DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Response to Comments Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Response to Comments Report SOUTH VALLEY PARKWAY PROJECT S.R. 3046, SECTION 301 CITY OF NANTICOKE, HANOVER AND NEWPORT TOWNSHIPS LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REPORT AND ENGINEERING DISTRICT 4-0 MAY 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED .................................................................................1 II. AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ....................7 A. FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ......................................7 B. STATE AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .........................................25 III. SUMMARY OF WETLAND IMPACTS (REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TABLE 3-C-2.1) ..................................29 - i - I. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED I. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The Environmental Assessment (EA) report was distributed and made available to the public and agencies for review from February 8 to March 10, 2013. The advertisement announcing the availability of the EA also announced the opportunity to request a public hearing ended on February 23, 2013. The City of Nanticoke requested a public hearing (letter to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation [PennDOT], dated February 8, 2013). Following a meeting with the PennDOT project team, the City Manager, members of the City Council, and representatives of the South Valley Chamber of Commerce on March 6, 2013, the City rescinded the request (e-mail to PennDOT dated April 10, 2013). No comments from the general public were received for the EA document throughout the duration of the public comment period, and no members of the general public requested a public hearing. - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - From: Pam Heard <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:32 PM To: Tomaszewski, Christopher M Subject: South Valley Pwky Chris, The City withdraws our request for a public hearing on the South Valley Parkway. The meeting we had with City officials and PA Dot was very helpful in explaining the particulars of the new highway. Thank you. Pamela Heard, City Manager City of Nanticoke 15 East Ridge Street Nanticoke, PA 18634 570-735-2800 ext 107 This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. - 6 1 II. AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS II. AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS A. FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The following federal agencies provided comments on the EA report: • U.S. Department of Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Michael Dombroskie, Biologist, Pennsylvania Section (March 22, 2013) • U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service – Sarah Gannon- Nagle, Acting Field Office Supervisor, Pennsylvania Field College Office (March 11, 2013) • U.S. Environment Protection Agency, Region III – Barbara Rudnick, NEPA Team Leader, Office of Environmental Programs (March 11. 2013) The letters and responses to the comments are provided on the following pages. - 7 - Responses to Michael Dombroskie, Biologist, Pennsylvania Section U.S. Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1. PennDOT is committed to continue coordination with the permitting and resource agencies during final design and the permit application process to develop the most cost- effective structure design for the proposed crossing over Warrior Creek. All reasonable efforts will be taken to minimize impacts to the stream and the aquatic community while accommodating high flow/velocity storm events. During final design, PennDOT will also coordinate with the agencies related to the proposed Warrior Creek channel modifications. The proposed impacts for Warrior Creek total approximately 2,399 linear feet. The Preferred Alternative’s crossing over Warrior Creek includes 178 linear feet of stream enclosure associated with the proposed box culvert, 282 linear feet of rip-rap channel lining, and 235 linear feet of reduced stream length. The remaining 1,704 linear feet of proposed impacts to Warrior Creek include 570 linear feet along the main stem of Warrior Creek and 1,134 linear feet along a small tributary channel to Warrior Creek that supports ephemeral/intermittent flow. Efforts will be made during final design to avoid and minimize impacts to these areas. Realignment may be needed to maintain hydrologic conveyances through the South Valley Parkway (SVP) project. A Stream Mitigation Plan that will identify the extent and type of restoration and compensatory stream mitigation will be developed for the project. It is anticipated that the stream mitigation options to be considered could include, but not be limited to, in lieu fee stream mitigation by funding a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) stream project in a SVP project area watershed (Nanticoke Creek or Warrior Creek) and the use of a Natural Stream Channel approach for stream modifications/relocations (including consideration of rock weir and revetments to maintain channel slope and stability). PennDOT initiated coordination with - 8 PA DEP concerning potential stream mitigation projects and in lieu fee mitigation in 2006 when the PA DEP BAMR program took over projects in the Nanticoke Creek watershed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Aquatic Restoration Program (206B Program). Coordination continued in 2008 with PA DEP and the USACE. 2. Table 3-C-2.1 (Summary of Wetland Impacts) has been revised and is included in 1 Section III of this document. The EA table inconsistencies were related to the reported size of the wetlands and not the impacts (the impacts are unchanged). The individual wetland total acreages came from the SVP “Wetland Delineation Report” (January 2010) and did not reflect changes to wetland boundaries that occurred after the June 2010 Jurisdictional Determination field view. In addition, some inconsistencies were a result of rounding the total wetland acreages. The “size” of the wetlands listed in this table represent the entire wetland (note, during the delineations, some large wetland boundaries were identified as open-ended; however, none of these wetlands would be impacted and were therefore not listed in the table). Wetland Nos. 65, 67, 68, 71, and others, where the impact size equals the total size, are considered a “total take.” 3. The Wetland Mitigation Strategy (EA Attachment F1) for restoration of wetland areas temporarily impacted will include replanting areas with native wetland and riparian 2 vegetation. The types of plantings to be used will be based on the affected wetlands’ vegetative composition. 3 3 - 9 - - 10 - Responses to Sarah Gannon-Nagel, Acting Field Office Supervisor U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Field Office 1. The project has undergone “right-sizing” efforts (VE/ACTT meeting, May 2007 – see EA page II-21) that minimized land and vegetation disturbances. PennDOT will work during final design to identify and locate temporary construction areas (access areas, staging areas, etc.) within previously disturbed areas and areas to be disturbed permanently, to the extent possible. If, during construction, the contractor identifies other temporary construction areas outside the approved final design limits of disturbance, the contractor is required to obtain environmental clearance/permits as needed for these areas. PennDOT has committed to developing the project’s construction schedule in compliance with time of year timbering restrictions (November 15 to March 31) to avoid temporary impacts to the Indiana bat and the small-footed myotis. A Special Provision for the timbering time restrictions will be included in the Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) package. (See EA Step 4, Section B [Summary of Mitigation for Preferred Alternative], page II-4.) This time restriction is more restrictive and falls within the September 1 to March 31 timeframe being requested for migratory birds. It is PennDOT’s policy that an assessment of a project’s impact to migratory birds will only be included in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document if the project is 1 located within an important bird area (IBA) or significant or unique ecosystems. There is no identified IBA in the vicinity of the project area. The closest IBA is the Susquehanna Riverlands Environmental Preserve that straddles both the east and west banks of the Susquehanna River (jointly owned by PPL Corporation and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.) just north of Berwick and over 14 miles downriver from Nanticoke City. In addition, no significant or unique ecosystem has been identified in the SVP - 11 - - 11 project area. 2. Table 3-C-2.1 (Summary of Wetland Impacts) has been revised and included in Section III of this document. The EA table inconsistencies were related to the reported size of the wetlands and not the impacts (the impacts are unchanged). The individual wetland total acreages came from the SVP “Wetland Delineation Report” (January 2010) and did not reflect changes to wetland boundaries that occurred after the June 2010 Jurisdictional Determination field view. In addition some inconsistencies were a result of rounding the total wetland acreages. Wetland Nos. 65, 67, 68, 71,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Susquehanna Riyer Drainage Basin
    'M, General Hydrographic Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 109 Series -j Investigations, 13 .N, Water Power, 9 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR HYDROGRAPHY OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIYER DRAINAGE BASIN BY JOHN C. HOYT AND ROBERT H. ANDERSON WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1 9 0 5 CONTENTS. Page. Letter of transmittaL_.__.______.____.__..__.___._______.._.__..__..__... 7 Introduction......---..-.-..-.--.-.-----............_-........--._.----.- 9 Acknowledgments -..___.______.._.___.________________.____.___--_----.. 9 Description of drainage area......--..--..--.....-_....-....-....-....--.- 10 General features- -----_.____._.__..__._.___._..__-____.__-__---------- 10 Susquehanna River below West Branch ___...______-_--__.------_.--. 19 Susquehanna River above West Branch .............................. 21 West Branch ....................................................... 23 Navigation .--..........._-..........-....................-...---..-....- 24 Measurements of flow..................-.....-..-.---......-.-..---...... 25 Susquehanna River at Binghamton, N. Y_-..---...-.-...----.....-..- 25 Ghenango River at Binghamton, N. Y................................ 34 Susquehanna River at Wilkesbarre, Pa......_............-...----_--. 43 Susquehanna River at Danville, Pa..........._..................._... 56 West Branch at Williamsport, Pa .._.................--...--....- _ - - 67 West Branch at Allenwood, Pa.....-........-...-.._.---.---.-..-.-.. 84 Juniata River at Newport, Pa...-----......--....-...-....--..-..---.-
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Susquehanna River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Study
    Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Upper Susquehanna Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Study Prepared For: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Prepared By: Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New York Field Office Cortland, New York Preparers: Anne Secord & Andy Lowell New York Field Office Supervisor: David Stilwell February 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Flooding in the Upper Susquehanna watershed of New York State frequently causes damage to infrastructure that has been built within flood-prone areas. This report identifies a suite of watershed activities, such as urban development, wetland elimination, stream alterations, and certain agricultural practices that have contributed to flooding of developed areas. Structural flood control measures, such as dams, levees, and floodwalls have been constructed, but are insufficient to address all floodwater-human conflicts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is evaluating a number of new structural and non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the watershed. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is the “local sponsor” for this study and provides half of the study funding. New structural flood control measures that USACE is evaluating for the watershed largely consist of new levees/floodwalls, rebuilding levees/floodwalls, snagging and clearing of woody material from rivers and removing riverine shoals. Non-structural measures being evaluated include elevating structures, acquisition of structures and property, relocating at-risk structures, developing land use plans and flood proofing. Some of the proposed structural measures, if implemented as proposed, have the potential to adversely impact riparian habitat, wetlands, and riverine aquatic habitat. In addition to the alternatives currently being considered by the USACE, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nanticoke Valley Historical Society of Maine, NY Presents
    The Nanticoke Valley Historical Society of Maine, NY Presents: An Introduction to the Baldwin Family of Nanticoke, NY The Who, What, Why and Where of the Town of Nanticoke, NY June 21, 2021 “When the township of Lisle was set off from Union in 1801, Nanticoke went with it and remained a part of that township until April 18, 1831, when by an act of the Legislature a new township to be known thereafter as Nanticoke, an Indian name, was erected. In compliance with the act establishing the township, the first town meeting was held at the house of Philip Councilman” Seward, William Foote 1829 1855 Map of Nanticoke “The only villages in the town of Nanticoke are Glen Aubrey and Nanticoke. These hamlets grew YEAR POP. up around lumber and flour mills, and as long as the deep 1835 295 forests in the township afforded 1850 576 material, people continued to 1860 797 collect about them. The time 1870 1058 came, however, when the 1880 999 timber supply was practically 1890 728 exhausted, the mills fell into 1900 666 decay and population deteriorated. We shall be 1910 536 , interested in following the 1920 444 figures which record this 2010 1672 gradual decay.” Seward, William 2018 1591 Foote Lamb’s Corners Glen Aubrey General Timeline Referring to Some Facts Concerning Nanticoke NY – Starting 1700 -1921 Prior to 1700 the New York State region was the home to the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois and the Algonquian tribes) which formed an alliance called the Five Nations (Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga and Seneca) The Tuscarora joined later and it began the Six Nations.
    [Show full text]
  • Enacts As Follows: Section 1. Shorttitle. This Act Shall Be Known And
    SESSION OF2002 Act 2002-223 1815 No. 2002-223 A SUPPLEMENT HB2741 To the act of December 8, 1982 (P.L.848, No.235), entitled “An act providing for the adoption of capital projects related to the repair, rehabilitation or replacement of highway bridges to be financed from current revenue or by the incurring of debt and capital projects related to highway and safety improvement projects to be financed from current revenue of the Motor License Fund,” itemizing additional local and State bridge projects. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows: Section 1. Short title. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Highway-Railroad and Highway Bridge Capital Budget Supplemental Act for2002-2003. Section 2. Definitions. The following words and phrases when used in this act shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: “Account.” The Highway Bridge Improvement Restricted Account within the Motor License Fund. “Capital project.” A capital project as defmed in section 302 of the act of February 9, 1999 (P.L. 1, No.1), known as the Capital Facilities Debt Enabling Act, and shall include a county or municipal bridge rehabilitation, replacement or improvement project as set forth in this act. “Department.” The Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth. “Secretary.” The Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth. Section 3. Total authorization for bridge projects. (a) Total projects.—The total authorization for the costs of the projects itemized pursuant to this act and to be fmanced from current revenue or by the incurring of debtshall be $1,563,530,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Broome State Forests Unit Management Plan
    Broome State Forests UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT Broome County Towns of Sanford, Windsor, Vestal and Kirkwood and the Tioga County Town of Owego August 2020 DIVISION OF LANDS AND FORESTS Bureau of State Land Management, Region 7 2715 State Highway 80 Sherburne, New York 13460 607-674-4036 www.dec.ny.gov DRAFT BROOME STATE FORESTS UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN COVERING EIGHT STATE FORESTS IN BROOME AND TIOGA COUNTIES, NY: HAWKINS POND – BROOME R.A. # 3 MARSH POND – BROOME R.A. #4 SKYLINE DRIVE – BROOME # 5 CASCADE VALLEY – BROOME # 6 BEAVER POND – BROOME #7 WHITAKER SSWAMP – BROOME #8 CAT HOLLOW – BROOME #9 TRACY CREEK – BROOME-TIOGA #1 Prepared By: Christopher Sprague, Supervising Forester, Team Leader Andrew Blum, Senior Forester New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Lands & Forests Office 2715 State Highway 80 Sherburne, New York 13460 607-674-4036 Contributing Staff: Paul Giachetti, Mineral Resources Randy Ortleib, Operations Field Supervisor Barb Small, Operations 1 DEC’s Mission "The quality of our environment is fundamental to our concern for the quality of life. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of New York to conserve, improve and protect its natural resources and environment and to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well-being." - Environmental Conservation Law 1-0101(1) * Highlighted (bold) terms are defined in the Glossary. Vision Statement State Forests on the Unit Name Unit (unit acronym, if commonly used) will be managed in a sustainable manner by promoting ecosystem health, enhancing landscape biodiversity, protecting soil productivity and water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Luzerne County, PA
    Earth Conservancy South Valley Corridor Lands, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania DRAFT FINAL REUSE ANALYSIS AND SUSTAINABLE REDEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Through support provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the SRA Team (SRA International, Inc. and Vita Nuova) conducted several research tasks to develop a regional analysis to support potential development of Earth Conservancy property. The SRA Team conducted a regional analysis to identify opportunities and constraints and to present a regional framework which would support redevelopment of the South Valley Corridor lands owned by Earth Conservancy. In addition, the SRA Team developed preliminary draft development concepts to showcase redevelopment opportunities which are supported by the regional market as well as the site location and opportunities. This analysis is one component of a comprehensive project to understand the economic history and trends of the region, market competition and potential for the area, and physical opportunities and constraints of the site. This analysis will 1) help the Earth Conservancy Board of Directors make informed decisions regarding the implementation of the 1999 Master Plan and the phasing of development and 2) provide the preliminary data and analysis from which developers/investors will make decisions. The following analysis reviews the greater Scranton/Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) region for economic history and trends and market competition. The market potential focuses on the viability of developing the South Valley Corridor lands in the Wyoming Valley. This information was collected through qualitative (regional visit, interviews) and quantitative (data searches) approaches. PROJECT LOCATION/STUDY AREA AND PRINCIPLES The area considered in the reuse planning framework includes areas of the City of Nanticoke, Hanover Township, and Newport Township of the Wyoming Valley, which runs northeast to southwest in eastern Pennsylvania and which includes the cities of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre.
    [Show full text]
  • A Strategy for Removing Or Mitigating Dams in New York State and Lessons Learned in the Upper Susquehanna Watershed
    A Strategy for Removing or Mitigating Dams in New York State and Lessons Learned in the Upper Susquehanna Watershed May 2008 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation A Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee – Hydrologic and Habitat Modification Workgroup Publication 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233 Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3817 Luker Road Cortland, New York 13045 NYSDEC Contract with NYSARC (C302276 Task C-6a USFWS) DEDICATION This report is dedicated to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist Dave Bryson, who was the principal investigator for this project through 2006 but unexpectedly passed away during its development. His foresight in promoting fish passage and aquatic ecosystem restoration throughout New York State will be remembered by many. His passion for environmental protection and the art of fishing inspired us all. We will miss him. ii Foreword This report was prepared under contract for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) through collaboration of members of the Hydrologic and Habitat Modification Workgroup (HHM), which is chaired by the NYSDEC Division of Water’s Nonpoint Source Management Section Chief. The guidance is for stream professionals, as well as individuals, agencies, and communities that have interests in evaluating dams to identify opportunities for improving fish passage and restoring river dynamics. Acknowledgements Principal Author/Principal Anne Secord, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Cortland, NY Investigator (2006-2008) Tele:
    [Show full text]
  • Long Point Region Watershed Characterization Report
    January 2008 Long Point Region Characterization – Executive Summary Page 2 Table of contents 1. Introduction. 3 ■ The Clean Water Act ■ Documents ■ A note to readers 2. Watershed overview . 4 ■ Watershed description ■ Population ■ River quality ■ Uses of the watercourses ■ Drinking water sources 3. Lake Erie Source Protection Region . 6 4. Geology and groundwater . 8 ■ Bedrock geology ■ Surface (quaternary) geology ■ Areas susceptible to groundwater contamination 5. Hydrology and surface water . 12 ■ Overview ■ Watersheds ■ Major groundwater recharge areas ■ Major groundwater discharge areas 6. Reservoirs and reservoir operations . 15 7. Population . 16 ■ Population trends and projections 8. Land cover and land use . 17 ■ Settlement history ■ Municipal structure ■ Urban areas ■ Agriculture: crops and pasture ■ Commerce and industry ■ Forest and vegetation ■ Mining, aggregate and petroleum resources ■ Wetlands 9. Water use. 21 ■ Overview ■ Municipal use and sources ■ Rural domestic ■ Agriculture ■ Industrial ■ Commercial 10. Waste treatment and disposal . 25 ■ Sewage treatment ■ Landfills 11. Water quality . 26 ■ Surface water monitoring ■ Surface water conditions and trends ■ Groundwater quality monitoring ■ Groundwater quality conditions and trends 12. Drinking water issues . 30 ■ Potential groundwater quality issues ■ Potential surface water issues 13. Glossary . 32 Kettle Creek Catfish Creek Long Point Region Grand River Conservation Authority Conservation Authority Conservation Authority Conservation Authority This report is made
    [Show full text]
  • Anthracite Mine Drainage Strategy Summary
    Publication 279a Susquehanna Anthracite Region December 2011 River Basin Commission Mine Drainage Remediation Strategy SUMMARY In 2009, SRBC initiated the he largest source of Anthracite Coal challenging and ambitious one, especially Susquehanna River Basin Twithin the United States is found in light of current funding limitations. Anthracite Region Strategy, which in the four distinct Anthracite Coal However, opportunities exist in the is based on a similar scope of work Fields of northeastern Pennsylvania. Anthracite Coal Region that could completed for the West Branch The four fields – Northern, Eastern- encourage and assist in the restoration Susquehanna Subbasin in 2008. Middle, Western-Middle, and Southern of its lands and waters. – lie mostly in the Susquehanna River In the Anthracite Region, SRBC Basin; the remaining portions are in the For example, the numerous underground is coordinating its efforts with the Delaware River Basin. The Susquehanna mine pools of the Anthracite Region hold Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition watershed portion covers about 517 vast quantities of water that could be for Abandoned Mine Reclamation square miles (Figure 1). utilized by industry or for augmenting (EPCAMR). Sharing data between streamflows during times of drought. EPCAMR’s Anthracite Region The sheer size of these four Anthracite In addition, the large flow discharges Mine Pooling Mapping Initiative Coal Fields made this portion of indicative of the Anthracite Region also and SRBC’s remediation strategy Pennsylvania one of the most important hold hydroelectric development potential is valuable in moving both resource extraction regions in the United that can offset energy needs and, at the initiatives forward. Both agencies States and helped spur the nation’s same time, assist in the treatment of the will continue to work together Industrial Revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Conditions
    II. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS For the study purposes, each watershed was divided into sub-areas, representing different topographic, mining, or runoff conditions. Limits of these watersheds and sub-area descriptions are shown in FIGURE l.* Outside the coal measures, the un-mined areas (A and B) are in the upper reaches of the watersheds and are relatively undisturbed forested areas. Due to the absence of mining activities, the existence of tree cover and the relatively steep slopes, the characteristics of the surface water in this area are as follows: a. The water is of good quality. b. The "base flow" in the streams is steady and dependable with no losses from streambeds. e. The "time of concentration" is relatively short resulting in quick response to precipitation runoff. In Area A, surface runoff and base flow contribute to the flow of the streams that are located outside the coal measures. Upon crossing the coal measures, these streams begin to lose water into the deep mines. Surface runoff from Area B is completely intercepted by downslope strip mine pits and subsidence depressions that are located within the coal basin. Within the coal measures, the watersheds are divided into three sub-areas. These areas have been exposed to deep and strip mining operations and contain urbanized areas. The upper areas (C and D) are areas where the groundwater table and mine pools are well below surface stream levels. This-combined area extends down slope of the bottom coal outcrop line (limit of coal measures) to about the alignment of Middle Road. Area C contains isolated sub- urban areas and was extensively strip mined and deep mined.
    [Show full text]
  • Broome County Natural Resources Inventory JUNE 2019
    Broome County Natural Resources Inventory JUNE 2019 Prepared with contributions from: Broome County Environmental Management Council Broome County Planning and Economic Development Cover Photo Credit: “Woods Reflected” by Sandra Kirker First Place, Natural Landscape, 2017 JKLS Environmental Photography Competition Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Broome County Overview ............................................................................................................................... 9 Resource Characterization ............................................................................................................................ 17 Natural Resources Inventory ........................................................................................................................ 19 Protected Open Space ............................................................................................................................... 21 Biodiversity Areas ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Working Landscapes ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 13 Us Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation
    us Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation Robert E. Hughes EPCAMR Executive Director 101 South Main Street Ashley, PA 18706 Phone: (570) 371-3523 [email protected] Website: www.epcamr.org October 11, 2016 Senate Environmental Resources & Energy Committee Senator Gene Yaw, Chairman Room 362 Capital Building, 23rd Senatorial District Senate Box 203023 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3023 RE: Waste Coal Facilities Hearing Dear Senator Yaw, Chairman of the Senate Environmental Resources & Energy Committee, and fellow members of the distinguished Committee: On behalf of the Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR), a 20 year old, regional, non-profit environmental organization located in Ashley, PA dedicated to the reclamation of abandoned mine lands, restoration of watersheds impacted by abandoned mine drainage (AMD), and economic redevelopment of abandoned mine lands impacted by past mining practices throughout the Northern Anthracite Coal Fields and the Bituminous Coal Fields of Northcentral PA, I would like to offer testimony on the importance and necessity PA’s waste coal co-generation facilities have on our past mining landscapes, watersheds, and local economies. EPCAMR is a long-time affiliate member of the ARIPPA trade association and has been an active for two decades, since our inception. ARIPPA and Anthracite Region waste coal plants and partners have been providing my organization with opportunities to partner with individual member plants in the Anthracite Region as well as in the Bituminous Region of PA
    [Show full text]