DOCSLIB.ORG

An Economic Benefit Analysis for Abandoned Mine Drainage Remediation in the West Branch Susquehanna River Watershed, Pennsylvania

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Economic Benefit Analysis for Abandoned Mine Drainage Remediation in the West Branch Susquehanna River Watershed, Pennsylvania AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR ABANDONED MINE DRAINAGE REMEDIATION IN THE WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA July 3, 2008 Submitted to: Trout Unlimited West Branch Susquehanna Restoration Initiative P.O. Box 27 Mill Hall, PA 17751 Submitted by: Downstream Strategies, LLC www.downstreamstrategies.com 219 Wall Street Morgantown, WV 26505 Evan Hansen, Alan Collins, Julie Svetlik, Sarah McClurg, Alyse Shrecongost, Rob Stenger, Mariya Schilz, and Fritz Boettner TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................1 2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................6 2.1 THE WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER WATERSHED ............................................................................6 2.2 ABANDONED MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION ..................................................................................................7 3. JOBS AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ...........................................................................................................13 3.1 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................14 3.2 RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................16 3.3 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................17 4. RECREATIONAL SPENDING......................................................................................................................18 4.1 PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION ................................................................................................18 4.2 PENNSYLVANIA WILDS .............................................................................................................................22 4.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF OUTDOOR RECREATION..........................................................................................24 4.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AMD ON RECREATIONAL SPENDING IN THE WBSR WATERSHED ..........................25 4.5 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................25 5. PROPERTY VALUES.....................................................................................................................................27 5.1 STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................................................27 5.2 DATA AND METHODS.................................................................................................................................29 5.3 RESULTS OF THE STATISTICAL MODEL.......................................................................................................30 5.4 AGGREGATE IMPACT OF ABANDONED MINE DRAINAGE ON PROPERTY VALUE ...........................................33 5.5 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................33 6. DRINKING WATER.......................................................................................................................................34 6.1 IMPACTS ON PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES .......................................................................................................34 6.1.1 Systems now affected by AMD .............................................................................................................37 6.1.2 Systems likely to be affected in the future by AMD..............................................................................37 6.1.3 Other systems.......................................................................................................................................38 6.1.4 Summary ..............................................................................................................................................39 6.2 IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLIES FOR HOMES AND BUSINESSES .....................................................................40 6.3 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................42 7. WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY FOR REMEDIATION.......................................................................................43 7.1 MAIL SURVEY............................................................................................................................................43 7.2 SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................46 7.2.1 Awareness of streams, rivers, and pollution........................................................................................46 7.2.2 Use of Growing Greener funds............................................................................................................47 7.2.3 Willingness-to-pay to clean up abandoned mine drainage in the watershed.......................................47 7.3 SAMPLE WTP ESTIMATES..........................................................................................................................49 7.4 AFFECTED POPULATION WTP ESTIMATES .................................................................................................50 7.5 COMPARISONS WITH OTHER COMPONENTS OF THIS STUDY ........................................................................52 7.6 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................53 8. CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................................................54 8.1 REMEDIATION GENERATES JOBS AND STIMULATES THE LOCAL ECONOMY ................................................54 8.2 RECREATIONAL SPENDING WILL INCREASE WITH CLEANER WATERS .........................................................54 8.3 PROPERTY VALUES WILL INCREASE WITH AMD REMEDIATION .................................................................54 8.4 DRINKING WATER OPTIONS WILL BE CHEAPER AND MORE PLENTIFUL .......................................................55 8.5 RESIDENTS ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR REMEDIATION.................................................................................55 8.6 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................55 ii REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................................56 APPENDIX A: LOST VALUE OF RECREATION ..............................................................................................59 APPENDIX B: DETAILS ON THE HEDONIC PROPERTY PRICE METHOD..............................................61 APPENDIX C: IN-WATERSHED WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY QUESTIONNAIRE ..........................................64 APPENDIX D: OUT-OF-WATERSHED WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY QUESTIONNAIRE ...............................68 APPENDIX E: DETAILS ON THE WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY MODEL...........................................................72 iii TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Types of local economic benefits addressed in this report............................................... 4 Table 2: Abandoned mine drainage–focused remediation plans in the West Branch Susquehanna River watershed ..................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3: Expenditures by category for active and passive treatment............................................ 15 Table 4: Multipliers, benefits, wages, and jobs resulting from remediation expenditures ........... 16 Table 5: Participation in fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing in Pennsylvania in 2006 (thousands)............................................................................................................................. 18 Table 6: Number of visits to the West Branch Susquehanna River watershed to participate in outdoor recreation.................................................................................................................. 19 Table 7: Recent trends in participation in outdoor activities in Pennsylvania.............................. 20 Table 8: Expenditures on fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing in Pennsylvania in 2006 (million $)............................................................................................................................................ 24 Table 9: Economic impact and net economic value of fishing and hunting in Pennsylvania (billion $) ............................................................................................................................... 24 Table 10: Variables used in the property value model ................................................................. 30 Table 11: Summary statistics for the property value model dataset ............................................. 30 Table 12: Withdrawals by active public water systems in the West Branch Susquehanna
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Conowingo Tunnel and the Anthracite Mine Flood-Control Project a Historical Perspective on a “Solution” to the Anthracite Mine Drainage Problem
    The Conowingo Tunnel and the Anthracite Mine Flood-Control Project A Historical Perspective on a “Solution” to the Anthracite Mine Drainage Problem Michael C. Korb, P.E. Environmental Program Manager Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) Wilkes Barre District Office [email protected] www.depweb.state.pa.us Abstract Fifty-seven years ago, Pennsylvania’s Anthracite Mine Drainage Commission recommended that the Conowingo Tunnel, an expensive, long-range solution to the Anthracite Mine Drainage problem, be “tabled” and that a cheaper, short-range “job- stimulus” project be implemented instead. Today Pennsylvania’s anthracite region has more than 40 major mine water discharges, which have a combined average flow of more than 285,000 gallons per minute (GPM). Two of these average more than 30,000 GPM, 10 more of the discharges are greater than 6,000 GPM, while another 15 average more than 1,000 GPM. Had the Conowingo Tunnel Project been completed, most of this Pennsylvania Anthracite mine water problem would have been Maryland’s mine water problem. Between 1944 and 1954, engineers of the US Bureau of Mines carried out a comprehensive study resulting in more than 25 publications on all aspects of the mine water problem. The engineering study resulted in a recommendation of a fantastic and impressive plan to allow the gravity drainage of most of the Pennsylvania anthracite mines into the estuary of the Susquehanna River, below Conowingo, Maryland, by driving a 137-mile main tunnel with several laterals into the four separate anthracite fields. The $280 million (1954 dollars) scheme was not executed, but rather a $17 million program of pump installations, ditch installation, stream bed improvement and targeted strip-pit backfilling was initiated.
    [Show full text]
  • Abandoned Mine Drainage Workgroup Overview
    ABANDONED MINE DRAINAGE The headwaters of the Schuylkill River are located in the serene mountain valleys of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. An area rich in scenic beauty and coal mining history, the Little Schuylkill and Upper Schuylkill Rivers are designated cold-water fisheries, and the Schuylkill main stem is a State Scenic River at the confluence of these two tributary waterways. Abandoned Mine Drainage (AMD) is the primary cause of pollution in the Schuylkill River headwaters and the biggest source of metals downstream. AMD is created deep below the ground in abandoned mines where streams, groundwater, and stormwater fill tunnels that were once kept dry by active pumping operations. Water and oxygen react with lingering iron sulfide (pyrite) producing metal-laden and sometimes highly acidic discharges that exit the tunnels in telltale orange and silver plumes, easily visible in these regional surface waters. Abandoned mine discharge Schuylkill PottsvillPottsville River Watershed NJ S Reading ch uy Pottstown lk ill Trenton Riv e Norri r Norristown r PA e iv Philadelphia R Camden re wa N Wilmington la e DE D W E MD S Abandoned mine tunnel AMD interferes with vegetative growth and reproduction of aquatic animals by armoring the streambed with deposits of iron and other metals. Acidity and metals impair both surface and ground drinking water resources and quickly corrode pipes and industrial mechanisms. Unattractive waterways marred by AMD can hinder tourism and recreational opportunities like fishing, boating, and swimming that attract so many people to visit, vacation, and reside in this region. Passive AMD treatment system AMD treatment is expensive, but so is the economic and environmental damage that results from untreated AMD.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoup's Run Watershed Association
    11/1/2004 Shoup Run Watershed Restoration Plan Developed by the Huntingdon County Conservation District for The Shoup Run Watershed Association Introduction Watershed History The Shoup Run, locally known as Shoup’s Run, watershed drains approximately 13,746 acres or 21.8 square miles, in the Appalachian Mountain, Broad Top region of the Valley-Ridge Physiographic Province. Within this province, the area lies within the northwestern section of the Broad Top Mountain Plateau. This area is characterized by narrow valleys and moderately steep mountain slopes. Shoup Run is located in Huntingdon County, but includes drainage from portions of Bedford County. Shoup Run flows into the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River near the community of Saxton at river mile 42.4. Shoup Run has five named tributaries (Figure 1). Approximately 10% of the surface area of the Shoup Run basin has been surface mined. Much of the mining activity was done prior to current regulations and few of the mines were reclaimed to current specifications. Surface mining activity ended in the early 1980’s. There is currently no active mining in the watershed. Deep mines underlie approximately 12% of the Shoup Run watershed. Many abandoned deep mine entries and openings still exist in the Shoup Run Basin. Deep mining was done below the water table in many locations. In order to dewater the mines, drifts were driven into the deep mines to allow water to flow down slope and out of many of the mines. The bedrock in this area is folded and faulted. Tunnels were driven through many different lithologies to allow drainage.
    [Show full text]
  • Pine Knot Mine Drainage Tunnel –
    QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF STREAM WATER DRAINING MINED AREAS OF THE UPPER SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, USA, 2005-20071 Charles A. Cravotta III,2 and John M. Nantz Abstract: Hydrologic effects of abandoned anthracite mines were documented by continuous streamflow gaging coupled with synoptic streamflow and water- quality monitoring in headwater reaches and at the mouths of major tributaries in the upper Schuylkill River Basin, Pa., during 2005-2007. Hydrograph separation of the daily average streamflow for 10 streamflow-gaging stations was used to evaluate the annual streamflow characteristics for October 2005 through September 2006. Maps showing stream locations and areas underlain by underground mines were used to explain the differences in total annual runoff, base flow, and streamflow yields (streamflow/drainage area) for the gaged watersheds. For example, one stream that had the lowest yield (59.2 cm/yr) could have lost water to an underground mine that extended beneath the topographic watershed divide, whereas the neighboring stream that had the highest yield (97.3 cm/yr) gained that water as abandoned mine drainage (AMD). Although the stream-water chemistry and fish abundance were poor downstream of this site and others where AMD was a major source of streamflow, the neighboring stream that had diminished streamflow met relevant in-stream water-quality criteria and supported a diverse fish community. If streamflow losses could be reduced, natural streamflow and water quality could be maintained in the watersheds with lower than normal yields. Likewise, stream restoration could lead to decreases in discharges of AMD from underground mines, with potential for decreased metal loading and corresponding improvements in downstream conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Alkalinity and Acidity in Mine Drainage
    Proceedings America Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2004 ACIDITY AND ALKALINITY IN MINE DRAINAGE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS1 Charles A. Cravotta III2 and Carl S. Kirby2 Abstract. In this paper, we emphasize that the Standard Method hot peroxide treatment procedure for acidity determination (hot acidity) directly measures net acidity or net alkalinity, but that more than one water-quality measure can be useful as a measure of the severity of acid mine drainage. We demonstrate that the hot acidity is related to the pH, alkalinity, and dissolved concentrations of Fe, Mn, and Al in fresh mine drainage. We show that the hot acidity accurately indicates the potential for pH to decrease to acidic values after complete oxidation of Fe and Mn, and it indicates the excess alkalinity or that required for neutralization of the sample. We show that the hot acidity method gives consistent, interpretable results on fresh or aged samples. Regional data for mine-drainage quality in Pennsylvania indicated the pH of fresh samples was predominantly acidic (pH 2.5 to 4) or near neutral (pH 6 to 7); approximately 25 percent of the samples had intermediate pH values. This bimodal frequency distribution of pH was distinctive for fully oxidized samples; oxidized samples had acidic or near-neutral pH, only. Samples that had near- neutral pH after oxidation had negative hot acidity; samples that had acidic pH after oxidation had positive hot acidity. Samples with comparable pH values had variable hot acidities owing to variations in their alkalinities and dissolved Fe, Mn, and Al concentrations. The hot acidity was comparable to net acidity computed on the basis of initial pH and concentrations of Fe, Mn, and Al minus the initial alkalinity.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economic Benefit Analysis for Abandoned Mine Drainage Remediation in the West Branch Susquehanna River Watershed, Pennsylvania
    AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR ABANDONED MINE DRAINAGE REMEDIATION IN THE WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA July 3, 2008 Submitted to: Trout Unlimited West Branch Susquehanna Restoration Initiative P.O. Box 27 Mill Hall, PA 17751 Submitted by: Downstream Strategies, LLC www.downstreamstrategies.com 219 Wall Street Morgantown, WV 26505 Evan Hansen, Alan Collins, Julie Svetlik, Sarah McClurg, Alyse Shrecongost, Rob Stenger, Mariya Schilz, and Fritz Boettner TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................1 2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................6 2.1 THE WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER WATERSHED ............................................................................6 2.2 ABANDONED MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION ..................................................................................................7 3. JOBS AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ...........................................................................................................13 3.1 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................14 3.2 RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................16 3.3 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • West Branch Subbasin AMD Remediation Strategy
    Publication 254 West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin May 2008 AMD Remediation Strategy: West Branch Susquehanna Background, Data Assessment River Task Force and Method Development Despite the enormous legacy ■ INTRODUCTION Pristine setting along the West Branch Susquehanna River. of pollution from abandoned mine The West Branch Susquehanna drainage (AMD) in the West Subbasin, draining a 6,978-square-mile Branch Susquehanna Subbasin, area in northcentral Pennsylvania, is the there has been mounting support largest of the six major subbasins in and enthusiasm for a fully restored the Susquehanna River Basin (Figure 1). watershed. Under the leadership The West Branch Susquehanna of Governor Edward G. Rendell Subbasin is one of extreme contrasts. While and with support from it has some of the Commonwealth’s Trout Unlimited, Pennsylvania most pristine and treasured waterways, Department of Environmental including 1,249 miles of Exceptional Protection Secretary Kathleen Value streams and scenic forestlands and mountains, it also unfortunately M. Smith McGinty established the West bears the legacy of past Branch Susquehanna River Task unregulated mining. With Abandoned mine lands in Clearfield County. Force (Task Force) in 2004. 1,205 miles of waterways The goal of the Task Force is to impaired by AMD, it is the assist and advise the department and most AMD-impaired region its partners as they work toward of the entire Susquehanna the long-term goal to remediate the River Basin (Figure 2). At its most degraded region’s AMD. sites, the West Branch The Task Force is comprised Susquehanna River contains of state, federal, and regional acidity concentrations of agencies, Trout Unlimited, and nearly 200 milligrams per other conservation and watershed liter (mg/l), and iron and aluminum concentrations of organizations (members are identified A.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters to Mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hayes Run East Branch Antietam Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Knob Run Birch Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.950970 -77.444183 1.82 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters to Mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Long Pine Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Long Pine Run Reservoir 39.942501 -77.455559 2.13 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams McDowells Run Carbaugh Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.876610 -77.448990 1.03 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Adams Toms Creek Out of State Headwaters to Miney Branch 39.736532 -77.369041 8.95 Adams UNT to Little Marsh Creek (RM 4.86) Little Marsh Creek Headwaters to Orchard Road 39.876125 -77.384117 1.31 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters to Mouth 40.554253 -80.206802
    [Show full text]
  • West Branch Subbasin Survey 2015
    West Branch Susquehanna River Subbasin Year 1 Survey, April through August 2015 Pub. No.308 September 2016 Ellyn J. Campbell Supervisor, Monitoring and Assessment Susquehanna River Basin Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS USED IN THE 2015 SUBBASIN SURVEY ............................................................. 5 Long-term Sites ........................................................................................................................... 6 Probabilistic Sites........................................................................................................................ 6 Water Chemistry and Discharge ................................................................................................. 8 Macroinvertebrates ................................................................................................................... 10 Physical Habitat ........................................................................................................................ 11 RESULTS and DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 11 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 25 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 27 FIGURES
    [Show full text]
  • Mine Site Cleanup for Brownfields Redevelopment
    Mine Site Cleanup for Brownfields Redevelopment: A Three-Part Primer Solid Waste and EPA 542-R-05-030 Emergency Response November 2005 (5102G) www.brownfieldstsc.org www.epa.gov/brownfields Mine Site Cleanup for Brownfields Redevelopment: A Three-Part Primer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology Support Center Washington, DC 20460 BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: MINE SITE CLEANUP FOR BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT ____________________________________________________________________________________ Notice and Disclaimer Preparation of this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract No. 68-W-02-034. The document was subjected to the Agency’s administrative and expert review and was approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This document can be downloaded from EPA’s Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology Support Center at http://www.brownfieldstsc.org. A limited number of hard copies of this document are available free of charge by mail from EPA’s National Service Center for Environmental Publications at the following address (please allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery): EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications P.O. Box 42419 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: 513-489-8190 or 1-800-490-9198 Fax: 513-489-8695 For further information about this document, please contact Mike Adam of EPA’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation at 703-603-9915 or by e-mail at [email protected]. The color photos on the cover illustrate the transformation possible when mine sites are cleaned up and redeveloped.
    [Show full text]
  • Blacks Creek
    NONPOINT SOURCE SUCCESS STORY TreatmentPennsylvania of Mine Drainage Improves Blacks Creek (Venango County) Waterbody Improved Metals in discharges from abandoned coal mines impaired Blacks Creek, prompting the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to add 5.6 miles of the mainstem stream and 13.0 miles of unnamed tributaries to the state’s Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of impaired waters in 1996 and 2004, respectively. In response, project partners installed three passive treatment systems at a cost of nearly $1 million to address the impacts of the mine drainage discharges entering the stream. Water quality and aquatic habitat have been improving since project work began, and more systems are planned in the future in hopes of continuing this trend. Problem Western Pennsylvania's Blacks Creek watershed drains approximately 9 square miles in Butler and Venango counties and is a major headwaters tributary and subwatershed of Slippery Rock Creek in the Ohio River watershed (Figure 1). This watershed is predominantly forested but has experienced significant impairments from abandoned mine drainage (AMD) discharges from abandoned mines or oil wells dating back to the 1800s. Nonpoint source runoff from these AMD discharges delivers high metals loads to Blacks Creek. Due to the influence of layers of limestone underlying the area, most of Blacks Creek and its tributaries have an acceptable pH and are net-alkaline. Figure 1. Blacks Creek is in western Pennsylvania. A stream survey conducted by PADEP indicated that After development of the TMDL in 2005, Stream Blacks Creek was a degraded aquatic ecosystem with Restoration Incorporated (SRI) received a CWA section depressed aquatic life due to AMD impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • MAHANOY CREEK WATERSHED TMDL Columbia, Northumberland and Schuylkill Counties
    MAHANOY CREEK WATERSHED TMDL Columbia, Northumberland and Schuylkill Counties Prepared for: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection March 13, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1 LOCATION .................................................................................................................................................... 2 SEGMENTS ADDRESSED IN THIS TMDL................................................................................................... 3 CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 303(D) LISTING PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 4 BASIC STEPS FOR DETERMINING A TMDL ..............................................................................................5 WATERSHED BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 5 Permits in the Mahanoy Creek Watershed ................................................................................. 6 TMDL ENDPOINTS....................................................................................................................................... 7 TMDL ELEMENTS (WLA, LA, MOS)............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]