in order to understand the suitability of
constructing a bioretention basin, the applicant would need to submit additional information.
Thus, at present, Transco still has not demonstrated that the basin will satisfy the minimum
design and performance standards of the Stormwater Management Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:8.

2. Infiltration

According to the New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices (“BMP”) Manual,
for bioretention systems designed to infiltrate into the subsoil, soils are perhaps the most
important consideration for site suitability. The successful design of a basin designed with an
infiltration component for stormwater management is only feasible where the subsoil is
sufficiently permeable to meet the minimum permeability rate. The standards for infiltration
bioretention basins (Chapter 9.1 of the NJ BMP manual) require a minimum subsoil design

20
permeability rate of 0.5 inches per hour after the application of a factor of safety of 2.
Additionally, no standing water shall remain at the surface 72 hours after a rain event. Based on
the information provided by Transco, the proposed basin location does not satisfy the design
requirements of the NJ BMP Manual.

Transco reported falling head tests (also known as closed bore hole infiltration testing),
which were completed within test pits 1A, 1-B, and 2-A at depths of 3 and 4 feet below existing
grade. The reported rates were averaged as shown in Table 2 below and as reported in Appendix
B of the AECOM Stormwater Report (dated April 2017).

Table 2: Failing Head Test Results as obtained from AECOM’s April 2017 Stormwater Report.
Test Pit 3’ Result 4’ Results Average
Location (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr)
TP-1A 13.5 0 6.75
TP-1B 0.50 1.50 1.0
TP-2A 24.00 6.00 15.00

According to New Jersey’s Stormwater BMP manual, the following requirements must be met
for infiltration basins:44

 a minimum of 2 test pits;

 Pits are “required in the exact location of the proposed basin”;
 Due to variability in the soils within a basin and decreased rates over time,
a factor of 2 must be applied to the slowest tested permeability rate; and
 Maximum design rate is 10 in/hr and minimum is 0.50 in/hr.

Based on the information provided by Transco, the New Jersey BMP Manual guidelines were
not followed. For example, not all of the test pits were located within the basin footprint. In
addition, the slowest permeability rate within the data set was not used and the safety factor was
not taken into account. The slowest permeability rate is 0 in/hr. Even if the lowest reported
permeability rate (0.5 in/hr) is used, the requirements of the BMP Manual would not be met as
the required application of a safety factor of 2 would reduce the infiltration rate for the basin
below the minimum design standard. The minimum design infiltration rate was not met for test
pit 1 and only a single set of tests was completed in the location of test pit 2.

Princeton Hydro duplicated the closed bore hole tests done by AECOM, however, due to
the absence of sufficient information provided on the logs and in the report45. The test performed
by Princeton Hydro , by assumed a pipe diameter since that information was not provided.
AECOM’s calculated infiltration rates use the last recorded drop in water elevation multiplied by
the time interval conversion to hours. For example, TP-2B at 4 feet (which is recorded on the
log in Appendix E as TP-2B at 4 feet) was determined using a drop of 1 inch in 10 minutes, and
1 inch times six 10 minute intervals in an hour yields an infiltration rate of 6 inches per hour.
Additionally, the calculated rates were then averaged, resulting in a high infiltration rate within
                                                            
44
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. http://www.njstormwater.org/bmp_manual2.htm 
45
Infiltration Test Report, for Northeast Supply Enhancement Project Compressor Station 206, Franklin Township,
Somerset County, New Jersey, April 2017 

21
the basin area. Averaging an infiltration rate in which one of the numbers is zero is incorrect as
one cannot be miraculously improve an infiltration rate of zero to a passing infiltration rate by
simply averaging it with a higher number. As per the BMP Manual, this is an incorrect method
for determining the infiltration rate.

Using the calculation below and an assumed inside pipe diameter of 3.1 inches (as per
standard dimensions and specifications for 3-inch diameter sewer and drain pipe), Table 3
displays the hydraulic conductivity rates for the field analysis completed by Princeton Hydro.

Table 3: Infiltration Rates

Test Time Interval Initial Depth End Depth

K (in/hr)
Identification (min) (inches) (Inches)
TP-1A(3’) 60 20 3.75 1.48
TP-1B(3’) 90 27.5 26.5 0.02
TP-1B(4’) 90 39 36.5 0.04
TP-2A (3’) 30 24 12 1.23
TP-2A(4’) 60 38 31 0.18

Based on these revised calculations, the selected BMP cannot be designed for infiltration. Two
passing tests need to be completed within the infiltration basin footprint, but in this case TP-1A
is not located within the basin footprint. All remaining tests, except TP-2A (3’), are well below
the minimum design permeability rate. An additional passing test is required within the basin
footprint. Based on the information provided by Transco, the basin fails to comply with the
requirements for an infiltrative BMP per the NJDEP Stormwater BMP Manual.

Additionally, it should be noted that infiltration testing must be completed at the depth of
the proposed bottom of the basin. Based on our review and interpretation of the proposed basin
grading, the testing was completed above the proposed basin bottom. Test pits TP-3 through TP-
7 may provide additional insight into the existing conditions at the proposed basin location,
although Princeton Hydro was not provided with the results of these tests (as they have not been
made publicly available) and therefore cannot make any additional conclusions.

The HydroCAD model results -- provided in Appendix D of the June 2017 Stormwater
Management report -- included an outlet for exfiltration (the software’s terminology for
infiltrated or discarded flow). The infiltration rate of 2.5 inches per hour was used for all
modeled events (water quality, 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, and 100 year). As stated above, the infiltration
rates completed within the basin are not compliant with the BMP manual and it is unclear how a
rate of 2.5 inches per hour was derived. According to the NJ BMP manual, infiltration is only to
be used to perform the water quality calculations and not for quantity calculations.

22
 According to Section III-5 of the Stormwater Management Report (revised in August
2017), the proposed basin is a “bioretention basin which will provide infiltration.” The model
outputs included in this report for all events exclude infiltration but include the water quality
event despite the statement that it is an infiltration BMP. The current outlet design does not
indicate that a 2 feet layer of bioretention media is contemplated.

Based on the above information, it is apparent that Transco is unable to satisfy the
NJDEP’s infiltration requirements within the proposed bioretention basin. Based on our analysis,
the basin fails to satisfy the minimum design standards of the Stormwater BMP Manual for
infiltration basins. This should not be a surprise to Transco as their draft Resource Report No. 2
Water Use and Quality46 states on page 2-10 that “The diabase that intrudes the sedimentary
rocks has very low porosity that lends to the poor hydraulic connections (Trapp and Horn 1997).
The diabase aquifers in Somerset County are dense, poorly fractured rocks that do not easily
store or transmit water.” It is directly due to the qualities stated above that the proposed
stormwater basin site selected by Transco is a poor candidate for infiltration.

3. Mounding Analysis

The New Jersey Stormwater Management Rules state at N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.4(a)2.iv that an
applicant contemplating an infiltration basin shall assess the hydraulic impact on the
groundwater table and design the site so as to avoid adverse hydraulic impacts. The New Jersey
BMP Manual indicates that groundwater mounding impacts must be assessed for an infiltration
BMP. Contrary to the requirements of the Stormwater Management Rules, Transco did not

Table 4: Groundwater Mounding

                                                            
46
 Draft Resource Report 2, Water Use and Quality, Northeast Supply Enhancement Project, November 2016 

23
 Keyport - 10’ Sat Zone Keyport - 0’ Sat Zone Neshaminy -10’ Sat
Zone Neshaminy - 10’ Sat Zone
perform a mounding analysis. In light of Transco’s failure to submit a mounding analysis,
Princeton Hydro prepared a few scenarios based on information that was provided by Transco.
Using the USGS Soil Investigations Report spreadsheet for calculating a groundwater mound
beneath a stormwater infiltration basin, the mounded groundwater was determined to be above
the top of the basin. The calculations shown in Table 4 indicate a mound height of
approximately 30 feet. This assumes the use of the infiltration rate used in the modeling analysis
prepared by AECOM of 2.5 inches per hour. The calculations assume a minimal thickness of
soil due to the shallow refusal of test pits on bedrock. The calculations are reported twice for
each of the two soil types within proximity to the proposed basin location. Based on the results,
the basin fails to satisfy the minimum design standards of the Stormwater Management Rules.

4. Hydrology and Hydraulic Modeling

The stormwater basin design must meet the requirements for quantity, quality, and
recharge at each point of investigation (POI). Transco’s design splits the site into two POIs due
to the drainage divide onsite. This is reflected in the drainage area delineations and HydroCAD
model output that was provided within the Stormwater Management Report (last revised August
2017).

a. Hydrology: Time of Concentration

The applicant’s engineer did not calculate times of concentration (TC) for any drainage
areas reported. All of the existing condition drainage areas have a time of concentration of zero
minutes, which are not only below the minimum standard of sound engineering practice but are
also significantly lower than what would be expected for a site with either meadow or forested
land cover. The proposed TC values were also assumed by the modeler and not calculated based
on the longest flow path. The assumed value was 6 minutes. It should be noted that the drainage
area for POI #1 consists of a number of swales, all of which have a time of concentration of 6
minutes as well.

Princeton Hydro has prepared a revised model for POI#1 to compare results. For the
revised model prepared by Princeton Hydro, a TC of 66 minutes was calculated for existing
conditions using the Lag Method. The proposed TC was calculated using a combination of swale
method and lag method resulting in a TC of 43.2 minutes. This TC used the characteristics of

Table 5: Time of Concentration (TC)

Time of Concentration Time of Concentration PH
Drainage Area
AECOM (min -method) (min - method)
POI# 1 Existing 0 – Direct 66 – Lag
POI #1 to Basin 5 – Direct 43.2 – channel and Lag
POI#1 Bypass 6 – Direct 64.1 - Lag

24
Proposed Swale 7 to the basin and the Lag method based on the topographic information
provided from the basin to the POI#1. The proposed TC which bypasses the basin used the Lag
method only and resulted in a TC of 64.1 minutes. The resultant TC are summarized in Table 5.
 

b. Curve Numbers

The existing onsite soils have hydrologic soil groups (HSG) of B, C, and D; however,
only values of C and D were included within the updated modelin the Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan (dated December 26, 2017). The exclusion of the B soils would serve to increase
the existing stormwater discharge and stormwater volume that would require treatment. The B
soils appear to be south of the road and at the southeast portion of the project site, where the gas
lines are proposed to be extended. These areas would not drain into POI#1 and thus should not
be included in the POI#1 drainage area. This presents other compliance issues, which are
discussed in the POI#1 section below.

c. Best Management Practice (BMP) Design - POI #1:

Based on the provided drainage area maps, the POI#1 is divided into two drainage areas:
one that drains into the proposed bioretention basin and one that bypasses the proposed basin.. It
is unclear why an area of approximately one acre located (1) within the project boundary, (2)
north of the access road, and (3) southwest of the proposed compressor station is excluded from
the bioretention basin drainage area, as it appears to drain into the proposed basin. The entire
length of the access road within POI#1 is shown and calculated to drain into the proposed
bioretention basin; however it is apparent that based on the proposed grading the runoff from the
road will flow into the proposed swales along the road which are designed to bypass the basin.
The drainage from culvert 3, 3A, 3B, and 3C drain to the south and not to POI#1. POI#1 is not
appropriately located in the proposed drainage system. Another location for POI#1 should be
chosen, or another POI should be identified and a BMP should be designed for the additional
POI to rectify this issue.

Additionally, the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan document includes HydroCAD
calculations with different inputs than the HydroCAD calculations included in the Stormwater
Management Report. Specifically, the HydroCAD report (dated December 26, 2017) included in
the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has a lower drainage area for all reported drainage areas
than the HydroCAD report (dated August 9, 2017) included in the Stormwater Management
Report. The drainage areas used are smaller in the more recent HydroCAD report included in the
Soil Erosion Report, and thus the stormwater calculations and report should be updated to
incorporate the charges from December 2017. The changes in the drainage areas can affect the
runoff volumes, treatment calculations, basin sizing, and other values (such as curve number and
runoff depths).

d. Stormwater Quality

In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:8, the POI #1 basin does not provide the required 80
percent removal of total suspended solids (TSS) for the water quality storm (1.25 inches in 2

25
hours). The total existing runoff to POI #1 is 16.4 cubic feet/second (“cfs”) and 80 percent of
that value is 13.12 cfs. The flow rate into the basin -- 11.30 cfs of runoff -- is treated to 90%
removal of TSS. These values are based on those reported in the Soil Erosion and Sediment
control model (dated December 2017). Since 11.30 cfs is less than the required treatment
volume, the NESE Project is not in compliance with the quality portion of the Stormwater
Management Rules. Additionally, as stated above, the POI does not receive the drainage as
shown calculated.

No BMP is provided for POI#2 and therefore it is not in compliance with the Stormwater
Management Rules.

e. Stormwater Quantity

Princeton Hydro prepared a duplicate HydroCAD model based on the information

provided in the stormwater report appendices, and a revised model which uses a TC value
described above. The regulations state that the designer needs to provide 50%, 75%, and 80%
reductions of the peak flows for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events. The values reported below for
existing discharge assume a TC calculated by Princeton Hydro as discussed above and the
proposed discharge as calculated by AECOM.

Table 6: Princeton Hydro Time of Concentration Assessment

PH Existing Required Required

Storm AECOM Proposed PH Proposed
Discharge Reduction Discharge
Event Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)
(cfs) (%) (cfs)

2-Year 15.43 50 7.72 23.02 9.03

10- 31.72 75 23.79 46.10 17.98

Year

100- 66.07 80 52.86 94.08 47.51

Year

As shown in the table, the proposed design does not provide the required reductions and, in fact,
will increase the peak discharge when time of concentration discharges for existing conditions
are calculated. The provided data is inaccurate and is not in compliance with NJ’s Stormwater
Management Rules. The design should provide calculated TC values for each drainage area. The
misrepresentation of the TC increases the existing discharge from the site, causing the difference
in discharge and the volumes needed for treatment (difference between existing and proposed) to
be reduced.

f. Recharge

As stated above, the infiltration rates for the site do not meet the minimum requirements
for an infiltration BMP to be designed correctly. Without infiltration, the required recharge

26
cannot be achieved as designed. Additionally, no NJDEP GSR(Geological Survey Report)-32
calculations were provided for review. However, Princeton Hydro completed these calculations
for the site based on reported hydrologic soil groups and areas for the drainage area included in
the Stormwater Management Report. The results identify an annual recharge deficit of 189,049
cubic feet for the proposed development.

5. Other Stormwater-Related Issues

a. Standing water

The lack of infiltration will lead to the periodic inundation of the proposed basin. The
lowest discharge invert of the basin, is elevation 260, as reported in the HydroCAD models as
the invert of a 4 inch orifice, while the bottom of the basin is at elevation 259 based on the
proposed grading and storage calculations provided in the HydroCAD models. Based on this
elevation difference, there may be standing water of as nuch as a foot in the bottom of the basin.
This depth of stagnant standing water can provide optimal mosquito breeding conditions, which
is a health and safety issue. More importantly, this may create a conflict with the Stormwater
BMP Manual, which states that there shall be no standing water after 72 hours.

b. Dam Safety

According to N.J.A.C 7:20, the New Jersey Dam Safety Regulations, an embankment
with a height of 5 feet or higher (as measured from the invert of downstream discharge pipe to
the emergency spillway and/or top of embankment) is subject to these regulations. The invert of
the discharge pipe is 258 and the top of the embankment is 265, making the dam height for the
proposed basin 7 feet and therefore subject to the Dam Safety regulations. If the basin height is
misrepresented, at a minimum this would be considered a Class IV structure and under local
jurisdiction. Class IV dams have a spillway design storm of the 24 hour 100-year frequency Type
III storm plus 50 percent. No documentation of this sizing has been provided. This oversight
represents another design failure.

c. Soils

As discussed above under the “Soils Investigation” section, the proposed grading for the
basin is likely to be near or hit bedrock. Also, if bioretention media is proposed to meet the
proposed grading, it is even more likely that bedrock will be hit. No cross sections or details for
the basin were included in the reports, so it is not clear whether bioretention media or other
layers are proposed, and what thicknesses are proposed for these layers. Additional soil
investigation locations were proposed; however, it is unknown if the pits were completed with
the logs and/or infiltration testing. Additional information and data is needed in order to
determine whether this is a viable location for the basin, and if infiltration goals can be met.

d. Swale Design

Swales 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 appear to be correctly sized for the drainage areas

provided. Swale 3 and 11 do not appear to be properly graded on the plans and are not drawn as
sized in the provided Channel Design sheets. Swale 14 appears to be drawn larger than sized.

27
Swales 4 and 13, and the drainage area for these swales, are not shown on the provided plans,
though Channel Design sheets are provided for these swales. Swales 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 appear
to be correctly sized for the outlined drainage areas based on the provided Channel Design sheets
as well as our own calculations, though the drainage areas do not appear to be properly
delineated. Though swales 1 and- 2 appear to be correctly sized, they end abruptly and there are
no structural drainage features proposed in POI#2. Additionally, there is no swale proposed
between swale 1 and 3, and it is unclear why this is. It should be noted that the proposed access
road will likely drain to the swales along the left and right of the road and not stay on the road to
discharge into the basin. With that said, the swale calculations should be revisited, once the
drainage areas, curve numbers, and time of concentration are confirmed.

e. Culvert Design

The drainage areas for culverts 3 and 3C do not appear to be properly delineated. The
culverts are designed to divert runoff at the specified flow depth for the 25-year storm, though
culverts 3 and 3C are likely undersized due to the drainage areas that appear to be larger than
what was delineated.

f. POI #2:

POI #2 does not comply with N.J.A.C. 7:8 as no BMPs are proposed within this drainage
area. The regulations require the designer to demonstrate compliance for each POI unless they
converge onsite. The selected POIs do not converge onsite and therefore quantity, quality, and
recharge compliance needs to be proven for both. The current calculations assume that the BMP
and site modifications within POI #1 address the compliance for both POIs. It should be noted
that the current calculations with the modifications to the TC show an increase in discharge at
POI #1.

Based on our analysis of Transco’s stormwater basin design, it is apparent from the
multiple design errors that the proposed basin falls well short of meeting the minimum
requirements or design standards for a bio-retention facility as required by the NJDEP.
Nonconformity with the stormwater management rules indicates that the basin will not infiltrate
as envisioned by Transco. Many of the errors -- including but not limited to certain hydrologic
soil groups and failure to accurately determine time of concentration (tc) -- in Transco’s
stormwater design serve to underestimate the quantity of runoff that the basin must manage.
Increasing the quantity of stormwater that this basin must manage and infiltrate will only
exacerbate the basin’s design problems. In this case, Transco’s failure to satisfy New Jersey’s
Stormwater Management Rules translates to yet another impact to the surface water quality and
failure to satisfy N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2(b)15 as well as N.J.A.C. 7:13-12.2(b).

Our analysis of the proposed Compressor Station 206 site basin indicates that it fails on
many levels to satisfy the minimum design standards of the Stormwater Best Management
Practices (BMP) Manual for infiltration basins. This should not be a surprise to Transco as their
Resource Report No. 2 (Water Use and Quality) submitted to FERC states on page 2-10 that
“The diabase that intrudes the sedimentary rocks has very low porosity that lends to the poor
hydraulic connections (Trapp and Horn 1997). The diabase aquifers in Somerset County are
dense, poorly fractured rocks that do not easily store or transmit water.” These geologic qualities

28
make the proposed stormwater basin site selected by Transco a poor candidate for infiltration. In
addition, the DEIS indicates on page 4-14 that 58.5 acres of soil that is shallow to bedrock are
located within the project area and that “all 58.5 acres are located at Compressor Station 200 or
Compressor Station 206.” Transco’s failure to identify a site that can satisfy all of New Jersey’s
regulatory requirements is problematic and highlights the lack of consideration of site constraints
in its site selection process.

In addition to the numerous design errors associated with the proposed stormwater basin
at the Compressor Station 206 site, the site would be considered to be a dam in accordance with
N.J.A.C. 7:20, the New Jersey Dam Safety Regulations. This oversight by Transco represents yet
another design failure that will require design modifications to the proposed structure in order for
it to fully comply with all of New Jersey’s regulations. Although Transco may not need to be
concerned with this issue for the FERC Certificate process, it is incumbent upon Transco to
demonstrate an understanding of New Jersey’s regulations in its DEP permit applications. This
is especially the case when, as here, failure to understand the requirements of New Jersey’s
Stormwater Management Rules would affect compliance with the Freshwater Wetlands
Protection Act. Understanding the constraints associated with a particular site as it relates to
development needs such as stormwater management should be an essential element of any site
selection process. Transco’s alternatives analysis did not identify stormwater as an issue and
simply indicated in the FWW IP application to the NJDEP that it complied with the Stormwater
Management Rules. As Transco’s stormwater management design does not comply with New
Jersey’s requirements, this site’s design issues will continue to be a problem for Transco moving
forward as the site’s impacts cannot be fully evaluated until the design is finalized.

As we noted earlier, Transco relies on rhetoric to indicate compliance and simply states
on page 20 of its FWW IP application that “The proposed project is in compliance with the
Stormwater Management Rules.” Importantly, however, Transco has yet to satisfy this statement
and – based on the design and proposed location of the stormwater facility at Compressor Station
206 – they will not likely be able to do so.

Lastly, the proposed Project will modify the local hydrology of the site as it relates to
current runoff patterns and the proposed infiltration basin. No analysis was provided to
determine whether groundwater mounding associated with the basin would modify the
groundwater plumes present on the Higgins Farm Superfund site.

III. Offshore Water Resources (Coastal Wetlands Permit, In-Water Waterfront

Development Individual Permit, and Upland Waterfront Development
Individual Permit)

A. Overview of Deficiencies

Princeton Hydro reviewed Transco’s Coastal Wetlands Permit, In-Water Waterfront

Development Individual Permit, and Upland Waterfront Development Individual Permit
applications for their compliance with New Jersey’s Coastal Zone Management Rules, N.J.A.C.
7:7. We also reviewed FERC’s DEIS for the NESE Project and Transco’s submissions to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to better understand the Project’s environmental impacts
and, thus, inform our analysis of these state permit applications. We outline in detail below why

29
these state permit applications fail to satisfy the relevant portions of the Coastal Zone
Management Rules and, therefore, must be denied by NJDEP.

B. Special Areas (N.J.A.C. 7:7-9)

1. Shellfish Habitat (NJAC 7:7-9.2)

Transco claims that Transco states in the Waterfront Development & Wetlands Individual
Permit application that, “Trench dredging to install the pipeline will be managed pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 7:7-12.7 to prevent significant mortality of shellfish due to increased
turbidity/sedimentation, resuspension of contaminants, or interference with the natural
functioning of the shellfish habitat. The benthic community in the disturbed area is expected to
recover within one to three years following completion of backfill activities.” However, this
assumption is not consistent with a statement in the FERC DEIS that claims 100% mortality to
any sedentary benthic organisms – which would include shellfish -- within the Project area.

2. Surf clam Areas (N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.3)

The Project will unavoidably impact soft-bottom benthic habitats, including regions
defined by the DEP regulations as “surf clam areas.” Impacts to benthic resources, including
shellfish, need to be fully assessed and mitigated for. The Waterfront Development & Wetlands
Individual Permit application provides only minimal mitigation framework for proposed
compensatory mitigation. This application lacks detail on (1) the extent of the proposed impacts
to benthic resources, including shellfish; (2) proposed compensatory mitigation measures; and
(3) performance measures for ensuring mitigation measures are successful.

Interestingly, Transco reports in the Offshore Environmental Sampling Report that the
dominant shellfish community in New York waters near the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project
Transfer Point was the Atlantic Surfclam (Spisula solidissima), but that surveys conducted after
that project’s construction show that concentrations of surf clam are declining in this area. The
decline has also contributed to substantial decreases in harvesting due to small surf clam sizes.
Thus, if Transco’s NESE Project is allowed to proceed, further harm will be imposed on the
already vulnerable surf clam populations of both New Jersey and New York.

3. Prime Fishing Areas (N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.4)

Effects to the benthic habitat, clam populations, and crab populations will further
adversely impact the recreational opportunities available to people by negatively impacting
fishing grounds. Recreational fishing and boating in the Project area is a significant economic
driver; the estimated impact to the tourism industry and local fisheries of decreased fish
populations and restricted access to fishing grounds due to construction vessel traffic was not
clearly calculated in the Waterfront Development & Wetlands Individual Permit. In addition, the
increased disturbance of benthic sediments can contribute to nutrients being resuspended and to
Harmful Algal Blooms (“HABs”), which are known to cause fish-kills through anoxic
conditions.

30
 More specifically, one concern is that the NESE DEIS preferred alternative unnecessarily
goes through a fishing area known as the Tin Can grounds as well as the Ambrose Channel
fishing area. No explanation has been provided as to why the preferred alternative route could
not be located adjacent to -- but not actually in -- those areas.

Commercial fishers would need to retrieve equipment within the project area prior to
construction. This would be particularly hard on shellfish harvesters, who may have a lot of
equipment in a single area. Having to reset equipment in a new area would force these harvesters
to lose days of crucial income. The NESE DEIS says it will “discourage” activity in “informal
safety zones,” yet makes no mention of how it will do this in such a high-trafficked area47, an
issue not fully addressed in the Waterfront Development & Wetlands Individual Permit
applications.
There is no clear evaluation in the NESE DEIS of how the impacts to benthic and
demersal marine species will also impact the economics of the local recreational and commercial
fishing industry. Since the currently planned project is stated to intersect with 7 fishing grounds,
it is critical to understand how the environmental impacts translate into economic impacts on
industries that are dependent on those marine resources as well. These economic analyses are
missing from the NESE DEIS and critical to a complete evaluation of the Project’s impact, as
economics drive human impact on particular resources -- particularly marine recreational
resources. This is also not addressed in the NJDEP applications.

Further, Transco recognizes that key fisheries may be affected by the construction of this
pipeline; it has been asked to inform FERC by the end of the NESE DEIS comment period about
its plans to restrict construction to allow for key periods when selected species migrate and/or
spawn.48 Without this information, people with knowledge of these fisheries cannot evaluate
whether Transco’s plans will be adequate and if the NJDEP application materials are complete.

At the moment, Transco has been notified by NJDEP and the NOAA National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) of these timing restrictions and areas of concern so that it can
minimize impacts. The proposed blue crab timing restrictions are from December 1 to April 30
(12/1 - 4/30) and the areas of concern are within 500 feet of both the Ambrose Channel, Chapel
Hill Channel, and the Raritan Bay Channel. Notification to commercial crabbers must be made
30 days in advance if work is to be done during these times and areas. Proposed anadromous
timing restrictions are from March 1 to June 30 (3/1 - 6/30) and from October 1 to November 30)
(10/1 - 11/30). Winter flounder timing restrictions are from December 15 to May 31 (12/15 to
5/31) in waters shallower than 20 feet mean lower low water (MLL W). Transco has requested to
work during the month of June; the NMFS is considering that request but may not be able to
modify the construction timing restrictions -- nor should they have to, in the interest of
maintaining the safety of the marine species already at risk by the proposed work. This action
alone could be reason for application rejection base on site location also in accordance with
NJAC 7.7-14.2(a)2.

Finally, another major concern relative to NJAC 7:7-9.4 is loss of mobile fishing gear to
entanglement with the pipeline in areas where significant scouring may be an issue. Erosion of
                                                            
47
FERC DEIS page 4-249. 
48
 FERC DEIS page 4-114. 

31
sediment around areas of pipeline due to water currents could introduce new substrate hazards
for bottom fishing gear. Any significant scouring may result in less than the required four feet of
depth below the seafloor for the pipeline as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

4. Finfish migratory pathways (N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.5)

In addition to the benthic areas affected and the clam habitat disturbed by the proposed
work, Transco has also severely underestimated the pelagic resources directly disturbed by the
project area. Analysis from the FERC DEIS of the potentially impacted area seems to only
account for the 2-dimensional surface area of the benthic substrate relative to the entire Raritan
Bay. The project is proposed to happen in the 3-dimensional real-world, however, and the actual
area of direct impact should at very least include the entire volume/space of excavated sediment,
the surface of the water above it, the entire water column in between, and any part of the water
column and benthic substrate affected by any sediment plume; more accurate impacted areas
should also include any area/space where supplemental backfill is sourced and other sediment
disposal sites, along with any water column and sediment plume areas associated with these
activities as well.

Migratory fish pathways lie within the water column above the proposed pipeline path,
where sediment will be resuspended and vessels will be travelling to conduct the proposed work.
Many of the species that will be impacted during their annual migration are also described under
the following subsection relative to N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.36.

5. Endangered or Threatened Wildlife or Plant Species Habitats (N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.36)

FERC provides in the NESE DEIS various recommendations on items that need to be
filed by Transco before any construction can occur. It should be clearly stated that concurrence
on impacts needs to be received by NMFS, USFWS, NJDEP, NYDES, and PADEP with their
Section 7 consultation letters and impact determinations (4-114, 4-176). The NJDEP Waterfront
Development & Wetlands Individual Permit applications cannot be approved without at least
establishing a buffer based on the NJDEPs Landscape Maps and Natural Heritage Program.

a. Fish: Sturgeon

Impacts to sturgeon species are of particular interest due to the species’ conservation
status and habits as a benthic forager. The release of toxic sediments would disturb the recovery
of Atlantic sturgeon, in particular, which have been making a slow comeback over the last
decades. Raritan Bay is a major habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. Atlantic sturgeon feed on bottom-
dwelling invertebrates. Transco acknowledges in the NESE DEIS that those species—clams,
crustaceans, etc.—would be the most directly and adversely impacted by construction. Transco
estimates that it would take 1-3 years for these species to recuperate. The impacts of the 3-12
hours per day of construction activity on the Sturgeon’s habitat will not only expose them to
plumes of toxic sediments (given that Sturgeon consume large amounts of mud and sand as they
feed) but also reduce and poison their prey. Transco does not adequately address the long-term
implications of any of this, especially considering that sturgeon are slow to mature and
reproduce: males take at least 12 years to mature and females reach maturity at 18 years.

32
 b. Fish: Flounder

The Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder stock is near historic lows and
the proposed pipeline construction location occurs within a region which has been determined to
be Essential Fish Habitat for all life history stages of winter flounder. As such, the timing
restrictions on dredging and development which have been established to protect the spawning
and vulnerable life history stages of winter flounder should be observed. If any work is done
during this time, mitigation should involve using any techniques or equipment that result in the
least amount of turbidity, though the NJDEP permit applications do not appear to address this;
Transco relies on downplaying the impact of the resuspended sediment.

c. Marine Mammals, Reptiles, Birds

There are many elements of the Transco NESE Project that will impact marine mammals
as they do other marine wildlife. Contaminated sediments are one of those elements. PCBs have
been associated with toxic effects in marine mammals such as endocrine disruption, which can
cause impairment of reproduction, development, and other hormone-mediated processes. The
NESE DEIS only analyzes the impact of PCBs on two species.

Marine mammals, including whales and seals, have recently returned to New York
Harbor and Raritan Bay. Humpback whale sightings have increased from only 1 between 2011-
2013 to 45 between 2014-2016 and have been recorded in every season except for winter. As is
also the case for fish (discussed further below), whales are vulnerable to noise and vibration --
while subject to the additional risk of being hit by ships. The northwestern New York Bay is a
feeding ground for juvenile humpback whales. Approximately 80-120 seals live in the waters off
Sandy Hook and have been sighted in Raritan Bay and Staten Island. A reduction in prey due to
increased noise levels may lead to displacement of the seals and whales.

In addition, the construction noise, activity, and pollution associated with the Project
could not only reverse the recovery process of whales in the impacted area but also negatively
affect the related economic activity of whale watching cruises.

6. Critical Wildlife Habitat (N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.37)

a. Raritan Bay/Sandy Hook is a Significant Habitat Complex

In order to analyze potential impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), samples taken by
Transco for inclusion in the FERC DEIS to evaluate water quality were collected during
November and December of 2016. The Raritan-Sandy Hook Bay complex drains a watershed of
approximately 3,630 square kilometers (1,400 square miles), not including the Hudson,
Hackensack, or Passaic Rivers (of which the lower Hudson alone drains approximately 4,982
square miles of land). This is an enormous amount of land that is densely populated and
contributes a significant amount of runoff and nutrient loading at different times of year. The
samples reported in the NESE DEIS do not reflect conditions throughout the construction period
and represent a gross underestimate of what peak discharge, runoff, and nutrient loading rates
would be – all of which affect water quality parameters as well as currents that would influence
pipeline trench excavation site erosion potential. This is an obvious oversight by Transco and

33
would not only affect the results of water quality parameters and the bay’s flow characteristics,
but also the impact of changes in water quality by construction activities throughout the rest of
the year on the water column as marine habitat.

The water quality characteristics measured in November-December also include

indicators of biological hazards in the water like bacteria counts, chlorophyll-a, nitrogen, TSS,
and dissolved oxygen. These factors are used to predict and manage HABs, which pose not only
a stressor to the environment, but also a public health risk. As runoff increases in the spring
months, the nutrient load to the bay increases, which provides better conditions for increases in
phytoplankton (the organisms responsible for HABs) numbers. By reporting water quality data
for November-December only, the risk of the project increasing the occurrence and frequency of
HAB is significantly underestimated. This is extremely irresponsible as it puts the public
unnecessarily at much greater risk of exposure to biotoxins in the water, which are predicted to
occur at a lesser extent -- based on the reported findings -- than is warranted. Transco’s Draft
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers claims,
“While HABs can cause adverse ecological impacts such as fish kills, most observed impacts are
typically aesthetic and only minor irritations have been known to occur in humans (Gastrich
2000).”49 However, many studies more current than 18 years ago have shown that exposure to
biotoxins can cause more severe health issues than minor irritations; recent studies have also
begun to show that there are correlations between chronic exposure to HABs and their resulting
biotoxins and neurodegenerative disorders.

Any other data used for comparison (e.g. NJDEP Monitoring Summary Data table, 1989-
2007) are broad descriptive statistics which mask any seasonal fluctuations crucial to any proper
analysis of impact.

Based on the NESE DEIS, there is no plan to avoid or minimize the impact to benthic
habitat or suspension of sediment from the exposed pipeline trench. Little to no effort has been
made to use data to find any other means to minimize impact other than adjusting Transco’s
construction schedule; this is, of course, dependent on when it is practicable. Otherwise, no
alternative avoidance or minimization measures have been given when the presented ones are not
practicable.

b. Horseshoe Crabs (Limulus polyphemus)

Information in the FERC DEIS related to horseshoe crabs is from relatively old survey
data. The discussion of potential impacts is qualitative in nature and there are no detailed studies
done directly on existing populations. The potential impacts presented in the DEIS are minimal
and not supported by current data. This is crucial to the NJDEP permit applications, though,
since it does affect resources available in Important Bird Area (IBA) of the NJ coastal zone; the
Waterfront Development and Wetland Individual Permit applications do not address this at all.

Transco overlooks any serious impact to the American horseshoe crab (Limulus
polyphemus) populations of Raritan Bay. Larger, more notable breeding populations exist
                                                            
49
Williams-Transco. 2017. Northeast Supply Enhancement Project Join Application to the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, Appendix L: Draft Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, pg. 196. 

34
elsewhere in NJ and NY; however, several studies (including those done by the National Park
Service) document small but viable breeding populations in portions of NY and along the
southern coast of Raritan Bay in NJ. All of these areas would be impacted by the Transco NESE
pipeline project. Due to the nature of the size of the Limulus populations that occupy Raritan
Bay and nest on the surrounding shorelines, any impact to the benthic environment would have
significant and potentially irreversible impacts on habitat, food resources, and recruitment.

Other studies document how the male:female ratio of breeding animals specifically in
Raritan Bay ranges from 15:1 to 30:1; the average male:female ratio for horseshoe crabs is
between 5:1 and 10:1. This was caused by a rapid decline in the number of females in Raritan
Bay over a 5-year period and underscores how vulnerable the population is in the project area. In
Cliffwood Beach, NJ, it was reported that there were 1,066 males and only 8 females in 2017,
further emphasizing the species vulnerability in the area.

The species is mentioned in the FERC DEIS but impacts are trivialized and
unsubstantiated. L. polyphemus is listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(“IUCN”) Redlist as Vulnerable (one step below Endangered) and the top “Actions Needed”
listed are “site/area protection” and “Resource & habitat protection.” A moratorium was instated
by the state of NJ in 2007, but no such protections currently exist in NY. This puts the crab
population under severe threat in Lower NY Bay, including Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay.
Transco reports that there is little information on seasonal horseshoe crab abundance within
workspaces and does not anticipate the project will affect the nearest spawning areas, citing
Jamaica Bay as one such area. However, a group of volunteers associated with the Bayshore
Regional Watershed Council have been monitoring horseshoe crab populations for 10 years at 5
sites along the southern Raritan/Sandy Hook Bay complex, including Conaskunk Point in Union
Beach, NJ and Cliffwood Beach in Aberdeen Township, NJ. These locations are much closer to
the project area and are more likely to be impacted by excavation activities.

In addition to affecting the crab populations themselves, impacts to the horseshoe crabs
would also affect other commercially and recreationally important marine species. Horseshoe
crab eggs and larvae are a seasonal food item of invertebrates and finfish. From May through
August, striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and white perch (Morone americana) eat horseshoe crab
eggs. American eel (Anguilla rostrata), killifish (Fundulus spp.), silver perch (Bairdiella
chrysoura), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), kingfish (Menticirrhus saxatilis), silversides (Menidia
menidia), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), and winter flounder (Pleuronectes
americanus) also eat eggs and larvae. All crab species and several gastropods, including whelks,
feed on horseshoe crab eggs and larvae. The construction of the pipeline would disturb habitat
(including foraging sites and mating migratory sites for horseshoe crabs), decrease horseshoe
crab populations, and degrade the overall aquatic food web in Raritan Bay and Lower New York
Bay.

C. General Water Areas: New Dredging (N.J.A.C. 7:7-12.7)

Based on our review, it appears that the only sediment that will be tested for
contaminants will be the material not side-cast by clamshell bucket or blown out by jet trencher.
This shows a severe lack of evaluation by Transco of excavated material content.

35
 Clam shell trenching is proposed within the Morgan Shore approach HDD pit and
between M.P. 12.50 and M.P. 14.02 for the new pipeline. In-water depths at these locations
range from 8 feet to 11 feet. It is not clear from the site plans or environmental report submitted
to NJDEP how sediment or silt control measures will be utilized to confine dredge materials
from spreading outside of the work zone. According to the environmental report, at depths
greater than 15 feet, dredged materials will be side cast But the environmental report does not
discuss what will be done with dredged materials from (1) the Morgan Short approach pit or (2)
the trench for the new pipeline at water depths of less than 15 feet. Side casting of dredge
material is discouraged in water areas and -- as per N.J.A.C. 7:7-12.9(b) -- disposal of materials
in waters deeper than 6 feet is acceptable, provided no beneficial use or upland site is available.
Transco needs to provide NJDEP with a detailed description of alternative management practices
for this material and an indication of whether any investigation for potential beneficial dredge
spoil use has been performed.

All dredged material proposed to be placed within the Historic Area Remediation Site
(“HARS”) must be tested in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”)
Chemical Criteria and a letter of acceptance from the Army Corps must be provided to NJDEP
prior to the issuance of the NJDEP Individual permits; this has yet to be done. Transco needs to
provide to NJDEP and the Army Corps a detailed calculation of the volume of dredged material
that will be placed within the HARS.

Any backfill material from adjacent navigational channels must be tested for
contaminants or a letter from the Army Corps (indicating that the material is suitable for HARS)
must be provided to NJDEP. This also has not been done.

D. General Location Rules: Basic Location Rule (N.J.A.C. 7:7-14.2)

The presentation and filtering of alternatives in the NESE DEIS is obviously done to
single out Transco’s preferred route. The Route Alternatives discussed in the NESE DEIS were
clearly selected in the first place because they are less than ideal. Even so, Transco fails to
present sufficient reasons for its elimination of each of these Route Alternatives. This is contrary
to the intent of NJAC 7:7-14.2.

In the NESE DEIS, there is benthic biogeochemical data collected for points along the
preferred route; however, information presented in the NESE DEIS about all other alternative
routes for the pipeline includes only physical attributes, such as miles of trench, cable crossing,
area within anchorage, etc. Detailed analyses, like studies of current clam population densities,
sediment chemical composition (particularly of contaminants), and hydrodynamic modeling (as
examples), are missing for Alternatives 1-5.

In the NESE DEIS, benthic sampling clearly was done only in preferred routes (Alt. 6
and 8) and not along any other alternatives. Neglecting to collect data that may or may not
indicate a difference in impact to the environment indicates that other alternatives were presented
despite obviously not being viable options. Even if selecting a preferred alternative and then
manufacturing obviously non-viable options was not a concern, there are no reference sites
sampled for comparison. Thus, there is no context in which to evaluate the data in order to
assess potential impacts.

36
 All of the investigated routes rely primarily on either clamshell bucket dredging or jet
trenching, with the use of HDD only being used near the shoreline and crossing navigation
channels. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:7-12.15, directional drilling must be used unless it is
demonstrated that it is not feasible. Transco does not provide a thorough analysis of all methods
proposed to trench the pipeline in comparison to directional drilling nor does it demonstrate why
HDD methods cannot be used for a larger portion of the project.

E. Resource Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:7-16)

1. Marine Fish and Fisheries (N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.2)

As previously mentioned, the NJEP Waterfront Development & Wetland Individual

Permit application material lacks sufficient detail to discuss how impacts to Atlantic sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) and winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) will be
avoided. Activities including pre-lay dredge, hand jetting, pile driving, and use of a vibratory
hammer are proposed during aggregation, migration, and spawning periods. Additional
information is needed to determine if these activities will adversely impact these species and
result in an incidental take. As stated in the NESE DEIS, “Direct impacts [of pipeline
construction] would include mortality, injury, or temporary displacement of the organisms living
on, in, or near the seafloor. Indirect impacts would include suspension of sediments in the water
column, which could clog fish gills and obscure visual stimuli, and the redistribution of
sediments that fall out of suspension, which could bury benthic and demersal species, resulting in
mortality of eggs and other life stages. Benthic invertebrates and demersal (bottom-dwelling)
fish species in or near the excavation area would be most affected.”50 These particular impacts
would severely impact not only fish that are present but also impact recruitment and future
fisheries either directly (by destroying eggs and spawning habitat) or indirectly (by completely
deterring fish from inhabiting and spawning in the area).

Other impacts to fisheries involve noise and acoustic disturbance. In the FERC DEIS,
Transco acknowledges but does not adequately address the fact that construction noise could
cause permanent damage to fish auditory systems, affecting their survival, growth, and
reproduction. Transco acknowledges but does not adequately address the fact that construction
noise could disrupt not only physiological processes but also behavioral patterns of marine
wildlife (such as migration, breathing, breeding, and feeding) up to 2.9 miles from the sound
source. Several species of fish, -- such as the striped bass -- are migratory, moving into
freshwater to spawn and then back into saltwater. Being very sensitive to noise and vibration,
fish migratory patterns will be disrupted by construction and this, in turn, will impact their
survival and recruitment. It should be addressed in the NJDEP applications more explicitly.

2. Hard Clam Fisheries

NJ’s shellfish resources will be negatively impacted, particularly the hard clam fishery.
Transco’s analysis in the Draft Biological Assessment uses outdated data, a study from 1983, to
help prove that the pipeline’s impact would be low. This is highly misleading and does not
                                                            
50
 FERC DEIS page 4‐105. 

37
reflect the urgent need to protect historic improvements to the clam population. When compared
to a 2001 study by NJDEP, Transco’s Sediment Chemistry analysis of potential polychlorinated
biphenyl (“PCB”) concentrations in hard clams indicates that those amounts would be three
times as high as the maximum amount found in the 2001 study.

The construction of the pipeline trench will severely compromise the clam population in
many ways and further impair the ecologic services that are critical to the health of the Raritan
Bay. The analyses in the Draft Biological Assessment of these species is also suspect. Hard clam
densities studied by Transco show a large standard deviation for the data in the NESE DEIS
Alternative Route samples, skewing the possible interpretation of the data. Nonetheless, the
number of sampling sites in the NESE DEIS compared for hard clam density is relatively small
(22 from preferred and 18 from alternative, from 69 total sampling sites along the preferred
route) and not very divergent from the preferred route (many of the sites sampled as the alternate
route are within the preferred route temporary workspace and will be impacted by construction
on the preferred route anyway).

Furthermore, despite the fact that the NESE DEIS preferred alternative routes are stated
to be selected to avoid high clam density areas, this is only on the New Jersey side of the Bay.
Information supplied by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”)
indicates that the preferred routes go through areas of clam populations that are infected with
Quahog Parasite Unknown (“QPX”) disease. Though this may decrease the possibility of
harvesting healthy clams by recreational and commercial fishermen, it does present a serious risk
to the rest of the clam populations through the rest of the bay (including the New Jersey side) if
the NESE Project is allowed to proceed. QPX disease is considered to be routinely present in
sediment and waters throughout the geographic range and doesn’t cause disease until there is
extraneous environmental stress. Heavy disturbance of sediment, particularly the release of
contaminated sediments into the water column, would constitute “extraneous environmental
stress.” Disturbance of the sediment can also disperse infected individuals as well, creating a
more likely possibility of these individuals infecting other nearby clams.

In addition to QPX disease, the waters of Richmond and Queens Counties NY in which
the pipeline expansion is planned are listed with the state as “uncertified,” which means that
these shellfish lands are in such unsanitary condition that the shellfish thereon shall not be taken
for use as food. Similar determinations have been made for NJ Shellfish Growing Water
Classification Areas in the waters of Monmouth County where the pipeline is planned.
Removing clams from these areas further depletes the ecosystem’s ability to filter out the
contaminants that are causing this determination to begin with, further impairing the
environment’s natural ability to recover from anthropogenic pollutant inputs that already exist.
Of the hard clams found in the area, 76% are measured as in the “small” category; therefore, any
impact will have a major effect on recruitment. Transco has stated that “No hard clam harvesting
has occurred in the area since 2013, although NYSDEC may reinitiate the transplantation
program in the future if it again becomes economically feasible for commercial harvesters
(Barnes 2016).”51 However, at a 100% mortality rate of impact to any sedentary benthic
organism, it will not return to being economically viable since the Project Area goes right
                                                            
51
Williams-Transco. 2017. Northeast Supply Enhancement Project Join Application to the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, Appendix F: Coastal Zone Consistency Assessment, pg. 170. 

38
through areas of high QPX incidence and QPX is known to break out when the host is
compromised.

The NESE DEIS reveals that there has been no evaluation of the Project’s potential
impact on clams’ susceptibility to QPX disorder. The NESE DEIS preferred route proceeds
through areas of high incidence of QPX in hard clams along the route through NY waters off the
coast of Staten Island. The clam harvesting industry will not recover as anticipated by FERC in
the NESE DEIS if further impacted by QPX. There is no analysis in the NESE DEIS of these
impacts or mention of this disease. If QPX is a significant concern for clam populations in New
York, it is likely present in New Jersey clam populations as well. If Transco is allowed to
proceed with construction of the NESE Project, disturbance to the benthic community within
New Jersey state waters will increase the susceptibility of clams in New Jersey to risk of
impairment by QPX disease and thus further negatively affect the ability to harvest clams as a
resource in New Jersey.

3. Water Quality (N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.3)

a. Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)

Impacts of the Project that would create conditions conducive to the growth of HABs in
Raritan Bay have not been assessed at all. The occurrence of large-scale blooms of
phytoplankton is mentioned in the NESE DEIS but there has been no further assessment of how
the Project impacts may influence conditions that may or may not be favorable for blooms of
species, like dinoflagellates, that are known to produce toxins that are harmful to shellfish, other
marine life, and humans. Without addressing this issue, Transco has not adequately evaluated all
aspects of the environment and community that may be impacted by the NESE Project, making
the analysis in the NJDEP applications incomplete as well. Further details about the impacts of
HABs were discussed above in the analysis of Raritan Bay/Sandy Hook under Section III.B.7.a.

b. Turbidity and Resuspended Contaminants

As discussed in the NESE DEIS, benthic sampling shows that there are sediments
exceeding acceptable levels of contaminants, including metals, PAHs, PCBs, SVOCs, and
dioxins/furans. “Approximately 83 percent of the sample sites had at least one exceedance of an
inorganic (metal) threshold. Exceedances of upper-level effects thresholds for heavy metals (e.g.,
copper, lead, zinc, mercury), were detected at multiple locations. These included exceedances for
mercury at one site; lead and mercury at one site; lead, zinc, and mercury at two sites; and
copper, lead, and mercury at one site”52

Transco has addressed the fact that removal of these sediments will entail the use of an
enclosed, environmental clamshell bucket to minimize dispersal of excavated sediments.
However, the substrate surface will still be heavily disturbed by excavation with any type of
clamshell bucket and no barge overflow, since there is nothing mentioned in the NESE DEIS that
would prevent resuspension of sediments from the excavation site itself. Also, dredging without
barge overflow causes water to accumulate on the barge. The NJDEP Waterfront Development
                                                            
52
 FERC DEIS, Sect. 4.5.2.8, p. 4‐114. 

39
& Wetland Individual Permit application lacks information on dredge water handling methods
and where the dredged material will be dewatered prior to disposal.

In addition, not all of the sampling sites that resulted in contaminated sediments will be
excavated using the clamshell bucket; use of a jet trencher is indicated to occur at some sites.
Milepost (MP) 25.4, specifically, is an area of jet-trenching where mercury concentrations
exceed thresholds in the 3 to 6-foot layer. Since the pipeline will be installed deeper than 3 feet,
installation by a jet trencher is not acceptable in this contaminated area and an alternative
installation method needs to be provided.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that sediments located outside of the sampling sites
are not contaminated, and there is no clear plan for preventing resuspension of these sediments
during excavation (no mention of turbidity curtain, etc.). Many of the sites where contaminated
sediments were found are in relatively close proximity to shore, and therefore human and
wildlife interaction is greater for the sites where contaminants are found.

Hydrodynamic modeling that has occurred was not integrated with results of
biological/chemical studies to assess the risk of environmental impacts resulting from offshore
oil/gas developments. Also, modeling doesn’t account for flocculation, likely assuming
unchanging physical properties of sediments. Studies cited on the impact of re-suspended
contaminants report in the FERC DEIS are from 1994 -- more than 20 years ago and likely no
longer relevant.

Transco has provided no clear explanation of the environmental impacts of backfilling.

Whether the material is being reused from side-casting that has already caused impacts on the
benthos adjacent to the trench or material is being introduced from a different location, there is
still unknown impact to the backfilled, trenched area and the potential negative effects
outnumber the potential positive ones. Once exposed to the water column, contaminated
sediments can become more reactive and be more detrimental to the environment.
Hydrodynamic models are not clear on the effect of water currents on exposed trench materials.
Transco has also not provided an assessment of the areas being used to source the supplemental
backfill when side-cast material is not of sufficient volume to fill the excavated area; this
includes any testing for contaminants and impact of excavation from those areas.

Transco has not provided a clear assessment of impact from dredging for backfill from 4
separate offshore sources. This includes benthic community studies, sediment modeling,
chemical composition (especially regarding contaminants), etc. Without detailed evaluation of
the impacts of sites sourced for backfill, the complete impacts of the Project cannot be assessed.

One justification for action is that this body of water is already impaired. Further
polluting would make recovery of this ecosystem more difficult, which is unacceptable. Further,
it is unclear what the actual impact of contaminated sediments would be if re-suspended into the
currents due to additional erosion of the excavated pipeline trench. More analysis needs to be
done to determine these impacts.

NJDEP should be concerned about what materials will be used in the HDD fluid and how
it is released into the bay through drilling of the land-to-water Morgan Shore Approach as well

40
as the HDD to cross the Ambrose Channel. Transco has provided very little explanation of the
impact to the environment that these materials will have once released.

The Project will impact areas containing Class C sediment, which are highly
contaminated and are expected to be acutely toxic to aquatic biota. The NJDEP application
indicates that Class C sediment will be dredged using an environmental bucket and no barge
overflow. Dredging without barge overflow causes water to accumulate on the barge. The
NJDEP applications lack information on dredge water handling methods and where the dredged
material will be dewatered prior to disposal. Additionally, the application lacks information on
where contaminated dredged material will be disposed of.

Further, these Class C sediment contaminants have not been modelled for water column
concentration at the edge of the mixing zone. The model should be run to determine the
predicted water column concentration of any such re-suspended sediment contaminants at the
edge of the mixing zone.

Finally, Transco has provided no contamination and toxicity analysis of waters in the
Raritan Bay for antibiotic resistance pathogens known to exist in shallow seafloor sediment.53
This oversight could pose a significant health risk and impair water quality.

c. HDD and Hydrostatic Testing Fluid

HDD fluid and hydrostatic testing fluid consists of oxygen scavengers, non-oxidizing
biocides, and non-toxic florescent dyes. These would be added to the hydrostatic test water in the
pipeline and then discharged into the ocean following the completion of the hydrostatic testing.
The discharge of hydrostatic test water may require further permitting.

4. Public Access (N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.9)

Raritan Bay already has large amounts of vessel traffic for whaling, fishing, transport,
etc. The proposed project work will increase vessel traffic in an already congested waterway.
The selected alternative was chosen to go around anchorage areas, but this will still impact traffic
in and out of the area, limiting and decreasing public access.

F. Mitigation (N.J.A.C. 7:7-17.2)

Though monitoring and mitigation is mentioned in the NESE DEIS,54 no actual detailed
monitoring plans have been submitted to FERC or NJDEP to properly assess the post-
construction impact. Plans need to be in place to be properly prepared in the event that certain
planned thresholds (noise, sediment disturbance, etc.) are exceeded. Monitoring is stated to be
required in the NESE DEIS, but not any remediation measures should the monitoring reveal that
Transco’s initial mitigation has failed. Remediation and mitigation strategies that would be

                                                            
53
See research paper entitled “Sediment Composition Influences Spatial Variation in the Abundance of Human
Pathogen Indicator Bacteria within an Estuarine Environment” (November 2014), available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4232572/.  
54
 FERC DEIS, page 4‐114 

41
outlined in such plans would have to be based on detailed quantitative analysis of each impact
and these are missing from Transco’s submissions.

The Project will unavoidably impact soft-bottom benthic habitats. Impacts to benthic
resources, including shellfish, need to be fully assessed and mitigated for. The NJDEP
application provides only a draft mitigation framework for proposed compensatory mitigation.
The application lacks detail on (1) the extent of the proposed impacts to benthic resources,
including shellfish; (2) proposed compensatory mitigation measures; and (3) performance
measures for ensuring mitigation measures are successful.

Thank you in advance for considering the comments provided in this report. If you have
any questions or comments regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at
908.237.5660.

Sincerely,
Princeton Hydro

Mark Gallagher Jack Szczepanski, Ph.D.

Vice President Sr. Aquatic Ecologist

42
 Appendix A

MOA with the US Environmental Protection Agency

43
 Appendix B

LIDAR Generated Topography, Parcels 8 and 27

44
 B lo c k 1 0 240
B lo c k B lo ck 9 6
L ot 15
Legend

220
B lo c k

270
5. 0 2 L ot 21 . 17 2
B lo c k 1 0 5. 0 2 L ot 45 . 01

280
L ot 14 L ot 42
Mino rCo
B lo cnt
k our(
2ft NAVD88) B lo c k
5. 0 2
5. 0 2
L ot 41
2 90 Ma
B lo cj
ok rCo nto ur(
10f
t NAVD88) L ot 59
5. 0 2 B lo c k 9 6

230
B lo c k L ot 40 L ot
5. 0 2 CountyBo und
B lo c kar
y B lo c k 5 . 02
21 . 19 2 1
L ot 39 5. 0 2
L ot 58
B lo c k L ot 43
Pr
o per
tyBo und ar
y
B lo c k
5. 0 2 5. 0 2
L ot 38 L ot 60

0
25
B lo c k 5 . 02
0 B lo c k B lo ck 5 .0 2
27
L ot 61 . 01
5. 0 2 L ot 61 . 02
L ot 44
B lo c k 5 . 02
L ot 61 . 03
25

24
0

0
B lo c k 5 . 02 B lo c k 5 . 02
L ot 61 . 04 L ot 61 . 08 B lo c k 5 . 02
25
0 L ot 61 . 09
0

B lo c k 5 . 02
26

B lo c k 5 . 02 B lo c k
L ot 61 . 05

0
L ot 61 . 07 5. 0 2

26
B lo c k L ot 62
5. 0 2
L ot 30
B lo c k 5 . 02
L ot 61 . 06 B lo c k 5 . 02
L ot 64
0
26

u n ty

ty
260

B lo c k
5. 0 2

oun
B lo c k L ot 65
5. 0 2

t Co
L ot 35 B lo c k 9 6

ex C
L ot 18 . 07
File: P:\1575\Projects\1575004\GIS\MXD\LiDAR_Topo.mxd, 4/26/2018, Drawn by cpollack, Copyright Princeton Hydro, LLC.

270

ers e
B lo c k 9 6

d les
B lo c k L ot 18 . 06
5. 0 2
L ot 68

So m

Mid
B lo c k 5 . 02
L ot 69

B lo c k 9 6
L ot 16 . 03

250
260 260

250

B lo c k 9 6
B lo c k 5 . 02 L ot 15 0 .0 5
L ot 70
250

B lo c k 5 . 02 B lo c k 5 . 02 B lo c k 9 6
L ot 25 L ot 71 L ot 15 0 .0 5
B lo c k 6
B lo c k 5 . 02 L ot 28
L ot 72
260

B lo c k

pH
5. 0 2 B lo c k 9 6
L ot 73 L ot
15 0

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
NOT ES :

PRINCETON HYDRO, LLC.

1.Co un tybo u nd ar ies o btained f ro m New Jer seyGeo g r aphic I nfor m atio n Netw o r
k
(NJGI N).

1108 OLD YORK ROAD

2.Pr o pertybo u nd aries o btained f ro m New J er seyGeo g raphic I nfor m atio n Netw o r
k
REVI
EW OFT RANSCO’SNORT HEAS
T SUPPLY (NJGI N),So m erset Co u nty2017and Mid d lesexCo u nty2014Par c els.

P.O. BOX 720

3.2008L I
DARd atao btained f ro m NJOf f
ic eo fInf
orm atio n T ec hno lo g y(NJOI T),
ENHANCEMENT (NESE)PROJECT Offic eo fGeo g r aphic I nform atio n System s.

SOMERSET ANDMIDDL ESEXCOUNT I

ES,NEW J
ERS
EY RINGOES, NJ 08551 0 225 450
Feet
*with offices in NJ, PA and CT
MapPr
ojec tion:NAD 1983StatePlaneNew J
erseyF
IPS2900F
eet
 Appendix C
Topography and Hydrogeological Project Profile

45
 Figure 4 - Topography and Hydrogeological Project Profile
Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) Project - Old Bridge Township (BWA-002)

Mile Post (MP)

8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 12.0

140
Geological Info (see key below) Westminste Blvd
120

AB-4
100 Hwy 9

Cheesequake Rd
80
AB-1
AB-3 Old Spye Rd
60 AB-2 Garden State Pkwy
CB-2

40 CB-1
OS-6

Elevation, ft NAVD 88
CB-3 OS-7 Godenk
20

B-1, B-2
0 GB-1 - GB-7 MDB-1

Dewatering Info (see key below) Old Bridge Township Borough of Sayreville
-20
10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,000
Station No. x 100 (ft)
Surface EL Pipe Profile (S_EL - 7 ft) Landmarks Monitoring Well (WL) GW Contour (Magothy) Geotech Boring (WL) Geotech Boring (samples) Wetland
Stream Intersections HDD or Bore Pit Dewatering Likely Dewatering Unlikely No Dewatering (HDD) HDD Pit DB Pit HDD-1
HDD-2 GSP Crossing GD Crossing HDD-3 OSR Crossing Regional GW Table Holocene (Qm) Alluvium (Qal)
Pennsauken Fm. (Tb) Magothy Fm. (K, undiv) Magothy Fm. (Kma) Magothy (Kmo) Municipality Bdry
 Appendix D

Figure 1: Location of Test Pits

(as reported on the Test Pit Location Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, dated August 11, 2017)

46
  
Figure 1: Location of Test Pits (as reported on the Test Pit Location Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, dated August 11, 2017