Skip to content

Tinicum Creek Bridge Projects Challenged

Two Bridge Projects

PennDOT is pursuing two bridge projects over Tributaries of Tinicum Creek at Tettemer and Cafferty Roads in Tinicum Township, Bucks County, PA.  
  
The Tinicum Creek basin is designated as an Exceptional Value stream because it has very high quality waters and healthy habitats.  As a result, the law requires that the water quality of the Tinicum and its tributaries be maintained and protected. 

The two bridge projects being proposed and pursued by PennDOT will result in water quality, habitat and other degradation of the Exceptional Value streams that comprise the Tinicum Creek.  In addition to the damaging nature of the work to be done, when PennDOT submitted materials for the two bridge projects it represented that each of these projects would result in less than one acre of disturbance – the result was that PennDOT was granted waivers from having to pursue certain Clean Water Act permits (NPDES permits).  But, expert reviews conducted by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network with the support of our local members now prove that in fact each of the projects disturbs more than one acre of land, and as a resultNPDES permits are required by law.  That means that PennDOT is pursuing these two projects without the permits required by federal law. 

Not only is the implementation of these projects without the necessary permits a violation of law, had this permitting been pursued there would have been more careful reviews into the degradation these two projects would inflict on the Tinicum Creek because of its Exceptional Value status.

DRN 

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has been pursuing several legal pathways in an attempt to protect the creek.

The first was to file for an injunction to try to stop the project until necessary permits were obtained — that effort was well fought but ultimately failed.

Second and concurrently the Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed the legal notice necessary to pursue a Clean Water Act challenge to the project.  

Related

Sheephole/Headquarters Road Bridge

PennDOT Bridge Projects Damaging Special Protection Streams

 

Sheephole/Headquarters Road Bridge

Overview

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network is opposed to the destruction and replacement of the historic Headquarters Road Bridge (also known as Sheephole Bridge and Burnt Mill Bridge), a 200 year old historic structure. Experts have analyzed the bridge, the PADOT proposed replacement plans, and implications of both for the Exceptional Value Tinicum Creek. Based upon these expert analyses it is clear that replacement of the bridge:

  • Will harm ecological and historic resources
  • Will impact the health and quality of Tinicum Creek
  • Will diminish quality of life in Tinicum Township and Bucks County, will adversely affect the ecotourism experience in the region
  • Could undermine the Wild & Scenic designation of the Lower Delaware River and Tinicum Creek
  • Is not necessary to serve the traffic needs of the community
  • Will take longer and cost more than the rehabilitation of the existing structure

Despite our repeated efforts to convey this message to PADOT, they have continued to insist upon sticking to their predetermined course of action. In the process, PADOT is violating the mandates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Department of Transportation Act (DOTA). They have failed to adequately consider alternative options, consult the public, or consider the environmental and historic harm of their plans—as required by law. In addition, expert review of their claims has exposed PADOT’s misrepresentation of crash data in an effort to bolster their false safety claims.

Photo of the historic Headquarters Road Bridge

Moreover, PennDOT’s misrepresentation of facts in attempt to ensure their desired outcome of demolishing and rebuilding historic bridges in Bucks County is not unique to the Headquarters Road Bridge. Expert analysis demonstrates that both the Tettemer and Cafferty bridge projects were achieved through similar misrepresentations of data and avoidance of appropriate laws— at the detriment of the stream’s ecology and integrity, the town’s historic and cultural value, and safety conditions. These projects were not only unnecessary and damaging, but also expensive and hugely wasteful.
 
The DRN is working with Tinicum residents and relevant experts and agencies to hold PennDOT accountable and ensure they comply with required regulations in order to ensure the best outcome for both Tinicum Creek and the community.

Recent Press

Group challenges PennDOT evaluation to destroy historic Sheephole Bridge, Pennsylvania Record, 08/24/2017

Related

PennDOT Bridge Projects Damaging Special Protection Streams

Tinicum Creek Bridge Projects Challenged

 

PennDOT Bridge Projects Damaging Special Protection Streams

Overview

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network continues to monitor and challenge ongoing bridge replacement projects near sensitive streams in the Delaware River Watershed. 

The Tinicum Creek basin is designated as an Exceptional Value stream because it has very high quality waters and healthy habitats.  As a result, the law requires that the water quality of the Tinicum and its tributaries be maintained and protected.  Despite that, PennDOT has been pursuing a number of damaging bridge projects, evading the requirements of the law that would avoid or minimize harms.

Sheephole Bridge

After witnessing degradation of the Little Tinicum Creek from two PennDOT bridge replacement projects along Headquarters Road in Tinicum Township the Delaware Riverkeeper Network is closely monitoring developments for the Sheephole Road Bridge over the Tinicum Creek. Documents obtained by the DRN indicate PennDOT may be moving toward replacing the current historic structure with a two lane bridge. 

The current one lane bridge is considered the 4th oldest bridge in Bucks County and one of the oldest bridges in Pennsylvania. Many local residents want to keep the crossing at one lane. Construction of a new bridge could lead to more erosion and silt being dumped into the Tinicum Creek, an exceptional value stream as well as increasing the runoff of pollutants from the roadway. 

Jugtown Hill Road Bridge

DRN supported efforts by local residents to try and block the demolition of the Jugtown Hill Road Bridge. Bucks County and PennDOT officials moved ahead with demolishing the bridge in late April despite opposition from local residents. The bridge was located within the Delaware Canal State Park, a national historic landmark. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network conducted an outreach to federal and state officials to determine if an appropriate review of the historical value of the bridge had been conducted.

Tettemer & Cafferty Road Bridges

PennDOT has been pursuing and carrying out two bridge projects over Tributaries of Tinicum Creek at Tettemer and Cafferty Roads in Tinicum Township, Bucks County, PA.  
 
Tinicum at Cafferty Rd Bridge.jpgThe two bridge projects being pursued by PennDOT resulted in water quality, habitat and other degradation of the Exceptional Value streams that comprise the Tinicum Creek.  In addition to the damaging nature of the work done, when PennDOT submitted materials for the two bridge projects it represented that each of these projects would result in less than one acre of disturbance – the result was that PennDOT was granted waivers from having to pursue certain Clean Water Act permits (NPDES permits).  But, expert reviews conducted by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network with the support of our local members now prove that in fact each of the projects disturbs more than one acre of land, and as a result NPDES permits are required by law.  That means that PennDOT pursued these two projects without the permits required by federal law. 
  
Not only is the implementation of these projects without the necessary permits a violation of law, had this permitting been pursued there would have been more careful reviews into the degradation these two projects would inflict on the Tinicum Creek because of its Exceptional Value status. 
  
The bridge projects expanded the sizes of the existing bridges, resulting in polluting land disturbance.  In addition, the Cafferty Road site included approximately 330 linear feet of retaining wall along Sundale Creek, a tributary to the Tinicum.  The proposed retaining walls encroach into the active channel of the creek, narrowing it, constricting stream flow, and increasing instream velocity.  The ramifications will be to change the flow of the creek in such a way that it could result in increased erosion, sedimentation, degraded water quality and harmed stream habitats.  Tettemer also includes damaging instream and stream side work that could cause similar harms.  
  
According to the Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s stream restoration expert: 
  
 “…it is my professional opinion that proposed plans for the Headquarters Road – Cafferty Road and Headquarters Road – Tettemer Road bridges do not adequately address antidegradation standards for EV streams, and that if implemented as proposed will result in unmitigated water quality impacts and a permanent loss of habitat. “
  
Through advocacy and litigation, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network has been working to enforce the requirements of the law – both directly by legally challenging the PennDOT projects, but also by pressing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to step in and do its job to enforce applicable environmental protection laws. 
  
As videos show, the ongoing construction is having adverse effects on this stream.  Run off from the construction has traveled down Headquarters Road and eventually put more sediments in the stream. Low flows have made it difficult for wildlife such as Great Blue Herons to forage for food.    
  
This project should have received an anti-degredation permit from the Pennsylvania DEP.  PennDot didn’t bother to get one and PADEP didn’t bother to enforce the law — the result has been damage to the stream and the community. Dry Little Tinicum CreekRunoff

Related

Tinicum Creek Bridge Projects Challenged

Sheephole/Headquarters Road Bridge

 

Salem Nuclear Generating Station

The Salem Nuclear Generating Station is the largest predator in the Delaware Estuary. 

The Salem nuclear generating station is owned and operated by the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) and is located on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township in Salem County, NJ at the mouth of the Delaware River.

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has been fighting for over 30 years to stop the unnecessary death toll that is having such serious impacts on the aquatic life of our River.  

Once-Through Cooling (OTC) vs Closed-Cycle Cooling

More than five hundred of America’s oldest and dirtiest power plants still use “once-through cooling” (OTC) systems — the Salem Nuclear Generation Station, Delaware City Refinery, and Mercer Power Plant on the Delaware River are among them.

In once-through cooling, a power plant would draw large volumes of water from nearby lake or river to cool down heat produced from their operations. After being used, the power plant discharges this super-heated water back into the source along with other pollutants. The entire process, from intake to discharge, is responsible for destroying billions of fish, shellfish and other marine life. The death toll includes hundreds of endangered species of fish, mammals, and sea turtles. Some of these species like the Atlantic Sturgeon in the Delaware River, are being pushed to the very brink of extinction.

“Closed-cycle” cooling, is as it is described—essentially a closed loop that moves heated water to a cooling tower or pond where it can cool off through the surrounding environment, condense and be recirculated back into operation, instead of being discharged directly back into the source. Closed cycle cooling is a widely used and proven technology that has been available for decades and can reduce fish kills, habitat disruption, by drawing less water and putting out less thermal pollution into the environment.

By retrofitting the Salem plant with a closed cycle cooling system those fish kills could be reduced by over 95%.

Environmental Impact

The Salem Nuclear Power plant itself draws in over 3 billion gallons of water a day from the Delaware River to use in their cooling operations, killing over 3 billion fish a year (according correspondence from US Fish & Wildlife Service to NJDEP, June 30, 2000 relying on PSE&G’s own permit application data that is limited to 10 Representative Important Species (RIS)), which includes:

  • Over 59 million Blueback Herring 
  • Over 77 million Weakfish 
  • Over 134 million Atlantic Croaker 
  • Over 412 million White Perch 
  • Over 448 million Striped Bass 
  • Over 2 billion Bay Anchovy

However, the US Environmental Protection Agency determined that Salem entrains 14.7 billion fish, eggs and larvae every year and impinges an additional 6.6 billion a year. (Case Study Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Part A -B, figure B6-1, EPA, May 2002) Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn through a cooling water intake structure into the facility’s cooling system and thereby become subjected to mechanical, thermal, and toxic stress. Organisms that become entrained are generally relatively small forms of fish and shellfish species. The mortality rate of entrained organisms is high. Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against screening devices by the force of the water passing through the cooling water intake structure. Impingement can result in starvation and exhaustion, asphyxiation and descaling. While this is a direct loss of fish, it also creates a ripple effect on abundance of aquatic life from the food chain and all of the cascading benefits they provide to a host of other species.  

Many of the species PSEG impacts are either endangered (such as Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon as well as Kemps Ridley and Green Sea Turtles) or have already experienced population declines in the present or recent past, thus magnifying the adverse impact of the Salem impingement and entrainment takes they suffer. For example:

  • “The bay anchovy is a species whose numbers have been decreasing at an alarming rate.”[1]  
  • Blueback herring and Alewife have been identified by NOAA as a species of concern and one that has been experiencing declines throughout their range, including in the Delaware River.[2]  
  • The ASMFC has determined: “ The American shad stock in the Delaware River is considered stable but at low levels compared to the historic population.” (emphasis added) [3]  
  • Weakfish populations in our region are in a “depleted state.”[4]
  • The Atlantic Sturgeon of the Delaware River are listed as endangered as part of the NY Bight DPS:  “In the NYB DPS, there are two known spawning populations – the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. While the Hudson is presumably the largest extant reproducing Atlantic sturgeon population, the Delaware is presumably very small and extremely vulnerable to any sources of anthropogenic mortality.”[5]

[1] Bay Anchovy Fact Sheet, NJDEP, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/delriver/artdel_sp_bayanchovy.pdf

[2] River Herring (Alewife & Blueback Herring), Species of Concern, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, 5/19/2009.

[3] Delaware River Sustainable Fishing Plan for American Shad, Prepared by the Delaware River Basin Fish & Wildlife Management Cooperative for The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission  Shad and River Herring Management Board, December 2011.

[4] Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, ADDENDUM IV TO AMENDMENT 4 TO THE WEAKFISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, Nov 2009.

[5] Final Rule, Threatened and Endangered Status for Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic, Sturgeon in the Northeast Region, Fed Reg Vol 77 No. 24, Feb. 6, 2012. 

The Federal Clean Water Act
Section 316(b) Regulations for Cooling Water Intake

Section 316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act sets requirements for cooling water intakes at certain facilities like the Salem Nuclear Generating Station that withdraw large volumes of water use the “best technology available” (BTA) on the design, construction and capacity of their cooling water intake structures to minimize any adverse environmental impact. (i.e. their kills of fish and aquatic life. Under these regulations,

In 1993 and 2006, The Delaware Riverkeeper Network along with a coalition of environmental groups filed suit against the EPA for failure to implement Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for existing power plants and other industrial facilities. After much decades of legal battles, on November 22, 2010 Delaware Riverkeeper Network and other groups entered into a settlement agreement in which the EPA would draft new regulations for existing facilities by March 14, 2011, and to take final action regarding the new regulations by July 27, 2012 along with other key provisions. The EPA published its new rules on August 15, 2014 which failed to set a clear standard, leaving it completely to the discretion of state regulators to determine what cooling water intake technology is best on a case by case basis. This failure subverts the entire purpose of the 316(b) regulation, to have a national baseline standard that provides all waterways the highest level of protection. Federal agencies responsible for protecting endangered species found that 266 threatened and endangered species are affected by power plants with once-through cooling, with the effects ranging from direct injury to habitat degradation and destruction of other aquatic species relied on as part of the aquatic food chain.

In September 2014, a coalition of environmental groups including the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, filed three lawsuits in federal courts around the country (New York, San Francisco and Boston) seeking to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish a clear standard that better protects the hundreds of aquatic species near the nation’s 1,065 power plants and other facilities. 

For decades, the power industry has campaigned against updating regulations to protect biologically and economically important aquatic ecosystems from further damage from industrial cooling water intakes. Industry argues that more environmentally protective regulations will force plants across the country to shut down and threaten the reliability of the nation’s electricity supply. But studies by EPA and by outside groups showed that the gradual move to closed-cycle cooling under this rule would have little or no impact on the power grid. In fact, EPA concluded that moving to closed-cycle cooling will actually reduce the vulnerability of the American power sector to droughts and climate change.

More information about this can be found here.

New Jersey Permit Renewal

In the past, rather than require this existing, used and proven technology, the state of NJ has primarily allowed PSE&G, the owner and operator of Salem, to “mitigate” its fish kills by changing the ratios of vegetation in wetlands. The problem is, this program does nothing to reduce the fish kills and according to PSE&G’s own data is not improving fish habitat or fish abundance in the Delaware River. Court rulings have made clear that mitigation is not an appropriate path for fulfilling the requirements of the Clean Water Act to minimize these fish kills.

In October 2013, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed on behalf of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, New Jersey Sierra Club and the New Jersey Environmental Federation initiating a legal action requesting an order demanding that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) take action on PSE&G’s permit renewal application for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station.

On November 13, 2014, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, New Jersey Sierra Club and Clean Water Action settled their legal action against the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and in-so-doing have secured a commitment from NJDEP to issue a draft discharge permit to PSE&G’s Salem Nuclear Generating Station by June 30, 2015. Issuance of the draft permit will cause NJDEP to take a position on whether the facility’s cooling water intake structures, must be updated to significantly reduce these fish kills and the facility’s water usage. Once the draft permit is issued the public will have a chance to submit comments and thereafter challenge any final NJDEP decision if it believes NJDEP has not required the proper level of environmental protection at the facility.

On, June 30, 2015, complying with the settlement agreement, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued a draft permit which largely allows PSE&G to operate Salem business as usual.

While the State took 9 years to craft and issue this draft, they only gave the public 60 days and 1 hearing in which to review and comment. And both the comment period and the hearing occurred during the height of vacation season (July and August with the hearing on August 5). Nonetheless, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network submitted significant comments and expert reports on the draft permit issued by NJDEP for public comment. Amongst the findings of our experts:

  • Two major analyses show that stopping the killing of fish with closed cycle cooling could provide economic benefits worth up to $577 million….. ECONorthwest, p. vii
  • 14.7 billion fish a year are impinged and/or entrained at Salem.  Closed cycle cooling at Salem would reduce this mortality by over 12.8 billion.  ECONorthwest, p. 4
  • 14.7 billion fish impinged & entrained at Salem a year translates into 360 million fish killed in an average year that, but for Salem, would have survived to age one. ECONorthwest, p. 4
  •  “The total installed cost of [closed cycle cooling at Salem] ($852 million) represents about 31 percent of the companies [PSEG & Exelon, Salem’s owners] combined annual capital expenditure, and the annual loan payment pf just two percent.”  ECONorthwest, p. 24
  • Installing closed cycle cooling at Salem “would increase electricity rates by $0.0036 per kWh.”  ECONorthwest, p. 25

Copies of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network comment and expert reports can be found at:

Despite the significant expert, legal and factual challenges contained in our comment, on June 10, 2016, NJDEP issued a final permit that allowed PSE&G to essentially continue operations that result in the killing of over 14 Billion fish, eggs and larvae every year from our Delaware River. In response, on July 8, 2016 the Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed a legal challenge with the Office of Legal Affairs in New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection seeking a new hearing to review the renewed permit issued by NJDEP to PSE&G’s Salem Nuclear Generating Station located on Artificial Island in Salem County, NJ. The permit, as issued, would extend the Salem facility’s use of once through cooling. Throughout the legal battle NJDEP has sought to hide information from the public, forcing the Delaware Riverkeeper Network to have to engage in lengthy battles to gain access to text messages and emails sent by NJDEP staff regarding the issue and to secure the right to depose key NJDEP staffers who worked on the permit.  Finally, on October 28, 2019, the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law granted the Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s motion to compel the deposition of three New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) employees regarding the Salem Nuclear Generating Station’s New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit and to secure access to emails that had so far been denied the organization.  While the Judge did not require NJDEP to produce unredacted pre-decisional drafts of the 2015 draft permit and the 2016 final permit, he overwhelmingly found in DRN’s favor on other requests. In a decision issued October 28, the judge granted DRN’s motion to compel the production of relevant emails.  In addition, finding DRN demonstrated good cause, the judge granted the Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s request to take the depositions of key NJDEP employees. The judge’s determination in part states, “I CONCLUDE that petitioner has demonstrated “good cause” – specifically there has been a showing that information requested is highly technical in nature and cannot be obtained in other ways.”

To read the judge’s letter order, click here.

 NJDEP appealed the October ruling. In a remarkable twist, in this administrative proceeding, the arbiter to whom the NJDEP appealed was the head of the NJDEP, Commissioner Catherine McCabe. On December 16, 2019, Commissioner McCabe ruled against DRN’s right to take the depositions of three NJDEP employees.  In her ruling, Commissioner McCabe suggested that allowing the depositions would “set a precedent that makes depositions routine in all permitting matters and will cause an undue burden on the Department.” 

Despite this unsavory legal development, discovery in the case has continued to advance as has our legal challenge. It has been a slow slog but we continue to pursue this precedent setting legal challenge essential for protecting our Delaware Estuary and the fish and aquatic life essential ecologically, recreationally, and economically.

On a related note:  on August 13, 2019, once again, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network has reached out to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to urge them to take action protect the endangered Atlantic Sturgeon of the Delaware River.  Time and again we have reached out about the excessive takes of sturgeon by both the Army Corps of Engineers and by PSEG’s Salem Nuclear Generating Station.  Every time they turn a blind eye. When will it stop? See the letter and horrific photos here.

Related Issues

Delaware River and Bay Oil Spill Advisory Committee

Overview

The Delaware Riverkeeper was appointed a member of the Delaware River and Bay Oil Spill Advisory Committee created by federal legislation in response to the Athos I oil spill.  This Federal Advisory Committee, which held its first meeting in December, 2008, was given an 18-month life during which it is charged with identifying recommendations to better protect the Delaware River from oil spill events in terms of prevention, response, recovery and mitigation.  The work load  for participants of this Federal Advisory Committee has been daunting but clearly critical.  There are few voices in the group to ensure that the needs of the River and all those who rely upon the River are given the highest priority.  The Delaware Riverkeeper is a member of both the main committee as well as three of the four subcommittees that it has established.

The Report Remains In Stasis

The Committee’s work was to be completed by April 30, 2010.  Due to opposition to key recommendations brought mainly by the Pennsylvania representative and a lack of voting members showing up for the last meeting the committee was unable to render a final vote on the report.  As a result the report remains in stasis.  Efforts are underway to secure a legislative extension that would allow the report to be revisited and finalized hopefully by the end of 2010.

Bishop Tube Toxic Site

Overview

The Bishop Tube Site is a former metals processing plant located in East Whiteland Township, PA.  The site is bordered by Little Valley Creek, a tributary to the exceptional value Valley Creek. Portions of the site are wooded.  As a result of the historic uses at the site it has been designated as a Brownfields site.

Photo of the 7.26.17 press conference

Groundwater, soil and surface water at the Site are contaminated with TCE, which is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the EPA, and related products.  TCE is a chlorinated solvent and one of the problematic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) identified at the site, first found in 1987.  TCE causes liver problems and an increased risk of cancer, among other health harms.  (https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants#Organic, visited 2/18/17).

Where Things Stand:

After years of community and Delaware Riverkeeper Network advocacy that began in 2017, multiple rounds of legal action, followed by robust community engagement and expert comment, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is finally enforcing the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) mandating site cleanup.  On September 12, 2022 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued a Statement of Decision identifying the remediation plan it would require for cleanup of the toxins at the Bishop Tube Site.  

Of major continuing concern, Constitution Drive Partners, a developer, continues its pressure campaign to secure township approvals for development of the site, even before remediation begins and an assessment of its effectiveness is known. The Township seems sadly inclined to side with the developer rather than stand in defense of the residents who have been so severely impacted by the decades of toxic contamination.

Background & Details:

The 13.7 acre Bishop Tube site (located in Chester County, PA, on the east side of Malin Road, south of US Route 30) has been abused by industry for over 50 years. The site, formerly used to process precious metals and fabricate tubing and pipeline products, is heavily contaminated with chlorinated solvents, acids and heavy metals. This contamination has impacted neighboring communities and the environment.Contaminants currently at the site include TCE, nitric and hydrofluoric acids; various oils; and other hazardous materials not properly handled or disposed of. Industrial operations began in 1951.  The plant closed in 1999.

Exceptional Value Stream
& Wetlands

While the site is dangerously contaminated, there is also beautiful nature worthy of saving.  Woodlands, wetlands and Little Valley Creek, part of the exceptional value Valley Creek watershed, grace the location as well.

Proposed development by Constitution Drive Partners, including ~ 92 new homes, would cut trees, damage the creek and wetlands.

Rather than continue the abuse, and destroy all the natural beauty of the site for a massive, oversized, development, the community wants the site contamination fully cleaned up by responsible parties and the site protected as natural open space. Protection will benefit all who live around the site in Frazer, Malvern and East Whiteland, and will benefit all who appreciate, enjoy, and live along Little Valley Creek, tributary to Valley Creek, the stream directly in jeopardy from the proposal.

Watch the documentary to learn of the community’s plight and its hard work to secure essential government protection. Documentary by Alex Djordjevic

Major Milestones in the Effort to Ensure Clean Up, Stop Development, and Secure Natural Open Space Protection. 

September 12, 2023, responding to a public demand for more information, PADEP hosts an in person public meeting to discuss the Site and the remediation response action the state has selected; the community will be given the opportunity to ask questions, get answers, and give input.  

August 2023, The community, Delaware Riverkeeper Network and the Pennsylvania DEP respond to the developer’s June 20, 2023 request for final development approval.  The Delaware Riverkeeper Network and community urge the township to reject the request.  Community concerns regarding the application materials submitted are bolstered by a Pennsylvania DEP letter to the Township.

September 12, 2022, Remediation Plan Selected and Advancing  After nearly 40 years of ignoring the site’s toxic condition and the ramifications for the environment and neighboring communities, PADEP selects a remediation plan for the site.

Government Grant To Developer Defeated.

After learning that county government was proposing to give the developer a $1 million dollar grant to support their development of the toxic Bishop Tube site, the community organized in opposition. In response, the grant was never given.

August 14, 2019, the Township BOS approved a letter from O’Neill granting an extension of time to February 28, 2020 for the Township to act on the revised Preliminary Plan.

You can find information about the new development proposal on the township website at: https://www.eastwhiteland.org/351/Bishop-Tube-Land-Development

July 1, 2019 — PA DEP has posted the remediation investigation documents for public review.You can find them here.  

July 1, 2019 — The Delaware Riverkeeper Network continues to submit comments to the Township and other officials expressing concerns regarding the October 2018 CDP development proposal. Read here for the first set of comments, here for the second set, here for the third set.  If you would like to submit your own comment you can gather all the information to do so here.

April 29, 2019 — Delaware Riverkeeper Network Wins Challenge Over State Sweetheart Deal With Bishop Tube Site Developer.  Responding to a legal challenge filed by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB), in a rather scathing opinion, has ruled that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s approval of amendments to a Prospective Purchaser Agreement that would allow development of the highly contaminated Bishop Tube site located in East Whiteland, PA is “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore the agreements are void. View the rest of the press release and decision here.

May 7, 2019 — East Whiteland Open Space Advisory Committee Meeting.
Residents attend the an East Whiteland Open Space Advisory Committee meeting and urge that preservation and protection of the Bishop Tube site as natural open space for the benefit of the community be given highest priority in open space and township planning and investment. View the details here. 

October 9, 2018 — New plans for developing the bishop tube site were submitted.  The development is limited to the actual bishop tube manufacturing site and so the number of units is limited to what was originally proposed (or thereabouts) for this area.  The proposal is for ~ 93 units.  While this seems far less than the original 228 proposed, because we are talking about a significantly smaller area of land, in fact what is being proposed is comparable to what was proposed in the past.  While this is progress, it is not the victory the community will accept. Only full remediation and protection of the site as natural open space will satisfy the community and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and so the battle continues.  You can find copies of the land development submissions at:  http://www.eastwhiteland.org/351/Bishop-Tube-Land-Development

Overview of Litigation Delaware Riverkeeper Network Has Advanced to Secure Cleanup and Protection of the Bishop Tube Site.

As of February, 2018, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network has pursued three legal actions regarding the Bishop Tube site:

Additional Updates:

 Click here to see video of residents speaking out in defense of their first amendment right to oppose development of, and demand full clean up, the Bishop Tube site.

June 7, 2017:  Click here for DRN Comment re PADEP deal with the developer

SLAPP Suit to Silence Community

  • June 27, 2017, Brian O’Neill and his corporate counterparts filed a SLAPP suit against the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Delaware Riverkeeper Maya van Rossum, a private citizen and threatened to include 10 additional residents as defendants.
  • On August 22, 2017 the SLAPP suit was quickly dismissed with the judge ruling:  “This is what we call constitutionally protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution…”
  • September 22, 2017 Brian Oneill and his counterparts appealed the decision, once again misusing the law to try to threaten opposition to his plans for Bishop Tube.  September 6, 2018 the Pennsylvania Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for overturning the case.  In a September 20, 2018 filing, O’Neill et.al sought to have the court reconsider the decision.  
  • November 2, 2018 the Superior Court summarily rejected the request for reconsideration.

Effort to Secure EPA Documents

  • On July 28, 2020,Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) filed an administrative appeal against the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 3 office (EPA) due to EPA’s failure to respond to DRN’s September 3, 2019 request for production of documents, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). DRN’s request sought the production of all records in the EPA’s possession regarding the Bishop Tube Site. Under FOIA law, the EPA is legally mandated to fully respond to a request for records within 20 working days from the date that the request was received, unless unusual or exceptional circumstances exist. DRN argued that EPA continuously delayed the full production of documents for 10-months without asserting that unusual or exceptional circumstances exist. DRN also argued that the partial production of documents submitted by EPA were not responsive to DRN’s request.
  • On August 18, 2020, EPA’s General Law Office granted DRN’s appeal regarding the request for EPA documents and stated that DRN’s request would be remanded to Region 3 to conduct an additional search and release the responsive documents to DRN.
More than 200 people showed up at a June 7 informational meeting to challenge the Pennsylvania DEP about the proposed development of the Bishop Tube site in East Whiteland Township. Residents are concerned about the proposed clean-up of toxic TCE at the formal industrial site. PADEP officials were also challenged by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network about details of the case that had not been released to the community

A survey was conducted to identify native plant species growing in the forest at the Bishop Tube site in 2023. The remarkable amount of biodiversity found, and the concerning conservation status of three tree species identified are documented in this report. The report was shared with the East Whiteland Township Board of Supervisors in July of 2024. View the report here.

Recent Press:

Plan to Build Housing on Contamined Bishop Tube Site in Chester County Faces Major Setback, Phila Inquirer, 2019-04-29

Environmnetal group challenges decision on bishop tube site, Daily Local, 2018-02-22
DEP accused of neglecting cleanup of contaminated Chesco site, State Impact, 11/09/2017
Chester County Judge Issues Opinion on SLAPP Suit Dismissal (2017-10-24)  DRN Press Release, 10/24/2017
Community Protests Bishop Tube Site, Daily Local News, 10/14/2017
Judge throws out developer’s ‘SLAPP suit’ against environmental group, State Impact, 08/23/2017
Chesco advocates accuse developer of trying to muzzle free speech over toxic site, State Impact, 07/27/2017
Activists response to legal battle with developer at bishop tube site, Daily Local News, 07/26/2017
East Whiteland Officials Pull Support for $1 Million Development Grant, Daily Local News, 07/16/2017
Residents Pack East Whiteland Meeting to Oppose Bishop Tube Plan, Daily Local News, 06/9/2017
Chesco Residents Urge Officials to Reject Development Plan for Contaminated Site, State Impact, 04/25/2017
Foes: Don’t Develop Bishop Tube Site, Daily Local News, 04/21/2017
On Toxic Site Abandoned for Decades, Developer Sees Townshouses Sprouting in Chesco, Philly.com, 04/10/2017

Transcontinental’s Northeast Supply Link

Overview

County in the Delaware River Watershed Where Planned — Monroe County (Ross Township) 

The Transcontinental [Transco] Northeast Supply Link Project is an expansion of Transco’s existing pipeline system that will enable Transco to provide natural gas transportation supply interconnections on Transco’s Leidy Line in Pennsylvania to Transco’s Market Pool in New Jersey and delivery points in New York City.  The Project will involve the construction and operation of approximately 13 miles of new 42-inch pipeline looping facilities on Transco’s existing mainline; pressure uprating of approximately 27 miles of existing 24-inch, 26-inch, and 36-inch pipeline; a new 25,000 horsepower compressor station; addition of 16,000 horsepower at an existing compressor station; compressor unit modifications at an existing compressor station; and construction or modification of associated underground and aboveground facilities. As part of this project and in the Delaware Watershed, nearly four miles of 42 inch pipe is being proposed to cut through sensitive habitats and woodlands in Monroe County, crossing eight water bodies including 6 streams of the Aquashicola Creek Watershed (a designated High Quality stream) and 2 streams of the Buckwha Creek Watershed and residential areas.  Much of the area proposed for the pipeline expansion is in steep slopes and hillsides that include Chestnut Ridge that rises to 1,265 feet. 

Size and Scope 

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 two other major pipeline upgrade projects (including Texas Eastern’s Philadelphia Lateral, and TGP’s Northeast Upgrade Project) that are either currently or soon-to-be under construction within the Delaware River Basin.  These construction projects will facilitate the further development of new wells, access roads, gathering lines, compressor stations, and other supporting infrastructure, which will further degrade the local environment.

There have also been numerous regulatory compliance failures associated with this type of construction activity.  In a recent pipeline upgrade project conducted by Tennessee Gas and Pipeline (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 have been 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 are 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.  It is clear that the regulatory system, at both the state and federal level, is not adequately protecting the resources of the watershed.

The Delaware River Basin Commission has the authority to regulate pipeline construction activity if it involves a “significant disturbance of ground cover” affecting water resources. 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.

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. 

 

Transcontinental Regional Energy Access Expansion (REAE Project)

Overview

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (“Transco”) proposes to construct a new natural gas pipeline called the Regional Energy Access Expansion (REAE). The project consists of 22.3 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Luzerne County, PA; 13.8 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Monroe County, PA; a gas-fired turbine driven compressor station in Gloucester County, NJ; and several other modifications to existing pipeline and compressor stations.

Transco REAE would impact 114 Exceptional Value (EV) wetlands and cross 77 waterbodies supporting cold water fisheries, 39 High Quality (HQ) streams, 2 Exceptional Value (EV) streams, 17 Class A Wild Trout Streams, and 57 waterbodies with naturally reproducing trout. Transco also inappropriately proposes to use an existing EV wetland as a mitigation site. Many of the streams that would be crossed by the project are cold water trout streams that are very sensitive to degradation. This project would also impact approximately 297 acres of forested woodlands. Clearing the forest around these streams exposes them to direct sunlight, raising the water temperature and jeopardizing their suitability as trout waters. Cutting forests and riparian buffers also creates habitat fragmentation. Transco fails to factor in not just the impacts of the fragmentation of the forest for these particular pipeline segments, but also by other cuts in the same region, either by Transco on its other pipeline pieces or by other pipeline/linear projects both within and outside the watershed. The project is also proposed to be constructed within the habitat of several threatened and endangered plant and animal species including white-fringed orchid, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, timber rattlesnake, and bog turtle. Transco also completely ignores impacts to vernal pools, which are not mentioned once in FERC’s Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Furthermore, Transco REAE would be an extreme detriment to regional climate change goals because it will consist of 47.8% of New Jersey’s GHG budget in 2050. Nothing is stopping FERC from certificating a second project that would consist of 65% of New Jersey’s 2050 GHG budget, thus, FERC would be virtually guaranteeing that New Jersey would not meet its emissions reductions goals, which is a large-scale issue that affects Pennsylvania as well. FERC also concluded that the REAE Project effects would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. This is despite the fact that FERC admitted that certain project components may be predominately borne by environmental justice communities and that climate change impacts would result in annual operation and downstream emissions of 16.62 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. These levels would exceed FERC’s presumptive significance threshold based on 100 percent utilization.

 

Transco Pipeline – Brandywine Creek Crossing

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.

 

Texas Eastern Appalachia to Market (TEAM) Pipeline Project 2014

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.