DEP said-- “PGE failed to properly address the mitigation of all stream impacts, provide plans showing that the access road is properly graded in relation to the stream relocation and adjacent stormwater control measures, and provide clarification and detail concerning potential bridge design effects on the Proposed Project’s limits.”
The proposed road would facilitate access to an existing shale gas well pad and future well pads on State Forest land in addition to a proposed staging area for the storage of equipment and materials for shale gas development.
The project proposed 20 permanent stream crossings, 19 temporary stream crossings, floodway crossings, eight permanent wetland crossings and ten temporary wetland crossings.
The project would have impacted Wallis Run Watershed, which has an Exceptional Value Migratory Fish designation.
DEP said the company was given repeated opportunities to correct deficiencies in the applications starting on Nov. 20, 2025 and again in a pre-denial letter on Feb. 9, 2026, but PGE’s responses “failed to adequately address all the deficiencies noted in the letters.”
DEP had four in-person meetings with PGE on the deficiencies where DEP gave PGE the opportunity to voluntarily withdraw the application so the deficiencies could be fixed, but PGE declined.
Among the deficiencies cited by DEP were--
-- Failure to provide detail in plans for multiple bridge crossings that range in size from 50 to 100 feet;
-- Failure to provide mitigation for wetlands impacts;
-- Failed to maintain flow of a proposed stream relocation within the proposed stream channel.
Click Here for a copy of DEP Engineering Record of Decision.
Click Here for a copy of DEP Biologist Record of Decision.
This decision may be appealed to the Environmental Hearing Board.
Comment/Response Document
Among the comments raised by residents, environmental and sportsmens’ groups included in DEP’s Comment/Response Document, were--
-- The project violates the Environmental Rights Amendment by not conserving Loyalsock State Forest land. DEP responded--
“DEP thoroughly reviewed the Application for compliance with applicable constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements, coordinated with other Article I, Section 27 trustees such as the PAFBC [Fish & Boat Commission], USFWS [US Fish & Wildlife Service], PGC, [Game Commission] and the DCNR, and considered the public input received for the Proposed Project.
“Based upon this thorough process, as well as the Proposed Project’s specific terms and conditions of the permits, the DEP concluded that the Proposed Project will not result in unreasonable degradation of public natural resources consistent with Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
“The Applications reflect avoidance and minimization of impacts, provide reasonable protection for public health and safety and the environment, and adequately mitigate the impacts to the public natural resources.
“Ultimately, the DEP determined that PGE’s Applications failed to satisfy all criteria for issuing the required permits, including the condition in 25 Pa. Code § 105.21 (relating to Criteria for permit issuance and denial), so that the Applications are denied.”
-- Concerns about loss of DCNR State Forest resources and degradation of Exceptional Value Waters. DEP said--
“The alternatives analysis section of application materials outlines the Proposed Project’s limitations relating to local zoning, geologic restrictions, and lease holding limitations that have restricted the Proposed Project to this PA State Forest tract.”
“The Joint Permit Application was also reviewed in coordination with the PAFBC [Fish & Boat Commission] Fisheries Biologists to address concerns specifically related to the PAFBC’s coverage of Commonwealth aquatic resources.
“The PAFBC recommended special conditions to restrict construction timeframes to outside of spawning, egg deposition, incubation, and fry emergence life stages of the wild trout population.”
-- Will pre-project baseline water quality and aquatic life monitoring be done in the Exceptional Value streams and springs impacted by the project? DEP responded--
“The Department does not routinely collect targeted baseline biological or physicochemical data as part of project review or permit issuance.”
PGE’s Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and Permit identifies the measures it would take during the after the project, including additional measures for special protection watersheds.
“However, some engineering design concerns were identified and are discussed in the engineering record of decision detailing that the application does not provide appropriate measures to mitigate for accelerated erosion and stormwater runoff from earth disturbance activities.”
-- Consideration of PGE compliance record during the permit review. DEP said--
“The compliance history of PGE was considered in the review of the applications. Based on this review, PGE is not in violation of a final administrative action by the Department that would preclude the issuance of the permits.
“Its operations are either in compliance, or they are making satisfactory efforts to achieve compliance at their sites. After review with the Compliance Section, it has been determined that PGE has not shown a pattern of noncompliance.”
-- DEP should consider the cumulative impacts of PGE shale gas development. DEP said-
“The DEP evaluates cumulative impacts during its review of an applicant’s Joint Permit Application in accordance with Pennsylvania regulations, including Title 25 Pa. Code Chapters 93, 102, and 105.
“Based on that review, the DEP has determined that PGE has not satisfactorily demonstrated compliance with all the regulatory requirements in Chapter 102 and Chapter 105.”
-- Concerns about noise and traffic. DEP said--
“While noise is not regulated through Department regulations, any local ordinances would be reviewed as part of zoning.
“PGE must also comply with all federal, state, and local statutes, regulations, and ordinances. This would include complying with local noise ordinances, local land use ordinances, and zoning laws.”
Note: Dan Hagan, Director of Government Affairs for the Marcellus Shale Gas Coalition, was the only commenter out of the 171 commenters listed in DEP’s Comment/Response Document to offer general support the project.
For more information on DEP’s actions related to this application, visit the DEP Northcentral Regional Office Community Information webpage and look for the PGE Saluda Access Road and Staging Area Project.
Resource Links:
Related Articles This Week:
-- UGI Energy Services, Prime Data Centers Announce $100 Million Partnership To Develop New Natural Gas Infrastructure For A Power Plant To Feed A.I. Data Center Development, Likely In Cameron, Potter Or Tioga Counties [PaEN]
-- DEP: Penneco Environmental Replacing Tubing, Other Equipment At Oil & Gas Wastewater Injection Well In Plum Boro, Allegheny County Due To Leak, Corrosion [PaEN]
[Posted: May 11, 2026] PA Environment Digest
No comments :
Post a Comment