Residents First! Stop the Data Centers!

After a public hearing last week, the Nesquehoning Borough Council passed a Data Center Ordinance that is a far cry from the Penn Forest Township model ordinance. There is still an opportunity to put in the guide rails that are needed to protect our water and air. During the hearing, representatives from Keel Infrastructure (was Bitfarms for a brief period, and before that the company was Stronghold Digital) mentioned their data center project dependence on PPL's 69kV Hauto project to provide reliable power. The PPL 69kV Hauto project runs through wetlands (see the image below) and the high tension towers will have an enormous impact on the local landscape. Here's where we can make a difference - the public comment period for the PPL 69kV Hauto project is open until May 4th. No public hearing has been scheduled, but one can be requested. To review the PPL 69kV Hauto project application, request a public hearing, or send comments, contact the DEP Northeast Regional Office, Waterways & Wetlands Program, 2 Public Square, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 at (570) 826-2511 or send email to: RA-EPWW-NERO@pa.gov. Questions should be directed to Pamela Kania, P.E., Program Manager, RA-EPWW-NERO@pa.gov.

Here's a sample letter to start:

To: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Northeast Regional Office

Waterways & Wetlands Program

2 Public Square

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701

Attn: Pamela Kania, P.E., Program Manager

Re: Public Comment – Carbon Node East Development, LLC Project (E1302226-001)

Nesquehoning Borough, Carbon County

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Application (Received March 13, 2026)

Impacts to Dennison Run (EV, MF) and Associated Wetlands

Dear DEP Waterways & Wetlands Program Manager:

I am writing to submit formal comments regarding the above-referenced application for water obstructions and encroachments associated with the Carbon Node East Development Project, including multiple utility crossings, floodway encroachments, and wetland impacts affecting Dennison Run and its unnamed tributaries, all designated Exceptional Value (EV) waters.

After review of the Pennsylvania Bulletin notice and associated project description, I have significant concerns regarding compliance with Pennsylvania’s Dam Safety and Encroachments Act (25 Pa. Code Chapter 105), the Clean Streams Law and associated regulations (25 Pa. Code Chapter 102), and federal Clean Water Act requirements (33 U.S.C. §1344; 40 CFR Part 230).

---

1. Failure to Demonstrate Compliance with EV Antidegradation Requirements

(25 Pa. Code §§93.4b, 93.4c; 25 Pa. Code §105.18a)

Dennison Run and its tributaries are classified as Exceptional Value waters, which are afforded the highest level of protection under Pennsylvania law. Under 25 Pa. Code §93.4c, activities in EV waters must maintain and protect existing water quality and cannot result in degradation.

The applicant has proposed numerous stream crossings, floodway encroachments, and associated disturbances. Given the number and density of these impacts, it is not evident from the notice that the applicant has met the required burden to demonstrate:

- That no practicable alternative exists which would avoid impacts to EV waters;

- That the project is water-dependent, as required under 25 Pa. Code §105.18a; and

- That existing water quality will be maintained and protected.

Absent a clear and rigorous alternatives analysis and antidegradation demonstration, the application does not appear to meet regulatory requirements.

---

2. Inadequate Alternatives Analysis

(25 Pa. Code §105.18a; 40 CFR §230.10)

Both Pennsylvania and federal regulations require a demonstration that no less environmentally damaging practicable alternative exists. This includes avoidance of EV waters wherever feasible.

The project proposes a large number of crossings of Dennison Run and its tributaries, including multiple parallel or repeated crossings of the same waterbody and floodway. This raises substantial concerns that:

- Alternative routing configurations may not have been adequately evaluated;

- The number of crossings may not have been minimized; and

- Avoidance of EV waters may not have been prioritized as required by law.

In addition, the applicant has proposed construction of new transmission infrastructure, including a 69kV high-voltage line, to support a high-energy-demand data center use. The need to construct new utility corridors through Exceptional Value waters strongly suggests that the project’s siting and design may not represent the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.

Given the substantial electrical demand associated with data center development, the alternatives analysis should include evaluation of:

- Alternative project siting that avoids the need for new crossings of EV waters;

- Co-location with existing transmission infrastructure; and

- Use of on-site or distributed energy generation or other configurations that would reduce or eliminate the need for new linear infrastructure through sensitive resources.

Where a project requires new infrastructure that results in direct impacts to EV-designated waters, DEP must critically evaluate whether those impacts are a consequence of avoidable design and siting decisions. The current record does not demonstrate that such alternatives have been adequately considered.

---

3. Segmentation of Wetland Impacts and Cumulative Effects

(25 Pa. Code §§105.301–105.303; 40 CFR §230.11)

The application identifies seven separate wetland fill impacts totaling approximately 0.125 acres. While each individual impact is relatively small, the segmentation of impacts into multiple discrete areas raises concern that the cumulative impact has not been fully evaluated.

Under both state and federal law, DEP must consider cumulative impacts. The division of impacts into smaller components does not eliminate the obligation to assess the total effect on wetland resources and watershed function.

DEP should require:

- A cumulative impact analysis addressing all wetland fills collectively;

- Justification for why impacts could not be consolidated or avoided; and

- Demonstration that avoidance and minimization standards have been met prior to consideration of mitigation.

---

4. Floodway Encroachments and Hydraulic Impacts

(25 Pa. Code §§105.161–105.162)

The project includes multiple encroachments within the floodway of Dennison Run and its tributaries, including utility crossings and grading.

These activities must demonstrate that they will not:

- Increase flood elevations;

- Reduce floodway capacity; or

- Create adverse downstream impacts.

Given the number of crossings and the presence of grading within a tributary floodway, DEP should require detailed hydraulic modeling and analysis to verify compliance with Chapter 105 standards.

---

5. Risks Associated with Directional Drilling in EV Waters

The application indicates that certain utilities will be installed via directional bore. While this method can reduce surface disturbance, it introduces the risk of inadvertent returns (“frac-outs”), which can directly impact surface waters, particularly in sensitive EV systems.

DEP should require:

- A detailed inadvertent return contingency plan; - Monitoring protocols during drilling operations; and

- Immediate response and remediation procedures specific to EV water protection.

---

6. Need for NPDES Permit Coverage (25 Pa. Code Chapter 102)

Although not explicitly identified in this notice, the scope of development—including grading, stormwater basin construction, and industrial building development—indicates that an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities is required under 25 Pa. Code §102.5.

DEP should ensure that:

- All earth disturbance activities are properly permitted;

- Erosion and Sediment Control and Post-Construction Stormwater Management plans comply with Chapter 102; and

- Antidegradation requirements applicable to EV waters are fully addressed in the NPDES context.

---

7. Request for Public Hearing

Given the complexity of this project, the number of water resource impacts, and the involvement of Exceptional Value waters, I respectfully request that DEP hold a public hearing to allow for full public review and comment.

---

Conclusion

This project proposes numerous encroachments, crossings, and wetland impacts within a highly protected EV watershed. As presented, significant questions remain regarding compliance with:

- 25 Pa. Code Chapter 105

- 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102

- 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93

- Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 requirements

DEP must require a comprehensive demonstration of avoidance, minimization, and protection of existing water quality before any permit approval is considered.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

[NAME]

[ADDRESS]

[Phone Number]

[Email address]