Overview

Transcontinental Gas and Pipeline Company (“Transco”) is replacing an existing 30-inch gas pipeline in Chester County, PA with a 42-inch pipeline.  The project as proposed would cross and affect the East Branch of the Brandywine Creek (WWF-MF) and Ludwig’s Run (WWF-MF) at two locations by utilizing an open cut method. Also, an unnamed tributary to East Branch of the Brandywine Creek (WWF-MF) would be affected by a temporary construction crossing and another unnamed tributary to East Branch of Brandywine Creek (HQ-TSF, MF) would be crossed by the pump diversion during the use of a coffer dam.

Transco is pursuing from the Pennsylvania DEP a Chapter 105 Stream Encroachment Permit (joint 404 permit), an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit, and a NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharge from construction activity. These permits would authorize the replacement of the existing 30-inch gas pipeline with a 42-inch pipeline, between Stations 2269 and 2295, along a 7-mile stretch of one of Transco’s major pipelines.   As proposed, the scope of this construction activity and stream crossings associated with this project will have a deleterious effect on the water resources of the Brandywine Creek and tributary streams, and the Delaware River Basin. 

Transco is currently refusing to implement horizontal direct drilling to mitigate the detrimental environmental impacts on the waterbodies, even though Transco itself recognizes that such a method is a viable option and in the past PADEP demanded that Transco use this less damaging approach. Transco’s only arguments against using such a method are cost and time. The “open cut” stream crossing method that Transco plans on utilizing is associated with significant sedimentation problems, as the construction activity commences in the stream as it is flowing. 

Also, much of the right of way in which the construction will take place is atop extremely steep slopes, up to 35-40% gradient, which makes the area particularly vulnerable to sediment and erosion problems from rain events. 

Transco has a history of regulatory compliance failures. For example, in a previous project on the same exact stretch of pipeline where work is proposed now, Transco’s BMPs –authorized by PADEP – failed, resulting in significant sediment discharges into water bodies. As a result, PADEP issued at least one Notice of Violation for Transco’s erosion control failures. 

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network is currently working to secure strong review of this proposal and the most protective stream crossing strategy for the Creek and communities, which as of now looks to be the horizontal direct drilling that will go under the creek and not through it, and will also avoid disturbance to the riparian buffer area of the creek for several hundred feet.

 

Overview

Appalachia to Market Expansion 2014 (TEAM 2014)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Docket Number – CP13-84

The public can subscribe to receive information about this pipeline project as it is filed at the FERC website:  http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.com.htm.    

FERC Contact for TEAM 2014:  Eric Howard at 202-502-6263, or at eric.howard@ferc.gov.

Texas Eastern Filed a Pre-Certification on February 27, 2013. Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed as an intervenor on 3/19/2013.  Click below to see this document.

****Environmental Assessment comments due October 16, 2013 to FERC.  You can submit comments on the FERC website under Docket CP13-84.  To see DRN’s comments to FERC, see the link below (FERCEA CommentsTEAM2014.DRNComments.pdf). 

***Army Corps announced a public comment period from Oct 10 to Nov 10, 2014 for the TEAM 2014 project related to waterbodies and wetlands impacts in Pennsylvania to be cut by this pipeline project.  See the announcement below to contact Army Corps.

Project Details: 

According to reports available from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC):
“TEAM 2014 involves constructing approximately 33.4 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline comprised of seven separate pipeline loops and associated pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania; horsepower upgrades at four existing compressor stations in Pennsylvania; and modifications to numerous existing facilities to allow bi-directional flow/transmission of natural gas. A 100-foot ROW with additional work spaces along the pipeline path are being proposed. The bi-directional flow modifications would occur at 18 existing compressor stations, 17 existing pig launcher and receiver sites, and two existing meter and regulating facilities in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi.”

In the Delaware Watershed alone, the 5.6 mile Bernville Loop would pass through parts of Berks County.  According to Spectra Energy’s Resource Reports, the pipeline would cut across 3 wetlands, of which at least one wetland could be habitat for the federally listed threatened bog turtle.  The proposed pipeline would cut across seven waterbodies including a 230 wide pipeline crossing of the Schuylkill River (WWF) which serves as drinking water for Philadelphia.  Unnamed tributaries to the Schuylkill River (WWF,MF) and Laurel Run (CWF,MF) would also be crossed by the pipeline.  The eastern small footed bat, a Pennsylvania threatened species (Myotis leibii),  is resident to this area of the Bernville Loop. Access roads to the pipeline are proposed on Irish Mountain where there are very steep slopes (TAR 2.5, 2.7, 3.2).  Two water wells and one septic field are noted within 200 feet of construction.  Detailed topos of the proposed pipeline path are available at the FERC website.

FERC originally anticipated issuing the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project in August, 2013. On August 16, FERC revised this date of the release of the Environmental Assessment to Sept 16, 2013 with  a 90-day federal authorization action/decision deadline of December 15, 2013. You can download the EA that was issued on Sept 16th at the FERC website here: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130916-3025

To follow the process and documents for this pipeline project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:  
Sign up at www.FERC.gov
Sign yourself up with an account and password and then ask for an eSubscription
You will want to search for and then sign up to follow Docket No. CP13-84

Spectra Energy/Texas Eastern Reports List the Following Loops and Compressors as Part of the Entire TEAM 2014 Project

 Bernville Loop – The addition of approximately 5.6 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Bern, Ontelaunee, Muhlenberg, Ruscombmanor, and Alsace Townships, Berks County, Pennsylvania (This loop is in the Delaware River Watershed)
    The addition of  6.6 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in German, Menallen, and North Union Townships, Fayette County, Pennsylvania east of the Monongahela River
    The addition of  2.7 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Jackson Township, Perry County, Pennsylvania
    The addition of 5.3 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Southwest Madison, Northeast Madison, and Tyrone Townships, Perry County, Pennsylvania
    The addition of  7.0 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Middle Paxton and West Hanover Townships, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
    The addition of  2.5 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in North Annville and East Hanover Townships, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania
    The addition of  3.8 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Swatara, North Lebanon, Bethel, and Jackson Townships, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania

Horsepower additions and New Compressor Stations Proposed

 Increase of approximately 6,160 horsepower (HP) of existing compressor units at the existing Uniontown Compressor Station and associated work in Fayette County, PA.
    Addition of one new 25,000 HP gas compressor unit and one new 32,000 HP electric gas compressor unit at the existing Delmont Compressor Station and associated work in Westmoreland County, PA. In addition, one 18,500 HP gas turbine unit & six 1,100 HP gas reciprocating units will be abandoned in place, retiring 25,100 HP.
    Addition of one new 17,000 HP gas compressor at the existing Armagh Compressor Station and associated work in Indiana County, PA
    Addition of one new 25,000 HP gas compressor at the existing Entriken Compressor Station and associated work in Huntingdon County, PA
    Modifications to facilities within compressor stations at 34 existing locations along the Texas Eastern system in multiple states including OH, TN, AL, and MS.

To see some of the draft filed documents and environmental description of the project filed on FERC Record  for Team 2014/Docket CP13-84:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=14093510

Some of the shorter resource reports also made available below.

 

Editor’s note: This issue is currently dormant. We will continue monitoring the situation and may take up the issue in the future.

Big Victory! 

Delaware Riverkeeper Network, et. al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company

In a decision issued June 6, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, ruled that the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the NJ Sierra Club and New Jersey Highlands Coalition were correct in their legal challenge to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s Northeast Upgrade Project and ordered additional analysis and review.

The Court stated: 

“On the record before us, we hold that in conducting its environmental review of the Northeast Project without considering the other connected, closely related, and interdependent projects on the Eastern Leg, FERC impermissibly segmented the environmental review in violation of NEPA. We also find that FERC’s EA is deficient in its failure to include any meaningful analysis of the cumulative impacts of the upgrade projects. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand the case to the Commission for further consideration of segmentation and cumulative impacts.” 

“On the record before us, we find that FERC acted arbitrarily in deciding to evaluate the environment effects of the Northeast Project independent of the other connected action on the Eastern Leg.” 

In May 2012 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company authorizing construction and operation of its Northeast Upgrade Project. Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the NJ Sierra Club and New Jersey Highlands Coalition argued that the approval was inappropriate because FERC had illegally segmented its environmental review of the Northeast Project by failing to consider three other connected and interdependent projects – the 300 Line Project, the Northeast Supply Diversification Project, the MPP Project – and by failing to provide a meaningful analysis of the cumulative impacts of the projects. 

DRN on the Decision

Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper said about the decision: “This is important vindication of the rights of our communities and environment to be honestly considered and protected by our federal agencies. FERC has been allowing illegal segmentation by pipeline companies for years, it has ignored the pleas of the public for equity and for honest review of impacts, and as such FERC has been complicit with the pipeline companies in their ongoing efforts to avoid the rule of law and to ignore the devastating impacts they are having on our environment, impacts that will harm not just present, but also future generations. It is rewarding that a federal court has finally held FERC to account.” 

The case was argued before the Court of Appeals by Delaware Riverkeeper Network attorney Aaron Stemplewicz. Said Stemplewicz of the decision, “The D.C. Circuit’s decision today should put other pipeline companies on notice that the practice of segmenting pipeline projects before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will no longer be tolerated, and that the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from these projects must be fully considered before a project is approved.” 

Added Delaware Riverkeeper Maya van Rossum: “This decision is important and powerful for every pipeline, related infrastructure and LNG project to come, but sadly for the communities, forests, streams, wetlands and critters impacted by the four projects at issue here, the decision comes too late to ensure their full consideration and protection. We will be able to press for important mitigation and efforts to undo the harms already inflicted, but as for avoiding the full array of harms, that is now impossible. FERC needed to do its job when it had the opportunity – but they were too busy servicing the gas pipeline companies to care.” 

Of particular note – all three justices ruling on this case concurred on the final judgment rendered. 

Update:  FERC has failed to comply with the court’s ruling and revisit its NEPA review of this project – DRN is pressing the issue with the court.

Background

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s (“TGP”) Northeast Upgrade Project (“NEUP”) is an interstate transmission line upgrade project.The NEUP is the final pipeline upgrade project in TGP’s multi-stage 300 Line upgrade project, (although TGP has misrepresented that reality in order to avoid critical environmental regulation and oversight) designed to allow over 600,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to be transported through Wayne, Pike Counties in Pennsylvania, and Sussex County in New Jersey, to be delivered to markets in the Northeast. To create this additional capacity, TGP proposes upgrading its existing 24-inch diameter 300 Line by constructing five, 30-inch diameter pipeline loops and modifying four existing compression stations. A pipeline loop is a segment of pipeline installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to the existing pipeline at both ends. These five loops will close out the remaining un-looped segments of TGP’s existing 300 Line east of Bradford County, Pennsylvania, into New Jersey. Three of these loops are located within the Delaware River Basin (Loops 321, 323, and 325), which span Wayne, Pike, and Sussex counties. The project includes pipeline drilling activities under the Delaware River, significant new grading and clearing of previously undisturbed forested land and steep slopes, 90 stream crossings, 136 wetland crossings, and 450 acres of land development within our watershed alone. Highpoint State Park and Delaware State Forest are among the public lands to be damaged by this project. 

Currently, the western leg of the 300 Line runs from compressor station 219 in Mercer County, Pennsylvania to compressor station 313 in Potter County and consists of a 24-inch-diameter pipeline with a completed 30-inch-diameter loop along its entire length. Within the last 24 months Tennessee has applied to FERC for approval of four projects that together will compose the Eastern Leg of the 300 Line, starting at compressor station 313 in Potter County, Pennsylvania and stretching east to a delivery point in Mahwah, New Jersey.

The size and scope of the construction activity and stream crossings associated with this project will have a deleterious effect on the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. There are significant concerns related to the cumulative impact that continuous water body crossing pipeline construction activity has on the health and vitality of the Delaware River Basin.  In addition to the NEUP, there are at least 13 other major pipeline upgrade projects that are being proposed for construction within the Delaware River Watershed. These construction projects will facilitate the further development of new natural gas wells, access roads, gathering lines, compressor stations, and other supporting infrastructure, which will further degrade the local environment.

There are also numerous documented regulatory compliance failures associated with this type of pipeline construction activity.  In a recent pipeline upgrade project similar in both size and scope conducted by TGP, called the 300-Line Upgrade Project, multiple violations were reported by the Conservation Districts in Pike, Wayne, and Susquehanna counties. In Pike County alone, numerous Notices of Violations were reported, including: 17 instances of dirt and sediment being discharged into water bodies, 7 violations for worksite conditions, and 21 instances of failure to properly institute Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control.  This high frequency of violations demonstrates that there were systemic and continued failures in TGP’s compliance with regulatory controls, which suggests improper oversight, and or, inadequate enforcement.  In Wayne County, out of 16 inspections conducted by the County Conservation District during the 300 Line Extension Project, 15 violations were found.  This startling 93% failure rate provides further evidence of systemic compliance failures.

Furthermore, at the federal level, during the 300 Line Extension Project, in 28 out of 38 “Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program Weekly Summary Report[s]” that were provided on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s [FERC] website there was at least one recorded incident where construction activity did not come into “compliance with Project specifications, mitigation measures, and applicable FERC-approved Project plans.”  Additionally, there were also at least 10 separate instances where an inspector in their “Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program Weekly Summary Report” indicated that a noncompliance report would be filed at a later date, but where the inspector failed to file a noncompliance report with FERC (and no reason was provided for the failure to issue that report in the following week’s report).  These 10 separate instances indicate that either FERC has maintained incomplete records for the project, or that there were multiple failures to follow-up on potentially enforceable noncompliance matters by FERC sanctioned environmental inspectors. 

On November 21, 2011 TGP presented an Environmental Assessment of the NEUP to FERC.  Comments were submitted on behalf of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the New Jersey Highlands Coalition, the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club by the Columbia Environmental Law Clinic before the December 21, 2011 deadline.  Click here for comment submitted
 
In summary of some of the impacts identified in the December 21, 2011 comment to FERC:

    “FERC’s conclusion that the Project will have no significant environmental impacts is unsupportable in the face of evidence demonstrating the potential severity of the Project’s impacts.” 
    “…the project will result in environmental impacts to over 800 acres of land over the 40-mile long project area…” 
    “The transmission of highly flammable natural gas creates significant risks of loss of life and major property damage. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reports that, in the past twenty years, significant on-shore gas transmission incidents have caused 43 fatalities, 219 injuries requiring in-patient hospitalization, and over $1 billion in property damage resulting from significant on-shore gas transmission incidents.3 Within the past year alone, three pipeline segments owned and operated by TGP have exploded, causing large fires, forcing residential evacuations, and threatening public safety.4” 
    “The EA identifies no fewer than thirty-five hazardous waste sites within 1,700 feet of the Project.” 
    “Each of the five pipeline loops will cross through sensitive and unique vegetative communities.” 
    “Loop 323 will cross the Delaware State Forest, High Point State Park, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the Clove Brook Road Corridor Important Bird Area. EA at 2-73, 2-74, 2-45. Loop 323 will also cross the Delaware River, a National Wild and Scenic River. EA at 2-13. Loop 325 is located entirely within the Highlands Region, and will cross the Long Pond Ironworks State Park, the Monksville Reservoir, and Ringwood State Park. EA at 2-75, 2-76, 2-78, 2-79. The pipeline loops will also cross more than seven miles of prime farmland, EA at 2-4, dozens of high quality and exceptional waterbodies that serve as coldwater and warmwater fisheries, EA at 2-19, and almost fifty acres of wetlands, EA at 2-25.” 
    “The areas affected by the Project serve as habitat for four federally listed threatened or endangered species, the Bald Eagle, and sixty-five state endangered, threatened, or special concern species. “ 
    “The Project will permanently convert approximately eighty acres of forested land, potentially leading to increased erosion, fragmentation, and edge habitat, which could “decrease the quality of habitat for forest wildlife species.” EA at 2-36.” 
    “Construction of the Project will substantially degrade an additional 265.4 acres of forested land, which the EA admits will take “many years to regenerate.” EA at 2-36, 2-80. The Project will also cause “a permanent conversion of previously forested wetland areas to non-forested wetland areas,” 

The Delaware River Basin has the authority to regulate pipelines construction activity that involves a “significant disturbance of ground cover” affecting water resources.  Specifically, Article 3, section 2.3.5 (12) of the DRBC’s Rules of Practice and Procedures states, that the following activities are excluded from DRBC jurisdiction, “Electric transmission or bulk power system lines and appurtenances; major trunk communication lines and appurtenances; natural and manufactured gas transmission lines and appurtenances; major water transmission lines and appurtenances; unless they would pass in, on, under or across an existing or proposed reservoir or recreation project area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; unless such lines would involve significant disturbance of ground cover affecting water resources. . . ” (emphasis added).  However, up to this point the DRBC has failed to exercise its authority in this arena.  In light of the regulatory compliance failures overseen by both the FERC and PADEP, the DRBC should exercise their statutory mandate to regulate pipeline construction activities in order to effectively preserve the natural integrity of the watershed.  Pressure should continue to be levied against the DRBC to take such action. 
 
Delaware Riverkeeper Network is committed to restoring natural balance in the Delaware River and watershed where it has been lost, and ensuring preservation where it still exists.  As such, we are actively engaged at the local, state, and federal government levels to ensure that full weight of legal enforcement authority is brought to bear on pipeline construction projects where operators have failed to comply with their statutory and regulatory responsibilities, and will vigorously facilitate the enforcement those regulations and permit terms and conditions where necessary.

To keep abreast of the latest on this project be sure to read the Delaware Riverkeeper’s Countdown blog posts.

DRN & Delaware Riverkeeper v. PA DEP & Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.

In a December 18, 2012 legal filing, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) was asked to issue an Order of Supersedeas that would prevent the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company from proceeding with mobilization and tree clearing, the first steps in construction of its proposed NorthEast Upgrade Project (TGP’s NEUP). The Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Responsible Drilling Alliance filed the petition, essentially a request for a stay of construction activity, together with their notices of appeal of three DEP permits issued for the project, in order to allow the groups enough time to pursue their legal challenge while maintaining the status quo. 

The Petition for Supersedeas requests the EHB to supersede the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) decisions to approve an Erosion & Sedimentation Control General Permit and to approve Water Obstruction & Encroachment permits for Wayne and Pike Counties for the TGP NEUP project. 

The Petition

The Petition, filed by attorneys on behalf of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the Responsible Drilling Alliance, and the Delaware Riverkeeper, Maya van Rossum, asserts that DEP’s decisions to approve TGP’s applications for these various permits violated the law in at least three ways. 

• First, TGP has a record of recent and on-oing environmental violations on pipeline upgrade projects on the same pipeline that clearly shows TGP cannot be trusted to comply with environmental laws. 
• Second, DEP approved the permits even though the permit applications failed to meet the substantive requirements of the regulations. 
• Third, DEP issued the Erosion and Sediment Control permit despite unrebutted expert analysis from the Pike County Conservation District finding that TGP’s plans contained serious technical deficiencies. 

 The petition goes on to say: “Because DEP’s improper approval of TGP’s activities will result in the irreversible discharge of sediment into the tributaries of the Delaware River; the improper destruction of mature trees that prevent sediment from flowing into these tributaries and provide shading to regulate temperatures in streams and wetlands; long-lasting damage and even permanent destruction of Exceptional Value wetlands; and the disruption of macroinvertebrate populations during the time that DRN’s appeal is pending, DRN will suffer irreparable harm unless the Board supersedes DEP’s decisions and suspends the permits and permit authorization.” 

 

Overview

The PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC is a conglomeration several entities including AGL Resources, NJR Pipeline which is a subsidiary of New Jersey Resources, South Jersey Industries, UGI PennEast which is a subsidiary of UGI Energy Services, PSEG Power, and Spectra Energy Partners, which is proposing to construct a 118 mile long 36 inch natural gas pipeline that would cut through Luzerne, Carbon, Northampton, and Bucks County in Pennsylvania, and Hunterdon County in New Jersey, finally terminating at Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company’s Trenton-Woodbury Lateral in Mercer County. It is planned to transport roughly 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day and would require the siting and construction of multiple high-powered compressor stations scattered along the line. 

The pipeline project was announced on August 12, 2014.

Environmental Impact

The size and scope of the construction activity for the PennEast line and stream crossings associated with this project will have a deleterious effect on the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. Approximately 87% of the pipeline’s right of way would fall within the boundaries of the Delaware River watershed.

Large scale transmission lines such as the PennEast line also result in significant forest fragmentation, invite and propagate the spread of invasive species, and degrade the diversity and dispersion of native flora and fauna. Furthermore, pipeline projects also degrade the functions and values of the wetlands that they plow through, as the construction and operation of the pipeline permanently converts forested wetlands to uplands or emergent wetlands. Among the waterways to be crossed are the Delaware, Lehigh and Susquehanna Rivers. Among the federally listed species already identified that could be impacted by the project are the Bog Turtle, the Indiana Bat, the Dwarf Wedge Mussel and the Northern Long-eared Bat which has been proposed-for-listing. Also targeted are forests as well as public and private lands, much of that land being sensitive green fields that have not previously been disturbed. 

There are also significant concerns related to the cumulative impacts of the continuous water crossings and wetlands disturbance that pipeline construction activity has on the health and vitality of the Delaware River Basin. This is particularly a concern with the PennEast line, as many of these same subwatersheds were recently impacted by construction activity on Transco’s parallel line. Also, in addition to the Transco’s previous and proposed pipeline projects, there are several other pipeline projects that have been concentrated in the same sub watersheds as the PennEast line, such as: Texas Eastern’s TEAM 2014 Project and Columbia’s East Side Expansion Project. 

The PennEast Pipeline will further facilitate the development of new gas drilling wells, access roads, gathering lines, compressor stations, and other supporting infrastructure, which will further degrade our environment.

Multifaceted battle

DRN is committed to restoring natural balance in the Delaware River and watershed where it has been lost and ensuring preservation where it still exists. As such, we are actively engaged at the local, state, and federal government levels to ensure that full weight of legal environmental protection laws are brought to bear on all pipeline projects under consideration, including the PennEast Pipeline.

The PennEast pipeline will need to receive a number of important federal and state permits and authorizations for it to proceed. This includes authorizations from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Docket CP15-558), the Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 permit), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Section 401 Clean Water Certifications). 

Eleven municipalities have already passed resolutions opposing the pipeline including: Hopewell Twp, Delaware Twp, Holland Twp, West Amwell Twp, Lambertville, Alexandria, Milford, Princeton, Clinton Twp, Kingwood Twp, NJ and Moore Twp, PA.

• The DRBC has not issued a docket, necessary for the project to move forward, nor has it scheduled hearings on a docket proposal. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has issued a petition regarding DRBC jurisdiction over the project and its role in preventing tree felling or clearing prior to approval which can be read here.
• Pennsylvania has issued Clean Water Act 401 Certification for the project, a decision the Delaware Riverkeeper Network is challenging in court.  But has not issued the underlying permits.The Army Corps has not fully signed off on the project with permits.

---

Timeline of Events

September 2014: the Delaware Riverkeeper Network submitted a formal petition to the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) requesting the agency take jurisdiction over the proposed PennEast pipeline project; DRN also crafted an action alert calling for letters from the public which has resulted in the submission of well over 500 citizen letters. Initially DRBC resisted jurisdiction, but follow-up letters from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network along with a deliberate press strategy and growing public pressure finally convinced the agency otherwise. The DRBC has made the decision to exercise jurisdiction over the project.  DRBC has the authority to stop PennEast if it so chooses.

March 2, 2016: the Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed a Constitutional Challenge to the FERC process as it applies ot the PennEast project. While the court determined that DRN has met the bar for purposes of standing (an important precedent), the case was ultimately dismissed.  DRN is appealing.  

April 2016: responding to an effort led by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network that was supported by over 6,000 individuals, DRBC announced its intent to hold independent hearings

May 14, 2016: A PADEP public notice announced its intent to issue a 401 Water Quality Certification pursuant to the Clean Water Act for the PennEast Pipeline Project.

July 22, 2016: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the PennEast Pipeline project that is 1,174 pages long giving September 5 (then 12) as the deadline for comments.  FERC’s measly 45/52 day comment period was another blatant abuse of power in favor of the pipeline companies and to the detriment of the many people facing irreparable damage to their health, safety, environment and economic wellbeing.

August 27, 2016: A second request for public comment regarding PA’s 401 WQC was filed with a second 30 day comment period on what appears to be the identical filing of materials in May.

February 7, 2017: the PADEP issued 401 Certification for the PennEast pipeline.  The Certification was formally noticed in the February 25, addition of the PA Bulletin.  February 28 the Delaware Riverkeeper Network submitted a Petition for Review to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  (Appeal filed below).  

April 26, 2017: the New Jersey issued a determination that the PennEast application materials submitted to the state were significantly deficient and incomplete.

June 28, 2017,: NJDEP determined the PennEast Pipeline Company’s application for state approval of its project to be “administratively closed” due to the company’s failure to remedy significant identified deficiencies and its failure to provide full information in a timely fashion for Clean Water Act decisionmaking

July 13, 2017: the Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s legal counsel argued in court that the third circuit should send the case back to the PA Environmental Hearing Board for review and identifying the myriad of ways that the oranization and its members had been denied critical rights as a result of the cart before the horse process the state, supported by PennEast, was utilizing.  To learn more about the arguments of the organization see the reply brief filed 8.7.17 below.

---

January 19, 2018: FERC issues Certificate of Convenience and Necessity with a 4-1 vote. The Certificate included two concurrences and a dissent. Commissioner La Fleur and Commissioner Chatterjee wrote separate concurrences to highlight the issue of how pipeline developers engage with landowners. Commissioner Glick wrote a dissent highlighting and criticizing FERC’s allowance of contracts among affiliates to show need and the practice of FERC conditionally granting Certificates due to lack of evidence of environmental harms.

PennEast quickly began demanding that property owners who had not yet signed access agreements with the company either do so or receive a lower payment for the property rights the company would ultimately be taking. Actions for eminent domain have been filed by PennEast against well over 100 properties. (NJ eminent domain actions are listed here; PA eminent domain actions are listed here). Among the properties targeted are those in which states have property interest. In the State of New Jersey the state has property interests in a reported 42 parcels that PennEast is targeting.  New Jersey resisted PennEast’s exercise of eminent domain over these parcels in which the state has property interest and rights. PennEast has been improperly accessing properties for purpose of surveys.

January 24, 2018: Delaware Riverkeeper Network submits its first Rehearing Request to FERC and a Motion for Stay to halt construction of any land disturbance project associated with the pipeline.

February 6-13, 2018: PennEast commences almost 200 eminent domain actions in U.S. District Courts in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

February 15, 2018: Delaware Riverkeeper Network petitions the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to exercise its authority in the Delaware River Basin; ensure a nonpoint source pollution control plan is secured, reviewed, and approved for Penneast prior to approval of a DRBC docket; and ensure the DRBC will prevent construction on any part of the Penneast pipeline until Commissioner approval of a DRBC docket for the project.

February 22, 2018: Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s first rehearing request is tolled by FERC. To learn more about FERC’s abuse of tolling orders in these instances see DRN’s Dossier of FERC Abuses.

February 22, 2018: Delaware Riverkeeper Network submits a second rehearing request. This one for the tolling order issued for the initial hearing request on February 22.

April 13, 2018: FERC issues a second order tolling the second rehearing request submitted by Delaware Riverkeeper Network on February 22.

May 8, 2018: Delaware Riverkeeper Network initiates two legal actions to stop construction of Penneast pipeline in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. One is challenging Penneast’s Certificate of Convenience and Necessity and includes a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to stop construction of the pipeline. The other case challenges FERC’s continued abuses of tolling orders.

May 30, 2018: FERC denied the Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s requests for rehearing from the February 22 request. Commissioner Glick wrote a concurrence highlighting the need for the FERC Commission to act on Rehearing Requests as quickly as possible so as to avoid “needless and avoidable harm” to “landowners, communities, and the environment.”

August 13, 2018: On Friday, August 10th, The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied the rehearing request from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, NJDEP and others. In reply, on August 13, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the FERC approval of the PennEast pipeline claiming the agency violated the Natural Gas Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it granted approval of the pipeline.

Read the articles for more information:
FERC sued over PennEast approval after denying rehearing requests | StateImpact PA | 2018-08-13
FERC Rebuffs Requests to Reconsider Approval of PennEast Pipeline | NJ Spotlight | 2018-08-13

---

February 15, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Notice of Application for Amendment (“Notice”) regarding the PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC’s (PennEast) application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations to amend the certificate of public convenience and necessity and related authorizations issued by the Commission on January 19, 2018. The proposed modifications to the PennEast Pipeline include a series of route realignments and adjustments in Luzerne, Carbon, Monroe, and Northampton Counties, in Pennsylvania. The Notice invites the public to provide motions to intervene before March 8, 2019 at 5:00 pm.

You can find the notice here and PennEast’s Application for Amendment here.

Intervening on a project that has been filed for approval with FERC is important and valuable:  it shows how strongly you are opposed to a project, it preserves your rights to bring a legal challenge should you wish to do so down the road, and it ensures you will be fully informed about every step of the process as it goes forward through email notifications. Click HERE for step by step instructions on how to intervene online with FERC for PennEast’s application to amend their certificate.

February 15, 2019: PennEast is Modifying Its Proposed Route.  March 8, 2019 is the deadline for Intervening in the FERC Process for the PennEast Pipeline Project Application for Amendment.  In addition, the Pennsylvania DEP is seeking comment on its proposal to approve PennEast as being in compliance with state water quality standards.

February 16, 2019: PADEP noticed its call for public comment.  DRN requested a comment extension and submitted Comments to the DEP, which can be found here.

March 19, 2019: U.S Court of Appeals Grants Motion for Stay on PennEast Pipeline: “In the event [PennEast] transitions from the surveying and testing phase to the construction phase of the pipeline project, physical construction of the pipeline shall be stayed pending this appeal.”

August 4, 2019 PennEast submitted a renewed application for a state Freshwater Wetlands Act permit, a Flood Hazard Area Verification and Letter of Interpretation, and a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification.

October 1, 2019: Just 3 days before the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit was to hear oral argument on the case brought by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and others to challenge the FERC certificate issued to the PennEast pipeline the court placed the case in abeyance for an undetermined period of time.

October 8, 2019, NJDEP denied the applications without prejudice (leaving the door open for PennEast to re-file if they so chose). 

September 10, 2019: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re PennEast Pipeline Company LLCm determined that PennEast did not have the right to exercise eminent domain over land parcels in which the state of New Jersey had property interests and was refusing access. The court said that the exercise of eminent domain over these parcels would be an infringement on the sovereign immunity of the state.

October 4, 2019, In response to US Court of Appeals decision, PennEast filed Docket No. RP20-41 urging FERC, after only an 8 day comment period, to issue a declaratory order that rejected the Third Circuit’s interpretation.

---

March 18, 2020: Delaware Riverkeeper Network sends letter urging DRBC transparency and to remain strong and vigilant on PennEast. 

September 2021: The PennEast Pipeline Company announces on their website that they will no longer be supporting the project.

December 16, 2021: FERC vacates PennEast Certificate, officially ending the project.

---

Learn About Pipelines:

Information about pipelines, including research, reports and video interviews with experts, can be found at: www.stopthepipelines.org

Learn about all the natural resources and preserved lands PennEast will cut on its way from start to finish. Fact sheet here.

Delaware Riverkeeper Network comments, copies of township resolutions, and additional information regarding PennEast can be found below.

Overview

On September 27, 2015, Sunoco submitted an application to the Delaware River Basin Commission for its Pennsylvania Pipeline Project, also referred to as Mariner East 2.  According to its August 2015 application, Sunoco’s Mariner East 2 pipeline would cut across 79 wetlands and 195 streams in the Delaware River Basin in Berks, Chester, and Delaware Counties, impacting 221 acres in Berks County, 184 acres in Chester County and 83 acres in Delaware County within the Delaware River Basin.  Since beginning construction the pipeline has wreaked havoc across the state of Pennsylvania. In response, DRN has initiated two lawsuits against Sunoco and demanded that the DRBC suspend its docket.

In August, 2017, in resolution of legal action the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, in partnership with the Clean Air Council and Mountain Watershed Association brought against the Sunoco Mariner East project, the groups entered into a settlement with the DEP and Sunoco to prevent spills of drilling fluid associated with Sunoco’s horizontal directional drilling and to protect drinking water supplies and fragile ecosystems across the state. Since then, more spills have occurred, adding to the over 100 spills of drilling fluid to date. For example, during the course of less than a week in early October, 2017 there were four spills at a site in Chester County located at Boot Road and Enterprise Drive. Drilling continued anyway. 

In Response

On October 24, 2017, the organizations filed a motion requesting that the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board direct the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to abide by a court-ordered protocol designed to prevent spills of drilling fluid along the Mariner East 2 pipelines.

The August settlement had been adopted by the Environmental Hearing Board as a Stipulated Order and established a protocol that the Department and Sunoco must follow in responding to spills.  The protocol is designed to prevent repeat spills and requires Sunoco to stop drilling until the Department inspects the site of a spill and ensures more spills won’t happen there.

The Department has not been applying the protocol in all instances, resulting in Sunoco continuing to spill drilling fluid at the same sites. Monday’s motion requests that the Board clarify the spill protocol to ensure the protections the parties agreed to are followed moving forward.

“It is unfortunate that once again it is the responsibility of non-profit organizations to ensure that the Department appropriately responds to Sunoco’s ongoing spills,” said Maya K. van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper and leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

The Board’s Order is part of an ongoing appeal of 20 deficient water permits the Department issued for the Mariner East 2 pipelines in February. That Order was entered after the Board had halted all horizontal directional drilling for the Mariner East 2 pipelines due to the damage Sunoco’s drilling practices was causing to drinking water supplies and the environment.

DRN continues to monitor a few areas along the construction route where continued issues and violations are occurring along the ME2 route.  A real time water testing probe was installed by DRN and Stroud in December to document water quality conditions. Landowners along the route continue to document harms and violations and DRN has photo documented and provided reports to the Conservation District for follow up and enforcement.

Updates June12, 2018

Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Sunoco Pipeline L.P. for their failure to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES permit) for the Mariner East II pipeline project.

NPDES permits are required under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law (CSL). The complaint states:

“During construction of an industrial scale natural-gas liquids pipeline, Defendant Sunoco Pipeline LLC (hereinafter “Sunoco”) illegally discharged, and continues to discharge, pollution in the form of sediment-laden stormwater to Pennsylvania’s waters on multiple occasions, causing or contributing to violations of water quality standards on numerous occasions and in various counties across the state of Pennsylvania.”

Construction and operation of the pipeline has resulted in numerous unlawful discharges of sediment-laden water and other pollutants into waters of the United States in violation of the CWA and the CSL. Sunoco has been operating without the necessary permit for 399 days, which subjects Sunoco to civil penalties as high as $14,962,500.

“Sunoco is polluting our waterways and violating the law.  The violations are blatant, willful and having devastating impacts on our environment.  Neither the state nor federal government has enforced this critical permitting requirement on the pipeline company, which is one of the many reasons we are seeing so much environmental harm.  Our laws were passed for a reason, to protect the environment from environmental degradation and harm. Pennsylvania’s government is failing miserably when it comes to these fracked gas and fracked gas liquids pipelines.  Once again, we the people are having to stand up in our own defense,” said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper and leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

DRN is requesting the Court require Sunoco to obtain and comply with a NPDES permit, perform ground water assessments, provide relief to nearby residents if assessments show water contamination, and pay all civil penalties associated with the permit violations.

Sunoco has faced several fines and permit suspensions throughout construction of the Mariner East II project for violations such as drilling fluid spills and water contamination. Sunoco’s construction activities have also caused large sinkholes to open up in a residential neighborhoods, threatening the integrity of the parallel Mariner East 1 pipeline and consequently leading the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) to issue an Emergency Order temporarily suspending Sunoco’s operations to prevent “catastrophic results impacting the public.” A judge at the PUC specifically noted that Sunoco has “made deliberate managerial decisions to proceed in what appears to be a rushed manner in an apparent prioritization of profit over the best engineering practices available.”

Update June 15, 2018

Delaware Riverkeeper Network wrote to the Delaware River Basin Commission urging them to suspend the Docket provided the project and to undertake a thorough review of the project, because of significant and ongoing violations, the damaging impacts it is having on water resources of the basin, and the need for significant restoration and mitigation activities before any considerations regarding how, when or to what extent construction should be allowed to continue.

Update:  July 3, 2018

After DRBC refused our request to take action to suspend the DRBC docket for Mariner East, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, joined by many community organizations, pushed back.  See our letter here.  

 

March 24, 2017

The NDNY court dismissed Constitution Pipeline Company’s lawsuit against NYDEC. DRN had submitted a motion to intervene on behalf of NYDEC, and while our pending Motion to Intervene and pending Motion to Dismiss were dismissed as moot, the Court largely followed our argument that the harm suffered by Constitution was purely speculative at this point and that therefore the case should be dismissed.

Editor’s note: This issue is currently dormant. We will continue monitoring the situation and may take up the issue in the future.

Project Suspended!

Posted April 2013 to the Commonwealth Pipeline’s website (www.commonwealthpipeline.com): 

 “The sponsors of Commonwealth Pipeline have suspended development of the project. We will be updating the website periodically to provide current information regarding the project’s status. Thank you for your continued interest and patience.”      

Project basics as originally proposed:

Inergy Midstream, L.P., UGI Energy Services, Inc. and Capitol Energy Ventures, a subsidiary of WGL Holdings, Inc., are proposing construction of a new interstate natural gas pipeline they call the Commonwealth Pipeline. 

The Commonwealth Pipeline project would span approximately 120 miles in order to lay a 30-inch pipeline. The pipeline project is proposed to begin in Lycoming County, PA and to cut through Columbia, Montour, Northumberland, Schuylkill, Berks and Chester Counties, also in Pennsylvania. 

The Pipeline as proposed would transport an estimated 800,000 dekatherms per day of gas drilled and fracked from the Marcellus shale.

Warwick Township, West Vincent Township, and East Nantmeal worked with the Delaware Riverkeeper Network to oppose the project.  Communiities passed resolutions of opposition, issued public statements, and were well organized in opposition.  Organizing happened along the entire proposed route.

On February 2, 2013 the Delaware Riverkeeper Network urged DRBC to undertake review of the project and to mandate it secure a DRBC docket.  This was another pipeline that DRBC, early on, failed to act upon.  But in the end, our victory mooted the importance of their failure.

Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline (ASP) Will Move Marcellus Shale Gas 

The Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline (ASP) will move Marcellus Shale gas from Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to as far as south as Alabama. The ASP is a Williams Energy Partners project, which currently operates the Transco system (a network of over 10,000 miles of pipeline).  ASP will consist of compression and looping of the Transco Leidy Line in Pennsylvania along with a greenfield pipeline segment, referred to as the Central Penn Line, connecting the northeastern Marcellus producing region to the Transco mainline in southeastern Pennsylvania. In addition, existing Transco facilities are being added or modified to allow gas to flow bi-directionally. The line cuts through 10 central Pennsylvania counties (Columbia, Lancaster, Lebanon, Luzerne, Northumberland, Schuylkill, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Clinton and Lycoming).

FERC issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project on Feb. 3, 2017. And, despite active litigation that questions permits issued by the states as well as certification from FERC, construction began in March 2017 and, in October 2018, FERC allowed for the project to go into service.

 Two Avenues of Litigation 

Delaware Riverkeeper Network has pursued two avenues of litigation in order to prevent this destructive pipeline, including a case that was just applied for certification to the Supreme Court of the United States. The first case brings a challenge to a permit issued by Pennsylvania for the project and is still pending in front of the Third circuit. In this case, Delaware Riverkeeper Network claims that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection failed to allow for public partition in the issuance of a NPDES permit for the project, in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

The second case, first filed at both the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board and the U,S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, alleges that PADEP improperly issued a Clean Water Action Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the project, and that Delaware Riverkeeper Network, as well as other groups appealing similar natural gas permits, have the right to appeal the 401 Certification to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board, the state administrative body. The second conflict, whether the appeal of a permit goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals or to the state administrative adjudicatory body, arises due to language in the Natural Gas Act that requires permits issued for natural gas projects to be appealed to U.S. Courts of Appeals. In argument in front of the Third Circuit, Delaware Riverkeeper Network argued that under the Natural Gas Act, the Clean Water Act, the federal constitution, and Pennsylvania’s laws and regulations, any permits issued by the state of Pennsylvania should be first appealed to the PA Environmental Hearing Board (EHB). While the EBH agreed with the DRN, in the case filed at the EHB, the Third Circuit did not. Instead, the Third Circuit found that the EHB has no authority to review the issuance of permits under the NGA. This holding is contrary to fundamentals of federalism, the Clean Water Act, and Pennsylvania law. Further, it is contradictory to holdings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and within the Third Circuit itself.

After receiving the opinion from the Third Circuit, Delaware Riverkeeper Network felt that it was necessary to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. On January 9, 2019, Delaware Riverkeeper Network submitted a petition for certification to the Supreme Court of the United States arguing both that Third Circuit was wrong in its interpretation and that if this decision is left to stand, it will create uncertainty for states in the Third Circuit (which includes Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) as well as nationally as it conflicts with other opinions issues by the First Circuit (Berkshire Envtl. Action Team, Inc. v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., LLC, 851 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2017) and with an opinion issued by the Third Circuit itself (Twp. of Bordentown v. FERC, 903 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2018).

Below are some photos of monitoring and community watchdogging underway at the Transco Williams Atlantic Sunrise gas pipeline. DRN has trained over 50 volunteers to document construction conditions over the last few months. These pictures were taken in the vicinity of a trout stream located in Schuylkill County after the landowner called us with concerns and complaints. 

FERC Docket Number: CP18-46

In November, Adelphia Gateway, L.L.C. (Adelphia), a subsidiary of New Jersey Resources Corporation, announced that it was buying an 89 mile pipeline from Talen Energy Corp. On January 12, 2018, Adelphia filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for its proposed Adelphia Gateway Project (AGP). The proposed $143,00,000 pipeline project consists of acquiring and converting 89 miles of existing oil and natural gas pipelines, including constructing and operating two new 5,625 horsepower compressor states, installing 4.75 miles of new 16-inch diameter lateral pipelines, and constructing 8 new meter stations. The project will run from Martins Creek, PA to Marcus Hook, PA crossing Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, Bucks, and Northampton Counties, PA. It proposes to ship a total of 250,000 dekatherms a day of natural gas per day.

The whole of the pipeline would lie in the Delaware River watershed and in a portion of the watershed where numerous other pipeline projects are currently in operation, being construction, or are being proposed including, but not limited to, two Mariner East 2 pipelines, Marcellus to Market project, the PennEast project, and the Greater Philadelphia Expansion Project.

See below for a fact sheet describing the resources impact by the Adelphia Gateway Project.

UPDATE 9/19/2018: 

DRN wrote to the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) asking that DRBC exercise jurisdiction over the Adelphia project, and require that the project receive a DRBC docket before it is allowed to proceed.

UPDATE 5/1/2018: 

On May 1, 2018 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) released a notice of intent to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed Adelphia Gateway Project (AGP). Comments to FERC on the scope of all potential environmental and community impacts are due.  Two scoping hearings were held on May 30 and May 31 in Center Valley, PA and Essington, PA.

UPDATE 2/22/2018: 

FERC requested for Adelphia to initiate the process of providing a third party contractor given concerns that have already been voiced about the project by stakeholders and interveners.

References:

Adelphia Unveils its 84-mile natural gas pipeline through Philly; Will it spur protests?, Andrew Maykuth, Philly.com, January 16, 2018, http://www.philly.com/philly/business/energy/adelphia-gateway-files-ferc-application-20180116.html.

Clean Air Council’s Initial Comments on the Adelphia Gateway Pipeline Project, Clean Air Council, Docket ID No. CP18-46-000, https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20180213-5358.

Resource Report No. 1: General Project Description, Adelphia Gateway, LLC, https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=14634543.

Request for Third Party Contractor, FERC, Docket ID No. CP18-46-000, https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20180222-3040.

The Paulins Kill River

In the Town of Highland, Sullivan County, New York, Northgate Resorts is proposing to overhaul the former Kittatinny Campground with an operation they call Camp FIMFO.  The proposal would transform most of the existing low impact tent camp sites to RV sites, cabins or glamping structures with water, sewage and/or electric hook ups; adding a mountain roller coaster, water slides, a swimming pool, mini golf, more parking, more septic systems, as well as replacing some of the old existing buildings with new.

The Paulins Kill river in northern New Jersey still maintains extraordinary biological diversity and high water quality, but the river has been fragmented by dams and has suffered from other human abuses for decades.  The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has been working with the State of New Jersey and a number of outstanding groups (including the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Park Service, The Nature Conservancy, American Rivers, and the Academy of Natural Sciences) to both reverse the historical damage to the ecosystem and to bolster the diversity of native species that continue to live within the system.

Among the most important positive steps forward has been the removal of the first dam on the Paulins Kill in 2018.  The Columbia Lake Dam was located less than a half mile upstream from the Delaware River confluence, blocking the strong runs of migratory fish still thriving in the Delaware River from utilizing the Paulins Kill watershed.  Led by the State of New Jersey, the Nature Conservancy, and American River, this first-blockage dam was removed beginning in August of 2018, with documentation of migratory fish returning to the Paulins Kill already in both 2019 and 2020!!.

But the return of migratory fish (including American Eel and American Shad) is just the beginning of the broader ecological restoration of the Paulins Kill.  Further work by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and its partners seeks a more complete and holistic recovery of water quality and ecological diversity, including such key species as freshwater pearly mussels.

Watch this video from our 2019 Paulins Kill Mussel Survey: