read the routing report

Transcription

ALTERNATIVE ROUTE
IDENTIFICATION REPORT FOR THE
SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND
PROJECT
NEW JERSEY PORTION
SUBMITTED TO
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS
COMPANY
By
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
in alliance with
Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
The Louis Berger/CAI Alliance
PSE&G Alternative Route Identification Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
1.
Introduction......................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Need for the Proposed Project ..................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Scope of Report and Description of the Proposed Project ....................................................... 4
1.2.1
500-kV Line ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.
Alternative Route Identification......................................................................... 9
2.1 Goal of the Alternative Route Identification Study..................................................................... 9
2.2 The Routing Team.......................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Study Area Definition................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Route Selection Criteria .............................................................................................................. 12
2.5 Identification of Routing Constraints......................................................................................... 12
2.5.1
Large Area Constraints ......................................................................................................... 12
2.5.2
Small Area Constraints.......................................................................................................... 12
2.6 Identification of Routing Opportunities ..................................................................................... 13
2.7 Environmental Data Collection................................................................................................... 14
2.7.1
Aerial Photography................................................................................................................ 14
2.7.2
Maps...................................................................................................................................... 14
2.7.3
GIS Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 14
2.7.4
Field Inspections ................................................................................................................... 15
2.7.5
Agency Contacts ................................................................................................................... 15
2.8 Identification of Potential Routes............................................................................................... 16
2.9 Identification of Alternative Routes ...........................................................................................18
2.9.1
Alternative A .......................................................................................................................... 20
2.9.2
Alternative B .......................................................................................................................... 20
2.9.3
Alternative C .......................................................................................................................... 20
3.
Alternative Route Analysis .............................................................................. 22
3.1 Environmental Analysis .............................................................................................................. 22
3.1.1
Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.2
Surface Water Resources and Aquatic Species/Habitats..................................................... 37
3.1.3
Wetlands................................................................................................................................ 39
3.1.4
Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 40
3.1.5
Wildlife ................................................................................................................................... 42
3.1.6
Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 46
3.1.7
Recreation Lands .................................................................................................................. 52
3.1.8
Cultural Resources................................................................................................................ 61
3.1.9
Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 71
3.2 Engineering Analysis................................................................................................................... 84
3.2.1
Potential Construction Impacts Regardless of Which Alternative is Selected ...................... 84
3.2.2
Design Considerations ..........................................................................................................86
3.2.3
Conceptual Engineering Summary of the Three Alternative Routes .................................... 88
3.3 Public Outreach and Input .......................................................................................................... 90
3.4 Preferred Route Identification .................................................................................................... 93
4.
References ........................................................................................................ 96
i
TABLES
Table 2.2-1 Routing Team Members ............................................................................................................ 9
Table 3.1-1 Environmental Inventory Data Sources .................................................................................. 22
Table 3.1-2 Environmental Inventory of Resources Affected by Alternative Routes of the Susquehanna to
Roseland Project in New Jersey ................................................................................................................. 27
Table 3.1.3-1 Summary of Wetland Crossings and Areas on New or Expanded Rights-of-Way –
Alternatives A, B, and C .............................................................................................................................. 39
Table 3.1.4-1 – Upland vegetative cover types along the three Susquehanna to Roseland Alternative
Route Alignments in New Jersey ................................................................................................................ 41
Table 3.1.6-1 – Barren Land Subcategory Distribution, Alternative A ........................................................ 48
Table 3.1.6-2 – Urban Land Subcategory Distribution, Alternative A ......................................................... 49
Table 3.1.6-3 – Urban Land Subcategory Distribution, Alternative B ......................................................... 50
Table 3.1.6-4 – Agricultural Land Subcategory Distribution, Alternative C................................................. 50
Table 3.1.6-5 – Urban Land Subcategory Distribution, Alternative C......................................................... 51
Table 3.1.6-6 – Land Use Summary Table ................................................................................................. 52
Table 3.1.7-1 – Recreation Subcategory Distribution, Alternative A .......................................................... 60
Table 3.1.7-2 – Recreation Subcategory Distribution, Alternative B .......................................................... 60
Table 3.1.7-3 – Recreation Subcategory Distribution, Alternative C .......................................................... 61
Table 3.1.8-1 – Definitions of Cultural Resource Categories and Data Sources........................................ 66
Table 3.1.8-2 – Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 68
Table 3.1.8-3 – Previously Recorded Historic Properties Crossed by Alternative A .................................. 68
Table 3.1.8-4 – Previously Recorded Historic Properties Crossed by Alternative B .................................. 69
Table 3.1.8-5 – Previously Recorded Historic Properties Crossed by Alternative C .................................. 70
Table 3.1.9-1 – Residences within 500 feet of the Proposed Centerline by Alternative............................. 84
ii
FIGURES
Figure 1.2-1
Locations of the Susquehanna and East Hanover/Roseland Switching Stations .............. 5
Figure 1.2.1-1
Conceptual Single Circuit Steel Pole.............................................................................. 6
Figure 1.2.1-2
Conceptual Single Circuit Lattice Structure .................................................................... 7
Figure 1.2.1-3
Conceptual Double Circuit Steel Pole ............................................................................ 7
Figure 1.2.1-4
Conceptual Double Circuit Lattice Structure .................................................................. 8
Figure 2.3-1
Study Area and Vicinity..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.8-1
Potential Routes between the Delaware River and East Hanover/Roseland Switching
Station ............................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.9-1
Alternative Routes............................................................................................................. 19
Figure 3.1.1-1
Surfacial Geologic Map (Key on the following page).................................................... 31
Figure 3.1.1-2
Bedrock Geology Map (Key on the following page) ..................................................... 35
Figure 3.1.6-1
Land Use in Proximity to the Three Alternative Routes in New Jersey........................ 47
Figure 3.1.9-1
View of Farm Field Along River Road Looking North................................................... 72
Figure 3.1.9-2
View of the Existing Pipeline Right-of-Way at High Point State Park ..............................
Looking Southeast ........................................................................................................ 73
Figure 3.1.9-3
View of Meadow along Clove Road Looking North ...................................................... 74
Figure 3.1.9-4
View of Common Area at Chase Run Looking North ................................................... 75
Figure 3.1.9-5
View of the Existing Transmission Line Crossing at Millbrook-Flatbrook Road Looking
West Toward the Delaware Water Gap Recreation Area............................................. 76
Figure 3.1.9-6
View of Watergate Recreational Site Looking Southwest from the Parking Area ........ 77
Figure 3.1.9-7
View of Existing Transmission Line Crossing Lake Mohawk Looking West ................ 78
Figure 3.1.9-8
View of Agricultural Field near Phillipsburg-Belvidere Road Looking Northeast.......... 79
Figure 3.1.9-9
View of Existing Transmission Lines at Bee Meadow Park Looking West................... 80
Figure 3.1.9-10
View of Existing Transmission Lines Parallel to Existing Railroad near Merry Lane
Looking West ................................................................................................................ 81
Figure 3.3-1
Public Comments Received as of August 4, 2008............................................................ 92
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland Regional Transmission Operator (PJM), an independent company
that operates the electric power grid in 13 states, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania, has
determined that upgrades to the existing electric system are necessary to ensure safe and reliable
electric service for customers in eastern Pennsylvania and Northern New Jersey, including customers of
Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Sussex
Rural Electric Company, and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL). PSE&G and PPL have been
ordered by PJM to construct a new 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Susquehanna
switching station near Berwick, Pennsylvania and PSE&G’s existing East Hanover/Roseland switching
station in Roseland Borough, Essex County, New Jersey, by the summer of 2012. This line must tie into
the existing Branchburg to New York 500-kV transmission line. This solution will resolve these
overloading conditions in Northern New Jersey and Pennsylvania. There are no suitable lower voltage
local alternatives for providing the required relief from the significant transmission system reliability and
congestion challenges identified for the northeast portion of the PJM region.
A multi-disciplinary routing team participated in a comprehensive alternative route identification process to
establish a Preferred Route for the Susquehanna to Roseland Transmission Line Project in New Jersey.
An initial step in this process included the identification of a study area that would include all reasonable
Potential Routes to connect the existing Susquehanna switching station in Pennsylvania with the existing
East Hanover/Roseland switching station in New Jersey. The study area was established in collaboration
with PPL.
The routing team identified constraints to minimize impacts to the natural and human environment, as
well as routing opportunities to facilitate route placement with minimal incremental impact on the
environment. Environmental and engineering data from a variety of sources was gathered and
assembled into a GIS database superimposed on aerial photography. Potential Routes were identified by
the routing team to avoid constraints and take advantage of available routing opportunities. Potential
Routes were field checked from publicly accessible locations to validate the aerial imagery and to assess
the viability of the Potential Routes based on conditions observed on the ground. Adjustments were
made to the Potential Routes based on the information gathered in the field.
The benefits and disadvantages of the re-aligned Potential Routes were assessed by the Routing Team
based on the routing criteria developed, an inventory of land use and environmental factors along each of
the routes, and the knowledge and experience of the Routing Team members. Less favorable Potential
Routes were dismissed and potential viable Alternative Routes were retained for further consideration.
The Alternative Route identification process was conducted in consultation with PPL to ensure that
alignments that cross from Pennsylvania to New Jersey cross the Delaware River at compatible locations.
The routing teams from PSE&G and PPL then assessed the remaining Potential Routes from an
environmental and engineering perspective and selected three Alternative Routes for detailed
consideration as the Preferred Route (Alternatives A, B, and C). Additional field reviews were conducted
to verify conditions at known sensitive locations, meetings with resource agencies, municipalities, and the
public were held to gather input on each of the three Alternative Routes, and refined environmental
inventory data was reviewed. In discussions during various public meetings, it was evident that people
were concerned about the effects of construction on resources of importance to the local community, as
well as property values, public health, and aesthetics. The Preferred Route selection process took these
concerns into consideration by attempting to maximize the distance of the centerline from residences and
other sensitive resources such as schools and churches when not following existing rights-of-way. This
process has led to the selection of the Preferred Route.
1
Based on its assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the three Alternative Routes under
consideration, the routing team selected Alternative B as the Preferred Route in New Jersey. This
selection is based on the following factors:
•
•
•
•
•
Alternative B would be constructed entirely within an existing transmission line right-of-way for its
entire length in New Jersey, which would minimize incremental impacts to the natural and human
environment. No construction on virgin right-of-way would be required, which represents a
substantial advantage over Alternative A (where more than 24 miles of new right-of-way would be
needed). Minimal additional clearing would be required, which represents a substantial
advantage over Alternative C (where vegetative clearing would be needed along 19 miles of rightof-way if the new line was constructed parallel to an existing line).
Alternative B has by far the least amount of wooded wetland crossed (0.1 mile), compared to
Alternative A (2.4 miles) and Alternative C (1.3 miles). Thus Alternative B has the least potential
to permanently alter this important type of wetland habitat.
Aesthetic impacts associated with Alternative B would be substantially less than the virgin rightof-way portion of Alternative A. Incremental aesthetic impacts associated with Alternative B
would be slightly less compared to Alternative C because of the need to clear vegetation along
the 19 mile portion of Alternative C that would parallel the existing 230-kV transmission line.
Removal of forest in this area would reduce screening, and the wider cleared right-of-way would
be more visually intrusive. Taller structures than currently exist would likely be needed in the 2.6
mile portion of Alternative B that is within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in
New Jersey, but means to minimize this incremental impact would be explored with the National
Park Service.
Alternative B crosses the least amount of forested land (0.3 miles) compared to Alternative A
(18.5 miles) and Alternative C (11.4 miles). This would result in substantially less potential for soil
erosion and permanent alteration of forest habitat and no increase in forest fragmentation.
Alternative B does not involve the same level of substantial engineering and constructability
challenges (and associated increased costs) that are associated with Alternative C.
In addition, PPL's route selection process also resulted in the selection of Alternative B as the preferred
alternative for the Susquehanna to Roseland Project. After a similar routing process, which included
mapping, field visits, a potential route network, and subsequent public outreach meetings and agency
consultation, PPL concluded that Alternative B is the best route from an economic, environmental, land
use, and public perspective.
Alternative B would be constructed entirely on the existing Roseland – Bushkill 230-kV right-of-way. The
existing structures would be replaced with new structures capable of supporting both the 500-kV and 230kV transmission lines from the Delaware River to the East Hanover/Roseland switching station. This
alternative would cross the Delaware River within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in
Hardwick Township at the crossing point of the existing Roseland – Bushkill 230-kV line. Alternative B
would continue within the existing right-of-way, cross the Appalachian Trail, and cross Stillwater and
Fredon townships. In Andover Township, the alternative would cross portions of Kittatinny Valley State
Park. Continuing east into Sparta Township, Alternative B would enter the Highlands Planning Area and
Highlands Preservation Area before interconnecting with a proposed new switching station in Jefferson
Township. Between the Delaware River and Jefferson Township (approximately 22 miles), land use is
predominantly rural. From Jefferson, the alternative would head east across the Rockaway River Wildlife
Management Area in Jefferson Township, Picatinny Arsenal and the Wildcat Ridge WMA in Rockaway
Township, the Buck Mountain Forest Legacy Tract in Kinnelon Borough and the Pyramid Mountain
Natural Historical Area in Montville Township. The alternative would then turn south toward the Montville
Substation, cross Route I-287, and continue south to a crossing of Route I-80. On the south side of
Route I-80, the alternative would turn to the southeast and cross the Troy Meadows, continuing to the
East Hanover/Roseland switching station. The segment of Alternative B between the Jefferson and East
Hanover/Roseland switching stations is approximately 24 miles long. Land use along this segment varies
2
from rural and natural along the east-west segment to suburban and heavily developed along the northsouth segment. The total length of Alternative B in New Jersey is 45.7 miles.
3
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Need for the Proposed Project
The Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland Regional Transmission Operator (PJM), an independent company
that operates the electric power grid in 13 states, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania, has
determined upgrades to the existing electric system are necessary to ensure safe and reliable electric
service for customers in eastern Pennsylvania and Northern New Jersey, including customers of Public
Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Sussex Rural
Electric Company, and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL). In 2007, PJM conducted a 15-year
planning study to forecast future transmission expansions required to maintain reliability and integrity of
the power grid. Data collected during the study indicated 23 existing transmission lines in Northern New
Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania will become overloaded within the 15-year study period, with some
exceeding capacity as early as 2013. This can cause cascading transmission line outages, potentially
resulting in major regional brownouts and blackouts.
As a result of PJM’s study, PSE&G and PPL have been ordered by PJM to construct a new 500-kilovolt
(kV) transmission line between the Susquehanna switching station near Berwick, Pennsylvania and
PSE&G’s existing East Hanover/Roseland switching station in Roseland Borough, Essex County, New
Jersey, by the summer of 2012. This line must tie into the existing Branchburg to New York 500-kV
transmission line requiring a switching station. This solution will resolve the overloading conditions in
Northern New Jersey and Pennsylvania. There are no suitable lower voltage local alternatives for
providing the required relief from the significant transmission system reliability and congestion challenges
identified for the northeast portion of the PJM region.
1.2
Scope of Report and Description of the Proposed Project
PSE&G proposes to site and construct a 500-kV transmission line that will enter New Jersey at the
Delaware River from the proposed new Susquehanna switching station, near Berwick, Pennsylvania. In
New Jersey, the proposed line would extend to the east, connecting to a new switching station along the
existing Branchburg to New York 500-kV transmission line and continue to the east to a new switching
station in the vicinity of the existing East Hanover/Roseland switching station. The locations of the
Susquehanna and East Hanover/Roseland switching stations are shown in Figure 1.2-1, on the following
page. Based on these beginning and end points, the proposed line is referred to as the Susquehanna to
Roseland Project.
4
Figure 1.2-1
Locations of the Susquehanna and East Hanover/Roseland Switching Stations
The siting and construction of the Pennsylvania portion of the proposed project is the responsibility of
PPL. PSE&G and PPL have coordinated their respective siting efforts to ensure compatibility of the
proposed route alignments in both states. This Alternative Route Identification Report addresses only
that portion of the Susquehanna to Roseland Project that is in New Jersey.
1.2.1 500-kV Line
The new 500-kV circuit would either be a single, stand-alone circuit (S/C) or part of a double circuit (D/C)
configuration with an existing circuit on an existing right-of-way sharing the same structure because of
limited right-of-way. The family of structures currently under consideration for New Jersey is shown in
Figures 1.2.1-1 through 1.2.1-4.
The typical foundation assumed for this study would be a cylindrical reinforced concrete design. For the
steel pole structures, the foundations could range from 8 feet to 12 feet in diameter. For lattice towers
there would be four concrete foundations typically 3 feet in diameter for each of the four legs. When
either soft, wet soil conditions or rock conditions exist, custom foundations would be required.
Portions of alignments in New Jersey that use existing transmission line rights-of-way should be able to
be constructed without expanding the existing right-of-way beyond land currently owned in fee or under
easements, unless design considerations at challenging locations dictate otherwise. Alignments that do
not use existing transmission line rights-of-way would be constructed at the center of a 200-foot wide
right-of-way that would need to be acquired in fee or via easements.
Figure 1.2.1-1 Conceptual Single Circuit Steel Pole
6
Figure 1.2.1-2 Conceptual Single Circuit Lattice Structure
Figure 1.2.1-3 Conceptual Double Circuit Steel Pole
7
Figure 1.2.1-4 Conceptual Double Circuit Lattice Structure
1.2.2 Other Project Components
The new 500-kV circuit would loop into and out of a new 500-kV switching station along the existing
PSE&G 500-kV Branchburg – New York 500-kV transmission line. In addition, a new switching station
would need to be constructed at East Hanover/Roseland.
8
2. ALTERNATIVE ROUTE IDENTIFICATION
2.1
Goal of the Alternative Route Identification Study
The goal of the Alternative Route Identification Study was to select the most suitable route for a new 500kV electrical transmission line between the Susquehanna and East Hanover/Roseland switching stations.
The most suitable route was defined as the route minimizing the effect of the transmission line on all
factors of the natural and human environment, while avoiding unreasonable and circuitous routes,
extreme costs, and non-standard design requirements to the maximum extent possible.
2.2
The Routing Team
The routing study was performed by a multi-disciplinary routing team. Team members were selected to
bring wide experience to the routing study to achieve a thorough review of all aspects of developing the
route. Members of the routing team brought experience in transmission line routing, impact assessment
to a wide variety of natural and human resources, impact mitigation, engineering, right-of-way acquisition,
and construction management. The objective was to achieve the goals stated above by conducting an
extensive analysis to locate the best route. The team members are listed in Table 2.2-1.
Name
Kristofer Beadenkopf
Andrew Burke
Richard Crouch
Donald Ehrenbeck,
AICP, P.P.
Timothy Gaul
Table 2.2-1 Routing Team Members
Affiliation Title
Project Expertise
LBG
Senior Archaeologist
Cultural Resources
LBG
GIS Specialist
GIS Analysis, Mapping
PSE&G Manager of Transmission
Transmission Line Engineering and
Engineering
Construction
LBG
Environmental Planner
Land Use and Local Permitting Lead
LBG
Technical Advisor
John Guidinger
Susan Grzybowski
CAI
LBG
Jack Halpern
Douglas Hjorth
Robert Millies, P.E.
Michael Rasser
Tyler Rychener
Ed Samanns
LBG
LBG
CAI
LBG
LBG
LBG
Technical Advisor
Assistant Director, Cultural
Resources
Project Director
Project Manager
Senior Transmission Engineer
GIS Specialist
Senior Environmental Scientist
Principal Scientist
Environmental Planning, GIS
Analysis
Siting, Environmental Assessment
Cultural Resources Lead
Siting, Project Management
Siting, Environmental Assessment
Lead Project Engineer
GIS Analysis, Mapping
Wildlife, Vegetation
Environmental Permitting Lead,
Natural Resources
Dave Shafer, P.E.
CAI
Senior Transmission Engineer Electrical Effects Lead, Field
Modeling
Ann Stevens, RLA
CAI
Senior Scientist
Land Use, Aesthetics
LBG – The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
CAI – Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
The team worked together during the route selection study to develop the routing criteria, define the study
area, identify routing constraints, collect and analyze environmental and design data, meet with the
public, meet with resource and permitting agencies, develop and revise Potential and Alternative Routes,
select the Preferred Route, and prepare the Alternative Route Identification Report.
For the purposes of this study, “Potential Routes” were defined as those routes first identified and studied
by the routing team. Where the routes intersected, “Links” were formed as the segment of the route
9
between intersections. The Links were numbered for identification. The Link numbers changed as the
study progressed and new Links were added or deleted. Eventually, the better Links were assembled
into the better routes for quantitative analysis. These better routes were referred to as “Alternative
Routes”.
2.3
Study Area Definition
The routing team defined the study area as the geographic area encompassing the two end points. The
study area was intended to encompass all reasonable Potential Routes between the three switching
station sites and was developed in consultation with both PSE&G and PPL. The study area is shown in
Figure 2.3-1 on the following page and includes an area of approximately 4,118 square miles, 953 of
which are in New Jersey.
10
Figure 2.3-1
Study Area and Vicinity
2.4
Route Selection Criteria
The routing team developed basic route selection criteria that were used to select and analyze Potential
Routes and specific Alternative Routes. The criteria included the following:
• Maximize the use of, or paralleling of, existing rights-of-way;
• Minimize impacts to the natural and human environment;
• Minimize route length, circuitry, and cost;
• Use transmission line design criteria developed for this project jointly by CAI and PSE&G;
• Minimize the removal of existing residences;
• Minimize the removal of barns, garages, or other structures;
• When not following existing rights of way, maximize the separation distances from residences,
schools, cemeteries, historical resources, recreation sites, and other important cultural sites;
• Minimize crossing designated natural resource lands such as state forests, national and state
parks, wildlife management areas, designated game lands and wildlife areas, and conservation
areas; and
• Avoid new crossings of large lakes.
2.5
Identification of Routing Constraints
Routing constraints in the study area were identified and mapped by the routing team. The constraints
were defined as specific areas that should be avoided to the extent feasible by the route selection
process. The constraints were divided into two groups based on the size of the geographic area
encompassed by the constraint. The first group included constraints covering large areas of land (or
water) in the study area. Large area constraints were used to eliminate, to the extent possible, areas in
the study area considered unfavorable by the routing team for developing Potential Routes. The second
group of constraints encompassed many other types of features covering smaller geographic areas or
specific points. After the Potential Routes had been developed to avoid large area constraints, the
alignments were adjusted, to the extent possible, to avoid small area constraints.
2.5.1 Large Area Constraints
The list of large area constraints consisted of the following:
• Urban areas;
• Airport Notification Zones;
• National Register Historic Districts and adjacent areas;
• Large recreation sites;
• Large wetlands;
• Critical habitat areas;
• Large water bodies; and
• Designated State Forests, State Parks, State Game Lands, Wildlife Management Areas, natural
and conservation areas, Natural Lands Trust Preserve.
2.5.2 Small Area Constraints
The list of small area constraints consisted of the following:
• Individual residences (including houses and permanently established mobile homes);
• Barns, garages, and other out buildings;
• Commercial and industrial buildings;
• Recorded, designated historic buildings and sites, including any specified buffer zone around
each site;
• Recorded threatened, endangered, and other rare species sites or unique natural areas, including
any specified buffer zone around each site;
• Small wetlands and water bodies, including transition areas/buffer zones;
• Small recreation sites or facilities; and
• Designated scenic areas (e.g., overlooks, vistas, trails, corridors, highways).
12
The intent of the routing effort was to attempt to keep the Potential Routes and all areas of new or
expanded right-of-way from affecting these constraints to the maximum extent feasible. However, the
team foresaw in some instances complete avoidance of small area or point-specific constraints – and in
some cases, large area constraints – may not be possible due to the large numbers of these constraints
in the project area, the locations of existing transmission corridors and rights-of-way, and other factors.
2.6
Identification of Routing Opportunities
The routing team identified routing opportunities as places where the proposed transmission line might be
located with less disruption to the natural and human environment. Routing opportunities were uncovered
by examining the project area in the field, studying aerial photography and maps, meeting with members
of the general public, discussing the project with engineers and right-of-way personnel representing
PSE&G and FirstEnergy, and from the routing team’s past experience with similar projects.
Potential routing opportunities in the New Jersey portion of the study area were associated with existing
undeveloped rights-of-way owned in fee or under easements to FirstEnergy and sharing existing rights-ofway currently occupied by 500-, 230-, and 115-kV rights-of-way owned in fee or under easements to
FirstEnergy and PSE&G. In limited portions of the study area, routing opportunities exist adjacent to gas
pipeline rights-of-way. Other rights-of-way were reviewed on maps and in the field, but the routing team
concluded that existing rights-of-way for lower voltage transmission lines and highways did not offer
feasible paralleling or right-of-way sharing opportunities because they did not offer pathways in the
direction desired, were too narrow or irregular in width, or were surrounded by developments that would
be seriously impacted by the proposed 500-kV transmission line. In particular, Interstate 80 (I-80) was
suggested by some as a potential routing opportunity in New Jersey.
The I-80 corridor, which runs generally east-west through the middle of the project study area in both
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, was initially thought to be a potentially attractive route that, if feasible,
could minimize the total distance of the Susquehanna to Roseland line through both states while utilizing
land where a linear right-of-way already exists. Upon subsequent review, it was determined that such a
route would not be a viable alternative for a number of reasons, including: (1) a complete lack of right-ofway requiring PSE&G to secure new easement throughout the length of the corridor in New Jersey, (2)
highway interchange challenges that unavoidably require additional right-of-way acquisition adjacent to
the highway, and (3) state parks, Highlands Preservation Area, and development along many parts of the
corridor in New Jersey. I-80 also passes through the Delaware Water Gap, a well-known recreational and
scenic area.
Subsequent discussions and questioning of the possibility of using interstate rights-of-way were held.
Berger/CAI investigated the policies of state transportation departments in four states regarding the use
of limited access highway systems for transmission facilities. These included Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Virginia, and Illinois. It was found that longitudinal occupation of these limited access highways is not
permitted (see N.J.A.C. 16:25 et seq.). Perpendicular crossings and some very limited conditions for
longitudinal occupancy are permitted under very specific criteria. Therefore, it was concluded that the
potential longitudinal occupation of the Susquehanna to Roseland 500-kV Transmission Line along the
limited access interstate highway system in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, including I-80 and other
highways in the project study area (i.e., I-280) was not a viable routing alternative.
13
2.7
Environmental Data Collection
Many sources of information were employed to develop data for the Alternative Route Identification
Report. These sources are described in the following paragraphs.
2.7.1 Aerial Photography
An important tool in routing the proposed transmission line was aerial photography. Many sources were
contacted before the routing team decided that in New Jersey, the best source was the 2002 color aerial
photography produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
This photography was both used in a GIS environment and printed electronically at a scale of one inch =
500 feet as a set of 18-inch by 32-inch map sheets for the planning process. Updated information, such
as the location of new residences and other buildings, was annotated on the photography on either paper
maps or in the GIS environment as discovered during field inspections of Potential and Alternative
Routes.
2.7.2 Maps
Many existing paper and electronic maps were obtained for the study and examined as a part of the
routing process. These included United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle maps, various state and county road maps, transmission line information, land ownership
maps, National Park Service maps of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, and other map
resources. As the project progressed, several other maps were obtained, primarily as a result of contacts
made at public meetings and meetings with local or county agencies or interest groups. Several of these
maps showed the boundaries of preserves managed by The Nature Conservancy and the New Jersey
Conservation Foundation.
2.7.3 GIS Data Sources
Existing Geographic Information System (GIS) data obtained from many sources, including federal, state,
and county governments, and was used throughout the routing process. Much of this information was
obtained through official agency GIS data access websites; some was provided directly by government
agencies, and some was created by the Routing Team by either digitizing information from paper-based
maps or through aerial photo interpretation.
The use of GIS data allows for the consideration and efficient use of a wide variety of information that
would otherwise be unavailable or impractical to consider for a planning effort of this scope and schedule.
GIS information is a highly effective tool when utilized for broad level planning studies, identifying and
characterizing landscape level constraints and features, and developing environmental inventory
information useful for comparisons between planning alternatives.
However, GIS data sources can vary widely with respect to accuracy and precision, and presentation,
analysis, and calculations derived from these data sources require careful consideration when used for
planning purposes. For this reason, GIS-based calculations and maps presented throughout this study
should be considered by the reader to be reasonable approximations of the resource or geographic
feature they represent, and not absolute measures or counts. All measurements presented are
correspondingly rounded in recognition of this inherent data limitation. They are presented in this study to
allow for general comparisons between alternatives with the assumption that any inherent error or
inaccuracies would be generally equal across all alternatives.
A list of the major data types used and their sources are provided in section 2.9, Identification of
Alternative Routes.
14
2.7.4 Field Inspections
Routing team members participated in various inspection trips throughout the study area. The team
members examined the area from points of public access and correlated observed features to information
shown on aerial photography, USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps, road maps, locally available
development sketch maps, and other information.
The field inspection trips occurred on:
March 24-28, 2008
April 9-11, 2008
June 12-13, 2008
July 2, 2008
July 11, 2008
July 16-18, 2008
2.7.5 Agency Contacts
The routing team and PSE&G contacted federal, state, and local agencies to gather information for the
route planning process. The agencies consulted are provided in the list below:
Federal Agencies
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District
• National Park Service, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
• National Park Service, Office of the Appalachian Trail
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office
State Agencies
• New Jersey Historic Preservation Office
• New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Land Use Regulation
• New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Heritage Program
Regional Agencies
• New Jersey Highlands Council
• Morris County Department of Planning
• Warren County Planning Department
• Sussex County Office of GIS Management
15
2.8
Identification of Potential Routes
After the team developed the route selection criteria and produced maps showing the location of the large
area constraints, the team drew the initial Potential Routes on the aerial photography. The initial routes
attempted to avoid the large area constraints, take advantage of appropriate existing right-of-way
opportunities, and avoid residences and as many other point-specific constraints as possible. Potential
Routes were also established that met specific guidelines of the National Park Service, Office of the
Appalachian Trail, that call for any new crossings of the Appalachian Trail to be located on existing rightsof-way.
After the initial Potential Routes were identified, key members of the routing team conducted the first field
inspection of the routes. This inspection and all subsequent field inspections involved the visual
examination of the initial and revised routes from road crossings and from other points of public access.
The field investigations resulted in many changes to the Potential Route alignments. These changes
were drawn on the aerial photography or drawn electronically on the aerial imagery or using laptop
computers and GIS software. The majority of the changes resulted from efforts to avoid residences and
other buildings, such as garages, barns, and commercial structures. Other changes were made to
simplify awkward river and stream crossings, avoid unnecessary crossings of very steep land, and
position the route angle points on reasonably level land, if possible. Figure 2.8-1 shows the resulting
network of Potential Routes evaluated by the routing team between the Delaware River and the East
Hanover/Roseland switching station.
16
Figure 2.8-1
Potential Routes between the Delaware River and East Hanover/Roseland Switching Station
2.9
Identification of Alternative Routes
A series of Alternative Routes was developed from the Potential Route network by the routing team. A
qualitative and quantitative screening process was employed to delete the Links from the Potential Route
network that were not considered suitable for additional study. This was accomplished through team
meetings where comparative data, aerial photos, and other maps were reviewed. Some of the
environmental factors considered in this evaluation included: length of the Link, steep slopes, aesthetic
impact, number of sensitive stream (C-1) crossings, proximity of residences and other buildings, historic
sites, threatened and endangered species habitat, length of Highlands Preservation Area crossed, and
other factors. Engineering factors were also considered during the evaluation, including identification of
areas where rebuilding existing transmission structures to accommodate a new 500-kV line was either
feasible or not feasible, and areas that presented engineering and construction challenges. This process
led to the development of conceptual Alternative Routes presented to PSE&G at an Alternative Route
briefing. Following input from PSE&G at this briefing, the Alternative Route alignments were further
adjusted and a joint meeting was held with PSE&G and PPL to ensure the conceptual Alternative Routes
proposed by PSE&G would be compatible with conceptual Alternative Routes proposed by PPL. Upon
determining compatibility of the PSE&G and PPL conceptual Alternative Routes, the Alternative Routes
shown in Figure 2.9-1 were carried forward for consideration as the Preferred Route. A description of
each Alternative Route is presented below.
18
Figure 2.9-1
Alternative Routes
2.9.1 Alternative A
Alternative A would cross the Delaware River at the northern edge of the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area within Montague Township. The Alternative would then head southeast to an
intersection with a gas pipeline at the western boundary of the High Point State Park. Alternative A would
then turn southeast, and parallel the gas line right-of-way for approximately 4 miles across the state park
and Appalachian Trail. At the park’s eastern boundary, the alternative would diverge from the gas
pipeline right-of-way and turn to the south. The alternative would continue to the south-southeast across
Wantage Township and Lafayette Township to the western border of the Highlands Planning Area. Here
the alternative would turn south and cross Sparta Township where it would enter the Highlands
Preservation Area, and continue south to Pimple Hills Range. South of Pimple Hills, the alternative would
cross State Route 15 and generally follow the road to the south-southeast across the Weldon Brook
Wildlife Management Area (WMA) to a proposed new switching station in Jefferson Township. This
segment, from the Delaware River to the Jefferson switching station, is approximately 25 miles long and
would require construction in a new 200-foot wide right-of-way. Land use along this segment is
predominantly rural and natural. Leaving the Jefferson switching station, Alternative A would be
constructed as a double circuit line with the existing Roseland – Bushkill 230-kV line to the East
Hanover/Roseland switching station and would be placed entirely within the existing right-of-way. From
Jefferson, the alternative would head east across the Rockaway River WMA in Jefferson Township,
Picatinny Arsenal and the Wildcat Ridge WMA in Rockaway Township, the Buck Mountain Forest Legacy
Tract in Kinnelon Borough, and the Pyramid Mountain Natural Historical Area in Montville Township. The
alternative would then turn south toward the Montville Substation, cross Route I-287, and continue south
to cross Route I-80. On the south side of Route I-80, the alternative would turn to the southeast and
cross the Troy Meadows, continuing to the East Hanover/Roseland switching station. The segment of
Alternative A between the Jefferson and East Hanover/Roseland switching stations is approximately 24
miles long. Land use along this segment varies from rural and natural along the east-west segment to
suburban and heavily developed along the north-south segment. Alternative A would make the smallest
use of existing right-of-way in New Jersey (52%) and is the longest alternative in New Jersey, totaling
50.5 miles.
2.9.2 Alternative B
Alternative B would be constructed entirely on the existing Roseland – Bushkill 230-kV right-of-way. The
existing structures would be replaced with new double circuit structures capable of supporting both the
500-kV and 230-kV transmission lines from the Delaware River to the East Hanover/Roseland switching
station. This alternative would cross the Delaware River within the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area in Hardwick Township at the crossing point of the existing Roseland – Bushkill 230-kV
line. Alternative B would continue within the existing right-of-way, cross the Appalachian Trail, and cross
Stillwater and Fredon townships. In Andover Township, the alternative would cross portions of Kittatinny
Valley State Park. Continuing east into Sparta Township, Alternative B would enter the Highlands
Planning Area and Highlands Preservation Area before interconnecting with a proposed new switching
station in Jefferson Township. Between the Delaware River and Jefferson (approximately 22 miles), land
use is predominantly rural. From Jefferson to Roseland, the description of Alternative B is identical to the
comparable section of Alternative A, described above. However, 100% of Alternative B would occupy
existing right-of-way and, totaling 45.7 miles long; it is approximately 5 miles shorter than Alternative A in
New Jersey.
2.9.3 Alternative C
Alternative C would cross the Delaware River near the Martins Creek Substation in White Township,
approximately 10 miles south of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. This alternative
would be double circuited with an existing First Energy 115-kV line east across Oxford and Mansfield
townships, then would cross the Pequest WMA and Rockport Game Farm before intersecting the
Portland - Roseland 230-kV line. From this intersection, Alternative C would parallel the Portland Roseland 230-kV line on the south side of the existing right-of-way. A new switching station would be
20
constructed in the community of Long Valley at the line’s intersection with the Branchburg to New York
500-kV transmission line. Although based on available data no additional right-of-way would be needed
along this portion of the alignment, the currently unused portion of the right-of-way is for the most part
occupied by natural vegetation. This alternative would cross the Highlands Preservation Area in
Washington and Mount Olive townships and follow along the border between Chester and Roxbury
Townships. The alternative would then continue east across Randolph and Denville townships. Land
use along this western portion of Alternative C is primarily rural with some natural areas. Near the
Greystone Substation, in Denville Township, Alternative C would proceed to the east through Morris
Plains Borough, cross Route I-287 in Hanover Township just north of State Route 10, then continue
across East Hanover Township to the East Hanover/Roseland switching station. From Greystone to
Roseland (a distance of about 10 miles), the existing right-of-way is not wide enough to enable paralleling
the existing transmission lines without acquiring additional right-of-way. In addition, on either side of the
existing right-of-way, land is predominantly heavily developed with suburban residential and commercial
establishments. Creative engineering and construction approaches would be necessary in this 10-mile
portion of Alternative C to enable the line to be constructed on the existing right-of-way. Alternative C is
the shortest of the three alternatives in New Jersey, totaling 43.4 miles.
21
3. ALTERNATIVE ROUTE ANALYSIS
3.1
Environmental Analysis
The Alternative Routes were subjected to a detailed review using an inventory of the environmental
factors defined below in Table 3.1-1. The Alternative Routes were evaluated using a range of
environmental factors covering project area resources such as surface hydrology, natural lands, sensitive
species, wetlands, and cultural resources. Table 3.1-2 shows the results of the environmental inventory
for the three Alternative Routes from the Delaware River to the East Hanover/Roseland switching station.
Category
NATURAL RESOURCES
Slopes Crossed
Less than 10%
10-15%
15-20%
Greater than 20%
Hydrology
C1 Stream Crossings
Total Stream Crossings
Wetlands
Agricultural Wetlands
(Modified)
Coniferous Wooded
Wetlands
Deciduous Scrub/Shrub
Wetlands
Deciduous Wooded
Wetlands
Distributed Wetlands
Former Agricultural
Wetland
Herbaceous Wetland
Mixed Scrub/Shrub
Wetlands (Coniferous)
Mixed Scrub/Shrub
Wetlands (Deciduous)
Mixed Wooded Wetlands
(Deciduous)
Table 3.1-1 Environmental Inventory Data Sources
Definition
Units
Characterization of lands crossed by percentage of slope.
Slopes (in percent) derived from a digital elevation model (DEM)
consisting of terrain elevations for ground positions at regularly
spaced horizontal intervals (10 meters). The data used for this
analysis was derived from the National Elevation Dataset (NED)
prepared by the USGS.
Feet
crossed by
proposed
centerline
Category 1 streams as designated by the State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Data Source:
NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards of New Jersey
(DRAFT) - This data is a digital representation of New Jersey's
Surface Water Quality Standards in accordance with "Surface
Water Quality Standards for New Jersey Waters" as designated
in N.J.A.C. 7:9 B.
Streams as designated by NJDEP in its updated 2002 stream
data layer. The streams were delineated using 2002 color
infrared imagery. The purpose of the data is to provide stream
information for regulators, planners, and others interested in
hydrography data.
Counts
The wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground waters at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Data Source: NJDEP 2002 Land use/Land cover Update.
Derived from: Anderson 2002, A Land Use and Land Cover
Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data, U. S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, 1976; edited by
NJDEP, OIRM, BGIA, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2007.
Counts
Feet
crossed by
proposed
centerline
and acres
on new or
expanded
right-ofway
Acreages on new or expanded rights-of-way are estimated using
the assumption that on virgin rights-of-way associated with
Alternative A, clearing would be required within a 200-foot-wide
area, on existing rights-of-way that would be double circuited or
subject to underground construction of lower voltage
transmission lines, no additional clearing would be anticipated,
and on the 19-mile portion of Alternative C that would be
constructed parallel to the existing double circuited 230-kV
transmission line, new clearing would be confined to the southern
22
Category
Phragmites Dominate
Interior Wetlands
Wetland Rights of Way
Definition
limit of the existing right-of-way.
Designated Natural Lands
State Forest
This category contains protected open space and recreation
State Park
areas owned in fee simple interest by NJDEP. Types of property
Fish Hatchery
in this category include parcels such as parks, forests, historic
Wildlife Management
sites, natural areas, and wildlife management areas. The data
Area
was derived from a variety of source maps including tax maps,
Natural Area
surveys, and hand-drafted boundary lines on USGS topographic
maps. These source materials vary in scale and level of
accuracy. Due to the varied mapped sources and methods of
data capture, this data set is limited in its ability to portray all
open space lands accurately, particularly the parcels purchased
prior to 1991.
NPS
Property tract data with ownership was provided in May 2008 by
the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Division of
Research and Resource Planning which is part of the National
Park Service.
NJDEP Land Use Classifications
Data Source: NJDEP 2002 Land use/Land cover Update.
Agriculture
This category includes all lands used primarily for the production
of food and fiber and some of the structures associated with this
production. These areas are easily distinguished from the other
categories and represent a significant land use in New Jersey.
Barren Land
Barren lands are characterized by thin soil, sand or rocks, and a
lack of vegetative cover in a non-urban setting. Vegetation, if
present, is widely spaced. Barren land such as beaches and
rock faces are found in nature, but also result as a product of
man's activities. Extraction mining operations, landfills, and other
disposal sites compose the majority of man-altered barren lands.
Forest
This category contains any lands covered by woody vegetation
other than wetlands. These areas are capable of producing
timber and other wood products, and of supporting many kinds of
outdoor recreation. Forestland is an important category
environmentally, because it affects air quality, water quality,
wildlife habitat, climate, and many other aspects of the ecology of
an area.
Urban
Units
Feet
crossed
Feet
crossed
Feet
crossed
and, in the
case of
Forest
lands,
acres on
new or
expanded
right-ofway
Acreages on incremental clearing of forest are estimated using
the assumption that on virgin rights-of-way associated with
Alternative A, clearing would be required within a 200-foot-wide
area, on existing rights-of-way that would be double circuited or
subject to underground construction of lower voltage
transmission lines, no incremental clearing would be required,
and on the 19-mile portion of Alternative C that would be
constructed parallel to the existing double circuited 230-kV
transmission line, new clearing would be confined to the southern
limit of the existing right-of-way.
The urban or built-up land category is characterized by intensive
23
Category
Water
Wetlands
Sensitive Species
Natural Heritage Priority
Sites (linear feet
crossed)
Definition
land use where the landscape has been altered by human
activities. Although structures are usually present, this category
is not restricted to traditional urban areas. Urban or built-up land
takes precedence over other categories when the criteria for
more than one category are met. For example, recreational
areas that have enough tree cover to meet forest category
criteria are placed in the recreational category.
All areas within the landmass of New Jersey periodically water
covered are included in this category. All water bodies should be
delineated as they exist at the time of data acquisition, except
areas in an obvious state of flood.
Water includes four
categories: streams and canals; natural lakes; artificial lakes;
and bays and estuaries. Not included in this category are water
treatment and sewage treatment facilities.
The wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground waters at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Included in this category are naturally vegetated swamps;
marshes; and bogs and savannas which are normally associated
with topographically low elevations but may be located at any
elevation where water perches over an aquiclude. Wetlands that
have been modified for recreation, agriculture, or industry are not
included here but described under the specific use category.
The wetlands of New Jersey are located around the numerous
interior stream systems, and along coastal rivers and bays. New
Jersey, by its numerous different physiographic regions, supports
various wetland habitats dependent upon physiographic and
geological variables.
Data source: NJDEP Natural Heritage Priority Sites. The
Natural Heritage Priority Sites Coverage was created to identify
critically important areas to conserve New Jersey's biological
diversity, with particular emphasis on areas with known
populations of rare plant species and rare ecological
communities. The boundaries of each Natural Heritage Priority
Site are drawn to encompass critical habitats for the rare species
or ecological communities. Often, the boundaries extend to
include additional buffer lands that should be managed to protect
this critical habitat. Natural Heritage Priority Sites are based on
analysis of information in the New Jersey Natural Heritage
Database. Landscape Project data available from NJDEP was
not incorporated into this comparative analysis, as this database
is composed of both known and potential, unconfirmed sites for
rare species and generally presents more detailed data than is
required for this level of assessment.
Sensitive Public Resources
Residences Within 75
Residences, commercial buildings, outbuildings, and
feet of the centerline
uncharacterized “buildings” were identified through aerial photo
Other Structures Within
interpretation, field reconnaissance efforts, and GIS data
75 feet of the centerline
sources. Distances from the centerline are approximate, based
on available aerial imagery, which could include minor
Units
Feet
crossed
Counts
24
Category
Churches Within 1,000
Schools Within 1,000
Cemeteries Within 1,000
Local Parks Within 1,000
Definition
distortions. Therefore, structures within 75 feet of centerlines on
existing rights-of-way or 100 feet of centerlines on virgin rightsof-way would not necessarily be subject to removal, unless there
are encroachments on existing rights-of-way.
Units
This data layer was augmented throughout the process as new
site information was acquired. The first augmentation was
conducted by incorporation of the routing team’s mapped notes
derived from field reconnaissance efforts from points of public
access. Through this process, buildings were identified by the
type of building present (residence, outbuilding, commercial use
building, etc.). This was only conducted within areas that were
reviewed during reconnaissance efforts of potential routes at the
time of the reconnaissance. Once the Alternative Routes were
identified, a more focused aerial photo review was conducted
within 500 feet of the Alternative Routes to allow for tabulation of
the number of residences, outbuildings, and commercial
structures in close proximity to the Alternative Routes. This
aerial photo review focused on the classification of buildings
within 500 feet along the route that were not field-verified or
identified previously. This final data layer was used as a tool for
general comparisons between the Alternative Routes.
The locations of churches, schools, and cemeteries were derived
from the United States Geological Survey’s Geographic Names
Information System (GNIS) and augmented through field
reconnaissance efforts. This database serves as the federal
government's repository of information regarding feature name
spellings and applications for features in United States and its
Territories. The names listed in the inventory are often published
on federal maps, charts, and in other documents and have been
used in emergency preparedness planning, site-selection and
analysis, genealogical and historical research, and transportation
routing. Whenever encountered in the field, the routing team
recorded local schools, churches, and cemeteries to augment
and verify this data layer. The locations of local parks were
derived from data acquired from Sussex, Warren, and Morris
counties and augmented through field reconnaissance efforts.
Rights-of-Way
Double circuit existing
115-kV with proposed
new 500-kV line
Double circuit existing
230-kV with proposed
new 500-kV line
Parallel proposed 500-kV
with existing 230-kV line
Parallel to existing Gas
Pipeline
Underground existing
230-kV lines to make
room for the overhead
Use of existing rights-of-way and construction presumed
necessary by alternatives. Data acquired from PSE&G,
FirstEnergy, and interpretation of 2002 U.S. Department of
Agriculture color infrared imagery.
Length in
feet
25
Category
Definition
proposed new 500-kV
line
Virgin Right-of-Way
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic properties within Number of historic architectural properties including National and
1,000 feet
New Jersey registered and not evaluated sites. Data was
acquired from the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office
(NJHPO).
CONSERVATION LANDS
Highlands Preservation
Data was acquired from the New Jersey Highlands Water
Area Crossed
Protection and Planning Council (NJ Highlands Council). This
Highlands Planning Area dataset is an interpretation of the Highlands Boundary as
Crossed
described by the "Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act"
of 2004. This dataset was created by utilizing the Highlands
Parcel Base, the NJDEP Hydrography Layer for 2002, and the
New Jersey Department of Transportation Local Road Files as
references to the act description.
Conservation and Open
Conservation and open space lands as designated by Warren,
Space Lands Crossed
Sussex, and Morris counties. Parcel based data was acquired
(from Counties)
from all three counties and combined in order to analyze length
of these designated lands crossed.
AIRPORTS
Airport Notification Zones Length of the route that passes through an air navigation
Crossed
obstruction zone as defined in federal regulations and number of
Airport Buffer Zones
zones crossed. An approximation of the air navigation
Length Crossed
obstruction zone was developed based on the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Title 14 Part 77, (Aeronautics and Space,
Objects affecting navigable airspace). This approximation was
calculated based on aerial interpretation of runway length, the
average height of the proposed transmission towers, and
approach zone formulas for airports and heliports in the CFR.
Note: this is a rough approximation based on aerial photo
interpretation without the inclusion of topographic effects or
detailed knowledge of runway length.
Units
Counts
Feet
crossed
Feet
crossed
Count and
length in
feet
26
Table 3.1-2 Environmental Inventory of Resources Affected by Alternative
Routes of the Susquehanna to Roseland Project in New Jersey
Route
A
B
C
266,600
241,300
229,000
50.5
45.7
43.4
163,200
42,200
26,850
34,300
139,500
39,250
29,100
33,450
160,400
29,100
18,750
20,750
12
76
10
64
21
47
22,600
1,450
97,650
439
90,000
2,000
52,900
12,100
1,100
1,350
0
180,450
3,700
42,600
38,200
3,550
60,300
160
101,250
2,650
23,100
266,600
241,300
229,000
1,800
700
250
8
100
0
0
1
0
0
6,050
0
3,450
0
750
11
12,350
0
450
2
7,050
55
200
0
0
19
150
1
0
0
1,050
0
0
Parameter
Length Total (feet)
Miles
Slopes Crossed (feet)
Less than 10%
10-15%
15-20%
Greater than 20%
Hydrology
Total C1 Stream Crossings
Total Stream Crossings
NJDEP Land Use Classifications
AGRICULTURE (Feet)
BARREN LAND (Feet)
FOREST (Feet)
ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL CLEARING OF FOREST (Acres)
URBAN (Feet)
WATER (Feet)
WETLANDS (Feet)
Land Use Total (Feet)
NJDEP Wetlands
AGRICULTURAL WETLANDS (MODIFIED) (Feet crossed by centerline)
AGRICULTURAL WETLANDS (MODIFIED) (Acres on New or Expanded
Right-of-Way)
CONIFEROUS WOODED WETLANDS (Feet crossed by centerline)
CONIFEROUS WOODED WETLANDS (Acres on New or Expanded Right-ofWay)
DECIDUOUS SCRUB/SHRUB WETLANDS (Feet crossed by centerline)
DECIDUOUS SCRUB/SHRUB WETLANDS (Acres on New or Expanded
Right-of-Way)
DECIDUOUS WOODED WETLANDS (Feet crossed by centerline)
DECIDUOUS WOODED WETLANDS (Acres on New or Expanded Right-ofWay)
DISTURBED WETLANDS (MODIFIED) (Feet crossed by centerline)
DISTURBED WETLANDS (MODIFIED) (Acres on New or Expanded Right-ofWay)
FORMER AGRICULTURAL WETLAND (BECOMING SHRUBBY, NOT BUILTUP) (Feet crossed by centerline)
27
FORMER AGRICULTURAL WETLAND (BECOMING SHRUBBY, NOT BUILTUP) (Acres on New or Expanded Right-of-Way)
HERBACEOUS WETLANDS (Feet crossed by centerline)
HERBACEOUS WETLANDS (Acres on New or Expanded Right-of-Way)
MIXED SCRUB/SHRUB WETLANDS (CONIFEROUS DOM.) (Feet crossed by
centerline)
MIXED SCRUB/SHRUB WETLANDS (CONIFEROUS DOM.) (Acres on New
or Expanded Right-of-Way)
MIXED SCRUB/SHRUB WETLANDS (DECIDUOUS DOM.) (Feet crossed by
centerline)
MIXED SCRUB/SHRUB WETLANDS (DECIDUOUS DOM.) (Acres on New or
Expanded Right-of-Way)
MIXED WOODED WETLANDS (DECIDUOUS DOM.) (Feet crossed by
centerline)
MIXED WOODED WETLANDS (DECIDUOUS DOM.) (Acres on New or
PHRAGMITES DOMINATE INTERIOR WETLANDS (Feet crossed by
centerline)
PHRAGMITES DOMINATE INTERIOR WETLANDS (Acres on New or
WETLAND RIGHTS-OF-WAY (Feet crossed by centerline)
WETLAND RIGHTS-OF-WAY (Acres on New or Expanded Right-of-Way)
Wetland Total (Feet crossed by centerline)
Wetland Total (Acres on New or Expanded Right-of-Way)
5
4,750
4
0
4,050
0
0
1,600
0
150
150
0
0
0
0
200
50
0
1
0
0
100
0
0
1
0
0
2,200
2,200
100
0
23,950
1
52,900
89
0
31,450
0
42,600
0
0
13,150
12
23,100
33
0
0
0
26,000
9,000
0
300
13,950
0
0
0
1,100
Wildlife Management Area
17,050
10,750
25,750
Natural Area
7,850
7,850
3,200
23,300
20,400
6,600
7
8
8
Other structures within 75 feet of centerline
5
6
11
Residences within 100 feet of centerline
34
49
62
19
20
21
Designated Natural Lands (feet)
State Forest
State Park
NPS
Fish Hatchery
Sensitive Species
Natural Heritage Priority Sites (linear feet crossed)
Buildings (Nbr) (counts)
28
284
405
478
56
68
79
2
1
4
Schools within 1,000 feet
1
2
2
Cemeteries within 1,000 feet
1
1
2
Local Parks within 1,000 feet
8
10
9
0
0
73,600
32%
Sensitive Public Resources (counts)
Churches within 1,000 feet
Rights-Of-Way (feet)
Double circuit existing 115-kV with proposed new 500-kV line
Double circuit existing 230-kV with proposed new 500-kV line
Parallel proposed 500-kV with existing 230-kV line
Parallel to existing gas pipeline
Underground existing 230-kV lines to make room for the overhead proposed
new 500-kV line
0%
0%
120,450
241,300
0
45%
100%
0%
0
0
100,450
44%
0%
0%
17,400
0
0
7%
0%
0%
0
0
54,900
0%
0%
24%
128,700
0
0
48%
0%
0%
Historic properties within 1,000 feet
29
33
42
CONSERVATION LANDS (feet)
Highlands Preservation Area Crossed
99,400
90,300
79,950
Highlands Planning Area Crossed
64,500
47,350
132,650
Conservation and Open Space Lands Crossed (from Counties)
101,150
105,800
85,300
AIRPORTS
Airport Buffer Zones Length Crossed
62,200
59,800
50,650
Total Airport Buffer Zones Crossed
3
4
4
Virgin Right-of-Way
CULTURAL RESOURCES (counts)
29
3.1.1 Geology and Soils
The following subsections provide a description of the general topography, surfical geology (i.e., soils),
and bedrock geology associated with the three Alternative Routes for the Susquehanna to Roseland
Project within New Jersey. Surficial and bedrock geologic maps showing all three alternative routes are
provided in Figures 3.1.1-1 and 3.1.1-2.
Physiography and Topography
All three Alternative Routes for the project cross the Valley and Ridge, Highlands, and Piedmont
physiographic provinces (NJDEP, 2008). The Valley and Ridge province is located in the northwestern
portion of the project area, mainly within Sussex and Warren Counties, and consists of steep-sided, linear
ridges with broad valleys. Bedrock in this province consists of folded and faulted sedimentary rocks that
date to the Cambrian to Silurian periods. Approximately 20 miles of Alternative A and 15 miles of
Alternative B are located within the Valley and Ridge province. Only a relatively short portion of
Alternative C (approximately 5 miles) is located within this province.
Located east of the Valley and Ridge province, mainly within Morris County and the eastern portions of
Warren and Sussex counties, the Highlands physiographic province is characterized as a series of
discontinuous rounded ridges separated by deep narrow valleys. This area is underlain by highly
metamorphosed igneous and sedimentary rocks of the Middle Proterozoic, and is bound on the east by
the Ramapo Fault, which marks the divide between the Highlands and Piedmont provinces.
Approximately 23 miles of Alternative A and 22 miles of Alternative B are located within the Highlands
province. Most of Alternative C (approximately 30 miles) traverses the Highlands physiographic province.
The eastern portions of all three alternatives (approximately 8 miles of each alternative) are located within
the Piedmont province. This province has slightly folded and faulted sedimentary units of Triassic and
Jurassic age and igneous rocks of Jurassic age. The topography in this area mainly consists of low
rolling plains divided by a series of higher ridges.
The three alternatives exhibit pronounced topographical variation, with locally exposed bedrock in the
western portions of Alternatives A and B. Maximum elevations along the these alternatives reach
approximately 1,300 feet above mean seal level (amsl), with adjacent valleys dropping to elevations of
600 to 700 feet amsl. Gentler topography, with surface elevations around 200 feet amsl, is present near
the eastern portions of the alternatives (i.e., within approximately 5 miles of the East Hanover/Roseland
switching station). Alternatives A and B have similar distances crossed of slopes greater than 15 percent;
11.6 and 11.8 miles, respectively. Alternative C has only 7.5 miles of slopes greater than 15 percent.
Soils
Across Alternatives A and B, as well as the eastern portion of Alternative C, surficial soils are dominated
by glacially derived materials, primarily consisting of till, glacial lake, and alluvial stream deposits. The
western portion of Alternative C mainly consists of colluvium, saprolite, residuum, and rock rubble derived
from underlying bedrock, although some glacial lake and moraine deposits are locally present.
The uppermost (i.e., most recent) deposits along the study area are the Holocene and Late Wisconsinan
Swamp and Freshwater Marsh Deposits (Qs), which are comprised of peat and muck interbedded with
and overlaying laminated silt, clay, minor sand, and, locally, marl and diatomaceous earth. Peat is
decomposed, fibrous or granular, woody or herbaceous material, and muck is organic clayey or sandy
silt. The thickness of these deposits is generally less than 20 feet however locally the thickness becomes
as much as 50 feet (Stone et. al., 2002),. From engineering points of view Swamp and Freshwater Marsh
Deposits possess poor to very poor bearing characteristics for the structure foundations. Therefore, a
detailed geotechnical investigation would be required for the design of a deep foundation system (i.e.
piles, or a caisson) for the structures in these deposits. The Swamp and Freshwater Marsh Deposits are
present locally along both Alternatives A and B, as well as the eastern portion of Alternative C in similar
spatial distribution (See Figure 3.1.1-1 – Surfacial Geologic Map, on the following page).
30
Figure 3.1.1-1 Surfacial Geologic Map (Key on the following page)
32
Holocene and Late Wisconsinan Alluvium (Qal) consists of sand, gravel, silt, minor clay, and some
organic material, deposited by modern streams. In flood plains of major rivers, alluvium ranges from
about 18 to 90 feet in thickness, and usually consists of poorly sorted gravel and sand that is overlain by
laminated and thinly bedded sand, silt, and clay. Along smaller streams, alluvium is generally less than
15 feet thick, and is composed of sand and gravel derived from adjacent glacial, meltwater, colluvial, or
weathered bedrock materials. In the area of late Wisconsinan glacial deposits, alluvium locally includes
and grades laterally into swamp and marsh deposits. In the areas of older glacial deposits, colluvium,
and weathered bedrock materials, alluvium locally grades into or intertongues with colluvium. Alluvium is
mapped locally along all three Alternatives in areas adjacent to rivers, and also may be present (although
unmapped) along smaller streams. Alluvial soils generally have poor to good bearing characteristics
which need to be investigated prior to a foundation design. The extent of the alluvium in all three
Alternative Routes is similar and thus had little effect on the route selection.
The Western portions of Alternatives A and B consist predominately of the Kittatinny Till. The Kittatinny
Till is a silty to sandy, non-calcareous to locally calcareous till, containing clasts of shale sandstone,
quartzite, conglomerate, and carbonate rocks. At some locations, bedrock outcrops with only a thin
veneer of unconsolidated material at the surface; however, the Kittatinny Till can be as much as 100 feet
thick along these two alternatives. The Kittatinny Till is a good to excellent bearing stratum for the
structure foundations, thus indicating a favorable foundation system for Alternatives A and B.
The central portion of both Alternatives A and B primarily consists of the Netcong Till. The Netcong Till is
composed of sandy to silty till with lesser amounts of pebbles, cobbles, and boulders. Similar in
composition to coarser materials in the Rahway Till, the pebbles, cobbles and boulders are typically
composed of gneiss, quartzite, carbonate rock, and sandstone. The Netcong Till is up to 35 feet thick
along Alternatives A and B, with bedrock outcropping at some locations. Netcong Till is a good to
excellent bearing stratum for structure foundations. Netcong Till was not reported along the Alternative C
which may be a disadvantage for designing structure foundations along this alternative.
The central portion of Alternative C mainly consists of colluvium, saprolite, residuum, and rock rubble
derived from underlying bedrock. These materials generally reflect the composition of the parent bedrock
material, can be compact to loose, and are generally less than 50 feet thick. Also present along
Alternative C are several areas of glacial lake and moraine deposits. The glacial lake deposits are
associated with Glacial Lakes Shongum, Succasunna and Oxford, and are generally similar to the
deposits associated with Glacial Lake Passaic (see below). The moraine deposits include the Foul Rift
segment of the Late Wisconsinan terminal moraine and the Illinoian Pequest recessional moraine. Each
of these deposits is composed of compact till, and each is approximately 50 feet thick. These deposits are
not common along Alternatives A and B. The colluvium, saprolite, residuum, and rock rubble generally
provide poor to good bearing characteristics which need to be assessed for each surficial soil types. The
moraine, where present, provides an excellent bearing stratum, while the overlying Glacial Lake Passaic
deposits exhibit poor to good bearing characteristics.
The eastern portions of all three alternatives generally consist of Rahway Till and Glacial Lake Passaic
Deposits. Rahway Till is a non-calcareous, sandy and silty to clayey material often containing small
amounts of pebbles, cobbles and boulders of varying composition, including gneiss, sandstone, basalt,
and quartzite. This unit varies in thickness along the three alternatives, typically the result of underlying
bedrock elevations, from approximately 50 to 120 feet thick. Rahway Till has excellent bearing
characteristics for the structure foundations. The Glacial Lake Passaic deposits are present in some
locations above the Rahway Till, and consist of silty sand and clay with localized alluvial and deltaic
deposits (typically pebbly sand and gravel). The Glacial Lake Passaic Deposits range in thickness from
approximately 20 to 120 feet along all three alternatives. In addition, along the eastern portions of
Alternatives A and B (shared route), Pine Brook Terrace Deposits (Qpb) are present, which consist of
sand and pebbly sand to sand and gravel. Pine Brook Terrace Deposits mostly consist of granular soils
and have good bearing characteristics for the structure foundations. Glacial Lake Passaic Deposits can
have poor to good bearing characteristics; therefore, further assessment through a detailed geotechnical
investigation would be required prior to finalization of the structure foundation design.
33
Bedrock
The bedrock underlying the three alternative routes is generally dominated by sedimentary and
metamorphic rocks dating to the Middle Proterozoic era, with rocks dating to the Jurassic period present
in the eastern portion of the project area. The extent of the bedrock in all three alternatives is similar.
Therefore, the bedrock has little influence over the selection of the route.
The Beekmantown Group is the westernmost formation present along Alternative C.
Other
metasedimentary rocks are mapped along the remaining western portions of Alternatives A and B,
including the following: the Martinsburg Formation (Om), which is a sandstone and siltstone with shale
and slate; the Shawangunk Formation (Ss), a sandstone and pebble conglomerate with shale; and the
Bloomsburg Red Beds (Sb), which consist of siltstone, sandstone, and local quartz pebble conglomerate.
All of these units exhibit good bearing characteristics for potential structure foundations.
Allentown Dolomite (OCa) of Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian age is present in the mid-western
part of the project area along all three alternatives. The dolomite is very thinly to very thickly bedded, and
has a total maximum thickness of nearly 2,000 feet. The Allentown Dolomite interbeds with the
Beekmantown Group (Ob), which is comprised of very thinly to thickly-bedded dolomite interbedded with
limestone in some areas. From a geotechnical and structural engineering perspective, dolomite and
limestone have excellent bearing characteristics; however, they may contain solution cavities that must
be investigated prior to foundation design.
The bedrock in the central part of all three alternatives is comprised of gneissic and granitic rocks.
Gneiss (Ylo) and granite (Ybh) are described herein, although other variants are mapped along each of
the alternatives. Gneiss is generally described as white to light greenish gray, medium-to coarse-grained
rock that is moderately layered to indistinctly foliated. The gneiss is comprised of quartz, oligoclase or
andesine with thin amphibolite layers. Biotite, hornblende, or clinopyroxene may also be present locally.
Granite (Ybh) is described as pinkish gray to pinkish-white, medium to coarse grained rock that is
composed principally of microcline microperthite, quartz, oligoclase, and hornblende. Both the gneissic
and granitic bedrock would make excellent bearing material for the support of structure foundations.
The easternmost portion of each Alternative is underlain by the Hook Mountain Basalt (Jh), which is
Lower Jurassic in age and has a maximum thickness of approximately 350 feet (Drake et al, 1996).
These rocks consists of light to dark greenish gray, medium to coarse grained basalt composed of
plagioclase, clinopyroxene, and iron-titanium oxides such as magnetite and ilmenite. Locally, the basalt
contains small spherical to tubular cavities (gas escape vesicles), some of which are filled by zeolyte
minerals or calcite. To the west of the Hook Mountain Basalt is the Boonton Formation (Jb), which is also
Lower Jurassic in age. This unit consists of reddish-brown to brownish-purple, fine-grained sandstone,
siltstone, and mudstone. The sandstone is commonly micaceous, and is interbedded with siltstone and
mudstone in upward-fining sequences that are about 5 to 15 feet thick. Near Morristown (along
Alternative C) and northeast of Boonton (along Alternatives A and B), beds of quartz-pebble
conglomerate (unit Jbcq) are also present. The maximum thickness of the Boonton Formation is
approximately 1,500 feet. Both the Boonton Formation and the Hook Mountain Basalt have high bearing
capacities and provide good bearing strata.
34
Figure 3.1.1-2 Bedrock Geology Map (Key on the following page)
Impacts on Geology and Soils
Clearing of the right-of-way, construction of transmission line structures, and the movement of vehicles
along the right-of-way would affect soils in various ways. The forested portions of the right-of-way would
typically be cleared for construction and operation of the new transmission line in accordance with an
approved soil erosion and sediment control plan. Clearing would expose the soils to increased chances
of erosion, especially on shallow steep soils. The magnitude of these effects on soils would depend on
many variables, including present vegetative cover; soil slope; and soil characteristics such as texture,
depth, moisture, and susceptibility to water and wind erosion. Unvegetated soil surfaces may rapidly
convert precipitation to surface runoff, more easily detaching fine particles from the native surface and
elevating surface erosion rates.
The inherent erodibilty of soil is the susceptibility or resistance of fine particles to detach with runoff.
Medium-textured soils with a high silt content are the most erodible of soils. Silt particles are easily
36
detached from the soil mass and the soils tend to crust and produce high rates of runoff. Conversely,
soils high in clay and coarse textured soils, such as sands, are the least erodible soils and produce low
rates of runoff. Additionally, soils on steep slopes are more susceptible to erosion than those found on
more subtle slopes. The potential for erosion would therefore be the greatest along alternatives with the
most wooded areas to be cleared and with the steepest slopes. Impacts to soils, as well as other
resources, that would occur regardless of which Alternative Route is selected are discussed in section
3.2, Engineering Analysis.
Alternative A would require the most forest clearing and has 11.6 miles of slopes greater than 15 percent,
which makes this alternative the most susceptible to soil erosion. Alternative C crosses the fewest
number of slopes greater than 15 percent, but some clearing of forested land along the 19 miles of this
alternative, where the new line would be constructed parallel to the existing 230-kV transmission line,
could make portions of this Alternative Route susceptible to soil erosion, although to a lesser extent than
Alternative A. Although Alternative B crosses the most distance of slopes greater than 15 percent, very
little forest would need to be cleared along this Alternative Route. Therefore existing shrubby and
herbaceous vegetation would serve to stabilize soil except in areas directly disturbed during construction.
Conclusions
Alternative A has the most potential for soil erosion because of the extent of forest clearing along the 24
mile portion of this Alternative that is on new right-of-way, coupled with the prevalence of steep
topography along this alternative. Alternative C would have less potential for soil erosion because of the
gentler topography associated with this Alternative Route and the need to clear less forest than along
Alternative A. Alternative B would have a similar reduced potential for erosion as Alternative C. Even
though there are the steepest slopes of any alternative, all construction and future operation would be
confined to the existing 150-foot wide right-of-way and little, if any, new forest clearing would be
necessary. With implementation of best management practices that would be incorporated into an
approved soil erosion and sediment control plan, environmental impacts associated with soil erosion
should be minimized regardless of which Alternative Route is selected.
3.1.2 Surface Water Resources and Aquatic Species/Habitats
The hydrology of the study area is dominated by the Upper Delaware River, Wallkill River, Passaic River,
and Raritan River drainage basins. Major tributaries include the Paulins Kill River, Flat Brook, Pequest
River, and Musconetcong River which flow into the Delaware River, and the Rockaway and Whippanny
rivers which flow into the Passaic River. Major lakes and reservoirs within the study area include Lake
Hopatcong, Lake Mohawk, Splitrock Reservoir, Boontown Reservoir, Swartswood Lake, Culvers Lake,
and Highland Lake.
Certain
streams
within
the
study
area
are
designated
as
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/c1waters.htm" Category One (C1) waters. C1 streams are
protected from any measurable change in water quality because of their exceptional ecological,
recreational, water supply, or fishery resource significance. As part of this protection, the state of New
Jersey designates lands along C1 streams as a riparian buffer conservation zone. This zone extends 300
feet from each stream bank. Using GIS data delineating C1 streams and their associated conservation
buffers from NJDEP, the number of buffer crossings associated with each alternative and the length of
each crossing were determined. It was further noted if the conservation zone could be easily spanned
based on a typical structure spacing of 800-900 feet. In some cases multiple channel crossings exist
within a continuous riparian buffer conservation zone. All stream channels would be crossed with aerial
spans and no structures would be placed in streams.
The NJDEP land cover data layer was also used to evaluate water resources along each alternative.
Subcategories include artificial lakes (reservoirs); natural lakes; and streams and canals.
37
Alternative A
Based on the NJDEP land cover dataset, Alternative A would pass across approximately 2000 feet of
water, of which approximately 750 feet is comprised of artificial lakes and 850 is natural lakes, and 400
feet is comprised of streams.
Alternative A has 76 stream channel crossings and 11 C1 stream riparian buffer conservation zones (12
C1 stream channel crossings). Six crossings are located in Montague Township, on the segment of the
alternative between the Delaware River and the switching station in Jefferson Township. The other five
crossings are located in Rockaway (four crossings) and Montville (one crossing) Townships along the
Jefferson to Roseland segment of the alternative. At the crossing of Big Flat Brook in Montague
Township, 920 feet of the Alternative A centerline is within the C1 stream buffer zone. At the crossing of
Green Pond Brook in Rockaway Township, approximately 1,300 feet of the centerline is within the buffer
zone. However, the Green Pond Brook crossing is already within the existing right-of-way of the
Roseland – Bushkill 230-kV line. Alternative A also crosses Lake Mohawk, Lake Denmark, and Troy
Meadows..
Alternative B
Based on the NJDEP land cover dataset, Alternative B would pass across approximately 3,700 feet of
water, of which approximately 2,500 feet is comprised of artificial lakes and 750 is natural lakes, and 450
feet is comprised of streams.
Alternative B has 64 stream channel crossings and 9 C1 stream riparian buffer conservation zones (10
C1 stream channel crossings). One C1 stream crossing is in Hardwick Township and three are in Fredon
Township along the Delaware River to Jefferson switching station segment of the alternative. Between
Jefferson and Roseland, Alternative B would cross C1 stream buffer zones in Rockaway (four crossings)
and Montville (one crossing). The Green Pond Brook crossing is the only area where more than 900 feet
of the centerline would be within a C1 stream buffer zone. Alternative B also crosses Troy Meadows and
Lake Denmark.
Alternative C
Based on the NJDEP land cover dataset, Alternative C would pass across approximately 2,650 feet of
water, of which approximately 2,000 feet is comprised of artificial lakes and 650 feet is comprised of
streams.
Alternative C has 47 stream channel crossings and 16 C1 stream riparian buffer conservation zones (21
C1 stream channel crossings). Three crossings are within Mansfield Township, along the segment of the
alternative that would consist of double circuiting with the First Energy 115-kV line. Along this segment
there are two areas where more than 900 feet of the centerline would be within a C1 stream buffer zone:
an unnamed tributary of the Pequest River (approximately 1,700 feet) and Pohatcong Creek
(approximately 1,150 feet). The remaining 13 crossings are along the segment of the alignment that
would parallel the Portland - Roseland 230-kV line. One crossing is in Roxbury Township, one is in
Hackettstown Township, five are in Randolph Township, four are in Washington, and two are in Mount
Olive Township. At four of these crossings more than 900 feet of the centerline would be within a C1
stream buffer zone. Streams associated with these crossings are Trout Brook (910 feet), Drakes Brook
(950 feet), an unnamed tributary of India Brook (1,200 feet), and an unnamed tributary of Den Brook
(1,400 feet). Alternative C does not cross any lakes or reservoirs.
Impacts on Surface Water Resources and Aquatic Species/Habitats
Disturbance of upland vegetation, such as may be associated with new clearing of a right-of-way or
construction of new access roads, may affect the natural hydrology of the watershed by altering surface
runoff patterns and increasing peak flows. Upland vegetation disturbance may lead to declines in water
quality, by increasing sediment and warm water inputs. Removal or alteration of riparian vegetation may
also affect stream water quality. Removing vegetation along a stream may destabilize the bank, which
can lead to increases in erosion and sediment loads (NRC 1996, Li et.al. 1994). Removing riparian
vegetation also decreases shade cover, which affects water temperature. Therefore, Alternative Routes
38
that minimize vegetative clearing adjacent to waterbodies would have the least potential impact on
surface water and associated habitat.
Conclusions
All three alternatives cross multiple C1 streams and associated C1 stream buffer zones. Alternative A
would require the development of new right-of-way within six of the eleven C1 stream buffer zone
crossings. Alternative C would require additional clearing within existing right-of-way at thirteen of the
sixteen C1 stream buffer zone crossings. Because Alternative B would not require new right-of-way or
additional clearing of existing right-of-way any additional effects of the new line would be minimal.
Therefore, Alternative B would have fewer effects on hydrological resources and aquatic environments
than Alternatives A and C.
3.1.3 Wetlands
NJDEP land use/land cover GIS data were used to preliminarily identify potential wetlands and state open
waters within the study area. Because formal wetland delineations and final engineering have not been
conducted for these alternatives, it is not possible to precisely state acreages of impacts to each wetland.
These values would depend on the specific placement of support structures and access roads, final rightof-way width, and approved vegetation maintenance techniques. Values presented in this analysis
represent the linear distance for which the centerline of each alternative crosses wetlands. Acreages on
new or expanded rights-of-way are estimated using the assumption that on virgin rights-of-way
associated with Alternative A, clearing would be required within a 200-foot-wide area, on existing rightsof-way that would be double circuited or subject to underground construction of lower voltage
transmission lines, no additional clearing would be anticipated, and on the 19-mile portion of Alternative C
that would be constructed parallel to the existing double circuited 230-kV transmission line, new clearing
would be confined to the southern limit of the existing right-of-way. Prior to construction, actual wetland
impacts would be calculated based upon wetland delineation, field surveys, and engineering plans for the
Proposed Route.
According to the NJDEP land cover data, all three alternatives would cross numerous wetland areas. A
summary of this information is provided in Table 3.1.3-1 below.
Table 3.1.3-1 Summary of Wetland Crossings and Areas on New or Expanded
Rights-of-Way – Alternatives A, B, and C
Wetland Type
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
(feet/acres)
(feet/acres)
(feet/acres)
Herbaceous/Agricultural
8,750/12
6,950/0
1,950/1
Scrub/shrub
7,450/17
3,650/0
750/2
Wooded
12,550/56
450/0
7,500/19
Disturbed
200/1
0/0
150/0
Wetland right-of-way
23,950/1
31,450/0
13,150/12
Total wetlands
52,900/89 a
42,600/0
23,500/33 a
a
Total acreages of wetlands on new or expanded rights-of-way may not equal the sum of acreages of
individual types because of rounding.
Impacts on Wetlands
Potential effects on wetlands would be associated with vegetation clearing and construction within the
right-of-way and disturbance to vegetation and soils during the clearing and construction activities. The
total linear feet crossed or acreage of all wetlands on new or expanded rights-of-way by each of the three
alternatives is not an effective indicator of potential impacts to wetlands since non-forested wetlands can
be generally spanned with little impact to the wetland or its vegetation, and access roads would be
constructed to avoid these wetlands whenever possible. Forested wetlands, however, are permanently
affected by the construction of a transmission line, since tree clearing results in the conversion of forested
39
wetlands to scrub-shrub or herbaceous types. Thus, the functions and values of these wooded wetlands
would be permanently altered.
Conclusions
Alternatives that would require the removal of wetland vegetation within the right-of-way would have the
greatest effect on wetlands. Wetland areas crossed by Alternative B are currently managed in
accordance with applicable regulations that pertain to transmission line right-of-way maintenance.
Management of wetland vegetation along this alternative is expected to remain consistent with past
activities, so any additional impacts would be minimal. There would be no expected clearing of wooded
wetlands along Alternative B, whereas there would be 56 and 19 acres of wooded wetland that would
likely to require clearing and permanent habitat alteration along Alternatives A and C, respectively.
Therefore, Alternative B would have the least potential effect on wetland resources.
3.1.4 Vegetation
The study area is primarily within the Hudson-Shawangunk Ridge and Valley, Hudson-Kittatinny Valley,
New York – New Jersey Highlands, and Reading Prong physiographic subsections (Breden et. al. 1980).
NJDEP land cover data indicates that the vegetated lands in the study area are dominated by deciduous
forests and agriculture. Coniferous and mixed forests are also present to a much lower extent. Dominant
species in deciduous forests in the study area include northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Q.
alba), black oak (Q. velutina), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), mockernut hickory (C. tomentosa), pignut
hickory (C. glabra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red maple (A.
rubrum), white ash (Fraxinus Americana), green ash (F. pennsylvanica), and American elm (Ulmus
Americana). Dominant coniferous species include eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), red pine (P.
resinosa), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), larch (Larix laricina), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana). Land cover types crossed by the three alternatives are summarized in Tables 3.1.6.1 through
3.1.6.6 and discussed in section 3.1.6, Land Use. A more detailed comparison of the vegetated upland
areas along the alternatives is presented in Table 3.1.4-1 below (wetland vegetation is discussed in more
detail in section 3.1.3 and agricultural vegetation is discussed in more detail in section 3.1.6, Land Use).
Alternative A
As indicated by the NJDEP land cover dataset, vegetated lands account for 65% of Alternative A (37%
Forest; 20% Wetland; 8% Agriculture). East of the Delaware River crossing, the first several miles of
Alternative A primarily consist of coniferous dominated mixed forests and agricultural land. As the
alternative enters High Point State Park, dominance shifts to deciduous forests. Leaving the state park,
vegetated uplands along Alternative A consist of a mosaic of agricultural land and deciduous forest.
From where the alternative enters the Highlands Planning Area to the switching station in Jefferson
Township, upland vegetation shifts back to deciduous forest with several small patches of mixed forest
type. Leaving the Jefferson switching station site, Alternative A continues to the east within an existing
utility corridor surrounded by a deciduous forest dominated landscape, with mixed forest near Picatinny
Arsenal. As the alignment turns to the south toward the East Hanover/Roseland switching station, the
landscape is increasingly dominated by wetland and urban land cover types.
Alternative B
As indicated by the NJDEP land cover dataset, vegetated lands account for less than 24% of Alternative
B (18% Wetland; 5% Agriculture; >1% Forest. All vegetation along this alternative is currently managed
as transmission line right-of-way. Vegetation from the switching station in Jefferson Township to
Roseland is the same as that described for Alternative A.
40
Table 3.1.4-1 – Upland vegetative cover types along the three Susquehanna to Roseland Alternative Route
Alignments in New Jersey
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
(feet
(feet
(feet
crossed/acres crossed/acres crossed/acres
on new or
on new or
on new or
expanded
expanded
expanded
Land Cover
Type
right-of-way)
right-of-way)
right-of-way)
Land Cover Classification
FOREST
CONIFEROUS BRUSH/SHRUBLAND
400/2
140/0
0/0
CONIFEROUS FOREST (>50% CROWN
FOREST
CLOSURE)
3,390/15
0/0
480/2
CONIFEROUS FOREST (10-50% CROWN
CLOSURE)
FOREST
280/2
0/0
90/0
FOREST
DECIDUOUS BRUSH/SHRUBLAND
3,100/13
0/0
3,580/11
DECIDUOUS FOREST (>50% CROWN
FOREST
CLOSURE)
75,060/337
360/0
49,950/132
DECIDUOUS FOREST (10-50% CROWN
CLOSURE)
FOREST
4,940/23
310/0
3,400/7
MIXED DECIDUOUS/CONIFEROUS
FOREST
BRUSH/SHRUBLAND
1,980/8
120/0
1,930/5
MIXED FOREST (>50% CONIFEROUS WITH
FOREST
>50% CROWN CLOSURE)
810/6
0/0
0/0
MIXED FOREST (>50% CONIFEROUS WITH
10-50% CROWN CLOSURE)
FOREST
190/0
210/0
0/0
MIXED FOREST (>50% DECIDUOUS WITH
FOREST
>50% CROWN CLOSURE)
3,490/15
0/0
0/0
MIXED FOREST (>50% DECIDUOUS WITH
FOREST
10-50% CROWN CLOSURE)
1,200/5
100/0
0/0
FOREST
OLD FIELD (< 25% BRUSH COVERED)
2,660/12
90/0
500/1
FOREST
PLANTATION
160/1
0/0
340/1
1,350/0 a
60,300/169 a
TOTAL
97,650/439 a
a
Total feet crossed and acreages of vegetation on new or expanded rights-of-way may not equal the sum
of acreages of individual types because of rounding.
(Source: NJ Department of Environmental Protection 2002 Land use/Land cover update (publication date:
2007/01/01).
Alternative C
As indicated by the NJDEP land cover dataset, vegetated lands account for 53% of Alternative C (26%
Forest; 17% Agriculture; 10% Wetland). Vegetated areas along the first segment of Alternative C, from
the Delaware River to the junction with the Portland - Roseland 230-kV line, consist primarily of
agricultural lands. The majority of forest area crossed by Alternative C exists along the second segment
where the new line would be constructed parallel to the existing 230kV line. Forests in this area are
dominated by deciduous species. Vegetated areas along the last segment of Alternative C, between the
Greystone Substation and East Hanover/Roseland switching station, are predominantly wetlands.
Impacts on Vegetation
As previously discussed under impacts on wetlands, potential effects on vegetation would be associated
with clearing and construction within the right-of-way and disturbance to vegetation and soils during the
clearing and construction activities. The total linear feet crossed or acreage of vegetation on new or
expanded rights-of-way by each of the three alternatives is not an effective indicator of potential impacts
to vegetation, because in many cases vegetated areas would be spanned. A more accurate indicator of
potential impact on vegetation is the amount of forested areas crossed and permanently cleared. The
wooded areas would be permanently altered if trees should be cleared. Vegetation in herbaceous,
41
brush/shrubland, old fields, and plantations would likely be retained in most places, and any additional
impacts to such vegetated areas would be minimal.
In upland forested areas right-of-way clearing procedures would be dependant upon easement
requirements, ecological sensitivities, and regulatory requirements intended to ensure safe and reliable
operation of the transmission line. Tree clearing may vary between removal of all trees within the right-ofway in non-sensitive areas, to selective trimming in highly sensitive areas. In areas where new right-ofway is designated through forested parcels, tree clearing would likely result in a reduction of interior forest
habitat and increased fragmentation of forested areas. In areas where the cleared area within existing
right-of-way would be widened, only forest edge habitat would be cleared and, as a result, effects to
interior forest would be minimal. Clearing in these areas would not increase fragmentation.
In non-forested areas, right-of-way clearing would temporarily impact herbaceous vegetation, either
directly or indirectly from soil compaction, as a result of heavy construction equipment and vehicles
traveling through the right-of-way. At the tower locations, vegetation would be entirely cleared, with some
permanently lost. Additional vegetation would be cleared for the placement of construction access roads.
Conclusions
All of the 37% of Alternative A classified as forest exists along the portion that is virgin right-of-way (north
of the Jefferson switching station site). Clearing for this alternative would require the creation of new
right-of way through an estimated 403 acres of forest. This construction would increase forest
fragmentation and reduce interior forest habitat. Additionally, designation of a new utility right-of-way
along Alternative A could result in some minor loss of crop production if structures are placed on
agricultural lands. Alternative B is entirely within existing right-of-way managed by PSE&G. It is expected
that these management practices would continue if this alternative is selected as the final alignment and
effects to existing vegetation would be minimal. No additional clearing of forested land would likely occur
along Alternative B. Construction of the new line along Alternative C would require clearing of an
estimated 141 acres of forest edge habitat along the 19 mile segment of the alternative where the new
line would parallel an existing line. Therefore, Alternative B would have the least effect on vegetation
because there would be no anticipated forest clearing associated with this Alternative Route, and most
other vegetative cover types would remain essentially unchanged following construction.
3.1.5 Wildlife
Wildlife habitat crossed by the route alternatives varies from the developed and agricultural areas to
hardwood forests. The habitat in proximity to all three alternatives can be expected to host a wide
diversity of wildlife, including migratory bird populations.
There are approximately 450 terrestrial vertebrate species in New Jersey (NJDEP 2008a). Common
mammal species include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), black bear (Ursus americanus),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), woodchuck (Marmota monax, Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), eastern
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), and several species of
rodents and shrews.
Common birds include the northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), bluejay (Cyanocitta cristata), darkeyed junco (Junco hyemalis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), white breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), scarlet tanager (Piranga
olivacea), catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), and a diversity of sparrows (Passer sp.), swallows (Spizella
sp.), and warblers (Wilsonia sp.). Major game birds include the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo),
bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus). The most common birds of
prey are hawks and owls such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), broad-winged hawk (Buteo
platypterus), and barred owl (Strix varia).
42
Common amphibians include spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), red–spotted newt
(Notophthalmus v. viridescens), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus f. fuscus), northern red
salamander (Pseudotriton r. ruber), eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma t. tigrinum), red-backed
salamander (Plethodon c. cinereus ), northern two-lined salamander (Eurycea b. bislineata), eastern
American toad (Bufo americanus), northern spring peeper (Hyla c. crucifer ), New Jersey chorus frog
(Pseudacris triseriata kalmi), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), wood
frog (Rana sylvatica), southern leopard frog (Rana spenocephala), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and
American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) (NJDEP 2008). Common reptiles include common snapping turtle
(Chelydra s. serpentina), stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus), eastern box turtle (Terrapene c. carolina),
eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys p. picta), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis s. sirtalis), northern
ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus edwardsi), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and eastern
milk snake (Lampropeltis t. triangulum).
Federally Listed Species
The USFWS New Jersey Field Office lists the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonata heterodon), Indiana bat
(Myotis sodalis), and bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) as occurring within Sussex, Morris and/or
Warren counties (http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/munlist.pdf).
Dwarf Wedgemussel
The dwarf wedgemussel is a freshwater mussel that is known to occur in the Paulins Kill, Pequest River,
and a portion of the upper Delaware River. Preferred habitat for this species include clear freshwater
rivers and streams with substrates ranging from sand to sand and gravel/pebble. The mussel lives in
shallow water with low silt content and is known to co-occur with other freshwater mussels such as the
eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), creeper (Strophitus
undulatus), eastern floater (Pyganodon cataracta) and eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata). Hosts for
dwarf wedgemussel larvae that occur in New Jersey are the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) and
mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) (NJDEP 2008b).
Indiana Bat
The Indiana bat use mines and caves for hibernation and forested areas for summer foraging, roosting,
and fall swarming. Optimal roosting habitat is forests with an abundance of large trees and snags with
exfoliating bark or cavities with a relatively open understory. Trees that have roosting characteristics
include shagbark hickory, bitternut hickory, red oak, white oak, sugar maple, and white and green ash
(NJDEP 2008b). A five-mile zone around hibernacula is considered primary range for Indiana bats in the
summer. Indiana bats are year round residents in northwestern New Jersey (NatureServe 2008).
Bog Turtle
Bog turtles inhabit limestone fens, sphagnum bogs, and wet, grassy pastures with soft, muddy substrates
and perennial groundwater seepage. Bog turtle habitats are well-drained and water depth rarely exceeds
4 inches. Plants associated with bog turtle habitats include sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.),
mosses, and grasses. These habitats may also contain red maple (Acer rubrum), alder (Alnus spp.),
skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), cattail (Typha spp.), willow (Salix spp.), highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium corymbosum.), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), swamp rose (Hibiscus palustris), dogwoods
(Cornus spp.), shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosa), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), rice-cut
grass (Leersia oryzoides), wool-grass (Scirpus cyperinus), arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), watercress
(Nasturtium officinale), St. Johnswort (Hypericum spp.), blue vervain (Verbena hastata), sundew (Drosera
spp.), pitcher plant (Sarracenia purpurea), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis) (NJDEP 2008b).
43
State Special Status Species
In addition to those protected under federal law, there are 57 species of wildlife that are listed as
threatened, endangered, or species of special concern by the state of New Jersey. A GIS database
containing known occurrences of these species is managed by the New Jersey Natural Heritage
Program. The program also maintains a list of Priority Sites that are locations documented for the
occurrence of special status species and their preferred habitats.
There are eleven Natural Heritage Priority Sites crossed by the three Alternative Routes in New Jersey.
These sites are Green Pond Mountain, Ironia, Lake Denmark, Mashipacong Bogs, Mount Freedom,
Muckshaw Ponds, Sawmill Pond Swamp, Sherman’s Glen, Site 564, Sparta Station Site, and Valhalla
Hemlock Glen. Total distances for which each Alternative Route crosses Natural Heritage Priority Sites is
presented in Table 3.1.2.
Alternative A
The segment of Alternative A between the Delaware River and switching station site in Jefferson
Township would cross deciduous forest and agricultural habitats that support a diversity of wildlife.
Alternative A would also cross the Mashipacong Bogs, Sawmill Pond Swamp, Sparta Station Site, and
Sherman’s Glen Natural Heritage Priority Sites along this segment. Between Jefferson and the East
Hanover/Roseland switching station, Alternative A would cross deciduous forest habitats and habitat for
species adapted to living within urban and suburban development. Along this segment, Alternative A
would cross the Green Pond Mountain, Lake Denmark, and Valhalla Hemlock Glen Natural Heritage
Priority Sites.
Alternative B
The existing right-of-way that Alternative B uses between the Delaware River and the switching station
site in Jefferson Township is primarily bordered by deciduous forest and agricultural habitats. Along this
segment, the alternative crosses the Muckshaw Ponds and Site 564 Natural Heritage Priority Sites.
Between Jefferson and the East Hanover/Roseland switching station Alternative B would use the same
existing right-of-way as Alternative A. Wildlife resources along this segment are discussed above.
Alternative C
The first segment of Alternative C, from the Delaware River to the intersection with the existing Portland
to Roseland 230-kV line, is bordered by deciduous forest and agricultural habitats. No Natural Heritage
Priority Sites are crossed along this segment. Along the second segment of Alternative C, the alternative
is also bordered by deciduous forest and agricultural areas. Additional habitat for wildlife species adapted
to urban development exists along this segment. The second segment crosses the Ironia and Mount
Freedom Natural Heritage Priority Sites at locations where the new line would be constructed to the south
of the existing 230-kV transmission line.
44
Impacts on Wildlife
Construction and operation of the proposed line could affect wildlife through habitat loss, alteration, or
fragmentation; disturbance and/or displacement from noise and construction activities; or, mortality from
collisions with conductors and shield wires. In areas where the right-of-way would go through large
relatively undisturbed tracts of forest, the right-of-way clearing would fragment the forest and create edge
habitat. Although forest edge provides habitat for a wide diversity and abundance of species, such as
deer, songbirds, red-tailed hawks, and red fox, species that require forest interior would lose habitat,
possibly altering distribution and migration patterns and isolating habitat patches.
Construction disturbance would displace the more mobile species from the right-of-way to similar habitats
nearby. Construction noise would also temporarily disturb some wildlife in the project vicinity, causing
some individuals to leave the area. Some displaced wildlife would return to the newly disturbed areas
shortly after construction is completed.
Vegetation cutting during scheduled right-of-way maintenance would cause short-term disturbance of
wildlife in the immediate vicinity of such activities. Animals that inhabit shrubs and small trees that have
grown within the right-of-way would be displaced to adjacent habitats. The relatively low frequency of this
activity would reduce the severity of the impact.
Although transmission lines pose a threat to birds from collision, the effects of the proposed project are
expected to be minimal. The spacing between the conductors on the proposed line are spaced farther
apart than the wing-span of the largest raptor in the project area (bald eagle), therefore electrocution
would not occur. Bird collision with the conductors, shield wires, and towers is possible, however. Shield
wires are of particular concern because birds fly over the larger, more visible conductors and are less
able to see the less-visible shield wires above. Waterfowl are particularly susceptible to collision because
they are less adept while flying. Raptors are less susceptible to collisions because of their keen eyesight
and high maneuverability in flight. The new transmission line would be constructed in accordance with
the current Avian Powerline Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidelines for minimizing the potential for
avian collisions and electrocutions (APLIC, 2005 and 2006). These guidelines are considered by
agencies and the utility industry to represent the Best Management Practices for transmission line
construction.
Indiana bats hibernate in caves or mines. If roosting trees are cleared during roosting season it is
possible roosting bats could be lost. Potential effects on bats could be reduced by limiting timber removal
activities to the time when roosting does not occur or conducting mist net surveys to determine if the
summer foraging and roosting habitat within the vicinity of the project is used by the Indiana bat.
The dwarf wedgemussel and bog turtle are both small with limited mobility. The greatest risk to these
species would occur during construction and right-of-way maintenance activities. Streams known to be
inhabited by dwarf wedgemussels would be avoided by construction and maintenance activities, and
buffer zones would ensure that water quality in such streams would not adversely affect this species.
Following selection of the Preferred Route, PSE&G would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service
to identify appropriate protection and mitigation measures to avoid potential effects on these species.
Similarly, PSE&G would consult with the NJDEP to identify potential habitat for state special status and
minimize potential effects to these species to the maximum extent practicable. Protective measures that
could be used include fencing of known or potential habitat during and immediately following construction
activities and seasonal construction restrictions.
Conclusions
All of Alternative A between the Delaware River and Jefferson switching station site would require the
creation of new right-of way.
This construction would affect wildlife through increased forest
fragmentation and reduce interior forest habitat. Alternative B is entirely within existing right-of-way.
Construction activities could have a short-term adverse impact on wildlife; however, it is expected that
following construction, right-of-way management practices would continue in accordance with applicable
regulations if this alternative is selected as the final alignment. As a result, there would be little, if any,
45
long-term additional effects on existing wildlife habitat because the existing right-of-way should not need
to be expanded to accommodate the new structures. Construction of the new line along Alternative C
would require clearing of forest edge habitat along a 19 mile segment where the new line would parallel
an existing line. Although the clearing process would remove existing edge habitats, new edge habitat
would be created at the new right of way boundary. Thus, net loss of edge habitat would likely be
minimal. However, widening the right of way would effectively move edge habitat laterally extending into
areas once considered interior forest habitat. Thus, some diminishment of interior habitat area would
likely occur. Therefore, Alternative B would have the least impact on wildlife and associated habitat.
3.1.6 Land Use
In New Jersey, Alternative A would cross three counties (Sussex, Morris and Essex), Alternative B would
cross four counties (Warren, Sussex, Morris and Essex) and Alternative C would cross three counties
(Warren, Morris and Essex). See Figure 3.1.6-1 on the following page for affected environment in the
three alternatives.
46
Figure 3.1.6-1 Land Use in Proximity to the Three Alternative Routes in New Jersey
Alternative A
Agricultural Land
Agricultural land is defined as land used primarily for the production of food and fiber and some of the
structures associated with this production. Subcategories of agricultural land include cropland and
pastureland, orchards, vineyards, nurseries and horticultural areas, confined feeding operations and other
agricultural land.
Alternative A would pass across approximately 22,000 feet of cropland and pastureland and 600 feet of
other agricultural land. Cropland and pastureland is defined as land managed for the production of both
row and field crops and for the grazing of cattle, sheep and horses. This category also includes cropland
left fallow or planted with improvement grasses and legumes. Other agricultural land includes
miscellaneous agricultural areas, including experimental fields, horse farms and isolated dikes and
access roads.
Barren Land
Barren land is land of limited ability to support life and in which less than one-third of the area has
vegetation or other cover. In general, it is an area of thin soil, sand, or rocks. Subcategories include dry
salt flats, beaches, sandy areas other than beaches, bare exposed rock; strip mines, quarries, and gravel
pits; transitional areas, and mixed barren land.
Alternative A would pass across approximately 1,450 feet of barren land. Table 3.1.6-1 provides a
detailed breakout by subcategory.
Table 3.1.6-1 – Barren Land Subcategory Distribution, Alternative A
Subcategory
Length (feet)
Altered Lands
Bare Exposed Rock, Rock Slides, Etc.
Extractive Mining
Transitional Areas
Total
350
200
350
550
1,450
As shown in Table 3.1.6-1, transitional areas are the largest subcategory of affected barren land
(37.59%). Transitional areas are those areas which are in transition from one land use activity to another.
This transitional phase occurs when, for example, forest lands are cleared for agriculture, wetlands are
drained for development, or when any type of land use ceases as areas become temporarily bare as
construction is planned for future uses. Land being altered by filling, such as occurs in spoil dumps or
sanitary landfills, is also indicative of this transitional phase.
Forests
Forests include any lands covered by woody vegetation other than wetlands. These areas are capable of
producing timber and other wood products, and of supporting many kinds of outdoor recreation. Different
subcategories of forests include deciduous, coniferous, mixed deciduous-coniferous and brushland.
Alternative A would pass across approximately 97,650 feet of forest lands. Table 3.1.4-1, in section
3.1.4, Vegetation, provides a summary by subcategory. The majority of forested land cover affected by
Alternative A would be Deciduous Forest (>50% Crown Closure). Crown closure, which is defined as the
percentage of a forest area occupied by the vertical projections of tree crowns, provides a reasonable
estimate of stand density. The majority of deciduous forests in New Jersey are in the >50% crown
closure category. Notable forested areas in the vicinity of Alternative A include High Point, Buck
Mountain and Pyramid Mountain State Parks and the Wildcat Ridge Natural Area.
48
Urban Land
Urban land is comprised of areas of intensive use with much of the land covered by structures. Included
in this category are cities, towns, villages, strip developments along highways, transportation, power, and
communications facilities, and areas such as those occupied by mills, shopping centers, industrial and
commercial complexes, and institutions that may, in some instances, be isolated from urban areas.
An important subcategory of urban land, “other or built-up urban land” is defined as uses such as golf
driving ranges, zoos, urban parks, cemeteries, waste dumps, water-control structures and spillways, golf
courses and ski areas, and undeveloped land within an urban setting.
The Alternative A corridor traverses fairly rural areas and would pass across approximately 90,000 feet of
urban lands. Table 3.1.6-2 provides a breakout by subcategory as well as an inventory of buildings within
specified distances of the proposed centerline.
Table 3.1.6-2 – Urban Land Subcategory Distribution, Alternative A
Subcategory
Length (feet)
Commercial/Services
Major Roadways
Other Urban or Built-Up Land
Recreational Land
Residential, High Density Or Multiple Dwelling
Residential, Rural, Single Unit
Residential, Single Unit, Low Density
Residential, Single Unit, Medium Density
Transportation/Communication/Utilities
Upland Rights-of-Way
Total
2,750
1,950
1,600
800
300
2,650
850
350
500
78,250
90,000
Alternative B
Agricultural Land
Alternative B would pass across approximately 12,100 feet of agricultural land. Cropland and
pastureland, orchards/vineyards/nurseries/horticultural areas, and other agricultural areas would be
crossed by 11,950, 50, and 100 feet of this Alternative Route, respectively.
Barren Land
Alternative B would pass across approximately 1,100 feet of barren land, of which 350 feet is altered
lands, 200 feet is bare exposed rock, and 550 feet is transitional areas.
Forests
Alternative B would pass across approximately 1,350 feet of forest lands. Table 3.1.4-1 in section 3.1.4,
Vegetation, provides a detailed breakout by subcategory. Notable forested areas in the corridor include
the Wildcat Ridge Natural Area and Kittatinny Valley State Park.
Urban Land
Although the western end of the Alternative B corridor is fairly rural in nature in the communities of
Hardwick, Stillwater and Fredon, the eastern end of the corridor is moderately to densely developed in a
typical suburban development pattern. Alternative B would pass across approximately 180,450 feet of
urban lands, as indicated in Table 3.1.6-3.
49
Table 3.1.6-3 – Urban Land Subcategory Distribution, Alternative B
Subcategory
Length (feet)
Commercial/Services
Major Roadways
Recreational Land
Residential, High Density Or Multiple Dwelling
Stormwater Basin
Upland Rights-of-Way Developed
Upland Rights-of-Way Undeveloped
Total
2,700
900
100
950
300
3,400
1,350
600
50
500
5,800
163,800
180,450
Alternative C
Agricultural Land
Alternative C would pass across approximately 38,178 feet of agricultural land, which is summarized in
Table 3.1.6-4.
Table 3.1.6-4 – Agricultural Land Subcategory Distribution, Alternative C
Subcategory
Length (feet)
Confined Feeding Operations
Cropland And Pastureland
Orchards/Vineyards/Nurseries/Horticultural
Areas
Other Agriculture
Total
200
35,800
650
1,550
38,200
Barren Land
Alternative C would pass across approximately 3,550 feet of barren land. Of this total, approximately 700
feet is comprised of altered lands and 2,850 feet is comprised of transitional areas.
Forests
Alternative C would pass across approximately 60,300 feet of forest lands. Table 3.1.4-1, in section
3.1.4, Vegetation, provides a summary by subcategory.
Urban Land
As is the case with Alternative B, the western end of the Alternative C corridor is fairly rural, with
development density increasing as one moves eastward along the corridor, whose eastern end is typical
of northern New Jersey suburban development. Alternative C would pass across approximately 101,250
feet of urban lands. Table 3.1.6-5 provides a breakout by subcategory as well as an inventory of
buildings within specified distances of the proposed centerline. Included in the urban land development
below is about a 3 mile segment of the M&E line, which shares the existing transmission line right-of-way
just to the west of the East Hanover/Roseland switching station.
50
Table 3.1.6-5 – Urban Land Subcategory Distribution, Alternative C
Subcategory
Length (feet)
Commercial/Services
Major Roadways
Recreational Land
Stormwater Basin
Upland Rights-of-Way Developed
Upland Rights-of-Way Undeveloped
Total
2,950
500
5,700
3,000
3,200
1,100
450
600
1,500
6,050
76,200
101,250
Impacts on Land Use
Alternative A would require the acquisition of new right-of-way for most of its length between the New
Jersey border and the Jefferson switching station, resulting in the clearing of a 200-foot wide corridor
through this area. Clearing would entail cutting of all trees and tall growing shrubs at the time of
construction, with regular maintenance to prevent the re-growth of trees. In addition, with the exception of
specific agricultural uses, most other forms of urban development would not be permitted within the rightof-way. Much of the corridor and vicinity is rural and sparsely developed and the presence of a new
transmission line in the area would prevent future development within its right-of-way.
Alternatives B and C would be constructed entirely within existing rights-of-way (with the possible
exception of the eastern portion of Alternative C, discussed later) , these alternatives would have the least
impact on land use in their respective corridors. These two Alternative Route corridors are located in
built-up areas; consequently, there would be little impact to future development patterns. Table 3.1.6-6
provides a summary matrix of each Alternative Route with respect to land use.
The virgin right-of-way portion of Alternative A was sited to avoid residence removals, and there would be
no known residence removals associated with this Alternative Route. Residences within 75 and 100 feet
of the centerline are all associated with the portion of this Alternative that is common to Alternatives A and
B.
One existing residence removal or relocation may be associated with Alternative B. The remaining seven
residences within 75 feet of the existing and proposed centerline of Alternative B are at the edge of the
right-of-way. These are the same residences within 75 feet of the Alternative A centerline. Because the
existing right-of-way is 150 feet wide and the new structures associated with Alternative B would also be
able to be constructed within the 150 feet wide right-of-way, it is unlikely that any of these seven
residences would need be removed. Similarly, because Alternative C would be constructed within the
limits of the existing right-of-way, none of the eight residences within 75 feet of the proposed centerline
would likely need to be removed. However, if Alternative C is selected as the Preferred Route, it would
require dismantling about three miles of the Morristown and Erie Railroad System, in East Hanover during
construction, at a minimum. This would require customers currently served by this freight line to receive
goods via alternative means, potentially increasing traffic on local roads. If construction adjacent to the
railroad could not be feasibly implemented or engineering challenges along the eastern-most portion of
this Alternative Route could not be overcome, the right-of-way along this portion of Alternative C may
need to be expanded, resulting in substantial impacts in this heavily developed area.
51
Category
Agriculture
Barren Land
Forests
Urban Land
Water
Residences within 75
feet of Centerline
Other Structures within
75 feet of Centerline
feet of Centerline
feet of Centerline
Table 3.1.6-6 – Land Use Summary Table
Alternative A
Alternative B
(feet)
(feet)
22,600
12,100
1,450
1,100
97,650
1,350
90,000
180,450
2,000
3,700
Alternative C
(feet)
38,200
3,550
60,300
101,250
2,650
7
8
8
5
6
11
34
49
62
19
20
21
284
405
478
56
68
79
Conclusions
Alternative A would require the most new right-of-way and therefore result in the greatest conversion of
existing land uses for use as a transmission line corridor. Consequently, Alternative A would have the
most impact of the three Alternative Routes on existing and potential future land uses on the portion of
the right-of-way north of the Jefferson switching station site. Alternative C would be constructed within an
existing right-of-way; a 19 mile segment of which would be parallel to an existing 230-kV transmission
line. This would require expansion of the existing cleared right-of-way, and conversion of forested land
use to open right-of-way. In addition, temporary or possibly permanent impacts to the Morristown and
Erie railroad line with construction of Alternate C would represent an adverse impact to this existing land
use. If the right-of-way along the eastern-most 10 miles of Alternative C should need to be expanded to
avoid impacts to the railroad and enable construction along this portion of the alignment, severe impacts
to land use would result. Alternative B would be constructed entirely within the existing 150-wide right-ofway. Therefore, there would be no change in the existing land use or potential future land use
development of right of way lands if Alternative B should be the Preferred Route. Therefore, from a land
use perspective, Alternative B is the best alternative.
3.1.7 Recreation Lands
Recreation Lands of National Significance
This section presents information on the existing national recreational resources and designated natural
scenic resources that occur within or adjacent to the three Alternative Routes. The Alternative Routes
under consideration would pass through or adjacent to the following designated national recreational and
scenic resources:
•
•
The Appalachian National Scenic Trail. All three Alternative Routes would cross
the Appalachian Trail at different locations.
The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (NRA). Alternative B would
cross the NRA on an existing transmission line right-of-way. Alternative A would
cross through the extreme northernmost portion of the NRA.
52
•
The Middle and Lower Delaware Wild and Scenic Rivers. Sections of the middle
and lower Delaware rivers are designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The
middle Delaware National Scenic River covers about 40 miles and is classified as
scenic. Alternative B would cross this section of the Delaware River. The lower
Delaware is included in the Wild and Scenic River system, and a 38-mile section of
the main stem Delaware classified as recreational lies within the route of Alternative
C.
The specific policies establishing each of these national resources and guiding their preservation and
maintenance are discussed in greater detail below.
Appalachian Trail
The Appalachian National Scenic Trail, first completed in 1937, was established as the first National
Scenic Trail by Congress with passage of the National Trails System Act in 1968. A hiking trail, the
Appalachian Trail is within a day's drive of two-thirds of the U.S. population and receives as estimated 4
million annual visitors (NPS 2008d). The entire length of the footpath is approximately 2,175-miles and
stretches through 14 eastern states from Maine to Georgia, traversing wild, scenic, wooded, pastoral, and
culturally significant lands of the Appalachian Mountains. Trail amenities include camping sites, 250
shelters and other associated facilities. The State of New Jersey contains 72 miles of the Appalachian
Trail; Pennsylvania contains 229 miles.
The Appalachian Trail is a component of the national trails system and a unit of the national park system.
It contains over 165,000 acres which have been acquired by NPS and the FS as part of a permanent
right-of-way and protected corridor. Since 1983, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) has assumed
formal management responsibilities for lands directly administered by the Appalachian Trail Park Office of
the NPS, with the exception of some authorities such as law enforcement, real estate and federal
compliance, which remain under the authority of the NPS. However, the ATC assists the NPS with these
responsibilities as appropriate (2004 Strategic Plan). Under this decentralized, volunteer-based
cooperative management system, more than 4,000 volunteers contribute more than 175,000 hours of
maintenance to the trail annually (NPS 2000b).
The mission of the Appalachian Trail Park Office is to “foster the Cooperative Management System of the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail in order to preserve and provide for the enjoyment of the varied scenic,
historic, natural and cultural qualities of the areas between the states of Maine and Georgia through
which the Trail passes” (NPS 2005).
Significance — Park significance statements capture the essence of a park’s importance to the nation’s
natural and cultural heritage. Understanding park significance helps managers make decisions that
preserve the resources and values necessary to the park’s purpose. The stated significance of the trail,
as identified in the 2005 Strategic Plan is as follows (NPS 2005):
The Appalachian Trail is a way, continuous from Maine to Georgia, for travel on foot through the
wild, scenic, wooded, pastoral, and culturally significant lands of the Appalachian Mountains. It is
a means of sojourning among these lands, such that visitors may experience them by their own
unaided efforts. The body of the Trail is provided by the lands it traverses, and its soul is in the
living stewardship of the volunteers and partners of the Appalachian Trail Cooperative
Management System.
Purpose — As stated in the 2005 Strategic Plan, the purpose of the trail is to “[provide] for maximum
outdoor recreation potential as an extended trail and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally
significant scenic, historic, natural, and cultural resources of the areas through which the Trail
passes”(NPS 2005).
53
The 1987 Comprehensive Plan for the Protection, Management, Development and Use of the
Appalachian Scenic Trail is intended to provide a framework for development and management of the
Trail and its immediate environs. This plan contains a description of management philosophy and
policies for the protection of the trailway. Relevant guidance on the protection of trailway values
contained in this plan is as follows (NPS 1987):
•
Protection of Trailway: “Wherever the Trail is inadequately protected, efforts will be
made to extend protection... Cooperation of landowners and local communities will
be sought to avoid adverse developments along the Trail route. …objectives are to
assure that the Trail will be continuous, in a desirable location, and that it will be
adequately buffered from incompatible developments, to the extent that objective is
achievable.”
•
The Future Protection of Trailway Values: The isolated and scenic character of the
Appalachian Trail will continue to be threatened in the future. …the presently wild or
pastoral areas through which the Trail passes will be continuously under pressure for
many kinds of development [such as] energy projects. …emphasis should be on
integration with compatible land uses, rather than on an attempt to preclude them.
…Where other projected land uses, including energy development projects, appear
to conflict with Trail values, ways to reduce the impacts will be sought at the planning
stage.
Similarly, the ATC Policy on Roads and Utility Developments (ATC, 2000) states:
It is the policy of ATC to oppose construction of any facilities of those types on Appalachian Trail
corridor lands or those facilities on adjacent lands that could have an adverse impact on the
viewshed of the Trail, unless they meet all of the following criteria:
1) The proposed development represents the only prudent and feasible alternative to
meet an over-riding public need, as demonstrated in a thorough and detailed analysis
of alternatives.
2) Any new impacts associated with the proposed development shall coincide with
existing major impacts to the Trail experience.
3) Any proposed development of linear facilities shall be limited to a single crossing of
the Appalachian Trail corridor.
4) Any adverse impacts of a proposed development shall be sufficiently mitigated so as
to result in no net loss of recreational values or the quality of the recreation
experience provided by the Appalachian Trail. To the extent practicable, mitigation
shall occur on site.
5) The proposed development shall avoid, at a minimum: (a) wilderness or wilderness
study areas; (b) National Park Service natural areas; (c) Forest Service semiprimitive
nonmotorized or designated backcountry areas; (d) natural-heritage sites; (e)
cultural-resource sites; (f) Trail-related facilities, such as shelters and campsites; and
(g) alpine zones, balds, and wetlands.
A recent study of visitor experience among hikers on Appalachian Trail (NPS, 2000) examined effects of
trail conditions on experience and overall satisfaction. This study found that the most important motives
to hikers included being close to nature and enjoying the view along the trail. Various forms of
environmental impact tended to receive the highest problem ratings for hikers. The biggest reported
problem was damage to soil and vegetation; this was rated as at least a small problem by 83.1% of hikers
expecting to travel the entire length of the trail.
The values of the Appalachian Trail that would be affected by the proposed development are similar for
all alternatives. The character of the trail in the vicinity of the proposed transmission lines for Alternatives
54
A, B (in New Jersey) and C in Pennsylvania) is generally remote as it winds through rural backwoods
areas and becomes less secluded as it encounters dispersed development near the larger townships
along its course.
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
The NRA was established by Congress under Public Law 89-158 on September 1, 1965 to provide public
outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of the then-proposed Tocks Island Reservoir and adjacent lands
and for preservation of the related scenic, scientific and historic features of the area.
The NRA is among the 10 most visited parks in the national park system (NPS 2000a). More than four
million people visit the national recreation area each year. In 2007, the park counted over 4.8 million
visitors, with more than a third (34%) coming to the park during the summer months of June, July, and
August (NPS, 2008a). The majority of the recreation area’s visitors (89%) are regional, visiting the
national recreation area from New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Approximately 60% of those
visiting the national recreation area become return visitors (NPS 2000c).
The nearly 70,000 acres comprising the Delaware Water Gap NRA contains the Middle Delaware
National Scenic River, which is a unit of the National Park Service and is managed like a traditional
national park with extensive federal and state land holdings. The Delaware River is within a day’s drive of
40% of the U. S. population and is utilized by canoes and kayaks, speed boats, jet skis, fishing boats, and
innertubes. Canal paths on either side of the river are utilized by hikers and bicyclists. Fishing, bird
watching and camping are also popular recreational uses of the river corridor. The Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area contains a 133-site rustic campground (Dingmans Campground), which is
located in the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River approximately ¼ mile south of route 739. The
campground offers a variety of camping settings, with prime campsites along the banks of the Delaware
River. It is not located in the vicinity of any of the proposed transmission line routes.
Sightseeing and picnicking are the two most common visitor activities (NPS 2000c). In addition to hiking
and picnicking, on-site recreational opportunities available at the national recreation area include (FTA
2001):
• Autotouring;
• Canoeing and swimming;
• Camping in designated locations, especially along the river;
• Biking;
• Fishing and hunting;
• Bird watching and viewing wildlife, geological sites, natural landscape, and historical
structures;
• Winter sports including cross-country skiing, snow shoeing, ice fishing, ice skating, and ice
climbing; and
• Educational programs such as the visitor programs at the education and tourist centers
located at Kittatinny Point and Dingmans Falls.
In order to preserve these park values, a 1987 General Management Plan (GMP) for the NRA includes
provisions for:
• public outdoor recreation benefits,
• preservation of scenic, scientific, and historic features contributing to public enjoyment
• such utilization of natural resources as in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior is
consistent with, and does not significantly impair, public recreation and protection of scenic,
scientific, and historic features contributing to public enjoyment
The 1987 GMP also outlines strategies to meet the following management objectives (NPS 1987):
• Reduce user group conflicts.
• Convey better orientation information
55
•
•
•
•
•
•
Coordinate activities that affect local communities with townships and counties.
Identify adverse visitor effects on natural resources
Protect archaeological sites
Maintain landscape and manage unique blend of natural cultural and scenic features
Expand facilities for water-oriented and land based activities
Design key park entrance points to reduce visitor traffic congestion and restore unneeded
roads to a more natural appearance
In the immediate vicinity of Alternative B, which is proposed to cross a total of 4.2 miles of the park in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey (1.5 miles in Pennsylvania and 2.7 miles in New Jersey), there are several
hiking trails which provide access to historic abandoned structures east of Depew Island. One of these
trails is indicated on the park map. Other recreational facilities include the Watergate Recreation Site
located ½ mile southwest of Millbrook Village and a narrow unpaved access road on the west side of the
river. Alternative A would cross a 300-foot portion of the park near Interstate 84 which is a popular site
for recreational rafting. No designated park amenities exist at that location.
Delaware Wild and Scenic River
The United States Congress approved legislation signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on
October 2, 1968, creating the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Public Law 90-542). This law,
known as the "Wild and Scenic Rivers Act," states (DRBC, 2008):
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation
which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,
geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in freeflowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the
benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.
“Free-flowing” as defined in the Act is “existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment,
diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. The existence, however, of
low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the
national wild and scenic rivers system shall not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion. . . .”
The Act defines the three classifications for rivers, based on the intensity of human presence along the
river corridor, as follows:
•
Wild: Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally
inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds and shorelines essentially primitive and
waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.
•
Scenic: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines
or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in
places by roads.
•
Recreational: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or
railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have
undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.
Regardless of classification, each designated river is administered with the goal of nondegradation and
enhancement of the values which caused it to be designated.
56
Upper and Middle Delaware WSR Corridor
Two reaches of the Delaware River were added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1978.
One section, the Upper Delaware WSR, extends 73 miles from the confluence of the river's East and
West branches at Hancock, New York, downstream to Milrift, Pennyslvania, and is comprised mostly of
nonfederal and privately owned lands. This section would not be affected by any of the proposed
transmission line alternatives. The second section, the Middle Delaware National Scenic River, covers
about 40 miles from just south of Port Jervis, New York. downstream to the Delaware Water Gap near
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania (DRBC 2008). This stretch of the Delaware River is within the NRA and is
classified as scenic. The proposed alternatives could potentially affect resources along the middle
Delaware National Scenic River such as recreational boating near the northern boundary of the NRA
(Alternative A) and Depew Island (Alternative B).
Lower Delaware WSR Corridor
In 2000, the National Wild and Scenic River System incorporated key segments of the lower Delaware
River to form this unit of the National Park System. The Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River
includes a 38.9-mile section of the main stem Delaware (and about 28 miles of selected tributaries)
linking the Delaware Water Gap and Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania., just upstream of Trenton, New
Jersey. Three-quarters of the non-tidal Delaware River is now included in the national system (NPS
2008c; DRBC 2008).
The Lower Delaware River Management Plan, which sets forth guidelines for the use and management of
River corridor resources, contains the Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River Study Report.
Contained in this report are classifications for each of the river segments of the mainstem of the lower
Delaware River which provide support in determining the river’s eligibility for inclusion into the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Each of the segments of the mainstem of the lower Delaware River are
classified as “recreational” due to their accessibility by road and/or the presence of some development
along the shoreline. The River Study Report also sets forth goals and policies for minimizing the adverse
impact of development within the river corridor. Such goals and policies relevant to the proposed
transmission line are as follows (NPS 2008b):
Goal 5: Economic Development
Identify principles for minimizing the adverse impact of development within the river corridor.
Policies:
Continued economic growth, new infrastructure, and the replacement, repair or expansion of
existing infrastructure should occur in ways that minimize harmful impacts on the natural, cultural,
recreational and scenic values of the river corridor and that are cost-effective.
Implementation Strategies:
•
Best Management Practices should be required for all industrial areas to protect the
river’s resources. Visual appearance of industrial areas should be improved to maintain
scenic value of the corridor. Buffer zones between public facilities and the river should
be encouraged.
•
Public and private utility uses and rights-of-way should be concentrated to minimize
impact.
•
Reviews should be conducted to anticipate expansion needs with natural gas, electric,
telecommunication, and other utility companies operating in the river corridor and develop
a plan that allows those needs to be met in a manner that is compatible with the river
corridor’s resources and that is cost-effective.
•
Expansion needs should be reviewed with appropriate governmental entities regarding
existing sewage authorities and anticipated new sewage treatment facilities to ensure
compatibility with the goals of this plan.
57
•
A system of evaluation for proposed projects throughout the corridor should be
developed that identifies the impact on significant resources and compares the
environmental impacts with the economic benefits.
Impacts on National Recreational Resources and Designated Natural Scenic Resources
The potential effects on recreational resources of national significance caused by the construction and
operation of the transmission line would occur when:
•
•
•
•
•
Recreational uses are created, displaced, or eliminated;
Objectives for national recreation areas and scenic resources recreation cannot be met;
Existing recreational facilities and uses are changed;
Potential users of recreational areas who focus on the aesthetics of natural surroundings are
repelled or disturbed; and
The cleared right-of-way increases access into a forest which leads to unintended uses like
trespassing and unauthorized ATV use.
During the initial route planning, the three alternatives under consideration were sited to avoid sensitive
lands when possible and thereby minimize impacts. However, the routes traverse segments of the
Delaware Wild and Scenic River and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. The transmission line under
any of the three proposed alternatives would unavoidably cross through visual resources in these national
recreational resource areas. The transmission line structures, conductors, and the cleared right-of-way
will be visible in varying degrees to area residents, travelers, and visitors. The visual accessibility of the
line will be influenced by a multitude of factors, such as the amount of screening, the amount of natural
light present, the distance from the viewpoint to the line, the amount of other human disturbance in the
viewshed, background terrain and colors, the sensitivity of the viewer, and many other variables.
Transmission line construction and maintenance also affect other resources that are important
components to recreational areas, such as wildlife and native vegetation.
Alternative A
Under Alternative A, the proposed transmission line would not displace or eliminate national recreational
resources. The line would be visible as it crosses the Appalachian Trail north of Libertyville, NJ between
the Mashipocong and Rutherford trail shelters. The route would parallel a preexisting gas pipeline
through High Point State Park in New Jersey. However, new structures would create notable visible
changes to the existing setting where there are currently no above-ground structures. This would result in
diminished scenic resources on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
The transmission line proposed under Alternative A would cross 300 feet of the Delaware Water Gap
NRA near its northern boundary and would require the clearing of existing vegetation to provide right-ofway. The line would avoid much of the NPS-managed lands of the park.
The river segment over which the proposed Alternative A would pass is designated as “scenic” under the
Wild and Scenic River Act. Changes to the river’s scenic resources would occur under this alternative as
the result of disruptions in the continuity of the hillside vegetation which would be apparent to recreational
boaters on the Delaware River. The transmission line structures would be visible above the forest
canopy. This would increase visual accessibility of the line.
Alternative B
Under Alternative B, the transmission line would not displace or eliminate national recreational resources.
The line would be visible as it crossed the Appalachian Trail near Millbrook Village and the Town of
Hardwick in New Jersey. However, the route would correspond with a preexisting transmission line rightof-way. Depending on the right-of-way option selected, the more prominent or more numerous structures
would result in changes to the existing physical setting and visitor experience along a narrow portion of
the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
58
Alternative B would also transect 4.2 miles of the Delaware Water Gap NRA in New Jersey one half mile
north of Depew Island on the Delaware River. The new installation would be aligned on the existing 230kV transmission line right-of-way.
The transmission line structure would be of a height to project above the forest canopy. This will increase
visual accessibility of the line. The installation of taller (and thus more visible) structures would allow for a
narrower right-of-way while, conversely, shorter structures would require a wider right-of-way and
potentially result in greater ground disturbance due to the necessary clearing of forest and vegetation to
accommodate an additional structure. Impacts to scenic resources would occur under either option.
However, the nature of these changes would differ between the two options. The higher tower would
present less soil, vegetative and habitat disturbance but a noticeable height increase, while the addition of
a second line of lower profile structures would result in a more noticeable absence of vegetation.
The average height of the existing 230-kV transmission lines within the NRA is approximately 80 feet.
Thus the introduction of taller structures into the existing environment would result in a perceived height
increase of 40 to 80 feet to man-made structures in the landscape. Taller or more numerous structures
would also represent a noticeable change to visitors at the Watergate Recreation Site located ½ mile
southwest of Millbrook Village. As a result, park resource values would likely be diminished at this
crossing point.
The river segment over which the proposed Alternative B would pass is designated as “scenic” under the
Wild and Scenic River Act. Changes to the river’s scenic resources would occur under this alternative
and would be apparent to recreational boaters on the Delaware River. Depending on the structural option
selected and the degree to which the existing right-of-way width would be preserved, disruptions in the
continuity of the hillside vegetation and/or noticeable increases in the height of existing structures would
occur under Alternative B.
Alternative C
Under Alternative C, the proposed transmission line would not displace or eliminate national recreational
resources. The line would cross the Appalachian Trail near Blue Mountain north of Mosserville, PA. The
line would then run parallel to the trail at a distance of less than 1 mile for an approximate length of 8.5
miles between the Leroy A. Smith and George W. Outerbridge shelters in Pennsylvania. Given the
existing terrain and vegetation, the proposed transmission line may be intermittently visible from the trail.
Alternative C could result in diminishing resource values for the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
The transmission line proposed under Alternative C would cross the Delaware River south of the town of
Belvidere, thereby avoiding the Delaware Water Gap NRA by over 10 miles. As a result, there would be
no direct or indirect impact to the Delaware Water Gap NRA under Alternative C.
The installation would be aligned on existing right-of-way with the existing 230kV transmission line and
would cross the Lower Delaware WSR Corridor parallel to this existing line at the Martins Creek Power
Plant. The river segment over with the proposed Alternative C will pass is designated as recreational. It
is not anticipated that any impacts to recreational values of the stream itself would occur as a result of this
alternative.
Conclusion
The recreational and scenic values of portions of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail would be
diminished under any of the proposed alternatives. The crossing of the Trail by Alternative A would have
perhaps the greatest impact because no man-made above-ground structures currently exist at this
location. Existing transmission line structures and rights-of-way exist at the Trail crossings of Alternative
B and, in Pennsylvania, Alternative C. Recreational and scenic values of the Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area would be diminished under Alternatives A and B, with most impacts occurring
under Alternative B. These values would be unaffected under Alternative C because Alternative C avoids
the NRA. The recreational and scenic values of the Delaware Wild and Scenic River would be diminished
59
under Alternatives A and B, and unaffected under Alternative C. Overall, Alternative C represents the
least amount of combined adverse effects on recreational and scenic resources of national significance
within the recreational areas identified in this analysis.
Recreation Resources of State, Regional, and Local Significance
Recreational lands and open spaces are those areas which have been specifically developed for
recreational activities, if these areas are open to the general public. Sub categories include golf courses
(public and private); picnic and camping parks; marina and boat launches; community recreation areas
(facilities which are not part of established parks, such as baseball fields, tennis courts, basketball courts,
and playgrounds); municipal, county and state parks; wildlife management and natural areas, fish
hatcheries, public and commercial swimming pools such as swim clubs and city-operated pools;
swimming beaches (man-made beaches adjacent to lakes or ponds, which have been developed for
recreational activities); formal lawns, arboretums and landscaped areas associated with facilities open to
the public; stadiums, theaters, cultural centers, and zoos; and other recreational lands such as rifle, skeet,
and archery ranges, ski and winter sport areas, fairgrounds, etc.
All three alternative routes would cross through recreational lands or open spaces, as discussed below.
Alternative A
Alternative A would pass across approximately 50,900 feet of recreational lands or open spaces, as
summarized in Table 3.1.7-1.
Table 3.1.7-1 – Recreation Subcategory Distribution, Alternative A
Subcategory
Length (feet)
Natural Areas
State Parks
Wildlife Management Areas
Total
7,850
26,050
17,000
50,900
Notable among these are High Point State Park, Pimple Hills Range, the Weldon Brook Wildlife
Management Area (WMA), the Rockaway River WMA, the Wildcat Ridge WMA, the Buck Mountain
Forest Legacy Tract, and the Pyramid Mountain Natural Historical Area. In addition, Alternative A would
pass within 1,000 feet of eight local parks.
Alternative B
Alternative B would pass across approximately 28,200 feet of recreational lands or open spaces (Table
3.1.7-2).
Table 3.1.7-2 – Recreation Subcategory Distribution, Alternative B
Subcategory
Length (feet)
Natural Areas
State Parks
Trails
Total
7,850
9,000
600
10,750
28,200
Included among these resources are Kittatinny Valley State Park, the Rockaway River WMA, the Wildcat
Ridge WMA, the Buck Mountain Forest Legacy Tract, and the Pyramid Mountain Natural Historical Area.
In addition, Alternative B would pass within 1,000 feet of ten local parks.
60
Alternative C
Alternative C would pass across approximately 30,050 feet of recreational lands or open spaces, as
summarized in Table 3.1.7-3.
Table 3.1.7-3 – Recreation Subcategory Distribution, Alternative C
Subcategory
Length (feet)
Fish Hatcheries
Natural Areas
Total
1,100
3,200
25,750
30,050
Included among these resources are the Pequest WMA, the Rockport Game Farm and the Hackettstown
Fish Hatchery. In addition, Alternative C would pass within 1,000 feet of nine local parks.
Impacts on Recreational Resources of State, Regional, and Local Significance
Alternative A would require the acquisition of new right-of-way for most of its length between the New
Jersey border and the Jefferson switching station, resulting in the clearing of a 200-foot wide corridor
through this area. Clearing would entail cutting of all trees and tall growing shrubs at the time of
construction, with regular maintenance to prevent the re-growth of trees. This would result in the removal
of the new right-of-way from any present or future recreational use.
Because much of both Alternatives B and C would likely be constructed within existing rights-of-way,
these alternatives would have the least impact on recreation and open space in their respective corridors.
Conclusions
While all three alternative routes would pass across recreational lands or open spaces, Alternative A
would have the greatest impact (50,900 feet), followed by Alternative C and Alternative B (30,050 feet
and 28,200 feet respectively). Consequently, Alternative B would have the least potential impact on
recreational resources of state, regional, and local significance.
3.1.8
Cultural Resources
The prehistoric (pre-contact) period of New Jersey is divided into four broad chronological eras: the
Paleoindian [12,500 to 10,000 years before present (BP)]; the Archaic (10,000 to 3,000 BP); the
Woodland (3,000 BP to A.D. 1600); and the Contact Period (A.D. 1600 to A.D. 1800). The Archaic and
Woodland periods are further divided into early, middle, and late periods. The prehistoric cultural periods
are understood to reflect temporally and culturally distinct occupations and are defined on the assumption
that changes in artifact types and styles mirror cultural changes. Stylistic variation in projectile points,
other stone tools, and later, ceramics define the traditional cultural periods (Coe 1964)
Paleoindian (12,500 to 10,000 BP)
The earliest recognized prehistoric occupation of New Jersey dates to the Paleoindian period (12,500 to
10,000 BP). Paleoindian occupation is characterized by the use of distinctive fluted lanceolate points.
Although more than 200 such fluted points have been found throughout New Jersey, the largest number
of these fluted points has been found in the Delaware River drainage, and almost all of them were surface
finds (Marshall 1982). Paleoindian subsistence strategy may have centered on the hunting of game.
Although other economic activities such as the gathering of plant foods may have been equally important,
they have left little or no trace in the archaeological record. The location of known Paleoindian sites in
New York and New Jersey suggests a preference for high, well-drained ground, near streams or
wetlands, offering vantage points for observing game. Sites have also been located in rockshelters, near
lithic source areas, and on lower river terraces. It is probable that many Paleoindian sites were situated
on what is now the continental shelf (Marshall 1982).
61
Archaic Period (10,000 to 3,000 BP)
The ecological changes brought about by the warmer Holocene climates subsequently encouraged
population migrations and the development of new subsistence strategies which characterize the Archaic
period (10,000 to 3000 BP). Compared with the Paleoindian period, a wider variety of artifact types were
used during the Archaic. This suggests that a greater diversity of subsistence and technological activities
was pursued, although hunting still appears to have been the major focus. The Archaic in New Jersey is
commonly divided into three subperiods, Early, Middle, and Late, based on changes in material culture
and subsistence patterns. A fourth subperiod, the Terminal Archaic or Transitional period, has also been
defined for at least the northern portion of the state and the adjoining areas of New York and
Pennsylvania (Kraft and Mounier 1982).
Although the transition from the Late Paleoindian to the Early Archaic period was marked by a change in
projectile point morphology, some researchers have recently suggested that such a shift does not
necessarily indicate a new way of life the same basic adaptation to the environment was present, and
changes in projectile-point morphology implied a technological shift rather than an economic shift (Cavallo
1980; Gardner 1974). Settlement patterns during this period appear to represent the same preferences
for site location as in the preceding period (Berger 1986:III-19). Middle Archaic remains (8000 to 6000
BP) have rarely been documented in the region, possibly a result of the unclear typological definitions for
this period. The Middle Archaic occupation of New Jersey is often linked with either the Early or the Late
Archaic (Kraft and Mounier 1982).
Sites associated with the Late Archaic period (6000 to 3000 BP) are more common, leading some
researchers to infer that an increase in the Native American population occurred. In some instances,
Late Archaic base camp sites appear to represent occupations of longer duration. Milling stones and
other food-grinding implements attest to an increased reliance on gathered wild plants; netsinkers, stoneboiling features, and faunal remains indicate the importance of fishing and shellfishing.
Woodland Period (3,000 BP to A.D. 1600)
The Woodland period (3000 BP to A.D. 1600) is divided into three successive subperiods: Early, Middle,
and Late Woodland. The Early Woodland (3000 BP to AD 1) is traditionally distinguished from the
preceding Late Archaic period by the introduction of ceramic vessels. Trends toward greater sedentism
and subsistence specialization begun during the Terminal Archaic continued and were eventually
accompanied by experimentation with cultigens. As with sites dating to other periods of New Jersey’s
prehistory, known Early Woodland sites in the northwestern part of the state are located primarily in the
Upper Delaware Valley (Williams and Thomas 1982). The Middle Woodland period (AD 1 to 700), was
fairly similar to the Early Woodland Period but is characterized by stylistic changes in pottery.
The Late Woodland period (AD 700 to 1600) is well represented throughout New Jersey. The largest
sites dating to this period are usually located on major rivers and probably represent base camps which
may have been occupied during most of the year. Smaller sites are abundant on tributaries as well as
near natural springs and probably functioned as temporary or seasonal camps. The practice of hoe-type
horticulture was well established, although hunting, gathering, and fishing continued as major subsistence
activities. Except for stylistic changes, the Late Woodland stone toolkit remained similar to that of earlier
periods and reflects the functional diversity associated with exploiting a broad resource base.
Contact Period (A.D. 1600 to A.D. 1800)
At the time of European contact (circa 1638), New Jersey was occupied by the Unami branch of the
Lenape (renamed the “Delaware” by Europeans) (Goddard 1978; Kraft 1986). Increased contact with
European traders and settlers and Colonial encroachment on hunting grounds and purchases of Native
American territory resulted in the breakdown of native traditions and the increased reliance on European
goods in exchange for land and furs and by the mid eighteenth century the tribe had relinquished all rights
to New Jersey, except for hunting and fishing privileges. Warfare, disease, and alcoholism decimated the
native population. For example, the Native American population of New Jersey is estimated to have been
between 3,000 and 24,000 people in 1700 and by 1759 it was estimated that only 300 Native Americans
remained in New Jersey (Kraft 1986).
62
Historic Period (ca. A.D. 1624 to ca. 1950)
The Alternative Routes extend through portions of what was referred to as East Jersey within the
seventeenth century boundaries of Essex County and unorganized territory to the west (Cunningham
1992:22, 24; Snyder 1969:9). With the exception of Essex County, which was one of the original (1675)
counties of New Jersey, Morris, Sussex, and Warren were all formed from Hunterdon County (which was
formed from Burlington County and previously unorganized territory in 1713) (W.W. Munsell & Co. 1882).
As a result, the early histories of the four present-day counties through which the Alternative Routes
extend (the region) are closely related.
Intensive European exploration of the area that is now the State of New Jersey began circa 1624, when
the Dutch established New Amsterdam as the capital of their New Netherlands colony. Dutch fur traders
explored the interior sections of New Jersey and had contact with the native Leni Lenape inhabitants.
During their expeditions the Dutch discovered New Jersey's prime agricultural lands and ores for mining.
These attributes attracted later settlers to the interior sections of New Jersey, and to the land which later
became Morris, Sussex, and Warren Counties (League of Women Voters 1968; Snyder 1969). Early
settlers to the region were drawn to the region by the low cost of arable land, the abundance of timber,
and the presence of many rivers (including the Musconetcong, Passaic, and Raritan rivers) and their
tributaries which could power gristmills and sawmills (League of Women Voters 1968).
The earliest record of European activity in the region is the appearance of Dutch miners in Pahaquarry
Township (present-day Warren County) in 1659. The Old Mine Road, according to tradition, was
established by the Dutch to facilitate travel between the mines and their homes in the Hudson Valley
(Mustin 1931). Although there is no definitive evidence to support the traditional history, the Old Mine
Road was undoubtedly a significant thoroughfare for subsequent settlement in the Upper Delaware Valley
(Bodle 1977; Hine 1909:7-9). The Old Mine Road still remains and is a National and New Jersey
Register listed cultural resource (NJ SHPO files).
The earliest permanent settlement by Europeans and Euro-Americans was concentrated along major
waterways, which formed the principal sources of travel and communication. In Pahaquarry Township
and the Phillipsburg area of present-day Warren County, settlement began along the Delaware River
circa 1725. By the middle of the eighteenth century, settlement was expanding eastward from the
Delaware River (Snell 1881). Most of the earliest settlers in the region were of German or Scotch-Irish
descent. Later (1730s and 1740s) settlement of Dutch, Welsh, Quakers, Germans, and Scotch-Irish, as
well as some New Englanders, who entered northern New Jersey from Orange and Ulster counties in
New York, traveling south generally along the Wallkill Valley, was largely concentrated within the northcentral portion of what is now Sussex County began (Meinig 1969; Snell 1881; Wacker 1975). A second
major stream of settlers, primarily Ulster Scots, moved northward into New Jersey from Pennsylvania
(Wacker 1975). Colonists of Scotch-Irish descent continued to migrate from Pennsylvania into the region
as late as the 1790s. Despite the steady influx of colonists, much of the region remained largely
unsettled as late as the third quarter of the eighteenth century.
Pioneer farmers in the region initially engaged in subsistence farming, raising livestock and crops for their
own consumption. After sufficient arable land had been cleared, many area farmers shifted to a
commercial strategy, shipping agricultural products to local and expanding regional markets (Dupont,
1989). By the late eighteenth century, a few small-scale industries had also begun to appear in the
region. For example, Joseph Sharp erected a furnace and forge about one mile south of the village of
Hamburg (present-day Sussex County) in the 1770s (Snell, 1881). Although this early iron-mining
enterprise was abandoned shortly thereafter, it nonetheless presaged the extensive exploitation of the
iron resources in the region of the Pochuck and Wawayanda mountains (Sussex County) during the
second half of the nineteenth century.
The 1769 resolution of the border dispute between New Jersey and New York encouraged further
settlement in the region. By 1769, a major trade route called the King's Highway was in place; this road,
which closely followed the path of the present Route 94, extended up the Vernon Valley west of
63
Wawayanda Mountain, crossed the state line, and continued in a northerly direction to Goshen, New York
(Ratzer, 1777). Several villages such as Vernon developed along the King's Highway in the late
eighteenth century. During the American Revolution, the route was traversed by continental troops
traveling from the Hudson River to Morristown (Dupont, 1989; Lenik and Dupont 1988; Lewis 1795).
During the Revolutionary War, Morris County furnished food, officers, and military supplies and George
Washington made Morristown his winter headquarters during early 1777 and the winter of 1779-1780.
The forges, mills, and furnaces of Morris County produced horseshoes, wagon tires, axes, kettles,
cannons, and cannon powder for the war effort (League of Women Voters 1968). Several skirmishes and
“Indian Raids” also occurred in Sussex and Morris Counties between 1776 and 1780 (Munn, 1976).
These skirmishes, however, did not take place in the immediate vicinity of any of the Alternative Routes.
Following the American Revolution, and during the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the economy of
the region was characterized as one of general agricultural stability and modest prosperity (Snell 1881).
Farms in the region shipped grains and other agriculturally-derived products such as wool and lumber to
market towns that included Hackensack, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, and Philadelphia (Dupont, 1989).
Several mills were established throughout the region during this period.
Although earlier roads such as the Old Mine Road, the "New Road" (County Road), and the King’s
Highway had been established before/by the early nineteenth century, it became increasingly necessary
to establish a broader network of roads to connect the earlier highways, mills, taverns, hamlets, and
farms to each other as the countryside was more densely settled. A review of historic cartographic
resources from between 1825 and 1860 indicates that during the mid-nineteenth century settlement was
characterized by dispersed farms, scattered mill-based villages, and communities that had developed in
the vicinity of mines, quarries, forges, and furnaces. Much of the limestone quarrying was concentrated in
the southwestern portion of Warren County and along the Musconetcong Valley and iron mines were
concentrated in the highlands of Hunterdon, Morris, Sussex, and Warren Counties. Most of the
settlements were concentrated along major roadways. Areas of the region beyond the farm fields and
settlements remained heavily forested through the end of the nineteenth century.
In addition to the development of a network of roadways, other transportation developments in the
nineteenth century, such as the Morris Canal and network of various railroads, contributed to further
settlement and development of the agricultural and industrial economies throughout the region. For
instance, the Morris Canal and Banking Company was incorporated on December 31, 1824, to form an
artificial waterway linking the Passaic and Delaware rivers to solve the fuel shortage and transportation
requirements of iron towns in the region. The Morris Canal was completed in 1831 and transported
anthracite coal from northeastern Pennsylvania as well as other commodities such as grain, wood, cider,
vinegar, beer, whiskey, bricks, hay, hides, sugar, lumber, manure, lime, and iron ore (Lee, 1988). Iron
manufactured in Morris County's 50 forges and 3 furnaces was transported eastward by canal to ports
located on the Hudson River in Jersey City (Lee, 1988). The Morris Canal is a National and New Jersey
Register listed cultural resource (NJ SHPO files).
As the mines and furnaces were largely located in the regions highlands and the Morris Canal was
located in the region’s lowlands, cargo still had to be transported over rocky terrain to and from the canal.
To address the need for arterial transportation to and from the canal, the Morris and Essex Railroad
Company was incorporated in 1831, just as the Morris Canal was completed. Ironically, the Morris and
Essex Railroad soon provided a more rapid and efficient method of transportation than the canal offered
(W.W. Munsell & Co., 1882). Additional mine railroads were established in the Region throughout the
mid-to-late nineteenth century such as the Sussex Railroad (completed in 1854) and the Ogden Mine
Railroad (established 1864), and the High Bridge and Long Valley Railroad, a branch of the Central
Railroad of New Jersey (established 1875) (Lowenthal, 1981; Anderson, 1984; W.W. Munsell & Co.,
1882). The Long Valley Railroad rail line was also instrumental in bringing visitors and guests to the
mineral water resorts located on Schooley's Mountain (Morris County).
Railroad development increased during the 1880s and were focused more so on developing industries
and tourism rather than ore transportation (e.g. the Morris County Railroad and later the Wharton and
64
Northern Railroad). The character and size of the villages in the vicinity of the railroads changed only
slightly after the arrival of the railroad (Snell 1881:346). The railroads offered access to a wider range of
markets which encouraged entrepreneurs to establish diversified industries such as textile and shoe
manufactories. Dairy farmers shifted to production of liquid milk, rather than producing cheese and
butter, since rail transport enabled rapid transportation of this perishable commodity to urban markets.
The tourism industry which had begun in the region during the turnpike and stagecoach era also
benefitted from the railroad system.
The late nineteenth century railroad network and the availability and accessibility of the automobile later
in the early decades of the century also contributed to the growth of tourism, planned recreational
communities, and private developments throughout the region. By the turn of the twentieth century, large
numbers of vacationers from the urban centers of New Jersey and New York were drawn to the
countryside hamlets, lakes, streams, and camping areas of northern and western New Jersey. For
example, the Delaware Water Gap area of Warren County was a popular vacation/recreation destination
since the late nineteenth century. Another example of turn of the twentieth century outdoor recreation and
conservation movement is the Appalachian Trail (1921-1937). In the 1920s and 1930s, private
developers constructed large scale planned residential resort communities, such as Lake Mohawk
(Sussex County) with recreational amenities around natural and artificial lakes in the region. Whereas
Lake Mohawk was a residential community, Lake Tomahawk was created in the 1950s for short-term
vacationers or “day-trippers”.
Previously Identified Cultural Resources
Background research consisted of a baseline regional literature review of prehistoric (pre-contact) and
historic period contexts provided in published and un-published literature. This contextual research was
supplemented by Alternative Route specific review of the files maintained by the New Jersey Historic
Preservation Office (NJ SHPO) pertaining to previously identified historic and archaeological resources
that have been listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) and/or the New Jersey Register of Historic Places (NJRHP) within 1,000 feet of the centerline of
each Alternative Route. Information regarding historic architectural resources that have been previously
documented as part of county planning surveys but for which an official determination of eligibility was not
issued by the NJ SHPO or the Keeper of the National Register was also collected. Information regarding
archaeological sites which have been registered with the New Jersey State Museum (NJSM) and which
have been assigned a Smithsonian trinomial numbering system (SITS) number was also complied for
each of the three Alternative Routes.
Table 3.1.8-1 provides a detailed description of each cultural resource category and data sources for
previously identified cultural resources that were consulted during the background research and Table
3.1.8-2 provides data regarding the types and counts of cultural resources within 1,000 feet of each
Alternative Route.
Alternative A
Background research indicates that a total of 54 previously identified cultural resources are located within
1,000 feet of the centerline of Alternative Route A. This total does not include the historic (1920s) existing
PSE&G 230-kV transmission line and associated historic substations, which were surveyed and
recommended eligible by Richard Grubb and Associates (2003). This total includes 29 historic
architectural resources and 25 registered archaeological resources.
Of the 29 historic architectural resources, a total of eight are listed on both the NRHP and the NJRHP: six
of which are located in Morris County and two are located in located in Sussex County. One historic
architectural resource, in Sussex County, has a Certification of Eligibility (COE) designation issued by the
NJ SHPO and one historic architectural resource, also in Sussex County, the Appalachian Trail, has a
Determination of Eligibility (DOE) issued by the Keeper of the National Register. Five historic
architectural resources have NJ SHPO opinions of eligibility; four in Morris County and one in Sussex
County. Fourteen additional historic architectural resources, all of which are located in Morris County,
65
have been previously documented as part of county planning surveys but have not been issued opinions
or determinations of eligibility.
Table 3.1.8-1 – Definitions of Cultural Resource Categories and Data Sources
Category
Definition
Units
Data Source(s)
National and
Historic Properties Listed on the
New Jersey
National Register of Historic Places
NRHP and NJRHP boundaries
Registers
(polygons and point locations) were
(NRHP) and the New Jersey
Counts
Listed Historic
obtained from the files of the New
Register of Historic Places (NJRHP)
Properties
within 1,000 feet of the Route
Jersey Historic Preservation Office.
within 1,000
Centerline
feet
Historic Properties within 1,000 feet
of the Route Centerline for which a
Certification of Eligibility has been
issued by the New Jersey State
Boundaries (polygons and point
Historic
Historic Preservation Officer (NJ
locations) of Historic Properties with
Properties with
SHPO). For properties not already
a Certification of Eligibility
a Certification
listed on the New Jersey Register of
Counts
designation were obtained from the
of Eligibility
Historic Places, a Certification of
files of the New Jersey Historic
within 1,000
Eligibility satisfies a prerequisite to
Preservation Office.
feet
apply for funds from the New Jersey
Historic Trust, as well as several
county preservation funding
programs.
Historic
Properties with
Determination of Eligibility has been
a
issued by the Keeper of the
a Determination of Eligibility
Counts
Determination
designation were obtained from the
National Register, National Park
of Eligibility
files of the New Jersey Historic
Service, Department of Interior. It is
within 1,000
a formal certification that a property
Preservation Office.
feet
is eligible for registration.
Historic
NJ SHPO Opinion of eligibility has
Properties with been issued by the State Historic
a NJ SHPO
Preservation Officer. It is in
Counts
a NJ SHPO Opinion were obtained
Opinion within response to a federally funded
from the files of the New Jersey
1,000 feet
Historic Preservation Office.
activity that will have an effect on
historic properties not listed on the
National Register.
Historic
Historic Properties greater than 50
Properties
Surveyed by
years of age within 1,000 feet of the
Route Centerline that have been
County within
previously surveyed as part of
locations) of Historic Properties that
1,000 feet for
have been surveyed but not formally
which a formal county planning surveys but which
Counts
have not been listed in the NRHP or
issued an eligibility status were
eligibility
NJRHP or have not been issued a
obtained from the files of the New
status from
Jersey Historic Preservation Office.
NJHPO or the
NJ SHPO Opinion, Certification of
Eligibility, or Determination of
Keeper of the
Eligibility.
National
Register has
66
Category
not been
issued
Table 3.1.8-1 – Definitions of Cultural Resource Categories and Data Sources
Definition
Units
Data Source(s)
Archaeological
Sites within
1,000 feet
Archaeological Sites within 1,000
feet of the Route Centerline that
have been registered with the New
Jersey State Museum (NJSM) and
which have been assigned a
Smithsonian trinomial numbering
system (SITS) number by the
NJSM.
Counts
locations) of Registered
Archaeological Sites were obtained
from the files of the New Jersey
State Museum.
67
Category
Table 3.1.8-2 – Cultural Resources
Number of Resources Per County
(Essex: Morris: Sussex: Warren)
Alternative A
National and New Jersey Registers Listed
Historic Properties with a Certification of
Eligibility within 1,000 feet
Historic Properties with a Determination of
Eligibility within 1,000 feet
Historic Properties with a SHPO Opinion within
1,000 feet
Historic Properties Surveyed but which were
not Issued a formal eligibility status from
NJHPO or the Keeper of the National Register
within 1,000 feet
Archaeological Sites within 1,000 feet
Total Cultural Resources
Alternative B
Alternative C
8
(0:6:2:0)
1
(0:0:1:0)
1
(0:0:1:0)
5
(0:4:1:0)
8
(0:6:1:1)
0
(0:0:0:0)
1
(0:0:0:1)
10
(0:4:6:0)
2
(0:1:0:1)
0
(0:0:0:0)
0
(0:0:0:0)
4
(0:4:0:0)
14
(0:14:0:0)
14
(0:14:0:0)
36
(0:27:0:9)
25
(3:22:0:0)
54
(3:46:5:0)
51
(3:25:11:12)
84
(3:49:18:14)
15
(1:5:0:9)
57
(1:37:0:19)
Six of the previously documented historic architectural properties within 1,000 feet of the Route centerline
would be crossed by Alternative Route A (Table 3.1.8-3).
Of the 25 previously registered archaeological resources, 23 are prehistoric archaeological sites, one is a
historic archaeological site, and one is a multi-component prehistoric and historic archaeological site.
Three of the archaeological sites (two prehistoric sites and one multi-component prehistoric and historic
archaeological site) are located in Essex County, and 22 are located in Morris County (21 prehistoric sites
and one historic archaeological site). None of these registered archaeological sites have been listed or
previously determined to be eligible for the NRHP/NJRHP.
Three of the registered prehistoric archaeological sites are within the right-of-way. One prehistoric site is
within 500 feet of the right-of-way. The remaining 21 registered archaeological sites are beyond 500 feet
of the right-of-way.
Table 3.1.8-3 – Previously Recorded Historic Properties Crossed by Alternative A
# of Linear Feet Crossed by
Resource Name
Eligibility Status
County
Alternative Route A
Appalachian Trail
DOE
Sussex
450
High Point State Park
NR/SR
Sussex
15,000
Main Street Historic District/Sparta
SHPO Opinion
Sussex
500
Multiple Resource Area
Morris Canal
NR/SR
Morris
100
Split Rock Furnace Complex
NR/SR
Morris
3,750
Weldon Mine Historic District
SHPO Opinion
Morris
2,050
Total
21,850
Alternative B
1,000 feet of the centerline of Alternative B. This total does not include the historic (1920s) existing
PSE&G 230-kV transmission line and associated historic substations, which were surveyed and
68
recommended eligible by Richard Grubb and Associates (2003). This total includes 33 historic
architectural resources and 51 registered archaeological resources.
Although the total number of previously identified historic architectural and archaeological resources in
the vicinity of Alternative B is proportionately larger than for Alternatives A and C, the disparity between
the amount of documentation available for cultural resources within 1,000 feet of each of the three
Alternative Routes may be related to the need for documentation of cultural resources as part of more
recent development/planning projects along the corridor of Alternative B and may be reflective of a
greater potential for a large number of previously un-surveyed cultural resources in the vicinity of
Alternative Routes A and C.
Of the 33 historic architectural resources, a total of eight are listed on both the NRHP and the NJRHP: six
are located in Morris County; one is located in Sussex County; and one is located in Warren County. One
historic architectural resource, The Appalachian Trail in Warren County, has a Determination of Eligibility
issued by the Keeper of the National Register. Ten historic architectural resources have NJ SHPO
opinions of eligibility; four in Morris County and six in Sussex County. Fourteen additional historic
architectural resources, all located in Morris County, have been previously documented as part of county
planning surveys but have not been issued opinions or determinations of eligibility.
Seven of the previously documented historic architectural properties within 1,000 feet of the Route
centerline would be crossed by Alternative Route B (Table 3.1.8-4).
Of the 51 previously registered archaeological resources, 49 are prehistoric archaeological sites, one is a
historic archaeological site, and one is a multi-component prehistoric and historic archaeological site.
Three of the archaeological sites (two prehistoric sites and one multi-component prehistoric and historic
archaeological site) are located in Essex County. Twenty-five are located in Morris County (24 prehistoric
sites and one historic archaeological site). Eleven archaeological sites, all of which are prehistoric sites,
are located in Sussex County. Twelve archaeological sites, all of which are prehistoric sites, are located
in Warren County. None of these registered archaeological sites have been listed or previously
determined to be eligible for the NRHP/NJRHP.
Table 3.1.8-4 – Previously Recorded Historic Properties Crossed by Alternative B
Resource Name
Eligibility Status
County
Alternative Route B
Appalachian Trail
DOE
Sussex
1,350
Morris Canal
New York & Susquehanna
Railroad Historic District
Old Mine Road Historic District
NR/SR
Morris
100
SHPO Opinion
Sussex
150
NR/SR
Warren
50
NR/SR
Morris
3,750
Stillwater Historic District
SHPO opinion
Sussex
11,450
Weldon Mine Historic District
SHPO Opinion
Morris
2,050
Split Rock Furnace Complex
Total
18,900
Eleven of the registered prehistoric archaeological sites are within the right-of-way. Five registered
prehistoric sites are within 500 feet of the right-of-way. The remaining 35 registered archaeological sites
are beyond 500 feet of the right-of-way.
Alternative C
1,000 feet of the centerline of Alternative Route C. This total includes 42 historic architectural resources
and 15 registered archaeological resources.
69
Of the 42 historic architectural resources, two are listed on both the NRHP and the NJRHP: one of which
is located in Morris County and one is located in Warren County. Four historic architectural resources
have NJ SHPO opinions of eligibility, all of which are located in Morris County. Thirty-six additional
historic architectural resources have been previously documented as part of county planning surveys but
have not been issued opinions or determinations of eligibility: 27 in Morris County and nine in Warren
County.
Three of the previously documented historic architectural properties within 1,000 feet of the Route
centerline would be crossed by Alternative Route C (Table 3.1.8-5)
Table 3.1.8-5 – Previously Recorded Historic Properties Crossed by Alternative C
Resource Name
Eligibility Status
County
Alternative C
Bartleyville Historic District
County Survey
Morris
400
Old Main Delaware & Lackawanna
SHPO opinion
Morris
850
Railroad Historic District
Morris Canal
NR/SR
Morris
650
Total
1,900
Of the 15 archaeological resources, 14 are prehistoric archaeological sites, and one is a historic
archaeological site. One of the archaeological sites (a multi-component prehistoric and historic site) is
located in Essex County. Five archaeological sites are located in Morris County (4 prehistoric sites and
one historic archaeological site). Nine archaeological sites, all of which are prehistoric sites, are located in
Warren County. None of these registered archaeological sites have been listed or previously determined
to be eligible for the NRHP/NJRHP.
No previously registered archaeological sites are located within the right-of-way. However, six of the
registered prehistoric archaeological sites and the one registered historic archaeological site are within
500 feet of the right-of-way. The remaining eight registered archaeological sites are beyond 500 feet of
the right-of-way.
Impacts on Cultural Resources
The Project Route selection has taken into account the number, types, and possible effects to cultural
resources which have been issued formal eligibility status by the NJ SHPO and/or the Keeper of the
National Register that have been previously identified within 1,000 feet of the centerline of each
Alternative Route. Historic architectural resources that were previously documented in county planning
surveys and archaeological sites which have been registered with the NJSM were also considered within
1,000 feet of the centerline of each Alternative Route.
Historic architectural properties greater than 50 years of age are likely to be visually affected by the new
transmission line unless the relationship of proposed tower structure height to topographic and vegetative
conditions does not prohibit visual accessibility. Visual effects are unavoidable and would be associated
with each of the three Alternative Routes in varying degrees. Attempts to minimize and/or mitigate such
visual effects will be a key component of the Project. The Project may also have direct effects to historic
architectural properties if additional right-of-way property acquisition is required for any of the Alternative
Routes. As per NJ SHPO requirements, an assessment of potential visual and direct effects to previously
identified historic architectural resources, as well as an inventory and evaluation/assessment of
previously un-surveyed architectural properties greater than 50 years of age within a 1/3 mile radius of
each tower structure location will be required for the selected Preferred Route (NJ SHPO Meeting
Minutes 06/27/2008). The Project may also affect the historic (1920s) existing PSE&G 230-kV
transmission line and associated historic substations. As a result, eligibility evaluation, and assessment of
70
Project effects to the historic (1920s) existing PSE&G 230-kV transmission line and associated historic
substations would also be required.
Archaeological sites within the right-of-way and access roads of the selected Preferred Route are likely to
be directly affected by the Project through either actual construction activities and/or compaction of
archaeological deposits and/or features as a result of construction vehicle traffic. As such, Project related
ground disturbing activities, such as tower construction, modification of existing access roads, and
creation of new access roads would seek to avoid previously recorded archaeological resources.
Archaeological subsurface testing will be conducted in areas of high archaeological sensitivity (areas of
proposed ground disturbance within 500 feet of surface potable water less with less than 15% slopes;
areas of proposed ground disturbance within 500 feet of previously registered archaeological sites; areas
of proposed ground disturbance within 300 feet of non-extant historic structures) to identify the presence
or absence of previously un-recorded archaeological resources that may be affected by the Project.
Conclusions
Based upon the background research conducted for each of the three Alternative Routes, Alternative B
would likely have the least impact on cultural resources for the following reasons:
•
Alternative B would use the existing right-of-way. As a result, no new right-of-way property
acquisition would be required for Alternative Route B, thereby eliminating direct effects to known
and potential historic architectural properties. Additionally, ground disturbance associated with the
establishment of new right-of-way is not necessary. As a result, direct effects to known and
potential archeological sites within the existing right-of-way and proposed tower structure
locations would be avoided where possible during the design and construction process.
Additionally, as Alternative Route B would use the existing right-of-way, the need for new access
roads, and therefore the need for additional ground disturbance related to the construction of new
roads, and consequently direct effects to archaeological resources would be less than those
required for Alternative Routes A and C.
•
Although tower structure height would increase as part of the Project, and although visual effects
to previously documented historic architectural properties may not be avoidable, because
Alternative Route B would use the existing right-of-way, the replacement of existing tower
structures along the existing 230-kV right-of-way would minimally change viewsheds to/from
known and potential historic architectural resources. By comparison, the construction of new
and/or additional tower structures within portions of Alternative Routes A and C would introduce
new right-of-way with new visual elements and a radically different viewshed to/from known and
potential historic architectural resources.
•
Although a larger number of known archaeological sites exist in the vicinity of Alternative Route
B, and although 11 sites are located within the existing right-of-way and 5 sites are within 500 feet
of the existing right-of-way, this information allows the development of measures to avoid direct
effects to these resources at early stages in the design process.
3.1.9
Aesthetics
For the purpose of this report, aesthetics are defined as a mix of landscape character, the context in
which the landscape is being viewed, and the scenic integrity of the landscape. To analyze the potential
visibility and visual impact of the proposed project, the three alternatives were reviewed through analysis
of landscape character, field evaluation, and environmental factor tabulations.
Existing Landscape Character
Landscape character encompasses the patterns of landform (topography), vegetation, land use, and
aquatic resources (i.e. lakes, streams, and wetlands). The landscape character is influenced both by
natural systems (see section 3.1.1, Geology and Soils, section 3.1.2, Surface Water, section 3.1.3,
71
Wetlands, and section 3.1.4, Vegetation) as well as our interactions and use of land (see section 3.1.6,
Land Use, section 3.1.7, Recreation, and section 3.1.8, Cultural Resources). In natural settings the
landscape character attributes are natural elements, where as in pastoral or rural/agricultural settings
they may include man made elements such as fences, walls, barns and occasional residences. In a more
developed setting the landscape character may include buildings, lawn areas and landscaping,
pavement, and utility infrastructure.
Alternative Routes
Alternative A
Alternative A crosses the Delaware River at the northern edge of the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area (DWNRA) within Montague Township. East of High Point State Park the route passes
through mixed hardwood-evergreen forested areas, scattered large lot residential properties, and
agriculture. Rolling hills with pastures, croplands and fields provide for long views across the pastoral
landscape. Figure 3.1.9-1 shows an example of the pastoral landscape along the virgin right-of-way east
of the river valley.
Figure 3.1.9-1 View of Farm Field Along River Road Looking North
72
Crossing into High Point State Park the alignment follows an existing gas main. Here the landscape is
primarily dominated by hardwood forests with little intrusion except from the roadways and utilities
including the gas main the route parallels in this area. The gas main easement is dominated by low
herbaceous cover. The alignment crosses the Appalachian Trail at the west end of the park adjacent to
the gas main easement. Figure 3.1.9-2 shows the clearing associated with the gas main in High Point
State Park.
Figure 3.1.9-2 View of the Existing Pipeline Right-of-Way at High Point State Park Looking
Southeast
73
Continuing east from High Point State Park the route continues across rolling hills with scattered
farmsteads, agricultural lands, scattered woodlots, and residential development. Long pastoral views
across the landscape continue to dominate the visual impression of the area. Figure 3.1.9-3 shows an
example of this type of visual impression.
Figure 3.1.9-3 View of Meadow along Clove Road Looking North
North of Lake Hopatcong the route turns east to meet the Roseland-Bushkill 230-kV line at the Jefferson
switching station. From this point east alternatives A and B follow the same alignment to Roseland and
would be double circuited with the existing Roseland – Bushkill 230-kV transmission line to the East
Hanover/Roseland switching station and would be placed entirely within the existing right-of-way. As the
route continues east the scenery is interspersed with more developed lands and recreational areas
including the Rockaway River wildlife area, Wildcat Ridge natural area, Buck Mountain State Park,
Pyramid Mountain State Park, and Troy Meadows natural area.
74
As the line turns south toward Roseland, the density of development increases, especially residential and
commercial uses. The landscape is dotted with houses, commercial developments, and roadway and
utility infrastructure. Woodlands and pastures give way to landscape trees and manicured lawns and
parking lots as shown in Figure 3.1.9-4.
Figure 3.1.9-4 View of Common Area at Chase Run Looking North
75
Alternative B
This alternative crosses the Delaware River within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in
Hardwick Township at the crossing point of the existing Roseland – Bushkill 230-kV line. Driving along
Old Mine Road in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area the line crosses the road near the
Watergate Recreation Site. The landscape in this area is that of a hardwood forest interspersed with field
and meadow openings. These openings appear to be from farming activities in the area prior to the
establishment of the national park. The wooded areas are dominated by hardwood with occasional
stands of pines most likely planted by the Civilian Conservation Corp in the 1930’s. When approaching
the line on Old Mine Road, the transmission line is not visible until one reaches the cleared right-of-way
because of the wooded landscape in this area. Once within the cleared right-of-way, long views are
possible up the cleared right-of-way due to the hilly terrain in this area as illustrated in Figure 3.1.9-5.
Figure 3.1.9-5 View of the Existing Transmission Line Crossing at Millbrook-Flatbrook Road
Looking West Toward the Delaware Water Gap Recreation Area
76
The route crosses near Watergate Recreation Site and then crosses the Appalachian Trail at the east
edge of the park near Meadowbrook Road. Watergate Recreational Site is an open area of meadows
and ponds remnant of a romantic designed park setting. Due to the topography and open nature of the
Watergate Recreation Site long views of the meadows, ponds and hills beyond are provided to viewers.
See Figure 3.1.9-6 of the Watergate Recreation Site. The existing line is visible in the distance.
Figure 3.1.9-6 View of Watergate Recreational Site Looking Southwest from the Parking Area
77
Heading east from the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area the landscape becomes more
pastoral with farmland interspersed with housing developments close to the recreational lakes (see Figure
3.1.9-7) and occasional rural stretches with hardwood forests. With the rolling topography and open
landscape along alternative B between the park and Jefferson switching station many long pastoral vistas
incorporating the existing line can be found.
Figure 3.1.9-7 View of Existing Transmission Line Crossing Lake Mohawk Looking West
Under the existing transmission lines the right of way has been cleared of trees and large shrubs and is
dominated by herbaceous vegetation. As the route heads east, it joins up with Alternative A north of Lake
Hopatcong at the Jefferson switching station. From this point east alternatives A and B follow the same
alignment to Roseland.
78
Alternative C
Alternative C crosses the Delaware River into New Jersey near the hamlet of Foul Rift. Here the
landscape is rural and dominated by agriculture fields. Several existing transmission lines, as well as the
Martin’s Creek Power Plant, dominate the scenery. The proposed line would be double circuited with an
existing 115-kV line across Oxford and Mansfield Township. Figure 3.1.9-8 shows the existing 115-kV
line in this area.
Figure 3.1.9-8 View of Agricultural Field near Phillipsburg-Belvidere Road Looking Northeast
79
Where the route crosses the Pequest and Rockport Game Farm Wildlife Areas the landscape is
dominated by hardwood forests. Progressing east of the Rockport Game Farm Wildlife Area the line
would parallel an existing 230-kV line. East of the game area, the landscape becomes more residential in
nature composed of residential development, occasional commercial properties as well as a more
intensive roadway network and utility infrastructure. Figure 3.1.9-9 illustrates the landscape at Bee
Meadow Park where the existing transmission lines cross Bee Meadow Pond in Hanover Township.
Figure 3.1.9-9 View of Existing Transmission Lines at Bee Meadow Park Looking West
80
East of I-287 the development adjacent to the route becomes more intensively developed, similar to the
eastern portion of Alternative A and B, woodlands and pastures give way to landscape trees and
manicured lawns and parking lots landscape. Figure 3.1.9-10 shows the eastern portion of the route
where the line parallels an existing railroad.
Figure 3.1.9-10 View of Existing Transmission Lines Parallel to Existing Railroad near Merry Lane
Looking West
81
Viewer/User Groups
The visual impact of the proposed routes is influenced by many factors. The viewer is one of these
factors, not only who is viewing the line but their expectations, activities and frequency of viewing the line.
Four types of viewers were identified within the study area.
Local Residents
Local residents are those people who live in the area of the proposed transmission line. These folks may
view the line from their yard or home, while driving on local roads or during other activities in their daily
lives. The sensitivity to the visual impact of the line by local residents may be mitigated by exposure to
existing transmission lines and other dissonant features already within the viewshed. Changes in the
landscape that can be viewed from homes and neighborhoods can be highly sensitive.
Commuters and Travelers
These are people who travel by the route on their way to other destinations. They may view the line on a
regular basis or only once. Typically, drivers will have limited views of the transmission line where
vegetation or structures provide screening and where the line is crossing high above the road surface.
The visual perception of the line for commuters and travelers is anticipated to be relatively low. The
commuters and travelers are typically moving and have a relatively short duration of visual exposure to
the line. Drivers tend to be occupied with traffic and navigation and are to a much lesser degree
concerned with off-road views. Passengers would have a greater occasion for off-road views. In those
instances where the line is constructed parallel and immediately adjacent to the roadway, views of the
structures and line are more common and of longer duration.
Employees
These are people who work at local businesses, primarily in commercial areas along the routes.
Employees will experience the line as they commute and potentially from their place of employment.
They may view the line from the parking lot as they enter their place of business or from inside the
building. Workers may not have views to the outside and will be focused on their work rather than views
of the landscape. Due to limited views and focus, employees are not anticipated to have high sensitivity
to a new transmission line near their place of work.
Recreational Users
This includes local residents and tourists involved in recreational activities at the Delaware Water Gap
National Recreational Area, trails, state and local parks, beaches and boating facilities, golf courses,
historic and culture sites, and natural areas. Scenery and visual quality may or may not be an important
recreational experience for these viewers. For some users scenery may be an important part of their
experience as their activities may include attentiveness to views of the landscape for a long period of
time. Such viewers may also have a high appreciation for visual quality and high sensitivity to visual
change. These viewers and the effect of the alternative routes on these resources are discussed in
section 3.1.7, Recreational Lands and section 3.1.8, Cultural Resources.
Scenic Integrity and Visual Absorption
Scenic integrity is the degree from which the landscape character deviates from a natural, naturalappearing landscape in line, form, color, and texture of the landscape. In general natural and natural
appearing landscapes have the greatest scenic integrity. As man-made incongruities are added to the
landscape the scenic integrity diminishes. Landscapes with historic character may have man made
elements that are part of the historic context. These landscapes also have scenic integrity for which
modifications may alter the integrity of the landscape.
Furthermore, some landscapes have a greater ability to absorb alterations with limited reduction in scenic
integrity. The character and complexity as well as environmental factors influence the ability of a
landscape to absorb changes in landscape.
The scenic integrity of Alternative A is the greatest of the three proposed routes. Alternative A has the
greatest crossing of natural lands (forested land, aquatic resources and wetlands). Alternative A crosses
82
approximately 29 miles of natural lands while Alternative B crosses approximately 9 miles and Alternative
C crosses approximately 16 miles. These natural lands are in areas of virgin rights-of-way where no
existing utility infrastructure is present. The ability of these areas of virgin rights-of-way to absorb the
changes in the visual landscape is less than along the other two alternatives which either utilize or parallel
existing right-of-way. Alternative A utilizes approximately 24 miles of virgin right-of-way while alternatives
B and C do not utilize any.
Double circuiting the proposed 500-kV double circuit with an existing 230-kV line under Alternative B,
would offer the least degree of notable change on the landscape. All of Alternative B would be double
circuited with the existing 230-kV line. The new structures would be taller than the existing structures and
therefore there would be an increase visual impact both in mass and in distance that the structures are
discernable. The existing structures are approximately 70 to 150 feet in height, where the proposed
structures are anticipated to range from 150 to 195 feet in height. Alternative C would parallel an existing
230-kV line for approximately 19 miles. The existing transmission line and other development along this
route have diminished the scenic integrity of the landscape character of Alternative C, an additional line
on separate structures would increase the diminished characteristics more than re-building an existing
230-kV double circuit line on the same structures as the new 500-kV line, as proposed for Alternative B.
Impacts on Aesthetics
Regardless of the route, the transmission line would cross through visual resources and the line
structures, conductors, and the cleared right-of-way will be visible in some degree. The visual presence
of the line will be influenced by many factors such as the amount of screening, the distance viewed, other
disturbances in the viewshed, background terrain and textures, and the sensitivity of the viewer.
In open pastoral settings long vistas may be afforded from elevated views across pastures, fields and
open lands. Alternative C has the greatest crossing of agricultural lands. Alternative C crosses
approximately 7 miles of agricultural lands while Alternative A crosses approximately 4 miles and
Alternative B approximately 2 miles.
In forested settings an extensive amount of natural screening is present which will limit direct visual
access to the line except when viewed from within the cleared right-of-way. Assuming a typical height of
115-195 feet and a tree height of about 70 to 110 feet, in areas where mid to long views of forested ridges
and tree lines are afforded, the upper portion of the structures will be visible above the forest canopy.
The degree the line effects the scenic integrity of the landscape will be reduced at longer viewing
distances as the line becomes a smaller part of the overall vista. If viewed from within the cleared rightof-way or an adjacent clearing such as the gas main easement along Alternative A, the line will be highly
visible. Where the woodlands adjacent to the clearing are intact, the visibility of the line will quickly
diminish with distance from the clearing. In addition to forests; smaller stands of trees, hedgerows,
adjacent landscaping and structures provide a degree of screening of for the transmission line along all
the alternative routes. In the case of Alternative A, trees and other woody vegetation would need to be
cleared for the new virgin right-of-way as well as where it is parallel to the existing gas pipeline
(approximately 28 miles). Alternative B would not require additional clearing outside of the existing rightof-way which is already predominately clear of trees and woody vegetation. Route C would require
clearing of the new right-of-way where it would parallel an existing 230-kV transmission line
(approximately 19 miles).
Residents along the route will have the most frequent visual interaction with the proposed route. To gain
a comparison of residential visual impact, Table 3.1.9-1 identifies the number of residences within 500
feet of the centerline of the proposed route. This distance is similar though slightly more inclusive than
the 300-foot distance used by the US Forest Service to delineate the immediate foreground of an
observation point (Forest Service, 1995). As the table shows Alternative C will place the route within 500
feet of the most residences (1,243 residences).
83
Table 3.1.9-1 – Residences within 500 feet of the Proposed
Centerline by Alternative
Alternative
A
B
C
Residences
717
851
1,243
Conclusions
A new 500-kV transmission line will have a visual impact on the landscape character of any of the
Alternative Routes. Aesthetics and visual impact of a transmission line are influenced by multiple factors:
the landscape character of the surrounding area, the viewer’s activities and scenic expectation, the visual
integrity and visual absorption potential of the landscape, and the visibility of the line. Alternative A has
the greatest scenic integrity; this route crosses more natural lands (forested land, aquatic resources, and
wetlands). The engineering of Alternative B, double circuiting with an existing 230-kV line offers the least
degree of notable incremental change in the landscape. Constructing an additional line on separate
structures, Alternative C, would decrease the scenic integrity of the landscape more than re-building an
existing 230-kV double circuit line as proposed for Alternative B. Alternative C crosses the most
agricultural land allowing for long pastoral views across the landscape. Alternatives A and C would
require new right-of-way either virgin or parallel to another utility. Alternatives A and C would require
clearing of trees or woody vegetation for new right-of-way. Alternative C is within 500 feet of the greatest
number of residences.
Taking these factors into consideration, Alternative B would have the least visual impact. Alternative B
crosses the least amount of natural lands. Alternative B follows the alignment of an existing transmission
line, minimizing additional modification of visual integrity. Alternative B crosses less open agricultural
lands minimizing long pastoral views. Alternative B would not require new virgin or parallel right-of-way.
3.2
3.2.1
Engineering Analysis
Potential Construction Impacts Regardless of Which Alternative is
Selected
Geology and Soils
Soil compaction would result from the movement of heavy vehicles along the right-of-way during
construction. Soil compaction causes decreased soil productivity for producing forage or crops, since the
compacted soil cannot readily exchange gases with the air or absorb water and plant nutrients.
Additionally, because the water absorption rate is reduced, water from precipitation runs off compacted
soils more readily and increases soil erosion. To mitigate for soil compaction of deep soils in agricultural
areas or other sensitive areas, ripping could be performed to break up compaction caused by
construction vehicles and blading could be used to level rutted soils.
Rutting may occur in the right-of-way or along access roads during construction of the transmission line
due to the movement of heavy vehicles. On sloping soils, precipitation may cause water to be channeled
in ruts and cause washing and erosion. Mass wasting, or slope failure, such as creeps, slides, and falls
are of concern as a result of access road construction. Mass wasting often results from a combination of
several factors, such as placement of roads on unsuitable soils or unstable hillsides, inappropriate
placement of road fills and stream crossings, or inadequate drainage structures for the road. To reduce
the potential for these impacts, a range of soil erosion and sediment control measures during
construction, operation, and maintenance of transmission lines would be taken in accordance with Best
Management Practices (BMPs) specified in a soil erosion and sediment control plan submitted to the
county Soil Conservation Districts for approval prior to the start of earth disturbing activities. These
measures would typically include:
84
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Where possible, soils types which are at risk to impact would be avoided by construction
activities; (e.g., to reduce soil erosion and mass wasting hazards, steep soils would be avoided;
and to reduce compaction and rutting, wet or fine textured soils would be avoided).
Stringing sites and material handling yards would not be placed on steep slopes or on soils
subject to erosion or slippage.
Trees and tall shrubs would be cut at the soil surface and the root mass left in place to help retain
the soil in place and prevent erosion, except that grubbing may be performed at structure sites for
installation of foundations, and possibly along a narrow portion of the right-of-way for vehicle
access and safe wire stringing.
Herbaceous vegetation and low growing shrubs would not be disturbed except as necessary for
construction vehicles to move up and down the right-of-way.
Wet soils would be spanned between structures where ever possible. Where wet soils must
entered, equipment with wide flotation tires would be used or temporary mats would be laid down
for construction vehicle access and would be removed after construction is completed.
Provisions for reseeding soils disturbed during construction and the appropriate use of soil
erosion control devices such as soil erosion control netting, silt fences, and mulch.
Temporary construction access roads would be designed using BMPs, including water bars,
temporary culverts, diversion ditches, water collection basins, sediment traps, and other features.
Construction bid packages would include provisions for the above soil protection requirements.
In areas where blasting could be required for structure foundations for structure construction, nearby
wells could be directly affected if wellheads should be damaged. If such activities should cause alteration
of groundwater flow, yields of wells could be adversely affected on a short term basis. No long term
affects on aquifers would be expected from any blasting that may be necessary during construction. In
order to avoid potential impacts to wells and well-head protection areas, alternative structure and
associated foundation types could be considered to minimize or eliminate the need for blasting in such
sensitive areas.
During construction, an environmental construction monitor would ensure that all contractual
environmental protection requirements (including those related to soils) are adhered to by the
construction contractor. Following construction, the transmission line right-of-way would be patrolled on a
periodic basis and any soil erosion or other soil related problem caused by the transmission line identified
and properly corrected.
Surface Water Resources and Aquatic Habitat
Access roads have the potential to affect the natural hydrology of a watershed area by intercepting,
concentrating and diverting surface flow from its natural flow pattern. Roads can expand the channel
network via road ditches and reduce infiltration rates of precipitation, generating larger amounts of
surface runoff. All of these factors combine to alter the quantity and timing of surface flow, which, in turn,
affects the overall hydrology of a watershed. Improperly designed or inadequately maintained drainage
structures can lead to upstream channel aggradation, increased surface runoff with added sedimentation,
or affect the formation of gullies. Access roads created for construction activities would, in most cases,
be temporary and would be removed following construction. These areas would be restored using BMPs
(and Riparian Zone mitigation, where required) that would minimize the effects of soil compaction and
temporary vegetation removal.
Aquatic species are sensitive to factors such as water clarity, temperature, and flow characteristics.
Transmission line construction and operation activities altering these factors would be localized and
impacts would be minimized with properly designed access roads and construction practices.
Increases in warm water runoff and decreases in shade cover, which contribute to increases in water
temperature, are of primary concern in cold water streams that provide habitat for species such as trout.
85
An access road or right-of-way running parallel to a stream is generally the greatest concern when
considering limits on stream shade due to lack of canopy cover. However, maintaining a shrub canopy
over a stream on/along a right-of-way can serve to maintain water temperature.
Appropriate design and maintenance of drainage structures, as previously discussed in Geology and
Soils, would minimize the potential effects that access roads may have on stream hydrology. Properly
maintained drainage structures would prevent water from becoming trapped on the road surface or
becoming concentrated with increased sediment load. Additionally, steps to return disturbed soil in the
right-of-way to its original state, as discussed in the Geology and Soils section of this report, would
minimize increases in surface runoff caused by transmission line construction and maintenance. This
would minimize any changes in local stream water quality.
3.2.2
A.
Design Considerations
Configuration of the New Transmission Line
Overhead 500-kV Alternating Current (AC) Transmission Line
Constructing the proposed new line as a conventional 500-kV AC overhead line provides the greatest
capacity and provides the most reliable system for the least cost.
Other Transmission Line Alternatives Considered
Transmission lines alternatives considered include:
• Underground 500-kV AC Transmission Line
• Overhead 500-kV equivalent DC Transmission Line
• Underground 500-kV equivalent DC Transmission Line
Underground 500-kV AC Transmission Line
A 500-kV underground design, while technically possible, is not a practical alternative in the instant case
due to:
•
•
•
•
charging current and reactive compensation
o reactor stations would need to be installed approximately every 10 or so miles
reliability
o very limited operational history
o cable faults result in exponentially longer outages compared to overhead
environmental impacts
o 400 times more surface disturbance along the right-of-way
constructability
o rock conditions and mountainous topography
Overhead 500-kV Equivalent DC Transmission Line
Overhead 500-kV DC transmission structures would take up nearly the same space as an overhead 500kV AC overhead line. However, the DC system requires an extensive land area to accommodate for the
AC-DC converter stations and requires expensive terminal equipment. A basic rule of thumb is that each
1,000 MVA of capacity requires a converter station on each end that will occupy the area of a football
field. This line will be rated at 3,000-plus MVA, which represents a significant constraint to constructability.
Underground 500-kV Equivalent DC Transmission Line
This alternative has characteristics of both the underground 500-kV AC option and the overhead 500-kV
equivalent DC option including reliability experience and environmental impact.
B.
Natural Conditions
86
The design must respond to the natural conditions along the right-of-way. This includes the need to deal
with steep land; avoid wetlands; properly cross rivers, valleys, roads, etc; be able to withstand weather
conditions; have the required construction access roads; and be designed for maintenance access.
C.
Conductor and Shield Wires
The structure must be designed to reliably support the weight of the conductors and shield wires under all
anticipated weather conditions. This also includes the stresses on the conductor and shield wires from
the forces of wind and the additional weight when coated by winter ice1.
Either three-bundle or four-bundle conductors may be used for the proposed 500-kV line. Each of these
bundles represents a single phase conductor. The four-bundle conductor would likely be used on the
PSE&G portion of the line. The three-bundle conductor would likely be used for the PPL portions of the
line. Use of multi-bundled conductors reduces the audible noise produced by the conductors when
energized.
D.
Visual and Other Environmental Restrictions
Design requirements will be affected by the need to minimize the visual impact of the new structures,
conductor, and the cleared right-of-way to blend in with the existing surroundings. Other environmental
concerns (e.g., avoiding wetlands, stream floodplains, sensitive habitats) may also affect the location of
the structures and access roads, and could influence the number and height of the structures, and other
design concerns.
E.
Electrical Clearance Requirements
Unlike the rigging on ships or cranes, the conductors on transmission lines are energized while
transmitting electrical power. The power will “flash over” on a path of least resistance to grounded objects
if adequate clearance between the conductors and the objects is not maintained. These objects include
many common features on the landscape such as trees, buildings, antennas, light poles, fences, vehicles,
and the soil itself. Clearances also have to be maintained between the conductors and the supporting
structure and between the circuits on double-circuit structures and between the phases themselves in the
same circuit. National Electrical Safety Code, other regulations, and the engineering practices of PSE&G
and PPL state that proper clearances must be maintained.
F.
Foundation Requirements
The design of the transmission line will also include the design of specialized foundations. Double-circuit
500-kV transmission structures will require large buried foundations. These are typically cylindrical, steelreinforced concrete foundations on which the base of the structure is bolted. Each foundation is designed
specifically for each structure site based on subsurface conditions. Foundation dimensions will vary from
structure to structure and depending on local soil and rock conditions the foundations may range from 4
to 12 feet in diameter and up to about 40 feet deep. Steel pole structure types will require larger, but
fewer foundations than lattice steel structure types.
G.
Right-of-Way Clearing Requirements
Trees and tall growing shrubs must be removed from the right-of-way to prevent interference with the
construction and operation of the transmission line. Specific clearances must be maintained to provide
for that reliability and meet NERC and New Jersey Board of Public Utilities compliance requirements.
Danger trees are tall trees outside the right-of-way that could fall toward the right-of-way and strike either
conductors or structures. These trees must be selectively cut at the time of line construction, and
periodically thereafter. Narrower rights of way require more frequent maintenance.
1
Transmission lines transmit 3-phase electrical power. Each phase requires one or more conductors. A single-circuit
transmission line structure must be capable of supporting three phases. A double-circuit structure must be capable of supporting six
phases. “Shield wires” are one or two smaller steel cables or fiber optic cables that are suspended above the upper conductor. The
shield wires are intended to intercept lightning strikes, which would electrically interfere with the power system if they were to strike
the conductors directly. The shield wires may also have fiber optic communications capability for use in controlling the operation of
the transmission and substation system.
87
H.
Construction Access Requirements
Part of the overall design effort is to ensure that adequate construction access is available to each
structure site. Construction would, in most cases, require that each structure site be accessible by
equipment capable of boring excavations for the foundations, trucks to deliver concrete necessary for
each foundation, and cranes capable of erecting the structures. Smaller vehicles will also have to reach
all sites to deliver materials and workers. Helicopter access may also be necessary.
Construction access may require the installation of temporary graded roads, temporary bridges and
culverts, and a graded level working site at each structure. Level sites would also be needed at periodic
intervals along the line for setting up the stringing equipment necessary for installing the conductors and
shield wires.
I.
Future Maintenance Access
Periodic access on a cycle of between 1 and 4 years will be required to treat or mechanically remove
taller growing saplings and brush to ensure that the right-of-way is maintained in a cleared condition
pursuant to State and Federal regulations. Re-clearing is necessary to prevent the taller growing trees
and brush from interfering with the reliable flow of electrical power and to allow vehicular access when
necessary for maintenance or repairs.
Once constructed, the transmission line may be subjected to annual aerial or foot patrols for inspection.
The line must be designed to ensure that conductors, shield wires, insulators, and other components are
readily accessible for repairs while strictly avoiding the requirement to de-energize the line to make
repairs. The need for this “hot line” access would affect the design of the structures, the positioning of the
conductors, and the spacing of parallel lines on the right-of-way. The intent is to avoid access limitations
and electrical safety issues for helicopter work or for work from the ground on the energized transmission
line.
J.
Electric and Magnetic Fields
New Jersey laws state that the electric field strength at the edge of the right-of-way must not exceed 3
kilovolts per meter (3-kV/m). Since raising the conductors will reduce the electric field strength on the
right-of-way, meeting the electric field requirements would likely require raising the conductors which
increases the height of the structures. Where possible, widening the right-of-way could also be used to
meet electrical field levels at the edge of the right-of-way.
K.
Audible Noise
Audible noise occurs due to electrical discharge in the form of corona. This corona occurs on high
voltage conductors when the electric field level at the conductor surface exceeds the ionization strength
of the surrounding air. The size and shape of the conductors directly affect the amount of corona activity
and larger, smoother conductors will produce less corona than smaller ones. The transmission line
design parameters that have the most significant effect on corona are the number of subconductors in the
bundle and the diameter of each conductor. An increase in the either the number of subconductors in the
bundle or the diameter of the conductor will result in a reduction of the corona produced by the line.
corona is more evident during periods of wet weather as the water droplets form an irregular surface on
the conductor and enhance the corona activity. PSE&G must meet New Jersey administrative code for
audible noise which is 50 dBA at night at the edge of the right-of-way.
3.2.3
Conceptual Engineering Summary of the Three Alternative Routes
A conceptual layout was made for each alternative and construction cost estimates were developed
based on these conceptual layouts. Alternative A would consist of new right-of-way as well as existing
right-of-way while Alternatives B and C would be constructed entirely on existing right-of-way unless
design considerations along the eastern-most portion of this Alternative C could not be overcome. The
existing right-of-way portion of Alternative A is common to Alternative B.
88
Alternative A
Alternative A would be approximately 50.5 miles in length in New Jersey. This alternative has
approximately 27.7 miles of new transmission line right-of-way and 22.8 miles of existing right-of-way.
The new right-of-way width would be 200 feet while the existing right-of-way width is nominally 150 feet.
The new right-of-way would have 500-kV single circuit structures while the existing right-of-way would
have double circuit structures supporting the new 500-kV circuit and a new 230-kV circuit. Altogether,
there would be approximately 290 structures for this alternative. There would be 219 new tangent
suspension structures, 24 suspension angle structures and 47 dead-end structures, either large angle or
in-line dead-end types. The spans between structures would range from approximately 700 feet to 2,000
feet. A new switching station would be constructed in Jefferson Township at the line’s intersection with
the Branchburg to New York 500-kV transmission line. Along the existing right-of-way, the new structure
locations would closely match the existing 230-kV steel lattice structure locations. The estimated structure
heights would range from 115 feet for the single circuit 500-kV structures to 195 feet for the double circuit
500-kV/230-kV structures. The estimated construction cost for Alternative A would be 1.1 times the
estimated cost to construct Alternative B.
Alternative B
Alternative B would approximately 45.7 miles in length in New Jersey. This alternative would be
constructed entirely on existing right-of-way and the width is nominally 150 feet. The new double circuit
structures would support a new 500-kV circuit and a new 230-kV circuit. Altogether, there would be
approximately 234 structures for this alternative. There would be 176 new tangent suspension structures,
19 suspension angle structures and 39 dead-end structures, either large angle or in-line dead-end types.
The spans between structures would range from approximately 700 feet to 2,700 feet. The new structure
locations would closely match the existing 230-kV steel lattice structure locations. The estimated
structure heights would range from 150 feet to 195 feet for the D/C 500-kV/230-kV structures. A new
switching station would be constructed at the same location described in Alternative A. The estimated
construction cost for Alternative B would be the least costly of the three alternatives.
Alternative C
Alternative C would be approximately 43.4 miles in length. This alternative is entirely on existing right-ofway that varies from approximately 135 feet to 400 feet in width.
The existing right-of-way configuration has varying circuits along this alternative. At the Martins Creek
Substation, for 0.3 miles the existing 230-kV circuit within the 200 foot right-of-way would be replaced with
a double circuit 500kv/230kV circuit. For the next 14 miles, the existing 115-kV circuit within the 200 foot
wide right-of-way would be replaced with a double circuit 500kV/115kV line. For the next 19 miles, the
existing 285 foot right-of-way has an existing double circuit 230-kV line that we assume would remain; a
single circuit 500-kV line would be installed within the southerly portion of the right-of-way. A new
switching station would be constructed in the community of Long Valley at the line’s intersection with the
Branchburg to New York 500-kV transmission line. For the next 2 miles, the existing 400 foot right-of-way
has two double circuit 230-kV line that would remain; a single circuit 500-kV line would be installed within
the southerly portion of the right-of-way. For the next 10 miles heading east from the Greystone
Substation, the existing 290 foot right-of-way has two existing double circuit 230-kV lines. One of the
double circuit 230-kV lines would be undergrounded for about 10 miles and a new single circuit 500-kV
line would be built. For the remainder of the 0.8 miles, the existing 135-foot right-of-way has an existing
single circuit 230-kV line. This line would need to be undergrounded in order for the new single circuit
500-kV line to be built on the existing right-of-way. Commercial and residential development abutting the
existing right-of-way along this segment of Alternative C would prevent expansion of the existing right-ofway without substantial environmental impacts.
The new double circuit structures would support a new 500-kV circuit and either a new 230-kV circuit or a
new 115-kV circuit. Altogether, there would be approximately 306 structures for this alternative in New
Jersey. There would be 241 new tangent suspension structures, 18 suspension angle structures and 47
dead-end structures, either large angle or in-line dead-end types. The spans between structures would
range from approximately 600 feet to 1,500 feet. Along the existing right-of-way, the new structure
89
locations would closely match the existing structure locations. The estimated structure heights would
range from 115 feet for the single circuit 500-kV structures to 195 feet for the double circuit 500-kV/230kV structures. The estimated construction cost for Alternative C would be 1.8 times the estimated cost of
constructing Alternative B.
3.3
Public Outreach and Input
Routing team members participated in public open houses held throughout the study area. The purpose
of the open houses was to inform the public of the project and involve them in providing information for
the Preferred Alternative decision-making process. Three Open Houses were held by PSE&G in New
Jersey, occurring on the following dates at the times and locations indicated:
June 23, 2008, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., Sussex County Community College, Newton, NJ
June 24, 2008, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., The Frelinghuysen Arboretum, Morristown, NJ
June 25, 2008, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., Warren County Community College, Washington, NJ
In addition to the Public Workshops, PSE&G was requested by Montville, Wantage, and Sparta to meet in
those towns and PSE&G did so on July 15, 24, and 28, respectively.
An additional nine public meetings, some of which were attended by New Jersey residents, were held by
PPL in Pennsylvania as follows:
June 16, 2008, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., PPL East Mountain Business Center, Wilkes-Barre, PA
June 17, 2008, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Hilton Scranton & Conference Center, Scranton, PA
June 18, 2008, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Wallenpaupack Area High School, Hawley, PA
June 19, 2008 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Fernwood Resort & Conference Center, Bushkill, PA
June 23, 2008, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Berwick High School, Berwick, PA
June 24, 2008, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Tamaqua Community Center, Tamaqua, PA
June 25, 2008, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Forks Township Community Center, Easton, PA
June 26, 2008, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Northampton Community Center, Northampton, PA
PSE&G publicized the selection of the three alternative routes, the public workshops in New Jersey that
were held to gather input on the three alternatives, and other aspects of the Susquehanna to Roseland
Project by the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Full details on the project Web site, "http://reliabilityproject.pseg.com"
Meetings with local officials in the towns along each of the routes, key government agencies, and
newspaper editors and reporters;
Newspaper and radio advertisements to announce the locations of the public workshops; and
An e-mail address for comments, "mailto:[email protected]"
An informal format was employed at the public workshops using various displays to explain various
aspects of the project. Displays were staffed by representatives of PSE&G; routing team members; and
other experts who explained the project to attendees, received information and other input from
attendees, and answered their questions or recorded their questions for later follow-up. The displays and
literature provided covered various subjects, such as the electrical need for the line, engineering and
construction requirements, normal right-of-way acquisition procedures, and route selection procedures.
An important aspect of the open houses was the use of the one inch to 500-foot scale aerial photo map
sheets. These sheets showed the Alternative Routes under consideration at the time of the open houses,
along with features such as residences, barns, field edges, roads, streams, and other information that
allowed landowners and other attendees to see their local area or area of concern. Attendees were
asked to write any comments they believed important pertaining to the location of the Alternative Routes
or other resources in the study area on the map sheets. Routing team members assisted attendees in
locating their property or other areas of concern on the photography and assisted them in marking the
90
photo sheets with their concerns. Following the open houses, comments recorded on the aerial photo
map sheets were digitized and include in the GIS database for this project.
In addition to verbal comments received during the open houses, attendees were provided with several
other methods of offering additional information on the project, including questionnaires, responding by
email or letter, and monitoring the project website ("http://[email protected]”), where
project information and maps showing the routes under consideration were placed for public review and
comment. In addition to the public workshops, PSE&G held meetings in Montville, Wantage, and Sparta
on July 15th, 24th, and 28th, respectively. Figure 3.3-1 summarizes the public comments received during
the public outreach process.
As of August 4, 2008, PSE&G has received 460 individual comments from residents, property owners,
agencies, and other stakeholders following the public meetings and through responses received on
PSE&G’s project website. The comments fall into a number of categories, including aesthetics,
conservation, electromagnetic fields (EMF), health, the desire to keep informed about the project,
requests for maps, the need for the project, noise, property values, recreation, vegetation management,
water, wildlife, and “other.” Based on these results, property values, health/electromagnetic field effects,
and aesthetics were of primary concern for those that commented. The Preferred Route selection
process took these concerns into consideration by attempting to maximize the distance of the centerline
from residences and other sensitive resources such as schools and churches when not following existing
rights-of-way. A substantial number of comments also noted the desire to be kept informed. In
discussions during various public meetings, it was evident that people were also concerned about the
effects of construction on resources of importance to the local community, such as measures that would
be taken to protect wellheads, aquifers, and surface waters from impacts. These concerns are
interspersed among various comment categories shown on the bar chart. Many of the comments
categorized as “other” expressed opposition to one or more of the Alternative Routes. Comments
received from persons in municipalities crossed by the Alternative Routes are as follows: Alternative A,
223; Alternative B, 33; common portions of Alternatives A and B, 127; Alternative C, 187; and common
portions of Alternatives A, B, and C, 126.
91
Figure 3.3-1
Public Comments Received as of August 4, 2008
92
3.4
Preferred Route Identification
The routing team assimilated the environmental information pertaining to all resource areas discussed in
Section 3.1 and the engineering information presented in section 3.2, and summarized the attributes and
deficiencies of each of the three alternative routes under consideration. The results of this summary are
presented below.
Pros and Cons of Alternative A in New Jersey
Pros
•
•
•
Cons
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provides opportunity to cross the Delaware River at a location that minimizes impacts to the
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and avoids crossing the river at a designated wild
and scenic river segment
The fewest number of residences within 250 feet of the centerline (284).
Crosses Appalachian Trail adjacent to an existing pipeline right-of-way, although the incremental
impact of the new above ground structures would be substantial.
The most incremental impact to the existing landscape associated with the portion of this route
that is virgin right-of-way.
Crossing of extensive airport buffer zone along the virgin right-of-way portion of this alternative
could result in the FAA requiring protective measures such as lights on towers and balls on
conductors, thus increasing the visual impact of this alternative.
The most forested land on the right-of-way (18.4 miles).
Clearing of forested land on the virgin right-of-way portion of this Alternative Route would result in
habitat fragmentation of intact forest parcels.
The most amount of total wetlands crossed (10.0 miles).
The most amount of forested wetlands crossed (2.4 miles); functions of this wetlands would most
likely be permanently altered if mature trees are cleared from these wetlands.
The most distance of Natural Heritage Priority sites (sensitive plant and animal habitat) crossed
(4.4 miles).
The most state park crossed (4.9 miles).
Crosses the most distance (4.1 miles) of previously recorded historic properties, including High
Point State Park.
Approximately 185 parcels associated with the virgin right-of-way portion of this alternative. None
of these parcels currently have easements that would allow the construction of a new
transmission line, whereas the other two alternatives would use existing transmission line rightsof-way currently either owned in fee or under easements.
The most Highland Preservation Area crossed (18.8 miles), nearly two miles of which would be
associated with virgin right-of-way.
Pros and Cons of Alternative B in New Jersey
Pros
•
•
•
•
•
•
The least forested land on the right-of-way (0.3 miles).
The least amount of forested wetland on the right-of-way (0.1 miles), thus potential change in
wetland functions would be the least on this Alternative Route.
The least number of C-1 streams crossed (10) which are already crossed by an existing 230-kV
transmission line on the same alignment.
Essentially no change in the existing land use because line could be constructed in existing rightof-way.
Crosses Appalachian Trail on an existing 230-kV transmission line right-of-way.
The least distance of Highlands Planning Area crossed (9.0 miles).
93
•
•
Cons
•
•
•
Would cross 17.1 miles of Highlands Preservation Area but nearly all on an existing cleared rightof-way.
Likely to have the least incremental impact on historic and archaeological resources compared to
the other two Alternative Routes because the existing right-of-way would not need to be
expanded, and existing structures would be replaced with new, albeit taller, structures, minimizing
new ground disturbance.
One existing residence removal or relocation in New Jersey may be required.
Crosses a substantial portion of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, including a
designated “scenic” segment of the designated Delaware River wild and scenic river and would
locally diminish its recreational and scenic value.
Crosses a substantial distance (3.6 miles) of previously recorded historic properties, including the
Stillwater Historic District.
Pros and Cons of Alternative C in New Jersey
Pros
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cons
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Crossing of Delaware River in an industrial setting on the PA side – less impact to wild and scenic
river segment than Alternative B and the least amount of combined adverse effects on
recreational and scenic resources of National significance (Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, Appalachian Trail, and designated wild and scenic river segments).
The least amount of total wetlands crossed by the right-of-way (4.4.miles).
The least amount of Natural Heritage Priority sites (sensitive plant and animal habitat) crossed
(1.3 miles).
No state parks would be crossed by this alternative.
Crosses the least distance (0.4 miles) of previously recorded historic properties compared to the
other two Alternative Routes.
Crosses the least distance (3.9 miles) of slopes greater than 20%.
Shortest of the three alternatives in New Jersey (43.4 miles).
The least Highlands Preservation Area crossed (15.1 miles).
The new line could most likely be constructed within existing utility rights-of-way.
Substantial forested land on the right-of-way (11.4 miles)
About 19 miles of this Alternative Route would entail expansion of the currently utilized right-ofway to the south and additional vegetative clearing to accommodate the parallel alignment of the
new transmission line.
Would require dismantling about three miles of the Morristown and Erie Railroad System, in East
Hanover during construction, at a minimum. This would require customers currently served by
this freight line to receive goods via alternative means, potentially increasing traffic on local roads.
If construction adjacent to the railroad could not be feasibly implemented or engineering
challenges along the eastern-most portion of this Alternative Route could not be overcome, the
right-of-way along this portion of Alternative C may need to be expanded, resulting in substantial
impacts in this heavily developed area.
Addressing the unusual engineering and construction challenges from the Greystone Substation
to Roseland would make construction of this alternative in New Jersey substantially more costly
than either of the other two alternatives
The most crossings of C-1 streams (21).
The most number of residences within 250 feet of the new centerline (478).
The most Highlands Planning Area crossed (25.1 miles).
94
Based on its assessment of the pros and cons of the three Alternative Routes under consideration, the
routing team selects Alternative B as the Preferred Route in New Jersey. This selection is based on the
following factors:
•
•
•
•
•
Alternative B would be constructed entirely within an existing transmission line right-of-way for its
entire length in New Jersey, which would minimize impacts to the natural and human
environment. No construction on virgin right-of-way would be required, which represents a
substantial advantage over Alternative A (where over 24 miles of new right-of-way would be
needed). No substantive additional clearing would be required, which represents a substantial
advantage over Alternative C (where vegetative clearing would be needed along 19 miles of rightof-way if the new line would be constructed parallel to an existing line).
Alternative B has by far the least amount of wooded wetland crossed (0.1 mile), compared to
Alternative A (2.4 miles) and Alternative C (1.3 miles). Thus Alternative B would have the least
potential to permanently alter this type of wetland habitat.
Aesthetic impacts associated with Alternative B would be substantially less than the virgin rightof-way portion of Alternative A. Incremental aesthetic impacts associated with Alternative B
would be slightly less compared to Alternative C because of the need to clear vegetation along
the 19 mile portion that would parallel the existing 230-kV transmission line. Removal of forest in
this area would reduce screening, and the wider cleared right-of-way would be more visually
intrusive. Taller structures than currently exist would likely be needed in the 2.6 miles portion of
Alternative B that is within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in New Jersey, but
means to minimize this incremental impact would be explored with the National Park Service.
Alternative B crosses by far the least amount of forested land (0.3 miles) compared to Alternative
A (18.5 miles) and Alternative C (11.4 miles). This would result in substantially less potential for
soil erosion and permanent alteration of forest habitat and no incremental increase in forest
fragmentation.
Alternative B does not have nearly the same level of substantial engineering and constructability
challenges (and associated increased costs) that are associated with Alternative C.
In addition, PPL's route selection process also resulted in the selection of Alternative B as the preferred
alternative for the Susquehanna to Roseland Project. After a similar routing process, which included
mapping, field visits, a potential route network, and subsequent public outreach meetings and agency
consultation, PPL deduced that Alternative B is the best route from an economic, environmental, land
use, and public perspective.
95
4. REFERENCES
Anderson, Elaine. 1984. The Central Railroad of New Jersey's First 100 Years, A Historical Survey.
Center for Canal History and Technology, Easton, Pennsylvania.
Avian Powerline Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on
Powerlines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California
Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California
APLIC and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Avian Protection Plan Guidelines. Available at:
"http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/environment/land/wildlife_and_endangered_species/AvianPro
tectionPlanGuidelines.pdf" Accessed 7/21/2008
Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC), 2000. Policy on Roads and Utility Developments.
Berger (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.) 1986 Route 92, Mercer, Middlesex and Somerset Counties,
Technical Environmental Study, Volume I, Cultural Resources. Report prepared for Federal
Highway Administration and New Jersey Department of Transportation, Trenton.
Bodle, Wayne K. 1977.
Old Mine Road Historic District. National Register of Historic Places
Nomination Form. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New
Jersey.
Cavallo, John 1980 The Turkey Swamp Site: New Evidence of Late Paleo-Indian Occupations in the
Northeastern United States. Paper presented at the Eastern States Archaeological Federation
Meeting, Albany, New York.
Coe, Joffre L. 1964
“The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont”.
American Philosophical Society 54(5).
Transactions of the
Cunningham, John T. 1992. The East of Jersey: A History of the General Board of Proprietors of the
Eastern Division of New Jersey. New Jersey Historical Society, Newark.
Delaware River Basin Commssion, 2008. National Wild & Scenic
http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/wild_scenic.htm [Last Accessed: July 18, 2008]
Rivers.
[Online]
Drake, A.A. Jr., Volkert, R.A., Monteverde, D.H., Herman G.C., Houghton, H.F., Parker, R.A., Dalton,
R.F., 1996. Bedrock Geologic Map of Northern New Jersey, United States Geological Survey,
Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2540-A.
Dupont, Ronald J., Jr. 1989. High Breeze Farms (Barrett Farm). National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Trenton.
Federal Transit Administration. 2001. Federal Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study Field
Reports:
Delaware
Water
Gap
National
Recreation
Area.
[Online]
http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/fedland/fieldreports/NPS/Northeast/DelawareWaterGap.html
[Last Accessed: April 23, 2004
Gardner, William. 1974. The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report, 1971-1973
Seasons. Occasional Publication No. 1. Archaeology Laboratory, The Catholic University of
America, Washington, D.C.
96
Goddard, Ives. 1978. “Delaware”. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 213-239. Handbook of
North American Indians, vol. 15, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Hine, C.G. 1909. The Old Mine Road. Reprinted by Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
New Jersey, 1963.
Kraft, Herbert C. 1986. The Lenape: Archaeology, History and Ethnography. New Jersey Historical
Society, Newark.
Kraft, Herbert C., and R. Alan Mounier. 1982. “The Archaic Period in New Jersey”. In New Jersey's
Archaeological Resources from the Paleo-Indian Period to the Present: A Review of Research
Problems and Survey Priorities, edited by Olga Chesler, pp. 52-102. New Jersey Office of
Environmental Protection, Trenton.
Landscape Aesthetics, Agricultural Handbook Number 701, December 1995.
League of Women Voters. 1968.. This is Morris County, New Jersey. League of Women Voters, Morris
County Council, Morristown, New Jersey.
Lee, James. 1988. The Morris Canal: A Photographic History. Delaware Press, Easton, Pennsylvania.
Lenik, Edward J., and Ronald J. Dupont, Jr. 1988. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey of the
Proposed U.S. Postal Service Glenwood, N.J., Facility Property, Sussex County Road 517,
Vernon Township, New Jersey. Prepared for the United States Postal Service Facilities Service
Office by Sheffield Archaeological Consultants, Wayne, New Jersey.
Lewis, Samuel. 1795. The State of New Jersey, Compiled from the Most Authentic Information.
Engraved for Carey's American edition of Cuthries Geography, improved.
Lowenthal, Larry. 1981. Iron Mine Railroads of Northern New Jersey. The Tri-State Railway Historical
Society, Inc., Dover, New Jersey.
Marshall, Sydne. 1982. “Aboriginal Settlement in New Jersey during the Paleo-Indian Cultural Period”.
In New Jersey's Archaeological Resources from the Paleo-Indian Period to the Present: A
Review of Research Problems and Survey Priorities, edited by Olga Chesler, pp. 10-51. Office of
Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey.
Meinig, D.W. 1969. “The Colonial Period, 1609-1775”. In Geography of New York State, edited by John
H. Thompson, pp. 121-139. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York.
Munn, David C. 1976. Battles and Skirmishes of the American Revolution in New Jersey. Bureau of
Geology and Topography. New Jersey Geological Survey. Department of Environmental
Protection
Mustin, M. (editor). 1931. Warren County, New Jersey. M. Mustin, Camden, New Jersey. Available at
the New Jersey State Library, Trenton.
New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office (NJSHPO) Files Historic properties files located at the New
Jersey State Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.
National Park Service (NPS) 1987. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. General Management
Plan [Online] http://www.nps.gov/dewa/parkmgmt/upload/DEWAGMPSummary1987.pdf [Last
Accessed: July 18, 2008]
97
NPS 2000a. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. 2000 to 2005 Strategic Plan for Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area. [Online] http://www.nps.gov/dewa/parkmgmt/ [Last
NPS
2000b. Use and Users of the Appalachian Trail: A Source Book [Online]
http://www.nps.gov/appa/parkmgmt/upload/Main_Report-3.pdf [Last Accessed: July 18, 2008]
NPS 2000c. McDade Trail Environmental Assessment
NPS
2005.
The
Appalachian
Trail
2005
Strategic
Plan
[Online]
http://www.nps.gov/appa/parkmgmt/upload/Main_Report-3.pdf [Last Accessed: July 18, 2008]
NPS 2008a. Visitor Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. National Park Service Public Use
Statistics Office. [Online] http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/park.cfm [Last Accessed: July 17, 2008]
NPS 2008b. Lower Delaware River Management Plan. [Online] http://www.nps.gov/phso/sp/p07new3.htm
[Last Accessed: July 18, 2008]
NPS, 2008c. Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River. [Online] http://www.nps.gov/lode/index.htm
[Last Accessed: July 18, 2008]
NPS 2008d Appalachian National Scenic Trail [Online] http://www.nps.gov/appa/index.htm [Last
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: July
17, 2008).
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2008a. Checklists of New Jersey
Wildlife. [on-line] located at "http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/chklists.htm" Accessed 7/17/2008.
NJDEP. 2008b. New Jersey’s Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. [on-line] located at
"http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/tandespp.htm" Accessed 7/17/2008.
NJDEP, "http://www.nj.gov/dep/njgs/enviroed/infocirc/provinces.pdf", July 2008.
Ratzer, Bernard. 1777. The Province of New Jersey Divided into East and West, Commonly Called the
Jerseys. William Faden, London Ratzer. Reprinted 1974 by the New Jersey Historical Society.
Snell, James P. (compiler) 1881 History of Sussex and Warren Counties, New Jersey, with Illustrations
and Biographical Sketches of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers. Everts and Peck, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Snyder, John P. 1969. The Story of New Jersey's Civil Boundaries, 1606-1968. New Jersey Bureau of
Geology and Topography, Trenton, New Jersey.
Stone, et al., (Stone B.D., Stanford, S.D., Witte, R.W.), 2002. Surficial Geologic Map of Northern New
Jersey, United States Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2540-C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for
Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook No. 701.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 1981. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Federal
Highway Administration, Office of Environmental Policy.
98
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) recovery plan.
Newton Corner, MA.
Wacker, Peter O. 1975. Land and People: a Cultural Geography of Preindustrial New Jersey. Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick.
Williams, L., and R. Thomas. 1982. “The Early/Middle Woodland Period in New Jersey”. In New
Jersey's Archaeological Resources: A Survey of Research Problems and Survey Priorities, edited
by Olga Chesler, 103-138. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton.
W.W. Munsell & Co. 1882. History of Morris County, New Jersey. W.W. Munsell & Co., New York, New
York.
99

read the routing report

Transcription

Similar documents

Proposed Xpress Route 423 Schedule, Fare, and Route:

Dane Work, ABR

Listen for 3 to 5 minute siren

Township of Wall Regional Bike Path Central Section Map Map 3 of

SAINT-GABRIEL-DE-VALCARTIER QUÉBEC STONEHAM

5K Trail Blazer - Waasegiizhig Nanaandawe`Iyewigamig Health

MIS33-Skylight Ice Arena.qxp - The Ives Architecture Studio

Fairfield, NJ 653 Route 46 West

Brochure - Premier Commercial Realty

50000 in free upgrades!