Smith Property

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Smith Property Coal Brook Stream Restoration Terence J. Ostrowski, P.E. Engineer – Stormwater Management and River/Stream Hydraulics Section Borton-Lawson Engineering Abstract The Coal Brook watershed has a history of uncoordinated and haphazard development. In the lower portions of the watershed, the stream channel has been significantly altered from its original course by prior coal mining activities and development. At a point approximately half way through the stream reach, the channel had been completely filled in by a 40- foot high embankment, thus preventing flows from the upper watershed from reaching the lower portions. During significant storm events, runoff from the upper watershed ponds behind the blockage and slowly percolates into the ground, contributing to the underground mine pools. A recent development boom has brought this problem to light since several businesses are interested in locating on lands upstream of this blockage. Due to the presence of numerous undersized culverts and bridges, removal of the blockage would threaten downstream areas with flooding. Several potential solutions to this problem were investigated. It was found that replacement of downstream culverts with adequately sized structures was improbable due to dense development in this area. Therefore, a solution to open the blockage and divert excess storm flows via underground conduit to an available constructed wetland area was investigated. This solution provides several benefits, which include not only the elimination of the ponding area, but also reduction of infiltration to the mine pools with a resultant decrease in Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) to the Susquehanna River, reduction of the flooding hazard to downstream areas, and enhancement of a hydrologically undercharged wetland area. Existing Field Conditions The Coal Brook watershed is typical of many watersheds in the coal mining regions of Luzerne County. The headwaters of the 2.6 square mile watershed begin as undisturbed forest lands in the Wilkes-Barre Mountains outside the limits of the coal measures. However, before the stream reaches developed areas on the northwest side of Interstate 81, the stream enters the coal measures and all base flow is lost due to infiltration into the deep mine pools. In this area, normal stream flow vanishes either through cracks in the streambed or subsidence created by weakening mine workings. From this point on, the channel flow is intermittent and limited to period of stormwater runoff from the developed areas downstream of Interstate 81. Along the lower Coal Brook reach, the channel 1 Figure 1 - Coal Brook Watershed Map has been severally impacted by prior strip mining and commercial development. Diverted long ago from its natural course, the channel has been enclosed it some parts by long reaches of culvert running under parking lots and buildings. In many cases, these culverts are significantly undersized, since water was rarely seen in the channel before the commercial development occurred. 2 Approximately 0.6 miles downstream of Interstate 81, more than half of the drainage area (1.5 sq. miles) is impounded behind a forty foot fill embankment, apparently created when a large debris pile was level in the early 1980s. Due to this blockage, all runoff from the upper watershed eventually infiltrates into the underground mine pools. The mine pools are connected by a series of underground mine tunnels which make up the major mine pool complexes of the Wyoming Valley. Prior studies have determined the water that infiltrates in this portion of the valley the Southeast Complex Lower Mine Pool. Coal Brook d Figure 2 - Wyoming Valley Mine Pool Complexes Outflow from the lower mine pools are controlled primarily by a series of boreholes located in the adjacent Solomon Creek watershed. The boreholes were originally drilled into the deep mine workings as a way to control large fluctuations in mine pool levels. These fluctuations, due in part to an influx of surface water during storm events, create pressures in the underground mine workings that potentially lead to ground subsidence in the areas underlain by the workings. While the boreholes do their part in controlling mine pool fluctuations, the discharged mine water is highly acidic and contains large concentrations of metals, such as iron and manganese. This discharge is commonly referred to as Acid Mine Drainage (AMD). Solomon Creek, the receiving body of the borehole discharge, is encrusted with orange iron precipitate downstream of the outfall. Below this point, the water quality in the receiving stream is severely degraded. 3 Figure 3 - South Wilkes-Barre Borehole Figure 4 - Receiving Stream below Borehole Below the fill embankment, the Coal Brook channel was diverted from it natural course to flow parallel Mundy Street. The channel slope is very steep in this section, ranging in slopes from 3 to 4 percent. Culm banks (refuse piles of unusable coal and rock), remnants from the old coal workings, extend from the channel overbank and reach heights of over 50 feet. Along this reach, the channel carries only local storm runoff from Mundy Street and the culm banks, until it combines with discharges from heavily developed commercial areas along the east side of Mundy Street. The confluence of the two sources occurs midway through an existing 72- inch corrugated metal pipe near the Kranson Men’s Clothing Store. Immediately below the outlet of this culvert, the stream crosses Mundy Street through an arch culvert that has been severely clogged by rock and debris from the upstream culm banks. Below this point, the channel is open for another 100 feet before it is enclosed in a 150 foot underground system beneath the existing Jiffy Lube parking lot. This system begins as an old stone arch culvert and transitions to a 60- inch corrugated metal pipe about midway through. Figure 5 - Channel Along Mundy Street Figure 6 - Mundy Street Culvert (Culm banks on left) 4 At Spring Street, the channel enters a dense residential section of Wilkes-Barre City. The channel banks in this reach are steep, however the profile is very mild, which results in heavy deposition of silt and rock washed off from the upstream culm banks. Two bridges cross the channel at Spring and Scott Streets. Silt accumulation beneath the Spring Street Bridge has severely reduced the capacity of this structure. The Scott Street Bridge is currently being replaced by a structure sized to convey the 100- year flow. In the open channel between Spring and Scott Streets, a sanitary sewerline follows the channel with several manholes located at the bottom of the stream bed. Below the Scott Street Bridge, the channel enters a 5ft by 5 ft box culvert which encloses the channel underground for a length of approximately 1000 feet. The majority of this pipe lies underneath the parking lot of McCarthy Tire and it is presumed that a portion of the pipe runs beneath an existing garage. Part way through this system, the box section transitions to 60- inch corrugated metal pipe. The bottom of the corrugated pipe has been corroded significantly over the years, most notably near its outlet, where the pipe has partially collapsed. Figure 7 - Channel Below Spring Street Figure 8 - Box Culvert Below Scott Street After the channel exits the corrugated pipe, it is again diverted along the south side of Wilkes-Barre Boulevard. From this point on, the channel has adequate slope and capacity to convey storm flows within its banks until it joins the larger Laurel Run. Approximately 0.3 miles downstream of this point, Laurel Run joins the main stem of Mill Creek before draining into the Susquehanna River. Approach to Alternatives The pressure of impending development in the Coal Brook Watershed required a review of short- term solutions to the capacity problems of Coal Brook. In theory, the short-term alternatives, if cost effective and technically feasible, would allow development to proceed while funding for the longer- term solutions was obtained. Any long-term alternatives presented would accommodate a 100-year flood for Coal Brook. These alternatives would ideally reduce the seepage of Coal Brook flows into underground voids and the mine pool. This will stabilize future groundwater conditions and reduce potential hazards such as 5 acid mine drainage and subsidence potential. Furthermore, the water presently ponding in the area of the fill embankment is immediately upstream of a newly built 8,500-seat arena complex. Ponding of water behind the embankment is actually higher than the Arena concourse and event floor and potentially threatens the stability of the structure. Short Term Alternatives Many short-term alternatives were considered. Three were developed for detailed evaluation. Basic engineering considerations that governed the evaluation of alternatives are as follows: • Alternative 1 - Channel Diversion to the Highland Park Basin. An overflow storm sewer would convey stormwater ponding above a specified elevation to a nearby stormwater basin near the newly built arena. When the capacity of the overflow sewer is reached, a secondary overflow pipe would convey the excess to the downstream Coal Brook channel. This overflow would only occur during very large storms. To relieve the excess volume in the receiving stormwater basin, a pump would be installed to convey the diverted flow back to the original channel, below the fill embankment. The pump discharge is limited due to capacity problems in the downstream reaches. COST - $3,000,000 • Alternative 2 – Upgrading of Downstream Bridges and Culverts This option replaces the most severe restrictions in Coal Brook, the Jiffy Lube culvert and the Kidder Street system to allow a 25 year storm event to pass. The fill embankment would be utilized as a detention basin where most storm flows would be stored. Larger storms would discharge overflow to a proposed overflow pipe through the embankment to the lower Coal Brook channel. A special condition of this approach would be lining the slopes of the detention basin with clay to prevent horizontal migration of water downstream to the area of the Arena.
Recommended publications
  • RULES and REGULATIONS Title 25—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [25 PA
    1226 RULES AND REGULATIONS Title 25—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [25 PA. CODE CH. 93] Corrective Amendment to 25 Pa. Code § 93.9j The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has discovered a discrepancy between the agency text of 25 Pa. Code § 93.9j (relating to Drainage List J) as deposited with the Legislative Reference Bureau (Bureau) and published at 32 Pa.B. 4695, 4699 (September 28, 2002) and the official text as published in the Pennsylvania Code Reporter (Master Transmittal Sheet No. 337, December 2002), and as currently appearing in the Pennsylvania Code. When the amendments made by the Department at 32 Pa.B. 4695 were codified, an entry for the Lackawanna River in Luzerne County and an unnamed tributary to it were never deleted as proposed. Therefore, under 45 Pa.C.S. § 901: The Department has deposited with the Bureau a corrective amendment to 25 Pa. Code § 93.9j. The corrective amendment to 25 Pa. Code § 93.9j is effective as of December 7, 2002, the date the defective official text was announced in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The correct version of 25 Pa. Code § 93.9j appears in Annex A, with ellipses referring to the existing text of the regulation. Annex A TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS § 93.9j. Drainage List J. Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania Lackawanna River Exceptions Water Uses To Specific Stream Zone County
    [Show full text]
  • Monday Creek Watershed Management Plan
    Monday Creek Watershed Management Plan September 2006 Prepared by: Mike Steinmaus Watershed Coordinator and Rebecca Black Assistant Watershed Coordinator 115 West Main Street New Straitsville, OH 43766 Phone – (740) 394-2047 Email - [email protected] Acknowledgments We would like to thank the following individuals who have spent time researching, writing, collecting and analyzing data, and assisting with public outreach activities: The Staff of the Monday Creek Restoration Project Matt Miller: VISTA – Education and Outreach (2005-2006) Tim Braun: VISTA - Education and Outreach (2004-2005) Joshua Long: Office of Surface Mining Summer Intern (Survey) Monday Creek Watershed Management Plan i ii Monday Creek Watershed Management Plan Acronyms Used In This Document ACSI Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative AMD Acid Mine Drainage AMDAT Acid Mine Drainage Abatement and Treatment Plan AML Abandoned Mine Lands AWS Agricultural Water Supply BMPs Best Management Practices CCC Civilian Conservation Corps CWH Cold Water Habitat DMRM Division of Mineral Resources Management DNAP Division of Natural Areas and Preserves DSWC Division of Soil and Water Conservation EWH Exceptional Warmwater Habitat FSA Farm Service Agency FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Administration GPM Gallons Per Minute HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IBI Index of Biological Integrity ICI Invertebrate Community Index ILGARD Institute for Local Government Administration and Rural Development IWS Industrial Water Supply LRW Limited Resource Water LTM Long Term Monitoring LRW Limited
    [Show full text]
  • Annex a TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PART I
    Annex A TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS DESIGNATED WATER USES AND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA Editor’s Note: Additional changes to drainage list 93.9d were proposed on October 21, 2017 in the Pennsylvania Bulletin (47 Pa.B. 6609), including a stream name correction from “Beaverdam Run” to “Beaver Run.” § 93.9d. Drainage List D. Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania Lehigh River Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected to Specific Criteria * * * * * * 2—Lehigh River Main Stem, PA 903 Lehigh TSF, MF None Bridge to Allentown Dam 3—[Unnamed Basins, PA 903 Carbon[- CWF, MF None Tributaries] UNTs to Bridge to [Allentown Lehigh] Lehigh River Dam] UNT 03913 at 40°48'11.1"N; 75°40'20.6"W 3—Silkmill Run Basin Carbon CWF, MF None 3—Mauch Chunk Basin, Source to SR Carbon EV, MF None Creek 902 Bridge 3—Mauch Chunk Basin, SR 902 Bridge Carbon CWF, MF None Creek to Mouth 1 3—Beaverdam Run Basin Carbon HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Long Run Basin Carbon CWF, MF None Basin, Source to [Carbon] 3—Mahoning Creek CWF, MF None Wash Creek Schuylkill HQ-CWF, 4—Wash Creek Basin Schuylkill None MF Basin, Wash Creek to UNT 04074 at 3—Mahoning Creek Schuylkill CWF, MF None 40°46'43.4"N; 75°50'35.2"W HQ-CWF, 4—UNT 04074 Basin Schuylkill None MF Basin, UNT 04074 3—Mahoning Creek Carbon CWF, MF None to Mouth Basin, Source to SR 3—Pohopoco Creek 3016 Bridge at Monroe CWF, MF None Merwinsburg Main Stem, SR 3016 Bridge to
    [Show full text]
  • SRBC 2011 Anthracite Region Mine Drainage Remediation Strategy
    December 2011 Susquehanna Publication 279 River Basin Anthracite Region Commission Mine Drainage Remediation Strategy About this Report he largest source of Anthracite Coal in light of current funding limitations. Twithin the United States is found However, opportunities exist in the This technical report, Anthracite in the four distinct Anthracite Coal Anthracite Coal Region that could Region Mine Drainage Fields of northeastern Pennsylvania. encourage and assist in the restoration The four fields – Northern, Eastern- of its lands and waters. Remediation Strategy, includes: Middle, Western-Middle, and Southern – lie mostly in the Susquehanna River For example, the numerous underground introduction to the region’s Basin; the remaining portions are in the mine pools of the Anthracite Region hold geology & mining history; Delaware River Basin. The Susquehanna vast quantities of water that could be mining techniques and watershed portion covers nearly 517 utilized by industry or for augmenting square miles (Figure 1). streamflows during times of drought. impacts; In addition, the large flow discharges strategy methodology; The sheer size of these four Anthracite indicative of the Anthracite Region also discussion of data findings; Coal Fields made this portion of hold hydroelectric development potential Pennsylvania one of the most important that can offset energy needs and, at the basin-scale restoration plan; resource extraction regions in the United same time, assist in the treatment of the and States and helped spur the nation’s utilized AMD discharge. recommendations. Industrial Revolution. Anthracite Coal became the premier fuel source of To help address the environmental nineteenth and early twentieth century impacts while promoting the resource America and heated most homes and development potential of the Anthracite businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Lackawanna River Watershed Conservation Plan
    Lackawanna River Watershed Conservation Plan prepared by The Lackawanna River Corridor Association November 2001 This project is funded with support from the Chesapeake Bay Program Small Watershed Grants Program administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Scranton Area Foundation, the Rivers Conservation Program of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and The membership and community support funding received through contributions to the Lackawanna River Corridor Association. This document has been prepared by: Bernard McGurl, Executive Director For the: Arthur Popp, Project Manager Deilsie Heath Kulesa, Administrative Assistant Gail Puente, Education and Outreach Coordinator Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Executive Summary: Issues, Process 1.2. Executive Plan Recommendations 1.3. Priority Recommendations 1.4. Considerations for Implementation 2. Purpose and Vision 2.1 Vision 2.2 Scope of Work 3. The River and Its Watershed 3.1 Soils and Geology 3.2 Flora and Fauna 3.3 Socio-economics and Cultural History 4. Issues: A discussion and review of public policy issues and topics affecting the Lackawanna River Watershed Environment 4.1 A discussion and review of public policy issues and topics affecting the Lackawanna River Watershed environment 5. Water Quality and Quantity 5.1 Sewage Treatment, Treatment Plants, CSO’s, Act 537 Planning 5.2 Storm Water Management 5.3 Acid Mine Drainage/Abandoned Mine Reclamation 5.4 Erosion and Sedimentation 5.5 Water Supply 5.6 Aquatic Habitats and Fisheries 6. Land Stewardship 6.1 Flood Plain Management 6.2 Stream Encroachment 6.3 Riparian and Upland Forest and Forestry Management 6.4 Wetlands 6.5 Natural Areas and Open Space Management 6.6 Land Use Regulations and Watershed Best Management Practices 6.7 Reclamation and Economic Development 6.8 Litter, Illegal Dumping and Contaminated Sites 7.
    [Show full text]
  • A Publication of the Lackawanna River Corridor Association
    Lackawanna River Watershed Atlas A publication of the Lackawanna River Corridor Association Lackawanna River Watershed Atlas Geographic Information Systems mapping in the watershed area of northeastern Pennsylvania in Lackawanna, Luzerne, Susquehanna, and Wayne counties. A publication of the Lackawanna River Corridor Association First Edition Copyright 2008 This publication made possible by a grant from the Margaret Briggs Foundation and by support from the membership of the Lackawanna River Corridor Association. Map and atlas design: Alexandra Serio Younica Acknowledgements This project was made possible by a grant from the Margaret Briggs Foundation. The Lackawanna River Corridor Association would like to thank the following organizations assisting with this project. Concurrent Technologies Corporation King’s College Lackawanna County Conservation District Lackawanna County GIS Luzerne County GIS Wayne County GIS Cover Graphic The watershed graphic is derived from a mosaic of the 10 meter digital elevation model United States Geological Survey Table of Contents Original drawings by Bernie McGurl The Lackawanna River Guide, 1994 Acronyms ……..…………………….. ii Mapping Details ……..…………………….. iii Introductory Overview ……..…………………….. 1 The Lackawanna River Basin and Adjacent Watersheds What is a Watershed? ……..…………………….. 3 Places ……..…………………….. 5 Geology & Industry ……..…………………….. 7 GIS for the Watershed ……..…………………….. 9 Land Use ……..…………………….. 11 People ……..…………………….. 13 The Water ……..…………………….. 15 Preserving the Watershed ……..…………………….. 17 The
    [Show full text]
  • Flooding Survey June 1990 Upper Severn Catchment
    ---*--- - RA Severn-Trent 15 Flooding Survey June 1990 Upper Severn Catchment NRA National Rivers Authority Severn-Trent Region E n v ir o n m e n t Ag e n c y NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICE HEAD OFFICE Rio House, Waterside Drive. Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD r Severn-Trent Region Boundary ■ M a n • Catchment Boundaries Adjacent NRA Regions 1. Upper Severn 2. Lower Severn 3. Avon 4. Soar 5. Lower Trent 6. Derwent 7. Upper Trent 8. Tame National Rivers Authority Sevem-TrerT ~ FLOODING SURVEY JUNE 1980 SECTION 136(1) WATER ACT 1989 (Supersedes Section 24(5) W ater A c t 1973 Land Drainage Survey dated January 1986) UPPER SEVERN CATCHMENT SHROPSHIRE AND POWYS Environ me n i .a .o e ocy FLOOD DEFENCE DEPARTMENT i nrorrnation .Centre NATIONAL RIVERS ALTTHORrTY Head Ovrice. SEVERN-TRENT REGION SAPPHIRE EAST lass No.. 550 STREETSBROOK ROAD SOLIHULL xssiorvNo W MIDLANDS B91 1QT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 099807 CONTENTS Contents List of Tables List of Associated Reports List of Appendices References Glossary of Terms Preface CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Coding System 1.3 Priority Categories 1.4 Summary of Problem Evaluations 1.5 Summary by Priority Category 1.6 Identification of Problems and their Evaluation CHAPTER 2 THE SURVEY 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Purposes of Survey 2.3 Extent of Survey 2.4 Procedure 2.5 Hydrological Criteria 2.6 Hydraulic Criteria 2.7 Land Potential category 2.8 Improvement Costs 2.9 Benefit Assessment 2.10 Test Discount Rate 2.11 Benefit/Cost Ratios 2.12 Priority Category 2.13 Inflation Factors CHAPTER
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 93: Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards Effective March 19, 2021 The following provisions are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with the exception of these three provisions that EPA disapproved: The addition of the human health criterion for chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4‐D) to Table 5 The revision to the designated use for Chester Creek (Basin), (locally known as Goose Creek basin, Source to East Branch Chester Creek) from Trout Stocking, Migratory Fish (TSF,MF) to Warm Water Fishes, MF (WWF, MF) The revision to the designated use for Reynold’s Run (Basin) from High Quality Waters, Cold Water Fishes (HQ‐CWF, MF) to High Quality Waters, Trout Stocking (HQ‐TSF, MF) Ch. 93 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 25 CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 93.1. Definitions. 93.2. Scope. 93.3. Protected water uses. 93.4. Statewide water uses. ANTIDEGRADATION REQUIREMENTS 93.4a. Antidegradation. 93.4b. Qualifying as High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters. 93.4c. Implementation of antidegradation requirements. 93.4d. Processing of petitions, evaluations and assessments to change a designated use. 93.5. [Reserved]. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 93.6. General water quality criteria. 93.7. Specific water quality criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthracite Mine Drainage Strategy
    December 2011 Susquehanna Publication 279 River Basin Anthracite Region Commission Mine Drainage Remediation Strategy About this Report he largest source of Anthracite Coal in light of current funding limitations. Twithin the United States is found However, opportunities exist in the This technical report, Anthracite in the four distinct Anthracite Coal Anthracite Coal Region that could Region Mine Drainage Fields of northeastern Pennsylvania. encourage and assist in the restoration The four fields – Northern, Eastern- of its lands and waters. Remediation Strategy, includes: Middle, Western-Middle, and Southern – lie mostly in the Susquehanna River For example, the numerous underground introduction to the region’s Basin; the remaining portions are in the mine pools of the Anthracite Region hold geology & mining history; Delaware River Basin. The Susquehanna vast quantities of water that could be mining techniques and watershed portion covers nearly 517 utilized by industry or for augmenting square miles (Figure 1). streamflows during times of drought. impacts; In addition, the large flow discharges strategy methodology; The sheer size of these four Anthracite indicative of the Anthracite Region also discussion of data findings; Coal Fields made this portion of hold hydroelectric development potential Pennsylvania one of the most important that can offset energy needs and, at the basin-scale restoration plan; resource extraction regions in the United same time, assist in the treatment of the and States and helped spur the nation’s utilized AMD discharge. recommendations. Industrial Revolution. Anthracite Coal became the premier fuel source of To help address the environmental nineteenth and early twentieth century impacts while promoting the resource America and heated most homes and development potential of the Anthracite businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Stellarton Pit Mine Extension
    ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT FOR STELLARTON PIT MINE EXTENSION VOLUME I Mining Operations – East of MacGregor Avenue Submitted to Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour By Pioneer Coal Limited January 2004 PREFACE Pioneer Coal Limited (Pioneer Coal) is submitting this Environmental Registration Document (ERD) for mining operations on the east side of MacGregor Avenue. This proposed undertaking is a continuation of the existing Stellarton Pit Mine located on the west side of MacGregor Avenue. The ERD is being filed subsequent to a response from the Minister of Environment and Labour (October of 2003) that the expansion of current operations has been defined as a Class I undertaking. According to the Statement of Principle with respect to coal of Nova Scotia’s Energy Strategy (Dec 2001), our Province “will encourage the use of indigenous coal where environmentally and economically appropriate, promote reclamation mining in lands previously disturbed by mining, and encourage development of clean coal technologies.” The proposed undertaking embodies the goals of the Energy Strategy. As such, this document outlines project activities, the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts, associated mitigation, and monitoring for this undertaking. The submission includes pertinent background information from the 1995 Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) for the Stellarton Pit Mine. Updated data, current methodologies and additional assessments have been incorporated into the ERD. This additional information has been prepared utilizing the comments, advice and expertise of a number of different agencies and persons including: residents and elected officials from the local community; Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (NSDNR); Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour (NSDEL); Nova Scotia Museum (NSM); Confederacy of Mainland Mi’kmaq (CMM); Community Liaison Committee (CLC); and MGI Limited (MGI).
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Lackawanna River Watershed Restoration and Assessment Plan
    2012 Lower Lackawanna River Watershed Restoration and Assessment Plan Report Bernard McGurl - LRCA Robert E. Hughes - EPCAMR Michael Hewitt - EPCAMR A publication of the Lackawanna River Corridor Association 12/31/2012 Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Executive Summary: A Tale of Two Rivers .................................................................... 1 1.2 Executive Summary: Recommendations ......................................................................... 6 1.3 Consideration for Implementation ................................................................................... 8 1.4 Vision for a Revitalized River .......................................................................................... 9 1.5 Scope of Work ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]