April 16, 2026

Life After CERCLA

Pittsburgh, PA

Environmental Legal Perspective

(by Tim Bytner)

The phrase “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act,” or “CERCLA” for short, is something that pricks the ears of environmental managers and counsel, but usually not in a good way.  Certainly, the mere mention of an EPA104(e) information request is something that can cause the hands to get clammy even for the most seasoned environmental managers and in-house counsel. The concerns are not unfounded. Being named as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for a contaminated site, whether it be as an owner, operator or an arranger, usually is the start of a process that can take a few years to decades to complete.

I consider myself very fortunate that my career in the environmental industry has touched on just about every stage of a contaminated site. Having been an environmental consultant prior to (and during) law school, there was a time when I was the person collecting samples and preparing various plans and technical reports. Now having practiced environmental law for more than 18 years, I’m the person directing responses to information requests and negotiating with agency counsel and other PRPs on remedial investigations, cost sharing, feasibility studies, etc. Over the years, I’ve had multiple conversations with clients that began with “I just received this letter…” or “…have you seen the news today?”

It can be quite difficult to see an end to the CERCLA process, but endings can and do happen. To date, 460 sites have been removed from the National Priority List (“NPL”).[1] Some of these sites were removed from the NPL because of what I would generally term as “administrative” reasons, meaning that the site is still undergoing some form of remediation, it’s just no longer appropriate to maintain on the NPL. …

April 15, 2026

EPA Proposes Revisions to Coal Combustion Residuals Regulations

Washington, DC and Pittsburgh, PA

Environmental Alert

(by Ben Clapp, Gary Steinbauer and Mackenzie Moyer)

On April 13, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Proposed Rule in the Federal Register that would amend federal regulations related to the disposal and beneficial use of coal combustion residuals (CCR). If finalized as proposed, the amendments would provide increased regulatory flexibility, expand pathways for owners and operators of CCR disposal units to achieve compliance with federal CCR regulations, rescind or reduce the scope of regulations governing certain CCR disposal and storage areas, and reduce restrictions on the beneficial use of CCR. In addition, EPA announced that it is planning to reopen the public comment period for the proposed Federal CCR Permit Program rule, which was originally published on February 20, 2020.

Background

The federal regulation of CCR dates back to 2015, when EPA finalized the first national minimum criteria for the beneficial use and disposal of CCR as a solid waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As reported in detail in an earlier Babst Calland Environmental Alert, in 2024, EPA supplemented the 2015 regulations by finalizing  what is known as the “Legacy CCR Rule,” which expanded the scope of the federal CCR rules to regulate inactive CCR surface impoundments at inactive electric utilities, otherwise known as legacy CCR surface impoundments and CCR management units (CCRMUs). CCRMUs represent a broad general category of CCR disposal units, including inactive CCR landfills and other land-based disposal areas that had previously not been regulated under EPA’s CCR rules.

Proposed Amendments

The more notable and potentially impactful elements of the Proposed Rule are described below:

  • Expansion of Option to Certify Closure by Removal for Legacy CCR Surface Impoundments: The Proposed Rule would create another option to certify closure of legacy CCR surface impoundments by removal if the removal was completed prior to November 8, 2024, under the oversight of a regulatory authority.

    • …

April 13, 2026

Commonwealth Court Limits Municipal Authority to Impose Inspection Fees on Public Utilities for Street Opening Work

Pittsburgh, PA

Public Sector Alert

(by Steve Korbel, Anna Hosack and Alex Giorgetti)

In Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Menallen Township, 351 A.3d 326 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2026), the Commonwealth Court struck down a township’s variable street opening inspection fees as applied to a public utility.  The Court held that the fees constituted impermissible utility regulation preempted by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 101 et seq. (the “Code”).  This decision has immediate practical consequences for every Pennsylvania municipality that charges public utilities permit or inspection fees for work in the public right-of-way.

The Dispute and the Decision

Like most municipalities, Menallen Township (Township) maintained a street opening ordinance that imposed fees on anyone seeking to excavate or open a public roadway.  The ordinance included a flat application fee of $150.  It also imposed variable inspection fees calculated on a per hour and per square foot basis, intended to fund the Township’s inspection of the utility’s pipe installation work and its monitoring of road conditions following the restoration.  Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Columbia Gas), a public utility regulated by the Public Utility Commission (PUC), challenged the variable fees after the Township assessed inspection charges that far exceeded the flat application amount.  Columbia Gas filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction, arguing that the inspection fees were preempted under the field preemption doctrine established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in PPL Electric Utilities Corp. v. City of Lancaster, 654 Pa. 203, 214 A.3d 639 (Pa. 2019).

The Commonwealth Court left the $150 flat application fee undisturbed, but notably held that the variable inspection fees crossed the line from permissible right-of-way management into impermissible regulation of utility facilities and operations.  …

April 2, 2026

Justine M. Kasznica: Pittsburgh Can Be the Center of a New Industrial Revolution — For Space

Pittsburgh, PA

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

(by Justine Kasznica)

For more than half a century, space exploration has been defined by brief human visits to space and to the moon. The NASA Apollo missions proved humanity could reach the Moon, while the International Space Station demonstrated that humans could live in space for extended periods. But these efforts, remarkable as they were, remained temporary by design.

A week before the launch of NASA’s Artemis II crewed lunar orbit mission, NASA unveiled plans to establish a permanent lunar base near the Moon’s south pole. The effort includes at least two crewed missions per year, a 30-lander robotic campaign, and major investments in habitats, mobility systems, and — most notably — an interoperable lunar power grid and communications network. NASA will invest $30 billion over the next decade.

NASA also announced Space Reactor-1 Freedom, a nuclear-powered interplanetary spacecraft targeting a Mars launch by 2028 and a new plan for the International Space Station that expands the current platform with government and commercial modules rather than retiring it. Funding will come from repurposed programs and more efficient use of existing resources.

While public attention for this new effort will naturally gravitate toward launch sites in places like Florida and mission control centers in Texas, the deeper economic opportunity lies in the industrial backbone needed to sustain this vision. In particular, Pittsburgh and the broader Keystone Region including Ohio and West Virginia.

Building in space

NASA is signaling something far more ambitious than exploration. It is laying the groundwork for permanence, building in space with commercial industry at the helm.

The agency is moving away from symbolic milestones toward sustained infrastructure, assembling the foundation for a permanent human presence beyond Earth. …

Legislative & Regulatory Update

April 1, 2026

Charleston, WV

The Wildcatter

(by Nik Tysiak)

There have been interesting developments surrounding Renewable Energy Zoning, Estate Administration, Real Estate Tax Sales, and all also regarding the West Virginia Unknown Heirs Act.

Renewable Energy Development and Zoning
Renewable energy development faced significant zoning challenges during this period. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s decision in West Lampeter Solar 1, LLC v. West Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board, 2026 WL 110932, — A.3d —-(2026) established important precedent for solar development, holding that a proposed 25-acre agrivoltaics project combining solar energy production with sheep grazing was not agricultural use under zoning ordinances. The court determined that agriculture, as an undefined term given its plain and ordinary meaning, does not include solar energy production, even when combined with traditional agricultural activities like sheep grazing. This ruling significantly impacts solar developers seeking to utilize agricultural zoning classifications for renewable energy projects.

Ohio courts addressed wind energy development in One Energy Enterprises Inc. Board of Allen Township Trustees of Hancock County One Energy Enterprises Inc v. Board of Allen Township Trustees of Hancock County, 2026 WL 357969 (2026), involving disputes over wind turbine expansion and local zoning authority. The case arose when Allen Township, historically without zoning laws, began considering zoning regulations in response to proposed wind turbine expansion, demonstrating ongoing tension between renewable energy development and local control over land use.

Estate Administration and Real Property Transfers
Estate-related property disputes also appeared across multiple jurisdictions. Pennsylvania’s Superior Court in Imbrenda v. Imbrenda, 2026 WL 81887, — A.3d —- (2026) addressed a quiet title action involving allegations of forged deeds transferring property from family members to a deceased father. …

March 27, 2026

McNees Attorney Joins Babst Calland In Harrisburg

Law360 Pulse

(by James Boyle)

An attorney with nearly 10 years of experience representing clients in commercial real estate development and transactions has moved her practice to Babst Calland Clements and Zomnir PC’s Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, office after more than four years with McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC.

Kate W. Millikan has been welcomed to Babst Calland as senior counsel in the corporate and commercial practice group in the Harrisburg office, the firm announced Thursday. Millikan told Law360 Pulse she has been with the firm for about a month and is “happy and pleased” about her addition to the firm.

Millikan said her decision to move to Babst Calland sprouted from a business trip to Pittsburgh. She was in town closing a transaction for a client and stayed with a friend from law school who practices at Babst Calland. They talked about the firm, and those conversations turned into an opportunity for Millikan to join a team of attorneys she held in high regard.

“There are a lot of attorneys at Babst Calland I know personally and professionally, through our overlapping years of practice,” Millikan said. “The quality of their personalities as individuals and as legal practitioners played a huge part in my decision to move. It is hard to find people to work with whom you like and are good at their jobs.”

Babst Calland’s strong reputation for its commercial real estate practice also played a key role in Millikan’s decision to join the firm, she said. Her work largely focuses on managing the legal requirements for the development of condominiums and mixed-use communities, and Babst Calland has the resources she needs to expand her practice, Millikan said. “Babst Calland’s clientele are front-runners in commercial development, including data center projects,” …

March 27, 2026

Powering the Region’s Data Center Growth

Pittsburgh, PA

TEQ Magazine

(featuring Justine Kasznica)

Guiding hyperscale and modular projects across Pennsylvania and West Virginia, Babst Calland is helping shape the power-secure future of this mission-critical infrastructure.

The rapid growth of data centers – driven by cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and the need for low-latency digital infrastructure – has transformed what were once primarily real estate projects into some of the most complex developments in the energy and infrastructure sectors in our region.

At the core of modern data center development is power. Securing sufficient, reliable, and resilient electricity has become one of the defining challenges for developers, particularly as grid congestion, interconnection delays, and regulatory scrutiny increase. Many projects now require sophisticated power purchase agreements (PPAs), power generation agreements (PGAs), and on-site or co-located generation solutions to meet capacity and uptime requirements.

Today’s data center projects sit at the intersection of power generation, environmental regulation, land use, construction, and technology governance, requiring coordinated legal strategies across multiple disciplines. Babst Calland’s legal team has become increasingly involved from the earliest stages of development on projects – advising on site acquisition and control, evaluating water and energy access, and assessing regulatory and permitting risks across state and federal jurisdictions, and land use and zoning approvals, including variances and conditional use permits, often require public hearings and coordination with local governments, which often add another layer of complexity and potential delay.

Behind-the-Meter Power and Islanded Systems Gain Momentum

Grounded in active, large-scale work, Babst Calland is currently guiding the development of well over 3,000 megawatts of new power generation capacity tied to data center projects across Pennsylvania and West Virginia. These projects range from hyperscale campuses to smaller modular facilities encompassing the design, permitting, interconnection, and financing of both behind-the-meter generation assets, such as natural gas turbines and solar paired with battery storage, as well as fully islanded power systems. …

March 26, 2026

Non-Compete vs. Non-Solicit Agreements: Key Considerations for Pennsylvania Lawyers

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Steve Silverman and Katerina Vassil)

Employers wanting to protect their trade secrets and goodwill often ask counsel to include restrictive covenants in their employment agreements to limit departing employees from harming them in future employment. Two of the most common include non-competition (non-compete) and non-solicitation (non-solicit) provisions, which are often thought to be equally enforceable. In practice, these restrictive covenants are not interchangeable and not equally enforceable, which is why familiarity with the client’s business interests and precise drafting are both essential. A recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision serves as a primer on restrictive covenants and provides valuable insight into Pennsylvania courts’ historical handling of non-compete and non-solicit agreements, with one noteworthy deviation from years of established case law.

On February 18, 2026, in First Nat. Trust Co. v. English et al., No. 1109 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026), the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a non-precedential opinion that serves as a one-stop shop for all things Pennsylvania restrictive covenant law. The Court breaks down the requirements for enforceable non-competes and non-solicits, what constitutes adequate consideration to support employment agreements, and the standards for obtaining injunctive relief, as well as more nuanced issues like the meaning of the term “solicit” and the use of non-acceptance provisions.

The primary focus of the opinion, however, is on non-competes and non-solicits and their limitations.  Non-competes restrict a former employee’s ability to work for a competitor or start a competing business within a specific time frame and geographic area. Courts are hesitant to uphold non-compete agreements that overly restrict an employee’s ability to engage in work opportunities within their profession.  But non-compete agreements will be upheld so long as they are of reasonable duration, geographic scope, and necessary to protect legitimate business interests. …

March 25, 2026

Navigating Opportunities and Challenges for Data Centers in the Region

Pittsburgh, PA

TEQ Hub

(featuring Justine Kasznica)

The rapid growth of data centers – driven by cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and the need for low-latency digital infrastructure – has transformed what were once primarily real estate projects into some of the most complex developments in the energy and infrastructure sectors in our region.

At the core of modern data center development is power. Securing sufficient, reliable, and resilient electricity has become one of the defining challenges for developers, particularly as grid congestion, interconnection delays, and regulatory scrutiny increase. Many projects now require sophisticated power purchase agreements (PPAs), power generation agreements (PGAs), and on-site or co-located generation solutions to meet capacity and uptime requirements.

Today’s data center projects sit at the intersection of power generation, environmental regulation, land use, construction, and technology governance, requiring coordinated legal strategies across multiple disciplines. Babst Calland’s legal team has become increasingly involved from the earliest stages of development on projects – advising on site acquisition and control, evaluating water and energy access, and assessing regulatory and permitting risks across state and federal jurisdictions, and land use and zoning approvals, including variances and conditional use permits, often require public hearings and coordination with local governments, which often add another layer of complexity and potential delay.

Behind-the-Meter Power and Islanded Systems Gain Momentum 

Grounded in active, large-scale work, Babst Calland is currently guiding the development of well over 3,000 megawatts of new power generation capacity tied to data center projects across Pennsylvania and West Virginia. These projects range from hyperscale campuses to smaller modular facilities encompassing the design, permitting, interconnection, and financing of both behind-the-meter generation assets, such as natural gas turbines and solar paired with battery storage, as well as fully islanded power systems. …

March 27, 2026

POWERING THE FUTURE: Navigating Opportunities and Challenges for Data Centers in the Region

Pittsburgh, PA

Pittsburgh Business Times

(featuring Justine Kasznica and Anna Jewart)

Energy-rich and workforce-strong, Pennsylvania is the focus of an increased national demand to develop and power data centers – centralized technology hardware facilities that support digital services such as AI, streaming and more. “By 2030, $1 trillion of new invested private capital will be devoted to data center projects,” said Justine Kasznica, chair of the Emerging Technologies Group and team lead of the data center development practice for the law firm Babst Calland.

To fuel the global demand signal, approximately 100 gigawatts of new power generation will need to come online, fueling the 1000 terawatt-hours of new electricity projected to be consumed on an annual basis by 2030. Forty-five percent of that is expected to be driven by the United States.

Domestically, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ranks among the top states for growth in data center development. In 2025 alone, more than 90 billion dollars’ worth of new data center, energy, and AI infrastructure commitments were announced across Pennsylvania.

But despite tremendous demand and potential for significant regional economic opportunities, communities in which these centers are proposed are faced with a number of issues, and developers need to be prepared to address them.

“They have to go somewhere and the somewhere is in someone’s community no matter where it is; whether it’s rural, urban or suburban, it’s somebody’s home,” said Anna Jewart, an attorney who focuses her practice in real estate, land use and zoning, in the Energy and Natural Resources, and Public Sector groups at Babst Calland.

Babst Calland’s multidisciplinary data center development team includes specialists in land use and zoning, real estate, environmental and regulatory, energy, construction, emerging technologies, and corporate law. …

March 11, 2026

Non-Solicitation vs. Non-Compete Agreements: When to “Employ” One, the Other, or Both

Pittsburgh, PA

Firm Alert

(by Steve Silverman and Katerina Vassil)

Employers who want to protect their trade secrets and goodwill can use several types of restrictive covenants to limit departing employees from harming them in future employment. Two of the most common are non-competition (non-compete) and non-solicitation (non-solicit) provisions that can be included in employment agreements. These provisions are often confused by employers and thought to be equally enforceable, but in practice they are not. The following addresses the differences between these two types of restrictions, their respective limitations on enforcement, and why an employer may want to use one over the other, or even both.

Non-competes restrict a former employee’s ability to work for a competitor or start a competing business within a specific time frame and geographic area. Courts are hesitant to uphold non-compete agreements that overly restrict an employee’s ability to engage in work opportunities within their profession. Non-compete agreements are upheld so long as they are of reasonable duration, geographic scope, and necessary to protect legitimate business interests. If a non-compete agreement is overly broad and fails to identify legitimate business interests to be protected, courts will often refuse to enforce them.  A reasonable geographic scope limitation is essential to a non-compete because of the nature of the business interest that the agreement seeks to protect.

Conversely, non-solicit agreements allow ex-employees to work for competitors but restrict them from soliciting customers and clients of the former employer for a specified time period. Non-solicit agreements do not typically include explicit geographic limitations. Instead, geographic limitations implicitly exist in non-solicit agreements based on where the specific customers or clients are located. If these customers and clients are scattered in various locations, an explicit geographic limitation could make the non-solicit agreement overly restrictive and provide insufficient protections for the former employer. …

March 9, 2026

DEP Publishes Final Environmental Justice Policy and PennEnviroScreen EJ Tool and Methodology Document

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Water Law Newsletter

(by Lisa Bruderly and Ethan Johnson)

On January 3, 2026, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced the publishing of the Final Environmental Justice Permit Review and Public Participation Policy (EJ Policy) and the Final PennEnviroScreen EJ Tool and Methodology Document. See 56 Pa. Bull. 81 (Jan. 3, 2026). Both documents were updated from September 16, 2023, interim final versions.

In the 2026 final versions of both documents, DEP’s revisions largely focus on expanding, clarifying, and refining policies and key terms in response to public comments. The core substantive policies remain the same as the 2023 interim versions. For example, in the 2026 final EJ Policy, DEP added to the definition of “environmental justice” that it involves “the centering of environmentally burdened community voices in addressing environmental justice concerns.” DEP also broadened the definition of “community-based organizations” by including any organizations, not just those that are private or public. DEP also clarified that community-based organizations are not officially selected or appointed by DEP. Additionally, DEP expanded EJ area coverage by redefining which census block groups are considered EJ areas. More specifically, DEP revised the criteria so that census block groups that lacked overall scores due to data gaps but were in the top 5% of PennEnviroScreen Pollution Burden Scores qualified as EJ areas. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for industrial wastewater facilities remained on the list of enhanced public participation trigger projects in the 2026 final version. In a substantive change, DEP reclassified concentrated animal feeding operations as public participation opt-in projects instead of public participation trigger projects.

In the 2026 final EJ Tool and Methodology Document, DEP added violence, political engagement/political disenfranchisement/political powerlessness, gentrification, climate change, industrial developments, and drinking water as additional future considerations, as well as offering strategies on integrating this new data in the future. …

March 3, 2026

PAPUC Announces Increase in Act 13 Impact Fees

Pittsburgh, PA

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Christina Puhnaty)

On January 24, 2026, the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PAPUC) published notice of an increase in the Act 13 unconventional gas well impact fees for calendar year 2025. 56 Pa. Bull. 580 (Jan. 24, 2026). Act 13 of 2012 allows counties or municipalities to impose fees on unconventional gas wells within their borders based on a 15-year fee schedule, provided the county or municipality passed an impact fee ordinance. Act 13 requires a significant portion of the funds received from the impact fees to go to the affected local governments, with remaining fees being divided between various state agencies and funds, including the Marcellus Legacy Fund. The impact fees are intended to offset the local impacts of unconventional gas well drilling and are based on the average annual price of natural gas. They are adjusted on an annual basis as appropriate to reflect upward changes in consumer price index if the total number of unconventional wells spud in a given year exceeds the prior year.

PAPUC reported 444 wells spud in 2025 as compared to 309 in 2024. Some categories of PAPUC’s impact fees for 2025 increased significantly as compared to 2024 fees (as much as 116%), while others barely increased. Impact fees for calendar year 2025 for horizontal unconventional gas wells are $59,700 for Year 1, $47,800 for Year 2, $35,800 for Year 3, $23,900 for Years 4–10, and $12,100 for Years 11–15. Horizontal unconventional gas wells pay the yearly fee upon spudding plus two subsequent years. …

March 3, 2026

Pennsylvania EQB Accepts Three Oil and Gas Rulemaking Petitions for Further Study

Pittsburgh, PA

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Christina Puhnaty)

At its December 9, 2025, meeting, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) voted to accept three oil and gas-related rulemaking petitions for further study. A rulemaking petition by the Clean Air Council (CAC) and Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) seeks to amend 25 Pa. Code ch. 78a to increase unconventional gas well setback distances (CAC and EIP Petition). The CAC and EIP Petition proposes to increase the minimum setback distances for any new unconventional oil and gas well to 3,281 feet from any building (currently 500 feet) and drinking water well (currently 1,000 feet for water supply extraction points, water wells, surface water intakes, and reservoirs), 5,280 feet from the property boundary of any building serving vulnerable populations (not currently addressed), and 750 feet from any surface water of the commonwealth (currently 300 feet from a wetland greater than one acre and 750 feet from certain other waters). As reported in Vol. 42, No. 2 (2025) of this Newsletter, the EQB voted to table the CAC and EIP Petition at its April 8, 2025, meeting, and did not address it for three months, causing the petition to expire, after which CAC and EIP resubmitted it to the EQB on September 18, 2025. The EQB’s acceptance of this rulemaking petition was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on December 27, 2025. See 55 Pa. Bull. 8758 (Dec. 27, 2025).

The EQB also voted to accept a petition submitted by Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC), the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance (PCA), and the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association (PIOGA), which requests a rulemaking to clarify how attainable bottom is determined during well plugging and how plugging of oil and gas wells should proceed from that point (MSC, PCA, and PIOGA Petition). …

March 3, 2026

PADEP Publishes Draft Updated Erosion and Sediment Control Policy

Pittsburgh, PA

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Christina Puhnaty)

On December 6, 2025, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) published for public comment a draft revised policy for erosion and sediment (E&S) control and stormwater management for earth disturbance associated with oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities (Draft Guidance). 55 Pa. Bull. 8318 (Dec, 6, 2025). The Draft Guidance applies to both unconventional and conventional operators.

The draft policy would replace the existing 2012 version and includes permitting process requirements for general and individual erosion and sediment control permits. It also outlines regulatory requirements for erosion and sediment control, post construction stormwater management, stabilization, and restoration, co-permittees, and pre-construction meetings.

Regarding revisions to the existing policy, PADEP said at the September 2025 Oil and Gas Technical Advisory Board meeting it is not a “radical departure” from the way the program is currently being administered; that many of the changes are organizational. Oil and Gas TAB Meeting (Sept. 11, 2025). Specific substantive changes include increasing the distance by which support facilities, e.g., impoundments, staging areas, tank farms, auxiliary roads, parking lots, or borrow areas, are considered substantially connected and part of a project from 900 feet to 1,320 feet.

PADEP also adds details concerning filing deed instruments for stormwater control measures after a project is completed. For projects that do not require a well permit under the 2012 Oil and Gas Act, for any property containing a post-construction stormwater management plan with stormwater control measures (PCSM SCM), the E&S permittee or co-permittee must record an instrument with the County Recorder of Deeds Office. …

Top