thermal impacts of the placement the pipeline. Attached is a report that illustrates the warming of the land when a pipeline is placed near an Exceptional Value waterbody, which can have substantially degrading impacts on wetlands and dependent species. Impacts to Exceptional Value Waterbodies in “Thermal These impacts must be evaluated for the Open Water pond Pennsylvania Cut by Gas Pipeline Projects”. and wetlands at this site. The wetlands that will be impacted by the Project are not classified correctly, are not fully assessed in terms of uses and functions and therefore it cannot be concluded by the Department that there will be no adverse impacts to the waters or wetlands. The Department must classify the wetlands as Exceptional Value, requiring the permit be denied. Public Participation The public comment period has not been adequate for this Project. It should be extended so that the public can comment on any subsequent, complete application. Because the applicant has submitted an incomplete application and inaccurate assessments the public has been denied the ability to effectively comment on the application. Further, there is only a 30-day comment period provided and to obtain the records for this project through the Right to Know Law (RTKL) process, DRN was not able to obtain records through the RTKL prior to the expiration of the comment period. As an alternative means to allow access to the files, the Department provided DRN a file review on Thursday, Nov. 8, after DRN withdrew its RTKL request. We also note that the Environmental Review report conducted by the Department was not available in the file until sometime after its completion date of November 22, which was after the date of public notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin of November 12. It was not available to any public who reviewed the file prior to at least November 22 or whenever the report was placed in the file. The Project seems to have been rushed through the approval process to meet a construction timeline laid out by the applicant, depriving the public of adequate records and time to review and comment. The short 30-day comment period and the missing, late-filed and inaccurate information in the file, are reasonable grounds for the Department to require that the comment period be extended should the Department not deny the permit outright. Conclusion In conclusion, the Project’s Water Obstructions and Encroachments permit application is incomplete and inaccurate, does not comply with Chapter 105 or the PA Code and is not consistent with a 401 Water Quality Certification under the Clean Water Act and as such should be denied. Respectfully submitted,
thermal impacts of the placement the pipeline. Attached is a report that illustrates the warming of the land when a pipeline is placed near an Exceptional Value waterbody, which can have substantially degrading impacts on wetlands and dependent species. “Thermal Impacts to Exceptional Value Waterbodies in Pennsylvania Cut by Gas Pipeline Projects”. These impacts must be evaluated for the Open Water pond and wetlands at this site. The wetlands that will be impacted by the Project are not classified correctly, are not fully assessed in terms of uses and functions and therefore it cannot be concluded by the Department that there will be no adverse impacts to the waters or wetlands. The Department must classify the wetlands as Exceptional Value, requiring the permit be denied. Public Participation The public comment period has not been adequate for this Project. It should be extended so that the public can comment on any subsequent, complete application. Because the applicant has submitted an incomplete application and inaccurate assessments the public has been denied the ability to effectively comment on the application. Further, there is only a 30-day comment period provided and to obtain the records for this project through the Right to Know Law (RTKL) process, DRN was not able to obtain records through the RTKL prior to the expiration of the comment period. As an alternative means to allow access to the files, the Department provided DRN a file review on Thursday, Nov. 8, after DRN withdrew its RTKL request. We also note that the Environmental Review report conducted by the Department was not available in the file until sometime after its completion date of November 22, which was after the date of public notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin of November 12. It was not available to any public who reviewed the file prior to at least November 22 or whenever the report was placed in the file. The Project seems to have been rushed through the approval process to meet a construction timeline laid out by the applicant, depriving the public of adequate records and time to review and comment. The short 30-day comment period and the missing, late-filed and inaccurate information in the file, are reasonable grounds for the Department to require that the comment period be extended should the Department not deny the permit outright. Conclusion In conclusion, the Project’s Water Obstructions and Encroachments permit application is incomplete and inaccurate, does not comply with Chapter 105 or the PA Code and is not consistent with a 401 Water Quality Certification under the Clean Water Act and as such should be denied. Respectfully submitted,
Cmnt%20DRPRP%20Chap%20105%2012.11.16.docx