Above left: Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action, speaks at a rally on Jan. 8 prior to a public hearing on a liquefied natural gas facility that would be located off the coast of Long Branch. Right: Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) urges officials with the U.S. Maritime Administration to deny the application for the Port Ambrose project. A standing-room-only crowd of more than 300 people attended a public hearing to weigh in on a proposal to allow construction of a liquefied natural gas port 25 miles off the coast of Long Branch.
The hearing was held by the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) to allow public comment on a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Liberty Natural Gas (LNG) Port Ambrose Deepwater Port proposal. Many attendees said the project would have detrimental impacts on the environment, economy and viability of the Atlantic Ocean.
“The location of this terminal just off the coast of Long Branch poses a serious potential risk to New Jersey’s beaches and tourism industry,” state Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) said at the public hearing held at the Sheraton Eatontown. “The industrialization of the ocean has real and serious environmental implications.
PHOTOS BY KENNY WALTER/STAFF “New Jersey gets no benefit from this massive undertaking — no jobs, no revenue and not a new energy source.”
In December, the U.S. Coast Guard and MARAD released the EIS, which suggests that adverse affects to marine life, air quality, transportation, oceanography and other considerations would be relatively minor. It also offers suggestions to mitigate potential impacts.
The public hearing was part of a required process for LNG to gain approval for the facility. Under federal law, the governors of both New York and New Jersey must approve a deepwater port before the Maritime Association can issue a permit.
The proposed port would be constructed approximately 24.9 nautical miles east of Long Branch and 27.1 nautical miles from the entrance to New York Harbor.
Representatives of local environmental groups — Clean Ocean Action (COA), the American Littoral Society and Surfrider Foundation — and local officials spoke in opposition to the project. “Liberty seeks to bring us a dirty, foreign, expensive fossil fuel,” said Cindy Zipf, executive director of COA.
“There is no need for this import facility. New York City has been on record that they don’t need LNG. Long Island is opposed to this facility. The American government has even confirmed that we do not need natural gas imports.”
At the hearing, a panel of stoic officials heard speaker after speaker urge MARAD to deny the Port Ambrose application.
“When I look at Port Ambrose, it is largely an unnecessary project that will lock us into future generations of climate change, future generations of economic instability and future generations impacted by water contamination,” said Jim Walsh, area director of Food and Water Watch.
LNG, a portfolio company of a fund advised by Toronto-based investment management firm West Face Capital, first proposed building a deepwater natural gas port 16 miles off the coast of Asbury Park in 2010. Gov. Chris Christie vetoed that application in February 2011.
A new application for a port 30 miles off Monmouth Beach was submitted in 2012, spurring another outcry. LNG withdrew the second application, saying additional data and analysis were needed.
State Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande (R-Monmouth) drew loud cheers with her comments.
“The environmental implications are far too great, and the long-term consequences are unforeseeable,” she said.
“In 2015, we are fighting the same fight, but the one thing we learned since 2011 is just how vulnerable our shore is.”
Many speakers expressed concerns that the import facility would eventually be converted for the export of natural gas.
“They want to export, but there is no mechanism to build an export facility presently in this country,” Jim Lovgren of the Fisherman’s Dock Cooperative said. “Once you get it OK’d, then you say circumstances have changed.”
Lovgren also predicted that the Port Ambrose project would lead to similar facilities in New Jersey, turning the state into “Louisiana North.”
Many cited the relatively low need for natural gas, the projected low number of jobs that would be created by the facility and the increased threat to the marine environment as reasons to deny approval of the project.
While the majority of speakers opposed the proposal, there were some who spoke in favor of the port.
Norris McDonald, founder and president of the African American Environmentalist Association, said the project would be “environmentally benign.”
“The Liberty Ambrose project will not have a negative impact on aquatic resources, and there will be no impact on the natural ocean bottom,” he said.
Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society, said the port is the most important environmental topic of 2015.
“This is the most important new year’s choice you’ll make,” he said.
Dillingham said the decision is about whether residents want to turn this portion of the ocean over to a private group.
The Port Ambrose facility would be designed to transport an annual average of 400 million cubic feet per day, according to the Coast Guard.
Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo have the executive authority to veto the proposal. Under federal regulations, any state within 15 miles of a proposed deepwater port has veto power over such a project.
The comment period was originally scheduled to conclude in February, but it was announced during the hearing that it would be extended to March 16.
To comment on the proposal or view the EIS, visit www.regulations.gov under docket number USCG-2013-0363. It can be also be viewed at the Long Branch Free Public Library on Broadway.
To sign a petition urging Christie to veto the proposal, visit www.cleanoceanaction.org.