Additional information regarding historic resources

Transcription

THE Louis Berger Group, INC.
412 Mount Kemble Avenue PO Box 1946
Morristown, NJ 07962-1946
Tel 973.407.1000
Fax 973.267.6154
www.louisberger.com
www.culturalresourcegroup.com
May 17, 2010
Mr. Daniel Saunders
Deputy SHPO
New Jersey Historic Preservation Office
501 East State Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 404
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Re: Susquehanna to Roseland 500 kV Transmission Line – PSE&G- New Jersey
Essex, Morris, Sussex, and Warren Counties, New Jersey
HPO-A2009-8; HPO-D-2010-163
Dear Mr. Saunders:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc (Berger) is pleased to provide you with the following responses to the New Jersey
Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO) comment letter dated April 21, 2010, regarding cultural resource surveys
conducted for the Susquehanna to Roseland 500 kV Transmission Line project (Project).
PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE
Berger provided the NJHPO the following reports on March 5, 2010:
• Susquehanna to Roseland 500 kV Transmission Project: Preliminary Survey of Historic Architecture
Morris and Essex Counties, New Jersey: Volume I: Jefferson and Rockaway Townships, Morris
County
•
Susquehanna to Roseland 500 kV Transmission Project: Preliminary Survey of Historic Architecture
Morris and Essex Counties, New Jersey: Volume II: Boonton, Kinnelon, and Montville Townships,
Morris County
•
Morris and Essex Counties, New Jersey: Volume III: Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, Morris
County
•
Morris and Essex Counties, New Jersey: Volume IV: East Hanover Township, Morris County and
Roseland Borough, Essex County
The NJHPO issued comments regarding the above referenced reports on April 21, 2010.
Berger is in the process of conducting the NJHPO requested intensive level surveys, eligibility evaluations, and
assessment of Project effects for the following properties:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
240 Weldon Road, Jefferson Township, Block 335, Lot 7
224 Weldon Road, Jefferson Township, Block 335, Lot 6.03
175 Weldon Road, Jefferson Township, Block 320, Lot 18
1 Jessica Court, Jefferson Township, Block 306, Lot 15.25
163 Weldon Road, Jefferson Township, Block 320, Lot 20.05
544 Green Pond Road, Rockaway Township, Block 30201, Lot 19
332 Split Rock Road, Rockaway Township, Block 50003, Lot 9
Split Rock Reservoir and Dam, Split Rock Road, Rockaway Township
Valley Farm (Decker-Kincaid Homestead) Barn Complex ,600 Powerville Road, Boonton Township,
Block 2070, Lot 1
Decker Kincaid House and Forge, 605 Powerville Road, Boonton Township Block 20601, Lot 15
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Page 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
101 Boonton Avenue and 103- 105 Boonton Avenue, Montville Township Block 3/41.1,41.02,41.03
Vreeland House, 164 Boonton Avenue, Montville Township, Block 1, Lot 6
Vreeland House, 444 Main Road, Montville Township, Block 39.11, Lot 79
120 Waughaw Road, Montville Township, Block 2 1.1, Lot 18.3
12 Change Bridge Road, Montville Township, Block 82.20, Lot 2
Miller Homestead, 56 Millers Lane, Montville Township, Block 59.1, Lot 5
79 Change Bridge Road, Montville Township, Block 76, Lot 6
Beach House, 129 Old Change Bridge Road, Montville Township Block 123, Lot 16
Samuel Stiles House, 155 Change Bridge Road, Montville Township Block 131, Lot 16
Lake Rickabear Girl Scout Camp 414 Kinnelon Road Kinnelon Borough Block 300.01, Lot 7.01
1 Sioux Avenue, Parsippany-Troy Hills, Block 549, Lot 5
13 Harvest Avenue, East Hanover Township, Block 222, Lot 14
29 Klinger Road, East Hanover Township, Block 5.021 9
574 Ridgedale Avenue, East Hanover Township, Block 5, Lot 48
412 River Road, East Hanover Township, Block 38.06, lot 13
Swinefield Bridge, Eagle Rock Avenue over the Passaic River, East Hanover Township
Roseland Switching Station, 7 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland Borough Block 33, Lot 4
Adoniram Pruden House, 644 Ridgedale Avenue, East Hanover Township Block 5, Lot 7.01
Appolis Pruden House, 632 Ridgedale Avenue, East Hanover Township Block 5, Lot 8.01
Berger is in the process of conducting the NJHPO requested intensive level surveys, eligibility evaluations, and
assessment of Project effects for the following properties as part of a potential historic district and/or a traditional
cultural landscape rather than individual farms:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Looker-Lyon Farm/Oakside Farm, Charlotteburg Road Rockaway Township,
Block 50002, Lot 1,2,3 and Block 50003, Lot 1 1,12,13,14
Crane House, 322 Split Rock Road, Rockaway Township, Block 50003, Lot 7
Rockaway Township, 327 Split Rock Road, Rockaway Township, Block 30901, Lot 6
Lyon House, 64 Lyonsville Road, Rockaway Township, Block 30901, Lot 1
Lyon House, 33 1 Split Rock Road, Rockaway Township, Block 3 100 1, Lot 21
Crane House, 341 Split Rock Road, Rockaway Township, Block 3 1001, Lot 18
347 Split Rock Road, Rockaway Township, Block 3 1001, Lot 16
Berger is in the process of conducting the NJHPO requested updated survey forms (as appropriate), eligibility
evaluations, and assessment of Project effects for the following properties which have been previously listed on or
designated eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ogden Talmadge House 5125 Berkshire Valley, Jefferson Township,
Picatinny Arsenal 600 Ordinance Testing Area District, Rockaway Township
Navy Commander's Quarters (Building 3250) Picatinny Arsenal Rockaway Township,
Stable Building 3316, Picatinny Arsenal Rockaway Township,
1500 Rocket Test Area Historic District,
Split Rock Furnace, Split Rock Road, Rockaway Township Block 3 1001, Lot 3 10,
Looker-Lyon Farm/ Oakside Farm, Charlotteburg Road, Rockaway Township
Block 50002, Lot 1, 2, 3 and Block 50003, Lot 11,12,13,14
Decker-Kincaid Homestead, Valley Farm, 591 Powerville Road, Boonton Township Block 2060 1, Lot 11,
Van Duyne- Jacobus House, 29 Change Bridge Road, Montville Township Block 59.02, Lot 3
Morris Canal, Montville Township
Parsonage of the Montville Reformed Dutch Church, (Cornelius T. Doremus House)
107 Change Bridge Road, Montville Township, Block 123, Lot 2
Demarest Farmhouse, 140 Old Change Bridge Road, Montville Township Block 124.9, Lot 10.03
Page 2
As requested by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), it should be noted that
PSE&G has attempted to secure right-of-entry from several property owners associated with the properties listed
above (see enclosed PSE&G Call Log). To date, two property owners have granted access; 332 Split Rock Road,
Rockaway Township, Block 50003, Lot 9 and Lyon House, 64 Lyonsville Road, Rockaway Township, Block 30901,
Lot 1. The remaining property owners have not granted right-of-entry permission and if no access is granted, all
documentation of the historic properties will be limited to the information available only from public access points.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Berger provided the NJHPO the following report on March 5, 2010:
•
Susquehanna to Roseland 500 kV Transmission Project: Phase I/II Archaeological Investigations
Warren, Sussex, Morris, and Essex Counties, New Jersey (Volume I and Volume II: Appendices)
The NJHPO issued comments regarding the above referenced report on April 21, 2010. Each comment provided
by the NJHPO is restated below in italics and is followed by Berger’s response in bold.
Warren County
Shovel testing of AR1 APE identified two loci of prehistoric material which were registered as the Susquehanna to
Roseland Line Prehistoric Site 1,28-Wa-648, and the Susquehanna to Roseland Line Prehistoric Site 2, 28-Wa649. These sites are located 234 feet apart. The consultant was not able to determine whether these loci are two
different archaeological sites or part of the same site based upon the testing that was completed. However, based
upon the nature of the material recovered at both of these loci, Berger concluded that the Susquehanna to
Roseland Line Prehistoric Site 1,28-Wa- 648, and the Susquehanna to Roseland Line Prehistoric Site 2,28-Wa649, may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. However, no additional
archaeological survey work was recommended because the project, as proposed, will not affect either of these two
sites. The HPO concurs with this conclusion. However, if no ground disturbing activities are proposed for this
portion of the project APE, it is not clear why this area was subjected to subsurface testing as part of the survey.
Nonetheless, proposed project activities in this location should be detailed in order to determine whether
additional archaeological survey or protective measures may be necessary.
• AR1 is also known as Nobebosco Road, which is an existing paved road. The areas immediately to the
west and east of AR1 were archaeologically tested because at the time of the field survey, there was some
debate as to whether tree clearing might be necessary. Following the fieldwork, it was made known to
Berger from PPL and Burns & McDonnell that such tree clearing would not be required because the
existing paved road is 18 feet wide and sufficient for construction vehicle use. As a result, although two
archaeological sites were identified in the vicinity of AR1 (Nobebosco Road), the Project will be confined to
the existing paved surface of the road and will not affect either of the two sites. Berger recommends,
however, that the area of each archaeological site be cordoned off during construction to avoid
unanticipated affects to the sites (Figure 1).
Sussex County
Stillwater Township
The excavation of shovel test PT229-1 identified a diversity of debitage and potential stone tools including a
utilized flake and endscraper. This site was registered as the Susquehanna to Roseland Line Prehistoric Site #4,
28-Sx-448. Berger concluded that the site is not eligible because of the localized and limited nature of the deposit.
However, adequate testing has not been conducted to make that conclusion. Nonetheless, according to the report,
the project has been redesigned, and impacts to site 28-Sx-448 will avoided. Therefore, Berger recommends no
further work. The HPO concurs with this recommendation. However, proposed project activities in this location
should be detailed in order to determine whether additional archaeological survey or protective measures may be
necessary.
• Following the fieldwork conducted at PT229, Berger was informed that the proposed location of the
tower was redesigned to be located 80 feet to the west of the existing tower [ET217 (47/1)] in an area that
was classified as having low archaeological sensitivity due to its large distance from surface potable water
Page 3
(Figure 2). As a result, the location of archaeological site 28-Sx-448, which is located to the east of the
existing tower, will not be affected by ground disturbing activities associated with the Project. Berger
recommends, however, that the area of the archaeological site be cordoned off during construction to avoid
unanticipated affects to the site.
Shovel testing of the AR80 APE identified a lithic deposit that was registered as the Susquehanna to Roseland
Line Prehistoric Site #3 (28-Sx-447). Additional testing at the Phase II level produced additional chert and
quartzite lithic debitage, and led Berger to characterize the deposit as a lithic reduction station. Based upon the
absence of temporally diagnostic artifacts, Berger concluded that site 28-Sx-447 is not eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. The HPO concurs with this conclusion.
•
Berger has no additional comments regarding the NJHPO statements above.
Fredon Township
Berger notes the presence of a previously recorded archaeological site within the AR18 APE. However, the report
notes that this APE was not tested during the present archaeological survey because the right-of-way had not yet
been acquired by PSE&G. Berger notes that this APE still needs to be tested prior to project implementation to
identify archaeological deposits that may be present. The HPO concurs with this recommendation.
Linda Englehardt of PSE&G indicated to Berger that “AR18 was removed and it appears we [PSE&G]
obtained road 17.1 to take its place. The road is identified as an existing paved/gravel surface from entry to
the ROW” (Englehardt email communication to Beadenkopf May 5, 2010). As AR18 was eliminated from
the Project designs, Berger recommends no archaeological survey in association with formerly proposed
AR18. As an existing paved and gravel road, archaeological survey of currently proposed AR 17.1 is also
not recommended (Figure 3).
Berger notes that the AR31 APE contains potential features associated with the Longcore Mine. However, the
report notes that the AR31 APE was not tested during the present archaeological survey because the right-of-way
had not yet been acquired by PSE&G. Berger notes that this APE still needs to be tested prior to project
implementation to identify archaeological deposits that may be present. The HPO concurs with this
recommendation.
• Several attempts have been made to secure right-of-entry from the owners of the parcels through which
AR 31 is proposed (see PSE&G Call Log). To date, the landowners have not granted righ-of-entry. Upon
receipt of right-of-entry, the required Phase Ib archaeological testing and Phase II eligibility investigations
(as necessary) will be conducted within the AR31 APE. The results of the archaeological investigations will
be submitted to the NJHPO for review and comment. If AR31 is eliminated from Project Designs, Berger
recommends no archaeological survey in that area as the Project will not affect any archaeological
resources.
The cultural resource survey identified several archaeological resources outside of the current APE for AR30 and
AR25. The Susquehanna to Roseland Line Prehistoric Site #5, 28-Sx-449, lies outside of the AR25 APE. In
addition, two mortared stone features were situated east of the AR30 APE. No cultural material associated with
either of these two sites was located within the APE. Therefore, Berger did not recommend additional
archaeological survey. The HPO concurs with this assessment. However, it is important to note that if project
plans change so that the project will affect these resources, additional survey and/or documentation will be
necessary.
• Berger agrees with the NJHPO that if Project plans change so that the project will affect these
resources, additional survey and/or documentation will be necessary.
Page 4
Hopatcong Township
A single piece of fire cracked rock was recovered from one shovel test in the AR35 APE. Radial shovel tests did
not yield additional cultural material leading Berger to conclude that the piece of FCR was an isolated find. The
HPO concurs with this assessment.
•
Two possible rock shelters were identified within the APE for the Hopatcong Switching Station. However, surface
inspection of these rock shelters identified no cultural material. Two additional prehistoric sites were identified
during shovel testing of the Switching Station APE, the Hopatcong Switching Station Prehistoric Site #1 (28-Sx450) and the Hopatcong Switching Station Prehistoric Site #2 (28-Sx-451). Phase I testing of the Hopatcong
Switching Station Prehistoric Site #1 (28-Sx-450) yielded chert, rhyolite, and argillite debitage. Subsurface testing
at the Phase II level consisted of additional shovel tests which yielded additional lithic debitage indicative of early
lithic reduction activities. Berger concluded that the Hopatcong Switching Station Prehistoric Site #I (28-Sx-450)
represents a transient lithic reduction station. Because of the lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts, Berger
concluded the Hopatcong Switching Station Prehistoric Site #1 (28-Sx-450) does not meet the criteria of National
Register eligibility. The HPO concurs with this assessment.
•
Phase I testing of the Hopatcong Switching Station Prehistoric Site #2 (28-Sx- 451) yielded fire cracked rock and
lithic debitage. Additional testing at the Phase II level yielded quartz, argillite, chert debitage representing early
lithic reduction activities. Because of the lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts, Berger concluded the Hopatcong
Switching Station Prehistoric Site #2 (28 Sx-451) does not meet the criteria of National Register eligibility. The
HPO concurs with this assessment.
•
Morris County
Jefferson Township
Shovel testing completed as part of the ET125/PT118A APE yielded a single red jasper bifacial thinning flake.
Radial tests excavated did not yield additional artifactual material. Therefore, Berger concluded that the bifacial
thinning flake represented an isolated find. The HPO concurs with this assessment.
•
Page 10.63 of the report notes that a dry laid rock wall was observed near shovel tests ET126/PT118B-8 and
ET126/PT118-13. However, the eligibility of these features was not assessed in the survey report, and it is not
clear whether this feature will be affected by proposed project activities. Please clarify the nature and potential
impacts of proposed project activities relative to the rock wall feature.
• The dry lain rock wall feature that was identified by Berger within the ET126/PT118b APE
(Tower 62/1) is a ubiquitous historic field boundary wall. As a result, Berger does not recommend this
feature as eligible for listing on the NRHP/NJRHP. Although a crane pad is proposed in the location of the
rock wall feature, the Project will not affect any NRHP/NJRHP listed or eligible historic properties
(Figure 4). Furthermore, the proposed activities associated with the Project in the vicinity of the identified
wall will only involve the placement of a crane and not require removal of the wall or other impacts to the
wall. Berger recommends, however, that the area of the archaeological site be cordoned off during
construction to avoid unanticipated affects to the rock wall feature.
Page 5
The AR39.1 APE is situated in close proximity to the National Register of Historic Places eligible Weldon Mine
site. Pedestrian reconnaissance identified 11 pit/shaft features approximately one meter below the ground surface,
five linear shaft features, large mounds of stacked rock fragments along the shoulder of AR39.1, and four
foundations on either side of the road. Thirty-one shovel test pits excavated in this area yielded historic period
material including nails, anthracite coal, and sheet metal. According to the report, if proposed activities in this
area consist of the addition of gravel to the existing road, Berger recommends no additional survey work in the
APE. However, if more extensive project activities are proposed, Phase II archaeological investigation is
necessary. The HPO concurs with this assessment. Please provide a detailed description of proposed project
activities in this area so that the need for Phase
II archaeological testing can be determined.
• The Project will employ the placement of a minimum of 8-inches of gravel on the existing 12-foot wide
road surface. As this portion of the proposed access road through the National Register of Historic Places
eligible Weldon Mine site is virtually flat to gently sloping, minimal grading (6 inches) is proposed within
this portion of the proposed access road (Figure 5). Although minimal grading is proposed, the previously
conducted archaeological survey did not recover any artifacts that significantly contribute additional
information regarding the history of the Mine. Further, although the extent of the gravel placement will be
16 feet in width the identified features are located more than 20 feet from the edge of the proposed road and
will not be affected by the placement of the gravel. Berger recommends, however, that the area of the
identified features be cordoned off during construction to avoid unanticipated affects to the features.
Rockaway Township
Picatinny Arsenal
Shovel test PT99-4 produced two prehistoric artifacts, a chert bifacial reduction flake and a rhyolite flake. As a
result, Berger excavated radial shovel test pits at 25-foot intervals around shovel test PT99-4. These radial shovel
tests did not produce additional cultural material, and as a result, Berger concluded that the two flakes represent
an isolated deposit, and did not recommend additional testing. The HPO does not concur with this assessment
based upon the justification provided. Specifically, the HPO disagrees that the testing interval of 25-feet used in
the placement of radial shovel tests is close enough to identify, the presence of additional prehistoric
archaeological deposits that may be present. Please provide additional information regarding the use of such a
wide testing interval in the placement of the radial shovel tests. If adequate justification cannot be made,
additional shovel testing to determine the presence of additional prehistoric cultural material will be necessary.
• Berger has completed additional Phase IB archaeological survey within the vicinity of shovel test pit
(STP) PT99-4, which yielded two prehistoric artifacts as a result of Berger's initial survey of the Picatinny
Arsenal. Previous radial testing was conducted by Berger in all four cardinal directions of STP PT99-4 at
25-foot intervals. The additional radial testing that has been completed was conducted at 5-foot and 10-foot
intervals in all four cardinal directions of STP PT99-4. No artifacts were recovered from and no features
were observed within or in the vicinity of these additional close interval radial STPs. As a result, the
artifacts recovered from STP PT99-4 are not representative of an archaeological site as per the New Jersey
State Museum's criteria for defining an archaeological site, and Berger does not recommend further
archaeological investigations within that portion of the archaeological APE.
Berger has also completed a Phase IB archaeological survey of the revised location
of proposed transmission tower 66/3 (approximately 250 feet to the west of STP PT99-4). The area in which
the new proposed location of tower 66/3 is located is a flat, rocky ledge that overlooks Lake Denmark. Due
to rock face and/or slope restrictions, a total of seven (7) STPs were excavated at the new proposed location
of tower 66/3 at 50 foot intervals or less. No artifacts were recovered and no features were observed in the
area. Berger also conducted a pedestrian reconnaissance of the area and did not note the presence of any
rockshelters. Berger recommends no further archaeological investigations within the new proposed location
of tower 66/3.
An addendum report pertaining to the supplemental Phase Ib archaeological investigations conducted
within the Picatinny Arsenal entitled Susquehanna to Roseland 500 kV Transmission Project Warren, Sussex,
Morris, and Essex Counties, New Jersey: Supplemental Phase Ib Archaeological Investigations, Picatinny
Arsenal Rockaway Township, Morris County, New Jersey was submitted to the NJHPO on April 28, 2010.
Page 6
Shovel testing at ET107/PT97 produced one chalcedony flake and one quartz crystal. Radial testing produced
additional lithic debitage, and Berger registered the deposit as Susquehanna to Roseland Line Prehistoric site #6
(28-Mr-349). Phase I1 testing was conducted consisting of additional radial tests and excavation units. The
artifact assemblage consisted of lithic material representing limited early stage tool production, experimentation,
and exploitation. Based upon the lack of temporally diagnostic material, Berger concluded that the Susquehanna
to Roseland Line Prehistoric site #6 (28-Mr-349) did not meet the criteria for National Register of Historic Places
eligibility. The HPO concurs with this assessment.
•
The AR44.2 APE is situated adjacent to previously recorded site 28-Mr-340. Shovel testing completed within the
APE identified lithic material in intact subsoils associated with 28-Mr-340. Berger recommended that PSE&G
avoid impacts to this site, and according to the report, the project was subsequently redesigned. Therefore, no
additional survey is recommended at this location unless project plans change, and avoidance of site 28-Mr-340
is no longer possible.
• Access Road 44.2 within the Picatinny Arsenal has been eliminated from the Project Plans. Therefore,
archaeological site (28-Mr-340) will not be affected by the Project.
Montville Township
The project APE traverses the Morris Canal Historic District which was listed on the National Register of
Historic Places on October 1, 1974 and on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places on November 26, 1973.
However, despite the presence of the Morris Canal Historic District within the APE, no archaeological testing
was conducted. The report contends that the area has been disturbed by a gas pipeline. However, the photograph
in the report that was intended to show the disturbance in the area of the Morris Canal was obscured by a truck.
Please explain in more detail why the area of the Morris Canal Historic District was not tested as part of the
current survey. If adequate justification for excluding this area from subsurface testing cannot be provided,
subsurface testing of the APE in the area of the Morris Canal Historic District will be necessary.
• Berger did not conduct archaeological survey within the APE in the vicinity of the Montville Substation
for the following reasons:
o Areas of proposed disturbance associated with the Project are located more than 300 feet
from the mapped location of the Morris Canal; a distance beyond the NJHPO agreed upon
300 foot distance that would require archaeological testing (Figure 6).
o The gas pipeline that was referenced in the March 2010 archaeological report extends
through the APE at tower locations 77/2 (PT48) and 77/4 (PT41). In addition, these two
locations are currently within modified and landscaped areas (Figure 7).
o The gas pipeline veers to the west of the Montville Substation (J.C.P&L Co. Substation)
[tower locations 77/3 (PT47) MV1 500 (PT46) and MV2 500 (PT43)]. These proposed tower
locations have been historically modified as a result of the construction of the Montville
Substation; cleared/graded areas and berms are visible in these areas (see Figure 7).
Three prehistoric artifacts were recovered from disturbed contexts in shovel test pit PT38- 1, two flakes and a
piece of fire cracked rock. Radial tests did not yield additional cultural material, and as a result, Berger
concluded the deposit is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The HPO concurs with
this assessment.
•
Page 7
Two dry laid foundations, each measuring approximately 20 feet by 2 1 feet were documented to the northeast of
the AR57 APE. Shovel testing in the APE yielded historic and prehistoric artifactual material. (Shovel test AR5711El9, located immediately west of the foundations, produced the densest artifact deposit.) Radial testing
determined that the prehistoric artifact was an isolated find. However, radial tests did yield additional historic
artifactual material dating from the mid-19'-century to the mid-20th century. An examination of census data,
deeds, historic period maps and other land records did not yield additional data that would associate the deposit
with a particular person or persons. Berger concluded that this deposit is not a site according to New Jersey State
Museum guidelines, and therefore, was not registered. The HPO disagrees. While the material found within the
APE may not be significant, there may be additional historic archaeological deposits associated with the
foundations that are situated outside of the APE for the current project. The site should be registered with the New
Jersey State Museum for the benefit of future researchers.
• Berger will prepare and submit a New Jersey State Museum archaeological survey form for the above
referenced foundations.
Parsippany-Troy Hills Township
Testing within the AR74 APE produced both prehistoric and historic period cultural material in four shovel tests.
Radial tests at 25-foot intervals were excavated, but no cultural material was recovered, and the prehistoric
artifacts were determined to each be isolated finds. Berger recommended no additional archaeological survey
work. The HPO disagrees with this recommendation. As stated above, the use of a 25-foot testing interval is not
adequate to identify the presence of additional prehistoric archaeological deposits that may be present. Generally,
radial shovel tests placed at a minimum of 10- .foot intervals are used to identify the presence of an
archaeological site at a particular location. Please provide additional information regarding the use of such a
wide testing interval in the placement of the radial shovel tests. If adequate justification cannot be made,
additional shovel testing to determine the presence of additional prehistoric cultural material will be necessary.
• Linda Englehardt of PSE&G indicated to Berger that “Road 74 was removed [from the Project designs]
and no replacement was proposed” (Englehardt email communication to Beadenkopf May 5, 2010). As
AR74 was eliminated from the Project designs, Berger recommends no additional archaeological survey in
association with formerly proposed AR74.
East Hanover Township
The report notes that ET25(82/5) and ET24(83/1) were excluded from shovel testing because of the presence of
wetlands. The HPO requests clarification regarding the exclusion of these tower locations from shovel testing.
Were the proposed tower locations situated in standing water? Were these locations examined during pedestrian
reconnaissance for the presence of knolls within the larger wetlands where there might be evidence for prehistoric
occupation in the area?
• Tower locations ET25(82/5) and ET24(83/1) were excluded from shovel testing because each of these
tower were located within standing water and wetlands as seen in Figures 8 and 9. No knolls are located
within the Project APE in the vicinity of these tower locations.
Testing within the location for the proposed East Hanover Switching Station identified two loci of prehistoric
material, the B-9 locus and the E-2 locus. Additional tests excavated around the E-3 locus did not produce
cultural material. As a result, Berger concluded that the E-3 locus was an isolated deposit. The HPO concurs with
this conclusion.
•
Page 8
Radial tests were excavated around the B-9 locus, and yielded three jasper flakes and a chert bifacial reduction
flake. The site was registered as East Hanover Switching Station Prehistoric Site (28-Mr-346). Based upon the
lack of features and the lack of temporally diagnostic artifactual material, Berger determined the site did not meet
the criteria of National Register of Historic Places eligibility. The HPO disagrees. While radial testing is useful
for determining whether prehistoric material is an isolated find of part of a larger archaeological site, shovel
testing does not provide the best lens for determining whether features are present. As a result, the HPO does not
believe that adequate testing at the Phase 11 level was conducted to assess the site's eligibility. In addition, it
appears from the maps included in the report that the site of the proposed East Hanover Switching Station is
situated within the floodplain of the Passaic River. However, the potential for deeply buried deposits was not
addressed in the archaeological survey report. Additional survey work is necessary to: I ) assess the potential for
deeply buried deposits to exist within the switching station APE, 2)identify any deeply buried deposits, if there is
potential for them to exist within the APE, and 3) assess the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of the
East Hanover Switching Station Prehistoric site (28-Mr-346) through the excavation of larger excavation units.
• Robert Pollock of PSE&G indicated to Berger that the East Hanover Switching Station was eliminated
from Project designs (Pollock verbal communication with John Finkeldie May 4, 2010). As the East
Hanover Switching Station has been eliminated from the Project designs, Berger recommends no additional
archaeological investigations at the East Hanover Switching Station Prehistoric site (28-Mr-346) as the
Project will not affect the site or the surrounding area.
General Comments
In the summary of the subsurface testing conducted during the current investigation, the report notes that the total
length of the APE assessed to have high, medium, or low sensitivity for the presence of archaeological resources
is 54.2 miles. In addition, the total area of proposed switching stations assessed to have high, medium, or low
sensitivity for the presence of archaeological resources is 21.54 acres. Based upon the minimum testing density of
17 shovel tests/acre specified in the Office's archaeological survey standards, the archaeological survey should
have included the excavation of 5,723 shovel tests. Furthermore, even limiting subsurface testing to areas
determined to have high archaeological sensitivity would require a total of 2,895 shovel test pits, at the required
density of 17 shovel tests/acre. However, as noted in the report, the actual number of shovel test pits excavated as
part of the current survey was 2,460. According to the data provided in Chapter 11 of the report, the
archaeological survey did not include adequate subsurface testing to meet the Historic Preservation Office's
Phase I archaeological survey requirements, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:4-8.4. Please explain the discrepancy
between the actual number of tests excavated during the survey and the Phase I archaeological survey
requirements.
• Berger offers the following clarification as to the discrepancy between the total number of shovel tests
that were required and the actual number of shovel tests excavated.
o
The Project specific protocols that were developed in consultation with the NJHPO
indicated that only those areas of the APE that meet the criteria for high archaeological
potential were to be investigated archaeologically. Berger was informed by Vincent
Maresca of the NJHPO that access roads which are existing compact gravel or asphalt
paved were to be excluded from archaeological survey, even if such roads were in areas of
high archaeological potential. As stated in the March 2010 archaeological report “The
majority of these access roads are preexisting and will not require substantial
modification” (first paragraph page 11.2) and “Only proposed access roads that would
require substantial widening and/or would need to be newly created and which were
located in areas of high archaeological sensitivity were tested archaeologically” (footnote #3
page 11.2).
The exception to this protocol was at AR1 in which Berger tested along the edges of
the existing paved Nobebosco Road.
o
The NJHPO has noted that even limiting subsurface testing to areas determined to have high
archaeological sensitivity would have required a total of 2,895 shovel test pits.
Page 9

Berger excavated 2,460 shovel test pits because a total of 3.5 miles of access roads
within areas of high archaeological sensitivity were actually paved roads and/or
were previously disturbed; equal to approximately 369 shovel test pit locations. In
addition, the maximum number of shovel tests could not be excavated at several
tower locations within areas of high archaeological sensitivity due to wetland areas,
prior surface visible disturbance, and/or topographic limitations such as slope;
equal to approximately 66 shovel test pits.
Editorial Comments
1. Pages 6.1 and 6.2 appear twice in the report
• Berger apologizes for the duplication.
2. Pages 8.4 through 8.7 appear twice in the report
3. Pages 10.2 to 10.19 appear twice in the report
4. A CD with a PDF copy of the report was not included with the submission, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 8.9(a)2.
Please submit the required CD with a PDF copy of the revised report at your earliest convenience.
• Berger is providing the requested PDF copies of the five reports on five separate CDs as enclosures to this
letter.
Additional Comments
Recent public comments submitted to the National Park Service regarding their intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) asserted
that the area of potential effects (APE) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and
NEPA should encompass the entire right-of-way for the proposed project. However, the report suggests that the
APE for the purposes of Section 106 has been defined as the area of the DWGNRA. In light of the above, it is
important to note that at the initiation of Section 106 consultation, the APE for the undertaking will need to be
defined, and the comments noted above will need to be addressed. At the initiation of consultation, the lead
federal agency will also need to clarify whether it intends to coordinate Section 106 consultation with the NEPA
process, pursuant to 36 CFR §800.8.
• Berger has no additional comments regarding the NJHPO statements above as the National Park
Service is the Lead Federal Agency.
If you have any questions during your review of the above information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
973-407-1261 or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely yours,
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.
Kristofer M. Beadenkopf, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
KMB
Enclosures: (9 Figures; PSE&G Call Log; 5 CDs)
Cc: D. Grossmueller (PSE&G); R. Pollock (PSE&G); J. Finkeldie (Berger); S. Grzybowski (Berger);
Berger File XE 4148
Page 10
FIGURE 1: Project Designs Showing the Location of Access Road (AR) #1.
FIGURE 2: Project Designs Showing the Location of Tower 47/1.
FIGURE 2: Project Designs Showing the Location of Tower 47/1.
FIGURE 3: Project Designs Showing the Location of Access Road (AR) #17.1
Note that AR18 has been removed from Project Designs.
FIGURE 4: Project Designs Showing the Location of Tower 62/1
FIGURE 5: Project Designs Showing the Location of Access Road (AR) #39.1
with Insets Detailing Modifications to the Area within the Weldon Mine Site.
Morris Canal
0
275 Feet
FIGURE 6: Location of the Morris Canal in Relation to Project Designs within Montville Township, Morris County, New Jersey.
Sources: PSE&G 2010;
Google Earth 2009
FIGURE 7: Project Designs Showing the Location of Towers 77/2, 77/3,
77/4, MV1_500, MV2_500, and 77/3A in Relation to
the Montville Substation (J.C.P&L Co. Substation) and the
Morris Canal.
Morris Canal
ET25 (Tower 82/5)
Overview
ET25 (Tower 82/5)
0
0
250 Feet
25 Feet
FIGURE 8: Birds Eye View of the Location of ET25 (82/5) within East Hanover Township, Morris County, New Jersey.
Source: Microsoft Corporation 2010
ET24 (Tower 83/1)
Overview
ET24 (Tower 83/1)
N
0
N
25 Feet
FIGURE 9: Birds Eye View of the Location of ET24 (83/1) within East Hanover Township, Morris County, New Jersey.
0
125 Feet
Source: Microsoft Corporation 2010
Prepared by William Cesario, Commonwealth Associates Inc. (CAI) on behalf of PSE&G
Regarding Access Road 31
Bellush Phone Log—PPL154, 154A
John Bellush Sr., 9/25/08
I stopped by John's house at 30 Gaston Road in Morristown. He knew exactly which parcel I
was referring to. Over the years he had cut a road through that property and over to our ROW.
He is willing to work with us but has some issues he would like us respond to.
He rarely visits that property, but his son is up there almost every weekend, since he has a
camper on the site. He is going to ask his son if he minds our working on the property--he is
already imagining the road being built.
People have gotten onto the property and vandalized his son's camper and other items. One time
three guys broke down the gate and went swimming in the lake--and one of them drowned. He
would like us to erect a gate at the cul du sac and pile brush up on either side to discourage ATV
riders from entering.
He asked if we had approached the local homeowner's association and I said we had not. He
feels they need to sign off on this as well.
Regarding the money for the temporary easement/access road, he indicated that he is not much
interested in money, but would like some old wooden power poles, as we take them down to
replace them. "You can always find a use for those poles."
He was also concerned about insurance and I told him I would get information about PSEG
insurance for him.
John has built hundreds of homes all over the state, including 100+ in the area of this parcel.
I spoke with John, and in his thinking about it, he decided that there is no reason to have to deal
with the home owners' association. He had built a road to access the lake for the property
owners of the subdivision. If we were coming in via that road, we would have to deal with them.
Since it looks like we will be accessing the parcel from the cul du sac, there is no need to deal
with the association. I guess he realized this after I left yesterday, because he was certainly
talking about homeowners association when I was there.
I told him I would be getting him a copy of the PSEG insurance certificate.
He spoke with his son and he had no problem with our request. His son is an attorney in
Morristown and John Sr. would like John Jr. to look at the agreement.
I called John Jr., whose office is at 185 Washington Ave., Morristown. phone 973 285 1133. He
will be in next week and I will stop by so he can review the ROE agreement.
John Bellush Jr., 9/26/08
Spoke with John Jr. about the property and he informed me that that parcel is not part of the
association, but does abut the association's property. It appears we are clear to erect a fence
without needing the permission of the association.
John Jr. and I had a few conversations on the phone and agreed to meet this afternoon so I could
show him the ROE. I got to his office, and he had been delayed--and I had other things to do.
We spoke and decided the easiest thing to do was for me to leave the ROE in his outside
mailbox. We'll speak later in the week, and I'll also stop by to give him the PSEG insurance
certificate--which I hope is satisfactory.
In yesterday's PSEG meeting regarding access roads, it was obvious that the road that Mr.
Bellush, Sr. described, as giving access to our ROW, was only partly on his property. The
portion of the road which ultimately reaches the JCP&L and PSEG ROWs is on Cella's property.
We had him listed as SPPL 154B, but he is unassigned.
I spoke with Bellush Jr. and he agreed that the road goes through Cella's property. The last time
he saw Dick Cella, he was on in years, and that was 15 years ago. He assumes he is still alive.
John Jr. described how to reach the Cella house, which is deep within his 144 acre property. If
you take rte 517 north, on the east side of the lake, make a left on Skytop Rd, continue around
the north end of the lake, pass Bonnie Glen Court on the left, and the next driveway is Dick
Cella's.
He did not have a phone number for Cella and he did not think his father did either.
He was very upset with the agreement because he felt it was a wide open agreement that he did
not want to sign.
He's concerned about people digging holes and disrupting the property in other ways. He says
that he has no problem with PSEG people coming on the property, as they have in the past, to
reach the ROW. I tried to tell him that all the letter does is permits a survey to allow us to collect
the data to determine how the road needs to be improved, but he was not hearing me. He was
very upset and was difficult to talk with--and he is dealing with some other issues which he did
not want to go into.
He also seems concerned about municipalities and what they can do--I'm not sure why. He
talked about spending $100,000 to handle problems that have resulted from analysis just like we
are talking about doing.
He was obviously very upset. I talked about meeting with him, and we could modify the
agreement together, creating wording that was acceptable to him. He just said let's go back to
the original agreement we talked about. My concern was that what I thought we had talked
about and what he thought we had talked about were very different, hence my desire to discuss it
with him face to face, which he did not want to do.
I spoke with John Jr., who said that his father was upset because the ROE was too open-ended-no dates as to when we would be on the property or when the freedom of such access would be
terminated. John Jr. asked "when surveyors would be in the area?" I said we have surveyors
surveying properties currently. He said, "I know. I caught them on the property two months
ago." I asked for more details, but he did not have any. He entered the property and noticed a
pick up truck on the ROW. He went over and asked the two men for ID, and they refused. He
called the police, who came almost immediately. The police, apparently, were satisfied with
whatever ID they produced. John Jr. did not press charges and never learned who they were.
He and his dad have been dealing with people trespassing on that property for 40 years, and are
tired of it. "It's a beautiful piece of property and people want to get on it."
John Jr. asked for me to give him an ROE agreement, which has a time limit on it, e.g., Nov. 30,
2008, and limits the survey tools to shovels. I explained that ultimately, if the area is deemed
adequate for an access road, a lot of heavy equipment will be coming in--creating the temporary
road, and bringing in construction equipment. He said we'll deal with that at that time.
Also, hunting season begins on Dec. 7th, and he hunts on that land. I said we were definitely
planning to be finished by the.
10/15/08
I put the revised ROW in John Jr.'s mailbox on Monday and called today to discuss it with him.
I got his voicemail and left a message. He did not call me back. I'll try again Thursday or
Friday.
10/17/08
I attempted to reach John Jr. several times and each time I called, his phone was busy. Naturally,
the last time I called, his phone was not busy, but he did not answer it either. I left another
message.
The fact that he is not returning calls, I don't view as a good sign. If he has a problem with the
modified ROE, the least he could do is to call. I'll try him again on Monday.
10/20/08
I called John Jr., hoping to have the opportunity to discuss with him the modified ROE. He was
not available and I left a message.
I left the agreement in his mailbox a week ago. Unless he is on vacation, I assume he has seen it.
But he's not calling back--always a concern. Never a good sign.
If I don't hear from him, I'll try him again later in the week.
I received a fax from John Jr., with the suggestion as to an ROE agreement, which restricted our
access to only parcel Block 71/Lot 3.24. Our access road map shows a route which stays within
3.24 for most of its length, but does cross 3.25 for a short distance, before progressing into
Cella's property (SPPL 154B).
I called John about this and after some conversation, I suggested that we get together so that I
could show him our map. Given that he is located in downtown Morristown, this was pretty
easy.
I had a color copy of the access road from our 1" = 200' maps and showed him the route we had
tentatively established on paper. He was stressing that he wanted us to stay on 3.24, while at the
same time mentioning that there is a path that enters 3.25, 500' or so north of where we indicate
the access road would cross from 3.24 to 3.25.
Ed Samman's concern about staying on 3.24, is that the terrain in the vicinity of the ROW is very
steep--it's looks like a gully on the topo map.
I suggested that our surveyors could survey the route on 3.24 and make a determination. If they
felt the construction equipment to be used could not negotiate the terrain, we would come back
for additional access permission. I also mentioned that PSEG would be reviewing their proposed
agreement tomorrow and I would get back to him with their comments.
It's obvious that what they are attempting to do is to limit access to the property, because of all
the problems they have had in the past. I think they are concerned that, under the access granted
by the agreement, people will come onto the property for other purposes--not spelled out. As my
earlier contact reports have stated, this has been an issue they have dealt with for 30 years or
more.
I will get back to him when I have more information. It was a very cordial meeting--the first
time we have met face to face, although we have had numbers of conversations on the phone.
Speaking with John Jr. yesterday, he seemed surprised that I had not been to the property; so I
toured it today--taking photos, which I sent to Tim and Ed.
At the entrance to the property is a pile of brush and some logs, but an ATV could easily get over
these. Theirs is a beautiful piece of property. The trail/road meanders back and peters out a
couple of hundred feet or so from the ROW. The road can easily accommodate a pick up truck
but will need some serious work to be able to handle the types of vehicles we anticipate--many
hardwoods to cut. I stayed along the path which the Bellush rewritten agreement specifies.
At the end of the road, you are in a depression, with a large rock outcropping off to the right.
Impossible for any vehicle to climb.
About three hundred feet in from the end of Bonnie Glen is the road that John jr. mentioned
yesterday. It forks off to the right, into Lot 3.25, but it does not seem to be as wide as the one
that is all encompassed in Lot 3.24.
Regardless of which route we follow, there is going to be a lot of tree cutting. This area will
never be brought back to the way it was prior to construction.
As you drive down Bonnie Glen, toward the end, the last house on the right is 1000 or more feet
from the cul du sac. On the left, the last house is considerably closer.
10/25/08
Thinking about Bellush's asking for a gate, I went back to the property to imagine what that
might look like. (The gate on the Tomahawk Trail access road is 10 feet wide.) I wondered if a
10' gate would permit easy access of the construction vehicles, cement trucks, etc. that will be
using the road, and decided it probably wouldn't. I imagine we'll need a gate at least 12' wide, or
maybe a double gate. With all the equipment that will be necessary to cut tress, level the land,
lay the road members, etc., the gate will be a real impediment. The easiest approach would be to
install the gate after construction, but I have a hard time believing that Bellush will go for that.
Bellush owns the two building lots on the west side of Bonnie Glen, before you reach the cul du
sac.
I received a call from Atty John Bellush, Jr. indicating that Bellush Sr. accepts the modifications
to the License Agreement which were added by PSEG. He asked to have PSEG sign it and bring
it to Sr. for signature.
I stopped by to see John Sr. yesterday and have him sign the modified ROE. As he read the
insurance certificate, he noticed that it said, "Not valid unless signed by an authorized
representative of PSEG," and it was not hand signed. He objected to that. I called Steve Krup,
who got Ken Brockman to sign an insurance certificate. I picked it up from his house this
morning.
I met with John Sr. this morning and he signed the document.
He is 89 years old and has lived in his house for over 45 years. He's getting tired of NJ and the
astronomical taxes which must be paid for a vacant lot. He is looking for ways to relocate-perhaps North Carolina. He also has land in New Hampshire.
We will have to go back to him for additional rights, which I am not looking forward to.
Perhaps, as Tim suggests, we can have John Jr. walk the property with us and show him the
difficulties we have encountered which make it impossible to remain in lot 3.24.
I called John Bellush Jr. to inform him of PSEG's need for additional rights on the ROW. The
spacing of structures permitted on the original easement is to restrictive for the current project. I
mentioned that appraisers might require access to the ROW to make such a determination or
might be able to do that from the maps we currently had. In either case, his father would be
receiving a letter. He said he would pass that information along to his father.
11/17/08
I accompanied Justin Baker and Suriakannan Muthu onto the Bellush property, lot 3.24, and we
walked the path in that property, which meanders down and past the JCP&L ROW, to the PSEG
ROW. It was pretty obvious that that path was inadequate for an access road. As far as general
terrain goes, it's fine, but the end of the path, intersecting the ROW, is impossible.
We definitely need access to lot 3.25, to connect with the potential continuation of the access
road through the adjoining Cella property.
11/18/08
Letter regarding appraisers sent.
I called Atty Bellush to let him know of our walk through on lot 3.24. He was not in the office
so I left a message, indicating that we had performed our walk through and that the area where
the path intersects the PSEG ROW was not suitable for our purposes. I stressed that we would
need access to lot 3.25 and was hoping to discuss this with him next week.
Since we are approaching hunting season and Jr. hunts in that area, we may not be able to access
3.25 until January.
John Bellush Jr, 12/4/08
I called Jr. to see if we could meet to discuss the possibilities of gaining access to lot 3.25 for
initial walk through purposes.
He was not there, so I left a message. I mentioned the walk through and the fact that we had
taken photos I wanted to show him.
He mentioned at one point that he is a hunter and that he hunts on those parcels. Since hunting
season began this week and since he has a motor home at lake side, I assume that is where he is.
I don't think he ever (maybe once) returned a call, so I'll keep trying.
12/12/08
I have attempted t reach John Bellush Jr. a number of times since we performed the walk through
of lot 3.24 but without success. I decided to write a letter to him explaining our findings from
the walk through and including photos from that investigation. I put letter and photos in an
envelope and left them at his front door.
I wrote the letter and included it with four photos (two of which were taken on the ROW)
showing that it is impossible to use lot 3.24 alone, to access the ROW. I stressed that wee need
access to lot 3.25 at the moment to determine if it offers the necessary features which we are
seeking in an access road.
I indicated that I would call him the week of the 15th, to see if we could schedule an appoint to
speak further.
I am dealing with him rather than his father because Sr. seems to want Jr. to handle these issues.
Or at least, that's what I "read" into some of my conversations with Sr.
I called John Jr., following up on the envelope I had left in his door. He saw it but didn't really
look at it. I explained our situation--not being able to access the tower by using only lot 3.24.
He asked about Cella property and I said that the ideal access would be a combination of Bellush
and Cella. He understood.
He has just returned after being away a week and he leaves again on Wednesday for another
week.
He said he would give the envelope to his father and explain our situation.
I was going to attempt to meet with him this week, but he seemed harried on the phone, so I
opted not to ask for a meeting.
While I was at the PSEG Open House in Whippany I got a call from John Jr. He was at Bonnie
Glen today and there was a white van parked at the end of the road. He could see inside and
there were Google maps indicating the route from East Hanover to Bonnie Glen. No one was
around, but he noted the license plate.
He asked me if I knew anything about it and I said "no." I know Kris' car and Scott's vehicle,
and neither is a white van. I called Kris and left a message on his voice mail. John Jr. said he
was going to check the license plate and get back to me with what he found.
As of the evening of the 17th, I had not heard from John Jr. or Kris.
Needless to say, John jr. was upset. If it turns out to be a vehicle associated with our project, I
have no idea what this will do to our efforts to secure additional rights for his property.
I called, expecting to reach voice mail, and reached John Jr. I explained what happened. That
archeologists were in the area, with the task of "surveying" Longcore Mine, which our maps
indicate is on the ROW, very near to the tower, which is near lot 3.24. They looked at a map and
saw that it was possible to walk in from Bonnie Glen, as opposed to coming in from rte 669.
They only walked back to the ROW. They did no digging on Bellush property. He understood,
but said, "They did trespass and it is still hunting season."
I told him that this incident went up the line to PSEG and to our direct report--Linda Engelhardt.
(He wrote a letter to PSEG, I'm sure referencing the vehicle license number, but I don't think it
will mean anything to Rob Gibb.) I also told him that Linda would like to meet with him and
was hoping we could do that early next year. He said that would be possible.
He said he appreciated my call and the follow up. I think we're past this one.
1/9/09
Multiple calls during this week, attempting to connect with John Jr. so as to establish a date for a
meeting between he, John Sr., Linda E. and myself, to discuss PSEG's needs for access roads in
the area of his properties. I was unsuccessful in reaching him, and as usual, he does not return
phone calls. Whether or not his nonresponsiveness is "pay back" for our arches "trespassing" on
his property, I have no idea--but he is impossible to reach.
Linda E. is available certain days during the week of Jan. 19, but her days fill up fast. When Jr.
comes back from his hunting trip on the 19th, Linda probably won't have time to meet until the
following week or the week after--frustrating.
1/23/09
John Jr. was out last week hunting. I tried to reach him today, but his voice mail said he was out
of the office. I left a message again regarding determining when our schedules would permit a
meeting between him, his father, Linda E. and me.
John Bellush Sr, 1/29/09
I reached Bellush Sr. on the phone. His last weeks have been terrible with his wife being sick,
and being operated on.
He asked what exactly we were after, and I told him we wanted to evaluate the area for an access
road. But Lot 3.24 did not permit us to reach the tower, due to large rock outcroppings on each
side of the trail, that leads to the ROW. I told him, judging from our maps, the ideal route would
be to enter from the Bonnie Glen cul du sac, onto lot 3.24, cross to lot 3.25, and then onto Cella's
property. He said that 4-wheel drive vehicles have used that area, and I said but they were not
large construction vehicles, which need access to the ROW. He knows construction, so I'm sure
he knows what I am talking about.
He asked if it would be a permanent road. I said that there will be some permanent roads along
the ROW, but that the one which will potentially pass through his property was, at least at the
moment, seen as being a temporary roadway.
He commented that he and his wife own one of those parcels, and he does not want to do
anything which would reduce the value of the property. (Looking on the Sussex County web
site, at the various parcels at the end of Bonnie Glen, Bellush Assoc. owns each of them--unless
he meant that Bellush Assoc. was he and his wife at this point.)
He commented that he pays $9,000 in taxes on one of these (on all of these?) parcels. A check of
the county web site and a call to the tax assessor found that the parcels owned by Bellush Assoc.,
Block 71, Lots 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.26, 3.27, are contiguous parcels, and are classified as farm
parcels, probably meaning "tree farm." Tree farms have a "special" tax rate. If I am reading the
documents correctly, the total tax paid on all five parcels is $93.06. This makes no sense at all,
and yet seems to be the case. This is for 27.67 acres. I'm not sure what he is referring to when
he quotes "$9,000."
He is willing to talk but is now very busy with his wife. "Call back in a couple of weeks."
I left a message on Bellush Jr.'s office phone and called Sr. in an attempt to set a meeting to
discuss the option agreement.
He bought the entire parcel in 1963, and has been involved with it for half his lifetime; he is 90.
He has also been tied up with his wife's knee replacement recuperation for the past six weeks.
He insists that one of the parcels is assessed at over $300K, and he pays over $8K in taxes on it-but the Sussex County web site does not indicate that.
I told him we wanted to get together with him to discuss a potential access road option, and that
he would probably be receiving in the neighborhood of $25K for the temporary easement. He
then began to get into what the property was worth. I said we were not buying the property, only
seeking rights to temporarily use the property so as to access the PSEG ROW. He has no interest
in tying up the land for five years, for $25K. He is 90 years old, and may want to sell the parcel.
It is a beautiful piece of property. If PSEG is interested in purchasing the parcel, he is willing to
discuss that, but he can't see having his hands tied for five years.
He has put a lot of money and time into developing that area into a first class subdivision, and
has withstood the stupidity of the local officials, that seemed to put up roadblocks at every turn.
He began to discuss the access road route, as though we could reach the ROW by solely
remaining on his property. I told him, that was not possible. That the end of his one pacel
terminated at the ROW, but the terrain was so severe as to prevent any vehicles from reaching
the necessary tower locations. I told him that the access road in his area combined his parcels
with Cella's parcel--about 50/50.
If we have paperwork, which his son can review, send it to Bellush, Jr., with a copy to Sr.
It seems that, at 90, this is just additional hassle that he doesn't need. So, the door isn't closed,
but it isn't wide open either.
Tim and I met with Jr. briefly on Mar. 27th and dropped off the Option agreement (at the
suggestion of Sr.).
I called Jr. today to discuss his thoughts on the Option. He said "I don't give options and I don't
recommend options to my clients. If you want to buy something, buy it." I stressed that the
Option was to permit additional analysis by PSEG, to determine if the potential route that is
mapped, would actually work as an access road. The Option is an extension of the ROE. He
suggested using the same document that we used before, just extending it.
He stressed that his father is an independent person and can make up his own mind--but from
past conversations, I know he seems to defer to Jr.
We need to revisit the ROE that Jr. created months ago and see how we want to modify it to give
us what we need. And we still have the situation of Sr. stating that he does not want to tie up the
land for five years, for $25K. Do we want to buy the property?
4/18/09
Since we are crafting a new ROE, I thought it would be of help if I went back to the parcel to see
if anything had changed since my last visit, which was months ago. As before, the end of
Bonnie Glen--the entry to lot 3.24--is piled with branches (a foot or so high), mostly long and
thin branches, laid out like an oversize section of a bird's nest. To the left, is a rotting log about
eight or so feet long and 10" or so in diameter. The branches to the right have obviously been
run over because they are broken and compressed (I assume by an ATV), while the branches on
the left are at the fully piled height, and not compressed.
He is obviously being unsuccessful at keeping ATVers off his property, and if they are getting
onto his property, I assume they are also getting onto Cella's. So, we have a trespassing issue on
both properties. We have an apparent desire to "cash in" on these parcels by Bellush, and the
desire for security and "fortress" on the part of Cella. Maybe getting the two of them (along with
Jr. naturally) in a room, we could thrash out a solution? Though the difficulty there may be that
Cella does not seem to have much liking for Bellush Sr.
I stopped by Atty Bellush's office to give him the ROE, which I had modified from the one that
was signed in Nov.'08. The one created to allow us access for surveying the potential access
road includes wording which is in the Option, but which Atty Bellush suggested was not the way
to go. "If you need additional access for surveying, you have a vehicle for that--the ROE
license."
Linda modified my initial draft of the ROE. We added photos of a farm gate, which Bellush Sr.
wanted, if we were planning on accessing the property with vehicles. This he hopes will keep
the ATVrs out. I also added a spec sheet from the Tractor Supply web site, describing the
specifics of the gate--which he also requested.
John Jr. will give it to Sr. and get back to me with comments.
I called Atty Bellush to ask if Sr. had made any comments on the ROE which I had left with him
over a week ago.
He was not in, so I left a message.
Months ago, Sr. mentioned that fact that he really liked the power poles, and wondered if he
could have a few. Linda mentioned, in our last meeting, that there might be some poles
available, if he is interested.
I called Atty Bellush to learn what was their reaction to the License agreement I submitted to
them a week or so ago.
Atty Bellush said that he was working on a response; that he would run it by his father, and mail
it to me.
I spoke with Rich Franklin and learned that the Bellushes had not called him. I assumed they
would have, following up on Rich's letter, referring to "condemnation" and "eminent domain."
I called Atty Bellush's office, to see if I could arrange a meeting between he, his father, and the
PSEG team. I got his voice mail and left a message to that effect.
11/19/09
I took advantage of our meeting with Cella to call Bellush Jr., to indicate that we are exploring
alternate routes to the tower at the southern end of Sr.'s property. I thought I might actually
reach him to have a voice to voice conversation, but that did not happen.
I did not mention the Cella meeting in my voice mail.
5/6/10
I attempted to contact Mr. Bellush, via his son, who has been my point of contact historically. I
called his office and got his voice mail. I left a message regarding my desire to speak with him
regarding the access road, which we continue to hope might be available.
Cella Phone Log, PPL154B
Richard Cella, 10/2/08
I received directions to the Cella home from John Bellush, Jr. There are no trespassing signs are
various trees as you wind your way down a very long driveway, and to a complex of various
buildings. There was a workman there who looked rather surprised to see someone drive in. I
told him why I was there, and he said that Mr. Cella had been operated on for esophageal cancer.
He is at the Mayo Clinic for follow up and won't be back until the end of October. I mentioned
the road leading to the ROW and he knew exactly what I was referring to.
I left my business card.
Ironically there was a Nelson crew trimming trees on the property, but on residential distribution
lines.
Cella's address appears to be 40 Sky Top Rd., Andover, assuming I was in Andover. It seems
difficult to determine where one community ends and the other begins, and some landowners
have the entrance to their driveways in one community and their houses in another. I searched
the Sussex County parcel database and could not find Cella.
I received a call from Mr. Cella today, responding to the fact that I had left my business card at
his house, while he was on a trip.
He was somewhat familiar with the PSEG project and mentioned the new towers which will be
going up on the ROW. He was less enthusiastic when he heard that we were seeking permission
to survey his property to determine if a portion of it might be suitable for an access road to carry
construction equipment and materials to the ROW. He was most concerned about the size of the
trucks and what portion of his property would be impacted. I described the location relative to
Bellush's property and the cul du sac at the end of Bonnie Glen.
I described it as best I could over the phone and suggested that we meet to discuss it. He was
amenable to that, and we decided that Friday, the 31st, at 9:00 would work for both of us.
I told him that I would bring a map with me to show him exactly where we anticipated the road
being established, and he seemed to welcome that, so he could see exactly what we were talking
about. He also suggested that we walk the route together, which surprised the heck out of me,
given that he had major surgery for esophageal cancer, leading to his stomach being attached to
his throat. Listening to him talk, you got the impression that he was an older gentleman, but not
that he had had such major surgery.
I'll go into the office today and make a copy of the map for him.
I met with Mr. Cella--80+ years old and recently having undergone major cancer surgery--very
thoughtful and asking good questions.
He is very concerned about the "highway" that will be necessary in order to permit the enormous
construction vehicles to reach the ROW. "Why not use a skycrane, the way they do out west?"
He has seen the 60' tower sections in his travels in NJ and seen the huge auger used to excavate
for the foundation hole--"very impressive."
He has worked the police for years to get ATVers off his property and has been successful. But
people forget as time passes and he feels he may have to start this activity up again--and the
"highway" will not make that any easier. How do we propose to keep the ATVers off the access
road while construction is going on and, after removing the road, leaving the 16'+ wide swath
through the forest, how do we keep the ATVers from using it as a speedway?
He has allowed PSEG maintenance people in there with pickups in the past.
He had an old map of the property hanging on the wall and we matched it up with the map I had
brought. He also had a large black and white aerial photo of his property, showing both ROWs,
and we discussed those, referring to this image.
He was under the impression that the 500kv lines were replacing the 230kv and I corrected him.
He certainly understands the need for additional electrical power, but is having trouble with the
idea of plowing through his property.
I discussed with him the Bellush property, which precedes his on access road 32. The topo map
clearly shows how a route which remains in lot 3.24, terminates in a gulley, which no kind of
vehicle could maneuver out of, to reach the towers.
I left him a copy of the map and the ROE. I mentioned that the ROE was our standard
agreement and his response is, "There is no such thing as a standard agreement."
I will call him next week to see if we can meet again and address any additional issues he has.
Richard Cella 11/18/08
I called Mr. Cella, following up on our phone call of yesterday (he called me) and told him that
the access road on his property would be between 1000' and 1500' depending on where it exits
from Mr. Bellush's property. Rather than accessing the portion of the road that is on his
property, totally from his property, he suggested that we meet at the cul du sac and walk in from
there.
We will meet on Thursday morning at 8:30 and walk the area.
I called Bellush Jr. and left a message on his voice mail that we were going to be on his property.
I am hoping he does not have a problem with that. In essence, we will be trespassing on 3.25, to
gain access to Cella's property.
Mr. Cella also asked what we were paying Bellush for rights to his property for the access road.
I indicated that we had not discussed monetary compensation at all and that I did not have any
figures for such compensation at this time.
Mr. Cella met me at the end of the Bonnie Glen cul du sac, and we walked his property,
following the potential access road route. We did not follow the route mapped on the current 1"
= 200' maps, for AR 32, but took a path to the northwest, at a point about 300' from the cul du
sac. This path/road crosses the Bellush property, lot 3.25, for about 250' and then enters Cella's
property--an old logging road. We walked our way through the trees and eventually ended up at
tower 55/1. Assuming that this becomes the access road, there is approximately 1500' on Cella's
property.
He commented on the fact that in order to do this properly, you would need a survey, which
would cost thousands of dollars. I indicated that we have certified survey crews doing that, "But
that's a crap shoot. You really need your own surveyor to do that. Would PSEG pay for this
extra assurance?"
He is concerned about the 16', temporary road, winding through the woods, and enticing ATVs
into his woods. This is a never ending problem, which he feels he has handled (with the local
police) at the moment--but the temporary road highway will have the whole issue surfacing
again. (He has very good relationships with the local police, since he lets them hunt on his
property.) He is also concerned that, in our sue-happy society, if someone is hurt on his
property, they will sue. The case will get thrown out of court, but the cost and the hassle will be
a drain.
As he says, "Anyone with this amount of property does not need the money" which PSEG gives
for the temporary AR; but some way of addressing the "open access," which the AR represents,
would be very helpful.
He has owned the property for 32 years.
As we were standing at tower 55/1, looking north toward 54/4, he asked how we planned to
access that tower. I said I wasn't sure; that I hadn't had reason to check on that, because that road
was not part of my territory at the moment. He mentioned that the driveway leading to his home
continues on and to that area--but he had no interest in having all sorts of trucks driving that
road. (Back in Mtown, the AR report shows that we are accessing that through the JCP&L
ROW.)
Mr. Cella called asking if any further decisions had been made related to the use of skycrane. (I
think he was motivated by the Franklin letter.) I said that skycranes will definitely be used on
the project, but specific details have yet to be developed--which towers would benefit from their
use and exactly where is it possible to secure laydown/assembly areas within reasonable
proximity to the ROW?
Security continues to be of paramount importance to him. Presently, it is virtually impossible for
a person/people to easily access his property without being readily seen, because the only access
is from the road. With the access road in place, which is wide enough for a pick up truck,
anyone can access his property from the rear, and have a vehicle large enough to take large items
from him. This is a problem. He talked about the potential for gates, fencing, cameras, etc.,
whatever is necessary to deliver the current level of security, with the access road in place.
He is not against progress and realizes that the reason he can flip a switch and have light is
because of work, similar to this project, that has been done before.
I stressed that I would like to assemble the PSEG team members that are in a position to address
his issues--listen to his concerns and develop solutions. I made that statement several times
during our almost 30 minute conversation--and I think he finally heard me.
His property is under "farmland assessment" and he wondered how any money he accepted for
this road would impact his assessment? He has a consultant forester that is fully busy all of
August, but might be available sometime in September. Mr. Cella will be in Andover until midOctober/mid-November, and then gone for quite a while.
As a final point of our conversation, I stressed again that he think about a meeting, and he said he
would.
I have written a couple of emails and made attempts to contact Cella over the last couple of
months, with no luck. Since he was traveling at this time last year, I thought he might also be
traveling currently but decided to go to his house to see.
I arrived and drove down his long driveway, to the barn area behind his house, expecting that
there might be someone in the back. One of the garages was open, but I saw no one.
I drove around to the front and could see the TV on. No one came to the door. There is a note
on the window to please leave packages by the lower door. I decided not to ring the bell, but to
just leave my card, with a note on the back. I taped it to the lower door and left. I assume he
will call if interested in pursuing further discussions. Like Butler, I've been trying to get him to
meet with us for months.
In an email months ago, he said that his arborist would be in town in September--but I could
never reach him to arrange a meeting with PSEG team member, he and the arborist.
10/20/09
Hello Mr. Cella:
You and I walked your property many months ago. I haven't been back since.
We are in the process of walking various sections of the ROW and of access roads leading to the
ROW, to make the determinations as you suggest. We are attempting to answer the question,
"Can we access this segment via the ROW or do we need a separate off-ROW access road?" In
some cases the answer is, "Yes, we can do this while remaining in the ROW," or "The terrain is
too severe; we can't do it from within the ROW." It is a lot easier to make such a determination
"on the ground," rather than from staring at 1"=200' maps, the result of photos taken 1000's of
feet in the air.
Although I am an engineer by education, I am not the kind of engineer that makes such
determinations--but I do have access to PSEG's engineering capacity, that is capable of making
such determinations.
Would it be possible to meet you, as before, and walk the route we walked--accompanied by a
couple of PSEG engineers? Such a get together will lead to answers to the questions you asked.
Email works great to a certain extent--for a period of time. After that, face-to-face leads to
resolution. I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Bill Cesario
10/21/09
Hello Mr. Cella:
Thanks very much for your emails, for indicating your potential availability during the second
week of November.
Regarding our ongoing investigations of potential access roads and right-of-way, although we
have had staff and engineers in the field during the past months, no one was on your property
because we did not have a signed right of entry from you to investigate that access road. We did
have people on Limecrest, walking the right-of-way to the two towers east of Limecrest, but they
did not continue along the right-of-way, to the tower at the edge of your property.
At the moment, I do not know of the availability of my PSEG colleagues (for the week when you
are available), whom I would like to have attend a walk-through with you. But I will have
available dates tomorrow or Friday. I will write you again with those dates, and hopefully, they
will work with your schedule.
Thanks again.
Regards,
Bill Cesario
Dear Mr. Cesario,
This communication will confirm our walk-through of my property yesterday. I reiterated my
primary concerns of security as well as environmental restoration. Regarding security, we
discussed a fence surrounding the TAR with gates at either end. Regarding restoration, we
discussed an "aggressive" approach including planting trees and restoring boulders into the TAR
once the project is completed. We also discussed, at length, the possibility of your company
constructing alternate access road(s), either using the existing right-of-way, or from Creamery
Road. Mr. Crouch represented that your team will assess the feasibility of these alternate
approaches and advise us of the results of that analysis when complete.
During our meeting I was very pleased to hear both Mr. Crouch Mr. Passro repeatedly emphasize
that minimal environmental impact is of paramount concern to PSE&G.
Please convey to them that, beginning with our initial communications, this is completely
consistent with my own requests that the company use skycranes for the project at the subject
location[s]. There is no approach which could possibly have as little environmental impact as
skycranes. Whereas 55 mph downdrafts and aircraft noise are but fleeting harmless annoyances,
major alterations to the land, and destruction of 100 year old hardwoods create permanent
environmental damage - and do so for no objective reason.
Thank you,
Dick Cella
2/1/10
I called Atty Perez to inform him that we would be walking the Old Creamery parcel on
Thursday, but entering from the south, so there will be no need to access Mr. Cella's property, for
purposes of reaching the ROW.
5/6/10
I attempted to contact Dick Cella, calling the number I have for his home. I called and did not
get anyone to answer--and was not given the option of leaving a message. I know, when I have
called in the past, I have reached his answering machine--but it did not seem to be available
today.
I was calling to explore whether it might be possible for our archeologists to go onto the property
and perform their testing--one test hole every 50 feet, along the center line of the planned access
road.
I also attempted to reach Dan Perez, Cella's atty, but was not able to reach him--but at least I was
able to leave a message, which was that Old Creamery was not a viable option for an access road
due to severe terrain, as well as assorted wetlands. I said I was hoping to speak with Dick Cella;
that I attempted to reach him on the phone, but no one answered and there was no answering
machine.
Dan returned my call and I discussed with him what we were hoping to do regarding
archeological investigation along the planned access road. I told him that our investigation of the
Old Creamery parcel, led to the determination that it was not a viable access route due to very
severe terrain and unexpected wetland areas. I said I know how Dick feels about the project and
the access road--but I had to reach out to him anyway. Dan said he had not spoken to him in a
while, but would try to reach him and get back to me.
Call Log PSE&G To: 14k Properties, LLC (973) 616‐3599 103‐105 Boonton Ave. Caller: Emily Goldman Block/Lots: 3/41.02 Date: 5/11/10, 12:52pm Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Number is disconnected or no longer in service. Call Log PSE&G To: County of Morris (973) 326‐7600 Valley Farm Barn Complex Caller: Emily Goldman Block/Lots: 20701/1 Date: 5/11/10, 12:47pm Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Left a message Call Log PSE&G To: Jack Diamond (973) 299‐2725 or (941) 794‐8262 347 Split Rock Rd Caller: Emily Goldman Block/Lots: 31001/16 Date: 5/11/10, 12:42pm Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Left messages at both numbers Call Log PSE&G To: Leslie N. Dunham (973) 402‐5158 Re: Decker Kinkaid House and Forge Caller: Emily Goldman Block/Lots: 20601/15 and 20701/15 Date: 5/11/10, 12:49pm Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Number is disconnected or no longer in service. Call Log PSE&G To: Mark T. and Linda Jean Hiler (973)263‐0294 64 Lyonsville Rd, Boonton, NJ Re: Lyon House Caller: Jennifer Reed Block/Lots: 30901/1 Date: 5/11/10, 11:00am Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Left message. Per Dave Grossmueller, call was returned and permission granted. Please call before architect wants to go into house/property. Call Log PSE&G To: John D. and Renee Ann Michaud (973) 334‐4853 101 Boonton Ave. Caller: Emily Goldman Block/Lots: 3/41.1 Date: 5/11/10, 12:52pm Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Called. No mailbox for this number. Call Log PSE&G To: Patrick J and Patricia Napolitano (973) 316‐0539 331 Split Rock Rd Re: Lyon House Caller: Emily Goldman Block/Lots: 31001/21 Date: 5/11/10, 12:40pm Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Left message. Call Log PSE&G To: State of NJ, DEP, Green Acres (609) 984‐0500 Split Rock Reservoir and Dam, Split Rock Rd, Rockaway Twp. Caller: Jennifer Reed Block/Lots: 31001/15 Date: 5/11/10 Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Per Karen Dillon, we have been trying to gain access to this property for months. We will need to obtain an access agreement. Call Log PSE&G To: David and JoAnn Oakes (973) 334‐6371 Looker –Lyon Farm, Charlotteburg Road, Rockaway Caller: Jennifer Reed Block/Lots: 50002/1,2,3 and 50003/11,12,13,14 Date: 5/11/10, 11:05am Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Called and left message. Call Log PSE&G To: Kathleen O’Neill and Michael Murray No phone on record 332 Split Rock Rd, Boonton, NJ 07005 Re: Crane House Caller: Jennifer Reed Block/Lots: 50003/7 Date: Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: No phone number available. Call Log PSE&G To: Richard Patierno (386) 304‐6020 105 Boonton Ave. Caller: Emily Goldman Block/Lots: 3/41.03 Date: 5/11/10, 12:54pm Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Mr. Patierno stated there was nothing of cultural resource significance on his property and hung up on me. Call Log PSE&G To: Lynne M. and Eugene Sheninger 332 Split Rock Rd., Rockaway Twp. Caller: Jennifer Reed Block/Lots: 50003/9 Date: 5/11/10, 10:50am Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Spoke to Lynne Sheninger. She stated that we have permission to visit the property. Please have architect call to notify of exact date. Call Log PSE&G To: Charlotte W Starkey No phone on record Adam Brewer (of the twp.) (973) 331‐3341 Miller Homestead 56 Millers Ln, Montville Township Caller: Emily Goldman Block/Lots: 59.1/5 Date: 5/11/10, 1:24pm Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: The municipality is under contract with the Estate of Charlotte Starkey. The municipality will close on the property in 6 weeks. Adam Brewer from the Municipality stated he would forward my information to the Executive of the Estate to contact me to obtain permission. Call Log PSE&G To: Michael Terreault (973) 402‐6025 327 Split Rock Rd, Boonton, NJ 07005 Caller: Jennifer Reed Block/Lots: 30901/6 Date: 5/11/10, 11:05am Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Placed call, rang multiple times. No answer/no voicemail. Call Log PSE&G To: Anthony Todaro, 724 Amwell Rd., Hillsborough, NJ 08844 (908) 369‐1713 Re: Ogden/Talmadge House (contributing resource to the Talmadge Archaeological and Historical Complex), 5125 Berkshire Valley, Jefferson Twp. Caller: Jennifer Reed Block/Lots: 357/1.01 and adjacent property Date: 5/11/10, 10:50am Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Call was placed, rang multiple times, no answer/no voicemail Call Log PSE&G To: Rand and Julia Marie Urmston (973) 334‐0217 341 Split Rock Rd, Boonton, NJ 07005 Re: Crane House Caller: Emily Goldman Block/Lots: 31001/18 Date: 5/11/10, 1:29pm Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: Send request in writing with name and phone number and absolutely under no circumstance want you on the property until given permission. Call Log PSE&G To: Henry and Mary Verny No phone on record 1 Jessica Court, Lk Hopatcong, NJ Caller: Jennifer Reed Block/Lots: 306/15.25 Date: Re: Susquehanna‐Roseland Line Cultural Resources Survey Request for Access to Property Comments: No phone number available.