Coraopolis Bridge Replacement Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and County of Allegheny

Environmental Assessment Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation

DECEMBER 1992 Coraopolis Bridge Replacement Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and County of Allegheny

Environmental Assessment Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(C) 49 U.S.C. 1653 Section 4(f) Date Division Administrator Approved Environmental Assessment

AR30U-2S- INTRODUCTION - This document is an Environmental Assessment for the proposed replacement of the Coraopclis Bridge in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1 969 and regulations of the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) through 1978, applicable federal actions must consider potential environmental impacts. The analysis is used to determine whether a proposed project will have significant adverse effects which cannot be avoided or mitigated. For this project, significant impacts were determined through a combination of technical analysis and coordination with interested parties and the local community. An Environmental Assessment is prepared when the significance of project-related impacts is not known during project scoping activities. If significant and unavoidable adverse impacts upon the environment are identified, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared. If it is determined that the Proposed Action's impacts are not significant, a formal Rnding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Other technical reports associated with this project include the Technical Basis Report; the Design Location Report; Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report; Historical Architectural Engineering Record; and the Determination of Effect Report. The County of Allegheny has undertaken this study to evaluate feasible alternatives for the replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge. This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the social, economic, cultural, natural, and physical environmental impacts associated with various alternatives for the replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Coast Guard are cooperating agencies. Copies of the report are available for public review at: County of Allegheny PADOT FHWA Mr. Herbert C. Higginbotham, II, P.E. Mr. Henry M. Nutbrown, P.E. Mr. Manuel A. Maries, Jr. Director District Engineer Federal Highway Department of Pennsylvania Department Administration Engineering and Construction of Transportation Federal Building County of Allegheny Four Parkway Center 228 Walnut Street 501 County Office Building 875 Greentree Road Harrisburg, PA 17108 Forbes Avenue and Boss Street Pittsburgh, PA 15220 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Copies will also be available at the Neville Township Municipal Building on Neville Island at Third Street and Grand Avenue and at the Coraopoiis Municipal Building at 1012 Fifth Avenue in Coraopoiis.

3-021 \report«\OB2.«wh 683011*26 TABLE OF CONTENTS • INTRODUCTION ...... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... ii CHAPTER 1 - PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1 - 1 1.1 Project Description ...... *...... 1 -1 1.2 Description of Existing Bridge ...... 1 -1 1.3 Project History ...... 1 -1 1.4 Structural Deficiency ...... 1 - 2 1.5 Project Need ...... 1 - 3 CHAPTER 2 - EARLY COORDINATION AND SCOPING ...... 2-1 2.1 Inter-Agency Coordination ...... 2 -1 2.2 History of Alternatives ...... 2 -1 CHAPTER 3 - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... 3-1 3.1 No Build Alternative ...... 3 -1 3.2 History of Alternatives Evaluated ...... 3-1 3.3 Build Alternatives Selected for Detailed Evaluation ...... 3-5 3.3.1 Alternative 1 - New Bridge on Existing Alignment ...... 3-5 3.3.2 Alternative 2 - New Bridge Skewed East from Southern Abutments - 6 CHAPTER 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION ...... 4-1 4.1 Socio Economic Environment...... 4 -1 4.1.1 Regional and Community Growth ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Community Cohesion ...... 4 - 2 4.1.3 Displacements of People and Business ...... 4-3 4.1.4 Public Facilities and Services ...... 4-4 4.2 Natural Environment ...... 4 - 6 4.2.1 Geological Resources ...... 4 - 6 4.2.2 Productive Agricultural Land/Farming ...... 4-7 4.2.3 Wetlands ...... 4 - 7 4.2.4 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation ...... 4-8 4.2.5 Floodplains ...... 4 - 8 4.2.6 Navigable Waterways ...... 4-9 4.2.7 Surface and Groundwater Resources ...... 4-10 4.2.8 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat...... 4-10 4.2.9 Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 4-11 4.2.10Historic and Archeological Resources ...... 4-11 4.2.11 Parks and Recreational Facilities ...... 4-13 4.2.12Energy Conservation ...... 4 -13 4.3 Physical Environment ...... 4 -14 4.3.1 Noise Levels ...... 4 -14 4.3.2 Air Quality ...... 4 -15

AR30U27 4.3.3 Hazardous Waste ...... 4 -16 4.3.4 Aesthetics and Other Values ...... 4-18 CHAPTER 5.0 - COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ...... 5-1 CHAPTER 6 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 6 - 1 6.1 SUMMARY ...... 6 - 1 6.2 CONCLUSIONS ...... 6 - 1 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF PREPARERS PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION APPENDICES A. Pertinent Correspondence and Minutes of Meetings B. Early Coordination Form and Agency Listing C. Section 106 Coordination D. Existing Bridge Plan, Elevation and Section E. Build Alternatives Profiles F. Floodway Boundary Map ' " • ' .•'••'• LISTOFRGURES Follows Page Rgure 1-1 Regional Location Map ...... 1-1- Figure 1-2 Project Study Area ...... 1-1 Figure 1-3 Project Area ...... 1-1 Rgure 3-1 Alternatives Considered During Phases 1 and 2 ...... 3-1 Rgure 3-2 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 3-1 Rgure 3-3 Alternative 1 - 25MPH Alignment ...... 3-3 Figure 3-4 Alternative 1 - 35MPH Alignment ...... 3-3 Figure 3-5 Alternative 2 - 25MPH Alignment .;...... 3-3 Figure 3-6 Alternative 2 - 35MPH Alignment ...... 3-3 Figure 4-1 Bridge Terminus Area ...... 4-1 Figure 6-1 Summary of Impacts ...... 6-1 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Follows Page Photograph 1 Truss Configuration ...... 1-1 Photograph 2 Truss Ornamentation and Pony Truss Spans ...... 1-1 Photograph 3 Ornamental Railing ...... 1-1 Photograph 4 View toward Existing Bridge ...... 4-19 Photograph 5 View from Fourth Avenue/Ferree Street ...... 4-19

flR30U28 CHAPTER 1 - PROPOSED ACTION • • - 1.1 Project Description The proposed action involves replacing the existing Coraopoiis Bridge, which spans the Ohio River Back Channel in a north-south direction between the Borough of Coraopoiis and Neville Island (Rgure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). The bridge currently connects SR 51 (Fourth Avenue) and Ferree Street in Coraopoiis with Grand Avenue on Neville Island (Rgure 1-3). The project would replace the existing structure and roadway approaches with facilities designed to current standards for an urban arterial highway. Various bridge replacement alignments were studied. Of these, two were selected for detailed study. Both of the Alternatives would include three 12-foot travel lanes and two, three-foot watertables (shoulders). Two lanes would serve southbound traffic and one lane would serve northbound traffic. A six-foot sidewalk would be provided and separated from the shoulder by a concrete barrier. For both alternatives, the existing bridge superstructure would be dismantled and removed and the abutments and piers removed. Detailed descriptions of the proposed alternatives are contained in Chapter 3. 1.2 Description of Existing Bridge -» The current Coraopoiis Bridge is located in Allegheny County, 10 miles northwest of downtown Pittsburgh. The Bridge is approximately 1,160 feet in length and consists of 2 through truss spans at 444 feet each and two pony truss spans at 137 feet each (See Appendix D). It carries two 12 foot lanes with 4.5-feet wide water tables and a 5 foot sidewalk on the eastern (upstream) side. The sidewalk is separated from the travel lanes by a concrete barrier (Photos 1-3). Connecting sidewalks are located at each end of the bridge. The north bridge approach from Grand Avenue contains a 30 degree curve to the south. Situated at the western end of Neville Island, there is little development within the immediate vicinity of the bridge. Within Coraopoiis Borough, the bridge spans a Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad (P&LERR) line and vacant ground before it intersects with Route 51. Because of its unique history, as well as the structural details of the through trusses, the bridge was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in January of 1986. 1.3 Project History The existing bridge was originally constructed in the late 19th century as the Sixth Street Bridge crossing the Allegheny River between downtown Pittsburgh and the City of Allegheny, now the north side of the City of Pittsburgh. In 1927, it was removed from Sixth Street and floated down the Ohio River to its present location in

3-021V»poft»\082.«wh 1-1 I

Ml

in

6R30IUO AR30 14-3:1 A«30Mi32 --•• -.-,—..-

Photograph 1 Trass configuration

Photograph 2 Trass Ornamentation and Pony Trass Spans AR30ll*33 Photographs Ornamental Railing Coraopoiis, replacing an older bridge. The bridge was originally designed to carry two troifey tracks within the roadway, in the mid-194C's, Grand Avenue was widened to four fanes, the existing trolley tracks removed, snd a single trolley track relocated to the south side of the street. The bridge was constructed at its current location with a pier located in the center of the Back Channel on the sailing line, the course for barge movement recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The bridge was rehabilitated and updated for safety in the mid 1960's. In-depth inspections were performed in 1977. A major rehabilitation was completed in 1981 to correct structural deficiencies. Ongoing in-depth inspections were performed in 1986 through 1988. These inspections revealed the serious problems with the structure and are the basis for the replacement of the bridge. 1.4 Structural Deficiency The primary need for the replacement of the bridge is based on the present structural deficiencies. These have resulted in a load limitation of three tons placed upon the bridge and the complete closure of the bridge in cold weather months. In addition, the bridge is not in coriformance with current design criteria. The structural deficiency, as described in the "Determination of Adverse Effect for the Coraopoiis Bridoe." was discussed as follows: "Rehabilitation of the existing bridge has been studied and determined not feasible. The most recent structural inspection was completed by SAI Consulting Engineers, Inc. of Pittsburgh in October 1987. Results of that in-depth inspection revealed numerous deteriorated and fracture-critical members. At that time, a preliminary estimate for the recommended repairs was $2,277,400 for a maximum recommended service life of ten years. Subsequent to the inspection, Allegheny County requested a failure analysis and evaluation of the fracture-critical members. These fracture-critical members are of particular concern because they have the potential for critical cracks to form which could cause fracture of the member. The failure analysis was performed to determine the potential and conditions for failure of the fracture-critical members and the effect of this member failure upon the entire bridge. The objective of this study was to provide additional information regarding the load rating of the Coraopoiis Bridge, concentrating on possible failure of one of the eighty-eight 88 fracture-critical members located throughout the two through trusses. The failure analysis was completed in June 1988, concluding that the failure of one of these members could result in the failure of the entire bridge. The report made the following recommendations: 1. The bridge should remain closed to heavy traffic unless the fracture-critical members are temporarily reinforced; -1-2 flR30H35 2. The bridge should not remain in service beyond October 31,1989 and should remain closed to all traffic during the coid weather months {November 1 10 April 30) unless the fracture-critical members are temporarily reinforced; 3. From May 1 to October 31 the bridge may be opened to vehicular traffic with a weight limit of three tons (passenger cars). Following the failure analysis, a geotechnical assessment of the existing substructure/foundation conditions was performed. The results indicated that the South Abutment and Pier 1 should be abandoned while the North Abutment and Piers 2 and 3 have an estimated remaining life of 25 to 30 years. Representatives from Allegheny County, along with PennDOT and FHWA went on a field view in September 1988 and concurred that the bridge needed to be replaced." 1.5 Project Need The replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge is primarily based on the need to maintain a viable access point between Coraopoiis and Neville Island for both local and regional traffic. Local Access • The communities of Neville Island and Coraopoiis are interdependent communities linked by the Coraopoiis Bridge. The replacement bridge would maintain this important link between Neville Island and Coraopoiis for shoppers, school students, emergency services, work travel, public transit and pedestrians. Pedestrian - The bridge Is also an important link for pedestrian movements between Coraopoiis and Neville Island. The temporary closing of the bridge to vehicular traffic during cold weather does not effect pedestrian movements. Should the bridge be closed and not replaced the impact on accessibility would be severe. The nearest alternative river crossing for local access to Coraopoiis from the north side of the river is the Sewickley Bridge to the west, and 1-79 to the east. The Sewickley Bridge would provide access to the north side of the river but not directly to Neville Island. The l-79/Grand Avenue interchange on Neville Island is a full interchange, but the 1-79/SR 51 interchange is not. One of the movements that is not available is exiting from southbound 1-79 to SR 51. In order to travel to Coraopoiis from Neville Island, all traffic that cannot use the Coraopoiis Bridge has to travel north on I-79 to Route 65 northbound and recross the river via the Sewickley Bridge. This detour route, which is shown on Figure 1-2, is six miles long. Traffic from Coraopoiis to Neville Island could cross the river using I-79 since the entrance to northbound 1-79 from SR 51 is provided by a temporary ramp at this interchange. This detour is two miles long. Community Access - State Route (SR) 51, a major north-south arterial, passes through Coraopoiis on the south side of the Back Channel of the Ohio River. It extends from Uniontown in Fayette County, to the Pennsylvania/Ohio state line in Beaver County, ftR30U36 a distance of approximately 90 miles. The five mile section of SR 51 in Stowe, , Kennedy, and Robinson Townships and Coraopoiis Borough is a two-lane, rolling and winding road and most through-traffic avoids this segment of SR 51 by using Grand Avenue/Neville Road on Neville Island as a Bypass. This requires using the Fleming Park Bridge at the east end of the island and the Coraopoiis Bridge at the west end. These bridges and 1-79 are the only links between SR 51 and Neville Island. However, I-79 provides only a partial link between Neville Island and Route 51 in as much as the l-79/Rt. 51 interchange is only a partial interchange. Restrictions to the Coraopoiis Bridge force traffic to use the longer, more circuitous routes. Since 1988, vehicular traffic volumes and travel patterns have changed in the area because of the seasonal closing of the bridge and its three-ton load limit. Replacing the Coraopoiis Bridge would Improve access to Neville Island and Coraopoiis. With the new bridge, travel patterns would revert to conditions prior to the seasonal closure and load limitations. Based on past trends, it is estimated that 60 percent of the traffic using a new bridge would be southbound. This assumes that the temporary SR 51 ramp to I-79 northbound would be removed after construction of a new bridge. For the No-Build alternative, the bridge was assumed to remain closed permanently to buses and trucks, and during the winter months, to autos. Alt trucks and buses were assumed to continue to be diverted to the Sewickley and I-79 Bridges. However, given the present condition of the bridge and its continued deterioration, which is presented in the bridge inspection report, it is estimated that the bridge would be permanently closed by 2010 to vehicular traffic. Additional discussions of the impacts resulting from the current bridge restrictions are contained in Chapter 4 of this document.

1-4 CHAPTER 2 - EARLY COORDINATION AND SCOPING The FHWA, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), and the County of Allegheny evaluated feasible alternatives for the replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge. The study process includes the preparation of engineering and environmental studies and a program of public involvement and agency coordination. These formed the basis of the development, evaluation, and selection of a preferred alternative for the replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge. 2.1 Inter-Agency Coordination Pursuant to revised Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations published in 1978, and implementing guidelines of the Federal Highway Administration (23 CFR 771), the environmental assessment effort for this project began with early coordination and scoping activities. The purpose of the early coordination was to distinguish the relative sensitivity of social, economic and environmental issues, and to relate the level of analysis to these issues and the potential for adverse impacts. A scoping field view was held on July 15, 1988 with PennDOT and Allegheny County. At this meeting, an EA was determined to be the appropriate NEPA document. A scoping meeting in August 1988 established the concerns to be addressed. From this meeting, the Earlv Coordination Form was prepared to document the proposed level of analysis of each subject area. The form, included in Appendix B, was circulated to federal, state, county, and local agencies for review and comment. All responses expressed specific endorsement of the proposed project .alternatives and the level of study. Responses are included in Appendix B. The subjects to be evaluated were prioritized into three groups based on the level of analytical detail required. The levels of study included: Detailed Analysis, Qualitative Analysis and No Analysis. The determination of the level of analysis was based on field views by Allegheny County, FHWA and Pennsylvania DOT environmental staff as well as on literature search. For those environmental issues that, based on field views and literature search, were deemed not to exist, it was determined that no-analysis would be required. For those issues that were deemed to exist but not be impacted, a general review and qualitative analysis was determined to be appropriate. For those issues that have potential impact, a detailed analysis was determined to be appropriate. 2.2 History of Alternatives The range of alternatives for the replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge originally consisted of two build alternatives and a no-build alternative. Engineering and environmental studies were undertaken for these alternatives between August 1988 and August 1990. During this time, design criteria was established for the development of these alternatives. The results of these studies, documented in a

2-1 Design Location Report, established the horizontal and vertical alignments, drainage, maintenance and protection of traffic during construction, right-of-way requirements and displacements, and involvement with utilities for the project. The two build alternatives evaluated included a new bridge on the existing alignment and a new bridge on an alignment skewed to the east of the existing alignment. Both alternatives, however, would begin at the existing southern abutment. The level of analysis for environmental studies was developed as a result of the early coordination and scoping process. Modifications to the level of analysis was made based on data and findings of the early stages of the study process. The most significant of these findings and modifications was the determination of the potential presence of hazardous materials near the north bridge approach located on Neville Island. As a result, additional alternatives were evaluated in an attempt to avoid potential impacts to the hazardous waste site. Six additional alternatives were developed and evaluated for a total of eight build alternatives and a no-build. The analysis concluded that the two build alternatives which were originally analyzed were still the two most viable. These alternatives, described in more detail in section 3.3 were recommended for further evaluation. These results were presented at the bi-monthly special purpose meetings held with the local citizens group and interested individuals throughout the study. Newsletters and public announcements also helped keep the public informed and involved in the development of the project.

2-2 CHAPTER 3 - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Tne study considered a No Build Alternative, and eight Buiid Alternatives. The Buiid Alternatives included a number of proposals to replace the bridge at or near its current iocation, upstream of its current location, and one proposal which would modify access to Interstate 79 so complete access to Neville Island could be made via that roadway (Rgure 3-1). 3.1 No Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative involves taking no action regarding the proposed project. The no-build would involve continued maintenance of the existing bridge, including the three-ton load limitation and closure of the bridge during winter weather. With the No-Build Alternative, the bridge would continue to be closed as dictated by the weather. The bridge's deterioration would eventually require its complete closure. The No-Build Alternative is used as a benchmark for evaluating the need for the project and assessing the effects of the Build Alternatives. 3.2 History of Alternatives Evaluated Alternative corridors were identified east and west of the existing bridge. (See Figure 3-1). The limits to possible corridors were from the end of Neville Island to the west and Interstate Route 79 (I-79) to the east. Bridges located beyond these limits would not serve the purpose of providing local connection between Coraopoiis and Neville Island. The Build Alternatives which were evaluated included: Alternative A - Rehabilitate Existing Structure Alternative B - New Bridge Skewed West from Northern Abutment Alternative C - New Bridge on Existing Alignment Alternative D - New Bridge Skewed East from Southern Abutment Alternative E - New Bridge Upstream at George Street Alternative F - New Bridge Upstream at Vine Street Alternative G - New Bridge Upstream at Oak Street Alternative H - Upgrade Interstate 79 Interchange All the Build Alternatives were assessed based on several significant parameters. These included local and regional accessibility, displacements, engineering feasibility, and potential impacts on hazardous waste sites. Based on this assessment, six of the alternatives were eliminated from further detailed investigation. Alternatives C and D were selected for detailed analysis, and are designated as Alternative 1 and 2 respectively for the remainder of this report. A matrix of comparison of all the alternatives is shown on Rgure 3-2. The criteria for the alternatives that were developed to avoid the hazardous waste site included providing a replacement river crossing; connect to the existing street system;

3-021V«port»\082.«wh 3-1 and minimize community disruption. The following describes the alternatives and the reasons for their elimination from further study: Rehabilitate Existing Structure - (Alternative AH This alternative would consist of rehabilitation of both the superstructure and substructure of the existing bridge. A new superstructure alone could not be constructed since tests indicate the substructure (piers) could not support it. This alternative was eliminated for several reasons. Rrst, it would only provide approximately an additional 10 years of service life to the existing bridge. In addition, the superstructure could not be widened to accommodate three lanes of traffic. Continual maintenance would require an increasing amount of funds to be spent on the bridge. Given the cost of needed superstructure and substructure repairs, this alternative is not economically feasible. New Bridge skewed West from Northern Abutment - (Alternative B) This alternative would be just west of extsitng bridge alingment. It would be skewed west from the bridge's present northern abutment on Neville Island. It was eliminated primarily because, without major construction and disruption, it could not be connected into Fourth Avenue in Coraopoiis because of the elevation of the P&LE Railroad tracks. Also, it would have greater potential impact on the hazardous waste site and would have displaced four businesses and one residence in Coraopoiis. New Bridge Upstream at Georoe Street • (Alternative E) This alternative would be located parallel to and about one-quarter mile east (or upstream) of the existing bridge alignment. It would extend from Grand Avenue on Neville Island and connect into George Street in Coraopoiis. It would require extensive realignment of the streets on Neville Island and in Coraopoiis. In addition, it would necessitate a major embankment on the southern approach in Coraopoiis. Three businesses and one residence would be displaced. For these reasons it was eliminated. New Bridge Upstream at Vine Street "(Alternative F) This alternative, just east of Alternative E, would also be parallel to the existing bridge. It would not require the extensive street realignment, embankment construction, or business and residential displacement resulting from Alternative E. It would have potential impacts with wetlands and hazardous waste sites and was thus eliminated.

3-2 ftR30|l»l»2 New Bridge Uostream at Oak Street - (Alternative G) This alternative is about one-half mile upstream of the existing bridge. It connects between Grand Avenue on Neville Island and SR 51 in Coraopoiis. it was eliminated because it would require displacement of 16 residences on Neville Island in addition to disruption to its streets. It also would have potential impacts with hazardous waste sites on both sides of the Back Channel. Upgrade Interstate 79 Interchange • f Alternative H) This alternative involves the widening of Interstate 79 (I-79) and the completion of the Groveton Interchange at its southern approach in Robinson Township at SR 51. This construction would provide access to and from Neville Island from SR 51. It was eliminated for the following principal reasons: • Local traffic must use interstate route; • Displacement of one business and one residence; • Eliminates sidewalk and proposed water line between Coraopoiis and Neville island; • Requires PAT and local school buses to use shuttle buses or circuitous routes • to serve the west end of Neville Island: • Results in only one local bridge to serve Neville Island; and, • Severs link between residential western end of Neville and community facilities in Coraopoiis.

3-021Ueportt\082.«wh 3-3 AR30IH3 3O 1g0 |"J . U§I 3

• CO 8 .8£ S « £ S |

! S 8

•9«

AR30il(ltIi 3.3 Build Alternatives Selected for Detailed Evaluation The three selected for further detailed evaluation, are the No BuHd Alternative and two of the Build Alternatives: Alternative 1 {formerly Alternative C), and Alternative 2 (formerly Alternative D). TTue build alternatives were developed based on "Urban" design criteria for arterials. For both alternatives, the existing bridge superstructure, abutments and piers would be dismantled and removed. A typical section of the proposed bridge is included in Appendix D. Both Build Alternatives would have four piers, two in the Back Channel and two on the southern shore of the Back Channel. They would also include three 1 2-foot travel lanes and two, three-foot watertables (shoulders). Two lanes would serve southbound traffic and one lane northbound traffic. On the bridge, a six-foot sidewalk, which meets handicapped standards, would be provided and separated from the shoulder by a concrete barrier. Each alternative provides 45-foot minimum clearance over the river and 22.5 feet over the P&LERR tracks. This is approximately the same as the clearances provided by the existing bridge. Two options which could be implemented with either build alternative were developed for the northern approach using design speeds of 25 and 35 mph. For both options, the approach roadway would taper from the existing 50-foot width on Grand Avenue to the 42-foot width on the proposed bridge. 3.3.1 Alternative 1 - New Bridge on Existing Alignment Alternative 1 involves a new bridge on the existing alignment as shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-4. It is a two span continuous steel girder unit over the P&LERR, and a three span continuous steel girder unit over the river. A profile is included in Appendix E.

At the south approach, the bridge would connect at the existing SR 51 intersection. The approach would be modified to improve access from SR 51 to the bridge and from the bridge to Fourth Avenue. Modification would include widening of the roadway, new curbs and modification of grade and curvature. The existing traffic signal would be modified to allow for a three-phase movement. For safety and capacity reasons, concrete barriers would be extended at the south approach. On the east side of the bridge, the barrier would be extended to the SR 51 curb to prohibit pedestrians from crossing west to Fourth Avenue. Pedestrians could only cross SR 51 south to Ferree Street. On the west side of the bridge, access on the north side of Fourth Avenue would be restricted by a similar extension of the concrete barrier. These restriction would provide for protected pedestrian crossings, freer vehicular turning movements, and reduced pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. 3-5 The southbound approach roadway was developed using two design speeds. With ^ the 25 mph option, the northern approach roadway and grade are similar to the existing conditions. The 28 degree (204 foot radius) curve is also similar to the existing condition (Figure 3-3). This option requires a minimum amount of right of way and minimum reconstruction of Grand Avenue. This option would not impact the gas regulator building or the storm sewer from Grand Avenue to the Ohio River. (See Rgure 3-3) With the 35 mph option, the approach gradient is slightly less than the existing grade. This approach, which is on a 14 degree curve (radius of 409 feet), is flatter than the existing curve. The existing curve has a degree of curve of about 28 degrees (Rgure 3-4). It would require right-of-way from the parcel east of the roadway. The Columbia Gas Company regulator building and portions of the gas lines to the building would have to be relocated, and a portion of the existing storm sewer from Grand Avenue to the Ohio River would be reconstructed. For Alternative 1, demolition of the existing bridge would occur at the beginning of the project. A six-mile detour route would be required for the entire construction period of 18 to 24 months. 3.3.2 Alternative 2 - New Bridge Skewed East from Southern Abutment Alternative 2 starts at the existing southern abutment but is skewed east (or , upstream) of the existing bridge toward Neville Island. (See Rgures 3-5 and 3-6). It is a two span continuous steel girder unit over the P&LERR, and a three span continuous steel girder unit over the river. Its northern abutment is about 130 feet east of the existing northern abutment. The southern approach would be similar to that for Alternative 1 but the bridge would be at a slight angle. Modifications to the pedestrian access and the traffic signal would be the same as with Alternative 1. With both the 25 mph option and the 35 mph option, the gradient for the northern approach is slightly greater than existing but the curve length is reduced; this provides for improved traffic operation. Both would require right-of-way from the parcel east of the roadway. They would not directly impact the Columbia Gas Company regulator building, but would require relocation of the pipes near the building and the pipe crossing the river. It is anticipated the existing storm sewer would remain. For Alternative 2, the existing bridge would be closed less than 18 months. It would remain open during construction of the northern abutment and pier.

3-O21V«p«ti\Oa2.«wh 3-6 V MSJNN^ FOURTH xi*

is

- V if*- v< /• ...... \ s v--_ CM •. f .-•'. .. ^-^^_t.^'x-___-~~-—.—\-f —:. ^^ "^ x >:, .' 'v

-JOT

ftr 3011(1(9 ix.- \

o Ol

Iro CHAPTER 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION • • . The general study area includes Coraopoiis Borough, Neville Township, and the Ohio River Back Channel. It includes all areas that may experience short- or long-term environmental impacts resulting from the replacement of the bridge. This includes areas associated with the detour routes noted on Rgure 1-2. Figure 4-1 shows the areas near the bridge, its approaches, and the limits of work. The potential environmental impacts for the Build Alternatives, as well as the No Build Alternative, were examined in three general impact categories - Socio-Economic, Natural Environment, and Physical Environment. For each of the categories, technical studies were conducted to establish a baseline profile of existing conditions and to assess the potential impacts of each alternative. Mitigation measures were considered as appropriate. As discussed in section 2-1, three levels of detail were used in the investigation. The determination of the levels of analysis was based on the consideration that the Proposed Action is the replacement of an existing bridge in approximately the same location, and that no significant changes would occur to accessibility and no displacement of residences or businesses would be required. 4.1 Socio Economic Environment This section provides an analysis of the social and economic factors potentially impacted by the project. It covers four primary categories: Regional and Community Growth; Community Cohesion; Displacement of People and Business; and, Public Facilities and Services. 4.1.1 Regional and Community Growth Coordination was conducted with local and regional planning agencies and local officials to identify planned community growth. Regional transportation plans and local land use plans were reviewed. Areas of planned growth were identified as were residential, commercial, and industrial areas and public facilities. The proposed project was then analyzed to determine whether the project would impact existing land use patterns or planned growth areas. The Build Alternatives are not anticipated to induce changes to the development patterns and planned growth for the area around Coraopoiis and Neville Island. A new bridge would have a positive effect on the regional economy and future land development. Completion of the project would provide improvement in truck accessibility to local industries by providing an east-west alternative route to SR 51. This route would complement regional access via the Sewickley Bridge and Interstate Route 79.

3-021Veporti\082.«wh 4-1 «:R3'Oil*'51 ANWHOO avonvu aua axvi ONV HOtmesiiM

flR30US; The loss of access with the No-Build Alternative would have a negative impact on the area. Tne continual closing during cold weather and ioad {imitations restricts accessibility by requiring the use of the detour route. The western end of the Island would lose convenient access to Coraopoiis and adjacent areas. Land uses and overall development would not be impacted by either of the Build Alternatives. Land uses have developed with the bridge in place and its replacement would not impact accessibility. Changes in accessibility can affect development patterns. The No-Build Alternative would also not likely affect land uses. However, some of the commercial uses along Grand Avenue at the western end of Neville Island could be affected by the loss of passing traffic. 4.1.2 Community Cohesion The communities of Neville Island and Coraopoiis are interdependent communities linked together by the Coraopoiis Bridge. Neville Island and Coraopoiis Borough residents share services and the use of various facilities located in each community. In addition, many residents from one community work in the other community. Neville Island is predominantly industrial with a small residential population (1,166)located on the western end of the island. Neville Island has only minimal public services and relies on many of the facilities in Coraopoiis. For example, most religious services for various denominations are located in Coraopotis and students from Neville Island travel to school in Coraopoiis. Also, senior citizens use several community facilities in Coraopoiis including the Golden Age Club. Coraopoiis is more self contained; its population of 6,750 supports a regional shopping district and is served by several churches and schools. However, due to its proximity to Neville Island, many of its residents work at the Island's numerous industrial firms. In addition, Coraopoiis Borough residents use recreational facilities on Neville Island such as the skating rink and bowling alley. The composition of the population of Coraopoiis is somewhat more diverse than Neville Island. It has 12 percent minority residents compared to less than one percent on Neville Island. However, the age distribution is similar; both have about 20 percent of the population over 64 years of age. Either of the two Build Alternatives would support and reinforce the interdependence between the two communities. In addition, the reconstructed roadway approaches would improve safety and ease of travel across the bridge. With the No-Build Alternative, the community interdependence and the various groups such as the elderly would be negatively affected. Depending on the destination, the closing of the Coraopoiis Bridge would require an increase of up to six miles for a trip between the two communities. This would reduce the convenience and accessibility AR30l(i53 of facilities for residents of both communities. The long-term result is likely to include a reduction in the level of interaction and cohesiveness of the communities. With the Build Alternatives, some temporary disruption in accessibility may occur during construction of the bridge and approach roadways. The detour presently used during the winter months when the bridge is closed would be used during the construction period. In addition, a temporary on-ramp from SR 51 to 1-79 northbound has been added at the 1-79/SR 51 interchange. This ramp will stay in operation until the new bridge is completed. No impact on property values is anticipated with the two Build Alternatives since this would involve the replacement of an existing bridge. With the No-Build Alternative, some minor decrease in property value may occur for the commercial properties on the western end of Neville Island on Grand Avenue. This would occur because of the loss of accessibility and visibility from passing vehicles. 4.1.3 Displacements of People and Business Relocations and Replacement Housing - Existing land uses in Coraopoiis Borough consist of a mixture of residential, commercial, and manufacturing uses. The primary commercial district consists of Fourth and Fifth Avenues west of the bridge's southern terminus. The remainder of the Borough is a mixture of industrial and residential uses. Neville Island consists mainly of commercial and industrial uses with two small residential areas east of the Coraopoiis Bridge. The area at the western end of the island was previously industrial; it is now vacant land designated as a Superfund site by the EPA. None of the three alternatives would result in the displacement or relocation of any residences, businesses, or farms and no discussion of replacement housing or relocation assistance is warranted. Both Build Alternatives would involve the purchase of right-of-way to provide for the relocation and improvements to the approach roadways. At the southern terminus, the intersection of SR 51-Ferree Street-Fourth Avenue would be improved. At the northern terminus, some minor modifications would occur at the intersections of Grand Avenue with Alley G and Von Stein Lane. Alternative 2 requires more right-of-way than the Alternative 1 for both the 25 or 35 mph options. About 1.9 acres would be required for the Alternative 1 options versus about 2.1 acres for the Alternative 2 options. The Columbia Gas Company regulator building would be displaced with Alternative 1 (35 mph option). The purchase of land for right-of-way for either Build Alternative may result in a slight decrease in the property tax revenues. The loss in total annual property tax revenue (County, township and/or borough) would be negligible since 2.1 acres or less is

34>21\r»port»\082.«wh 4-3 required for either Build Alternative and the land to be acquired is currently undeveloped. Employment and Economic Activity - Long-term economic activity in Allegheny County and the area around Coraopoiis and Neville Island would not be altered by implementation of either Build Alternative or the No-Build Alternative. With the Build Alternatives, the potential exists for the relocation of industries into the area as the result of access improvements which would be provided by a replacement bridge. This could have a positive effect on the local economy. The Build Alternatives would also produce short-term effects on the economy during the construction period. Jobs in the construction industry would increase together with an increase in the demand for construction materials and related support services. Income generated from these sources acts as a positive multiplier, stimulating the local and regional economy. A clear distinction as to whether income from these sources would be generated within or outside of the local area cannot be made, although it does appear that materials and labor for this project are available within the greater Pittsburgh area. 4.1.4 Public Facilities and Services Public facilities and services are linked between Coraopoiis and Neville Island. The primary impact of the proposed action on public facilities and services involves potential interference with their accessibility and daily operations. Health and Educational Facilities • Students from Neville Island and Coraopoiis Borough attend the Cornell Educational Center in Coraopoiis. The Cornell School District is responsible for transporting students to these public schools as welt as to private school or special educational facilities. As a result of the present load limit on the Coraopoiis Bridge, school buses and vans use a longer detour route which adds 12 miles per trip. This has increased school bus trips between the two communities from 8 to 23 minutes. The continuation of the load limitation and use of detour routes is the primary impact of the No-Build Alternative on educational facilities. Both communities use the Sewickley Valley Hospital in Sewickley, located northwest of Coraopoiis. The removal of limitations on the use of the bridge would eliminate the increased cost and travel time associated with using the detour route. No health or educational facilities would be negatively impacted through displacement, restriction on access, or limitation of future expansion with either Build Alternative. Public Utilities - Both Build Alternatives would require relocation of public and private utilities attached to the existing bridge and located on the approach roadways; however, these would be adjusted with no inconvenience to the utility users. Utilities attached to the existing bridge could be re-attached to the proposed bridge. During

3-021Veportt\082.«wh 4-4 ft R3 011*55 the final design process, the utility companies will be notified of the necessary alterations or relocations of their facilities. With the No-Build Alternative, the utilities attached to the bridge would have to be relocated when the bridge is ultimately removed, Rre, Police, and Emergency Services • Coraopoiis Borough and Neville Island maintain separate fire and police departments. They have a reciprocal agreement for providing each other with assistance and backup as needed. Valley Ambulance Authority, located on SR 51 in Moon Township, provides service to the two communities. The improved accessibility, travel speed, and safety associated with either of the two Build Alternatives would provide a positive benefit to the public services in the area. Replacement of the bridge would reduce mutual aid response times between Coraopoiis and Neville Island and for the other townships and municipalities in the area. During construction, the existing detours via the Sewickley Bridge and I-79 would be used by all vehicles, including school and public transportation, fire and police vehicles, and ambulances. With the No-Build Alternative, the present access for police cars and smaller emergency vehicles would continue during the warmer months until the bridge was closed. Buses and the larger fire and emergency equipment would not be able to use the bridge and would have to travel the detour route between Coraopoiis and Neville Island. Restrictions on the use of the Coraopoiis Bridge increases fire and police trips from 8 to 14 minutes and ambulances from 10 to 13 minutes. Public Transportation - The only regional public transportation service is provided by the Port Authority Transit (PAT) of Allegheny County. Two bus routes used the Coraopoiis Bridge before the load restrictions. At present, a shuttle bus service runs along Grand Avenue from one end of the island to the other. Commuters to and from Neville Island use this shuttle bus to get to the regular stop locations for the PAT buses. A bus stop is located near the bridge in Coraopoiis on Ferree Street and SR51. Port Authority Transit (PAT) buses previously travelled via Neville Island between Coraopoiis and downtown Pittsburgh. Present restrictions have required rerouting buses to SR 51 with a shuttle bus serving the western end of Neville Island. With the Build Alternatives, buses could again use the bridge resulting in improved service for both PAT and school buses. With the No Build Alternative, buses would be unable to use the bridge and would have to travel the detour route between Coraopoiis and Neville Island with the No Build Alternative.

3-021\reporti\082.«wh 4-5 AR30U56 4.2 Natural Environment •• • • • This section provides an analysis of the natural and cultural snviror.msnt features potentially Impacted by the alternatives. Sub-categories under each primary category sre addressed to the level of detail determined during early project coordination. 4.2.1 Geological Resources The reconnaissance geotechnical investigation consisted of several different tasks to evaluate the soils and geology, including review of several reports listed in the Desion Location Report. These addressed the geology of the Pittsburgh area; groundwater resources in Allegheny County; and, subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the existing bridge. Geology - Recent and previous borings taken near the southernmost pier for the existing bridge, Pier 1, indicate that sand and gravel may not be encountered until about elevations 670 to 680, which is at about 65 to 75 feet below the surface. The old boring at the south abutment describes sand and gravel between about elevations 690 and 710, which is 35 and 55 feet, respectively, below the surface. The sand and gravel is expected to be typically medium dense to very dense and, according to the I-79 borings, some loose gravels may be encountered. This formation is also a major aquifer for industrial and municipal water supplies in the area. Soil.- Previously conducted soil investigations revealed contaminated soils at the western edge of Neville Island. Consequently, the western tip of Neville Island has been designated by EPA as a Superfund site. Results of a hazardous waste investigation of the bridge portion of that site are contained in separate reports, which are summarized in Section 4.3.4 of this report. Approach work at the south abutment would be essentially the same for either Build Alternative. No free standing cut or fill slopes are expected since the abutment wingwalls would key Into the existing walls. The work at the northern approach would vary for the two Build Alternatives. Rlls for Alternative 1 would require some keying into the existing approach While fills for Alternative 2 would be completely new. The maximum fill height should be about 25 feet, which is about 4 feet more than the height of the current approach fill. If typical alluvial material is encountered standard fill slopes could be used on either approach. , The soils and geological conditions for bridge foundations for either Build Alternative are considered to be essentially the same. Recent sediment deposits near the surface are not expected to be able to provide adequate support for structure loads and deep foundations will be required for all substructure units. Normal soils exist in the areas for both the bridge foundations and roadway approaches. No mitigation measures are considered necessary.

3-021V«port«\082.«wh 4-6 flR30U57 4.2.2 Productive Agricultural Land/Farming • For this analysis, an inventory of the soil mapping units in Allegheny County was obtained which identified soil units as prime, unique, or of statewide importance. No such soils were identified within the project area. All soils were classified as urbanized. Since no agricultural soils exist in the project area, and there is no active farming in the vicinity of the bridge, there is no impact to productive agricultural land -and the proposed action is In compliance with the federal Farmland Protection Policy Act and Pennsylvania Act 100. 4.2.3 Wetlands This project requires compliance with Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands" dated 24 May 1977; DOT Order 5660.1 A, "Preservation of Wetlands"; and C.F.R. Part 771. Permits are required from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) in accordance with Chapter 105; Dam Safety and Waterway Management Rules and Regulations also require that consideration be given to important wetlands under Subchapter A, Section 1 7. Also, permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 33 CFR Part 320, require consideration be given to the protection of important wetlands. A field survey was conducted with the US Army Corps of Engineers, (ACOE), in May 1989. Based on the background research, a field observation, and this field view, it was determined that no palustrine wetlands would be impacted by the proposed action. This was confirmed at the field view and in subsequent correspondence, as shown in the letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers included in Appendix A. The project would impact the river which is classified as an open water wetland. Impacts to the river would occur as a result of the construciton of the two piers and the removal of the existing pier. In addition to the two new piers, two cofferdams 44' x 36' each will be built in order to construct the piers. A Statewide Wetland Rnding was prepared based on the procedures in PennDOT Strike-Off Letter 430-90-07, Statewide Wetland Finding. Procedures of Implementation, dated January 24, 1990. This included a review of the alternatives considered and potential mitigation measures. Based on these analyses and that the Ohio River Is considered a "Category A" wetland under these procedures, it is concluded: (1) There is no practicable alternative to the proposed project given the following conditions: A. The open water wetland being traversed cannot be avoided at or near the same location; or B. Alternatives to avoid the open water wetland would entail substantial increases in cost, additional economic or social effects or additional effects on other adjacent environmentally sensitive areas; and,

4-7 fl R30U58 (2) The proposed project will include all practicable measures to minimize harm to the Involved open water wetlands which may result from the proposed construction. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be developed to mitigate impacts to the river and any downstream wetlands. The Plan will be developed during final design and approved by the Allegheny County Soil Conservation Service. A Chapter 10S/Section 404 joint permit will also be obtained for the proposed action. The ACOE 404 nationwide permit would apply to this project. 4.2.4 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation The Ohio River and streams in the area would not be adversely impacted by the replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge. Sedimentation pollution could occur during construction. However, sedimentation will be controlled with the implementation of an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared for the proposed action in accordance with the guidelines established by the PADER and reviewed by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. Implementation of control measures in accordance with this plan will mitigate the potential impacts to the river from construction activities. In accordance with PennDOT Strike-Off Letter 430-84-100, an Earth Disturbance Permit would not be required from the PADER since the project would disturb less than 25 acres. 4.2.5 Roodplains For floodplains, the assessment was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 11988, FHPM 6-7-3-2 and U.S. DOT Order 56502 in addition to PennDOT Design Manual, Part 2, Chapter 10, "Drainage Design". A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping was conducted. Information on the 100-year flood discharges was obtained from the Hydrologic Analysis portion of the Rood Insurance Study reports for Neville Township and Robinson Township. In addition, a HEC-2 Backwater analysis was performed. The Coraopoiis Bridge crosses the Ohio River Back Channel at mile 9.6. The 100-year flood elevation in the vicinity of the existing bridge is 717.5 feet, 11 feet above ordinary high water elevation of 706.5 feet. A flood boundary map Is included in Appendix F. Both existing abutments are located within the 100-year fioodplain but above the ordinary high water elevation. The fioodplain is the area'outside of the flood way that is inundated by water during periods of flooding. Both Build Alternatives would have four piers located within the floodway. The floodway is the area necessary to convey flood waters. It is the enlarged river where flood waters are flowing. The HEC-2 backwater analysis presented in detail in the

3-021\report»\082jiwh 4-8 ft R3 OH* 5 9 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report determined that there would be no significant increase in backwater. Backwater will be raised by less than one foot. To minimize the potential for damage from ice flows, the upstream edge of each river pier will be designed with a tapered face to permit the flows to pass. This design along with the increased 300-foot wide horizontal clearance, will permit ice flows to move downstream with minimal obstruction. The proposed structure would also be 20 feet above the 100-year flood elevation to provide adequate vertical clearance above possible ice flow conditions. Short-term impacts are anticipated during the two construction seasons which would be required to build the replacement bridge. Construction methods that would minimize impact would be implemented, it is anticipated that the bridge can be constructed without the use of temporary falsework bents in the navigation channel. If temporary bents are required, this could reduce the horizontal clearance during the period required to erect the superstructure. It is anticipated that floating derricks would be used for bridge demolition and pier and superstructure erection. The Build Alternatives will not increase the risk of flooding and therefore would not create any additional risk to life or property damage. Also, no impact would occur to the natural and beneficial fioodplain. The proposed action would not encourage additional, incompatible fioodplain development, and no avoidance alternatives need be evaluated. As a result no mitigation measures are considered necessary. • . . A joint permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and PADER would be obtained. Any specific mitigation measures necessary for constructing the bridge would be stipulated in the permit. No avoidance, restoration, or preservation measures are warranted since no significant impact would occur. 4.2.6 Navigable Waterways For the navigation evaluation, USGS maps and associated materials on the dams and locks along the Ohio River were obtained and reviewed. This included a review of the vertical and horizontal clearances to evaluate navigation on the Back Channel. This analysis was coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The ACQE requires under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, that a permit be obtained for placing structures in navigable waterways in the United States. A Coast Guard permit will be obtained for this project. The Ohio River Back Channel is used by commercial vessels. Commercial traffic serving several nearby industries includes tow boats and barges up to 50 feet wide. Twice as many commercial boats use the Channel in summer as in winter. The existing bridge at river mile 9.5, provides for a vertical clearance of 45.5 feet and a horizontal clearance of 199.0 feet. The nearest upstream bridge structure over the Back Channel is the Interstate 79 Highway Bridge at mile 8.8. It has a vertical clearance of 45 feet and a horizontal clearance of 301 feet. The nearest downstream

S-021V»port*\082.«wh 4-9 ftR3QU60 bridge structure is the Sewickley Highway Bridge at mile 11.8 with a vertical clearance of 73.4 feet and a horizontal clearance of 724.0 feet. With either Build Alternative, a minimum vertical clearance of 45 feet wilt be provided over the river channel. This clearance will match that provided by the 1-79 bridge located about one mile upstream from the project site. Two new piers will abut the navigable channel and provide a 300-foot horizontal clearance, (also similar to the 1-79 Bridge), about 100 feet wider than the existing horizontal clearance. No mitigation measures are necessary* Though an additional pier will be constructed in the river, the available navigable width would be larger. Thus, overall movement along the river would be improved with the Build Alternatives. 4.2.7 Surface and Groundwater Resources With either of the Build Alternatives, no significant long term risks or adverse impacts would occur to streams, rivers and lakes, or other water resources. The waters in the area of the Coraopoiis Bridge are classified as being protected for use by warm water fish and for navigation purposes. While there are several streams in the vicinity of the existing bridge, none would be affected by either Buiid Alternative. Moon Run and Montour Run enter the Back Channel upstream of the bridge in Robinson Township. McCabe Run is a stream that enters downstream of the Coraopoiis Bridge and is classified as a Warm Water Fishery (WWF). Montour Run is classified as a trout-stocked fishery (TSF). i Investigation was done into the present condition of these and other water resources. Several determinations were made including: the area is not within a coastal zone; the Ohio River Back Channel is not designated as a wild and scenic river, a natural and wild area, or a national natural landmark. It was also determined that no groundwater resources in the area would be negatively impacted by the project. Groundwater in this area is normally in the sandstones which are a reliable source of small to moderate supplies. There are no private water wells in the project area. The area Is served by a public water supply. Possible impact due to storm water runoff was considered. With the proposed new bridge, the storm water runoff over the bridge would be allowed to drop into the river, as it does currently with the existing Coraopoiis bridge. The runoff at the approaches would be collected and sent into the existing storm sewer system off the bridge. 4.2.8 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat The Coraopoiis Bridge crosses a Back Channel of the Ohio River, connecting Neville Island -with Coraopoiis. The bridge terminus in Coraopoiis is urbanized, with residential and commercial uses around the intersection of SR 51 and Ferree Street.

4-10 Natural communities on Neville Island have been profoundly altered by human activity. The ares which would be disturbed with the build alternatives includes a weeded arcs along the river and an adjacent area which is covered with grasses. With either Buiid Alternatives, the impacts to the vegetation and natural features would be negligible and would be limited to the areas of the new piers and replacement abutments. This would require disturbance of about two acres of wooded area, upland area and slope. No wildlife refugees, state forests, or state game lands are in the project area. The area to be disturbed supports small mammals and song birds only and plenty of comparable habitat exists in the area. No mitigative measures are considered necessary. 4.2.9 Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species State and Federal agencies were contacted regarding the presence of protected species in the project vicinity. These agencies include: the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Bureau of Forestry; the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) Bureau of Land Management; the Pennsylvania Fish Commission (PFC) Division of Fisheries Management; and the United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The response from each agency to a Request for Comments are included in Appendix A. The only species listed by any of these agencies as threatened or endangered was identified by the PFC as the midland smooth softshell turtle (Trionvx Mutfcus). However, recent surveys have failed to verify this species occurrence. The proposed project would have a negligible effect on wildlife habitat. Minimal displacement of wildlife habitat would occur with either Build Alternative, and no critical habitat exists for any state or federally listed species. No impacts would occur to any listed species as a result of the project and no mitigation measures are necessary* 4.2.10 Historic and Archeoiogical Resources Historic Resources Based on the Criteria for the National Register of Historic Places included in Title 36, Part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the Coraopoiis Bridge had previously been evaluated and determined to be eligible for the National Register. It was listed on the Register on January 7, 1986. An Historic Structures Survey was conducted to identify any buildings within the project area which could be eligible for the National Register. The survey concluded that, except for the bridge itself, there are no other properties within the corridor which are eligible for the National Register (Appendix A). These findings were forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (PaSHPO) as part of

3-021\raports\082.«wh 4-11 AR30I1*62 the Archaeological Reconnaissance Report. No further coordination for properties other than the bridge was necessary. Appendix C includes Section 106 coordination. As part of the initial investigation, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) was notified on January 5,1989, of the proposed project. An early coordination form was presented to PHMC at that time. Since both Build Aiternatives would require demolition of the historic Coraopoiis Bridge, the PHMC requested the preparation of A Determination of Adverse Effect Report. This report concluded that the proposed project would have an adverse effect on the Coraopoiis Bridge. To mitigate this adverse effect, the existing bridge will be recorded to Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Standards prior to demolition. The HAER report documents the bridge and the elements which lead to its designation as a historic structure. On July 7, 1990 the PaSHPO stated that the Determination of Adverse Effect Report meets the standards set forth by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) for adverse effects documentation. As a result of the Determination of Adverse Effect, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) stipulating measures to mitigate the adverse effect was prepared by Allegheny County and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This MOA is to be executed by FHWA and the PaSHPO, and in turn accepted by the ACHP. Once accepted by ACHP the Section 106 process would be completed. A copy of the Memorandum is included in Appendix C. ' . In addition, a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation is prepared and included in this Environmental Assessment. The Programmatic Section 4(f) applies to bridges on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological Resources The study methodology included a thorough pedestrian reconnaissance survey and early coordination with the PHMC, in order to identify areas requiring archaeological investigation. Background research, including a review of the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files, was also conducted. However, the commencement of the Phase I Archaeological Survey was delayed due to the determination of the potential presence of hazardous waste in the project area. The Build Alternatives may have an effect on potentially significant archaeological resources at the bridge site. The above referenced MOA also stipulated that a Phase I Archaeological Survey will be undertaken either prior to or during the construction phase of the project. Due to the potential presence of hazardous waste materials in the survey area, the PaSHPO agreed that archaeological examination would be confined to the areas that will be disturbed or excavated for the construction of the new bridge. The Phase I Archaeological Survey will be limited to the area of proposed construction on Neville Island, following a record of decision (ROD) issued by the US EPA on the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. A Phase I Archaeological Survey Report will be prepared in addition to the Archaeological Reconnaissance Report.

3-021V«ports\082.«wh 4-12 The archaeological investigation will consist of the excavation of a two-meter square. This test pit will be excavated to soils of the Pleistocene age or to a depth of approximate!'/ 3.3 motors below the existing ground surface. If cultural material is encountered during this phase, a meeting will be held to determine the significance of the findings and the next phase of archaeological work. Unless the cultural material encountered is agreed to be significant on a national level, as stated in the MOA, all additional archaeological work will be confined to the area to be excavated for the replacement of the bridge. Should important archaeological materials be found, the findings will be provided to PennDOT, FHWA, the Coast Gaurd, and the PaSHPO to determine if additional work is required. 4.2.11 Parks and Recreational Facilities Reld observation, literature reviews, and discussions with local agencies were made to identify all parks and recreational lands within the study area. An area west of the northern approach had once been considered for development as a park. However, this proposal has been abandoned subsequent to identification of hazardous materials on the site and its designation as a Superfund site by the EPA. Ownership of the property has been returned to the original owners by the County and the proposal is no longer being considered. Since no parks and recreational areas are located In the vicinity of the bridge, there is no impact to any park or recreational facility due to any of the alternatives. Also, the bridge would riot affect recreational boating on the Back Channel, since both vertical and horizontal clearances would be larger than the existing bridge. No mitigation measures are required.

4.2.12 Energy Conservation The different energy usages by vehicles with and without replacing the Coraopoiis Bridge were analyzed. This difference in energy usage arises mainly from the use of the detour route. A six mile detour is used for travel from Neville island to Coraopoiis by cars during the winter months and by trucks throughout the year. Since a temporary ramp allows entrance from SR 51 to northbound 1-79, the detour route is two miles for travel from Coraopoiis to Neville Island. The detour route would continue to be used with the No-Build Alternative. Table 4-1 lists the annual energy usage for the No-Build and Build Alternatives. For the No Build Alternative, the energy usage with and without the temporary ramp at the I-79/SR51 interchange was calculated. This was done since the length of the period of service of the temporary ramp is not known at present. The energy usage for the alternatives range from a low of 1 .1 31 million gallons for the Build Alternative to 3.074 million for the No-Build Alternative without the temporary ramp. A maximum of 1 .943 million gallons could be saved annually with the shorter route available via a new bridge. 3-021\reporttV082.«wh 4-1fiR30lu.6u3 . TABLE 4-1 - SUMMARY OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN GALLONS OF FUEL BY ALTERNATIVES - 2010 Alternate Annual Vehicle Fuel Consumption in millions of gallons for Travel from Coraopoiis to Neville Island

Year* Swing* UeedbyCar* Ueed by Truck* Total

BUM . 1.007 0.124 1.131 No-BuBd After Temporary 1.843 2.400 0.613 3.074 Remp'e Ueeful Period Nc-BuiU With Temporary Ramp 0.765 1.688 0.208 1.896

r Energy coneumed for construction with buSd alternate • 0.825 mDBon Baflona ' Recovery period of energy coneumad during construction « 1.08 Yean (13 month*) Note: 1. Energy eoneumptkm generated from aquation beeed en department** •impGfied energy enalyii* procedure*. 2. Construction coet lector* extrepoleted to 1890 from factor* end relationship* for year* 1880-1985. The construction of either Build Alternative would result in long-term energy savings. Annual savings of 1.2 million to 1.9 million gallons could be expected. This savings would be due to the reduction in travel resulting from elimination of the load limitation and the winter closure. The estimated energy consumed for construction of either Build Alternative is equivalent to 0.825 million gallons of fuel. The saving in energy consumption would offset the energy cost of construction in about 13 months. No mitigation measures are necessary. 4.3 Physical Environment This section addresses the possible impacts due to Noise, on Air Quality, from Hazardous Waste Materials, and on Aesthetics and Other Values. The discussion on traffic volumes and travel patterns is also in this section and is the basis for the assessment of the air quality and noise categories. 4.3.1 Noise Levels In the vicinity of the bridge, commercial and industrial uses constitute the majority of uses. A few homes are located along Fourth Avenue at the southern end of the bridge. Given the traffic volumes along Fourth Avenue (14,000 ADT, 10 percent trucks) and the proximity of the receptors to Fourth Avenue, it is likely that the ambient noise levels at these dwellings currently approach or exceed FHWA's Noise Abatement criteria level of 67 decibels. Future noise levels will vary near the bridge and along the detour routes for the No Build and the Build Alternatives. These future noise levels depend on whether the bridge remains load limited, is replaced, or is closed. The bridge would remain load limited with the No-Build Alternative. Based on a review of the characteristics of the area, traffic volumes and patterns, it is assumed that with the No-Build Alternative the increase in noise levels would be within 3.0 decibels of existing levels both around the

4-14 flR30|l|65 bridge and along the detour route. A 3.0 decibel increase represents a minor increase ^_y in noise ieveis. Noise levels would be higher along the current .detour routes if the bridge were closed permanently because additional traffic would then be permanently routed to these roadways. Each build alternative would result in some increase in noise levels at the dwellings located approximately 100 feet west of the south end of the bridge. But, given their location on SR 51 and proximity to the railroad tracks, additional traffic from the new bridge would contribute only a small portion of the total noise at these sites. The bridge has been restricted to warm weather operation and three-ton vehicles since July, 1988. Prior to 1988 trucks as well as cars used the bridge all year round. The new bridge is not expected to change the traffic volume or pattern from what it was prior this restricted usage. At worst, traffic will return to 1988 conditions, plus the minor increase in traffic volumes that has occurred since 1988. Therefore, the noise levels around the bridge would return to the level it was prior to the operational restrictions. Noise abatement measures in the project area are not feasible since multiple noise sources exist and barriers would have to have service breaks in order to provide access to residents. Breaks in the barrier would render the barrier ineffective. Short-term increases in noise levels would occur during the construction for either of the Build Alternatives. Construction is expected to last two seasons. Short-term construction noise would be controlled by requiring use of construction equipment meeting specifications set by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). In addition, construction could be scheduled only during daylight hours when those who would be most affected by the noise would not be engaged in activities affected by construction noise. 4.3.2 Air Quality Air quality was analyzed to determine if the project would result in significant air quality impacts to any sensitive receptors in the area. No significant changes would occur to any of the factors affecting air quality. These include traffic volumes, traffic patterns, and indirect sources. The minor change in roadway geometry, travel speed, and operating characteristics would reduce carbon monoxide (CO) output and thus have a minor positive impact on air quality. The detour routes used at present are two and six miles long. The elimination of these detour routes with the replacement of the bridge would reduce the vehicle miles traveled and thus reduce CO emission. ^ Some localized increase in CO emissions would result from the elimination of the present three-ton load limit which would permit trucks and buses to use the fljR30IU66 replacement bridge. However, given the limited projected increase in traffic volumes, this would produce only minor changes in the CO concentrations. The construction phase of any highway project has the potential for temporarily impacting air quality. Impacts can occur from: fugitive dust emissions resulting from grading operations; increased paniculate matter and fumes from operation of heavy diesel equipment; and open burning of waste products. The contractor would be required to comply with all requirements in the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) "Rules and Regulations, Title 25" which defines air quality pollution control requirements. Consequently, no significant construction- related air quality impacts are anticipated since these requirements would provide appropriate mitigation. This project is located in the Pittsburgh non-attainment area and has been classified by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments as a moderate non-attainment area for ozone. In addition, a State Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP) which was revised in 1982, is in effect for the region. The June 7, 1992 EPA/DOT Guidance for Determining Conformity of Transportation Plans. Programs and Projects with Clean Air Act Implementation Plans During Phase I of the interim Period requires that all projects must be part of a conforming Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and lead to the expeditious implementation of SIP projects. On November 15, 1992, the Federal Highway Administration determined that the TIP for the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC), which includes this project, met the requirements of the Interim Conformity Guidance.. 4.3.3 Hazardous Waste During the development of the project alternatives, a study was made to assess the potential of the alternatives to impact hazardous or contaminated waste sites. This study was conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in PennDOT Strike- Off Letter No. 430-85-103, "Consideration of Hazardous Waste Sites Encountered During Highway Project Development" dated September 24, 1985. On Neville Island, the bridge approach crosses a portion of a designated hazardous waste disposal site known as the Ohio River Park Site. This site has been classified as a Superfund Site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Three phases of site investigation have been conducted to date on that portion of the EPA's Ohio River Park site now referred to by EPA as the "Bridge Portion of the Site." In May 1989, geophysical surveys (magnetic and terrain conductivity) of the site were conducted to obtain indications of buried debris and to identify areas of potential groundwater contamination to be targeted for a sampling program. TCL organic and TAL inorganic analysis was conducted on soil and groundwater samples from borings and five monitoring wells. Small traces of acetone and a phthalate compound were 3-C21\reports\082.awh 4-16 AR30U67 detected in two wells and one soil sample, but were believed to be related to laboratory contamination. Two other organic compounds, carbon disulfide and an unknown volatile organic, were also detected in one well, but major contaminants were not discovered during this investigation. The results of the above work are documented in the Phase I Hazardous Waste Report dated November 1989. In early 1990, the five groundwater wells were resampled and surface soils along the proposed bridge approach in a follow up Phase II study as a check upon the findings of the Phase I investigation and to assess the presence of other possible Ohio River Park Site related contaminants on the Bridge Portion of the site. The only contaminant detected in groundwater was a trace of petroleum hydrocarbon (0.58 ppm) found in one well possibly associated with a 1930's era service station. Analytical results on soils did not indicate the presence of hazardous levels of metals or any detectable PCB, herbicides, pesticide, ordioxins and only trace amounts of coal tar derivative semivolatile compounds (< 7 ppm). Based on the findings of this Phase II study, there appeared to be little, if any contamination within the proposed area of construction which is related to the waste disposal activities which occurred at the Ohio River Park Site from the mid-1940's to the mid-1960's. In accordance with an Administrative Order by Consent issued by Region III EPA and accepted by Allegheny County in February 1992, a Focused Remedial Investigation (Rl) and Report which constituted the third phase of study on the site, was prepared for just the Bridge Portion of the Ohio River Park Site. EPA permitted the Bridge portion of the site to be analyzed separately from the remainder of the site to afford the Coraopoiis Bridge project to proceed in advance of the investigation of the entire Ohio River Park Site which is expected to take several years. The primary purpose of the Focused Rl was to characterize soils that workers would be exposed to during bridge construction. To this end, surface and deep soils were obtained and analyzed from 10 locations along the proposed bridge approach and abutment areas. The results of this study have indicated the presence of lead (at non-hazardous concentrations), petroleum hydrocarbons (possibly associated with an old service station or US Naval barracks), and low levels of coal tar derivative semi-volatiles (<6 ppm) in surface soils. Of these, the lead and semi-volatile compounds are believed to be related to regional airborne sources (auto exhaust, Btts^uj^b^irjdustryJ._ Scattered occurrences of trace amounts of PCB's (<79 ppb)/chloradan (2^-p]pbl72, 4-D (14 ppb), 2,4, 5-TP (14 ppb), and cyanide (<9 ppm) were alstrfoiffidTThe origin of these compounds is unknown. PCB's may have been from an old transformer, capacitor, or hydraulic fluid spill. The chlordane, 2, 4-D, 2, 4, 5-TP (14 ppb) and cyanide are commonly used pesticides, herbicides, or rodenticides which could have been used by service station or naval personnel or others. Alternatively, these compounds may be related to the Ohio River Park Site in some unknown way since these compounds were either manufactured, reformulated, or sold by PC&CC (site PRP). In general, the levels of all analytes found on the Bridge Portion are very low compared to the larger NPL site and the vicinity, as indicated by analysis of background and other area samples.

""—"u- 4'17 AR'30 Id'68 Based on preliminary review of the Focused Remedial Investigation Report, EPA has indicated that no significant risk is expected for short term (worker) exposure. Long term residential or occupational exposures are also not likely given the anticipated land use for the site. An assessment of both short and long term risk is expected to be issued by EPA in December, 1992. Based upon that assessment indicating no significant risk, a "no-action" determination is anticipated with EPA's record-of- decision (ROD). This means that no remediation will be required. However, preparation of a health and safety program, to be implemented for construction activities associated with the replacement of the bridge, will nonetheless be required. Based upon the information contained in the Focused Rl and drawing upon the conclusions of EPA's Risk Assessment, EPA is expected to issue a Record of Decision which will permit Allegheny County to move forward with construction of the new Coraopoiis Bridge, subject to the recommendations of the Focused FS for a Health & Safety (HASP) Program. That program includes the development of a HASP to be implemented and enforced by the County for all construction and construction engineering activities. Among other things, the HASP will include the use of an environmental monitor to continually monitor all intrusive activities during construction. Based on the Remedial Investigation (Rl) and the meeting held October 28,1992, the County has committed to the following: 1. Prepare a health and safety plan. ' . • • • 2. Prepare construction specifications to provide monitoring of excavation on site, health and safety oversight, and removal/remedial actions as needed. 3. Use PaDER to establish guidelines for clean-up levels and disposal of material. 4. The HASP will be coordinated through OSHA. 4.3.4 Aesthetics and Other Values Visual quality was assessed from two viewpoints - the views to and from the bridge. Views to and from the bridge for either build alternative would be somewhat different than with the no-build alternative due to replacement of a truss bridge with a plate girder bridge. Views of the new bridge would be a structure with a clean, simple appearance having a contemporary railing and structural system. It would consist of a steel plate girder superstructure in contrast to the existing steel trusses which extend above and surround the travel lanes. Views form the bridge would change because of the loss of the truss which surrounds the roadway. Views would appear more open and less contained. In addition, travel on the bridge would appear as an extension of the approach roadways. Views from the new bridge would be at approximately the same elevation and alignment as the existing bridge. Included is a photograph of a view toward the bridge and from the bridge toward Neville Island. 3-021\r*port»\032.awh 4-18 AR30MT69 No sensitive views would be blocked by the new bridge and no mitigation is warranted.

3-021\report*\082^wh 4-19 &R30H70 View toward existing bridge from Grand Avenue on Neville Island

View from Fourth Avenue/Ferree Street Intersection toward Neville Island at Location of Proposed Bridge AR30IIJ7I CHAPTER 5.0 - COMMENTS AND COORDINATION •'•'-' ' A comprehensive agency and public coordination effort was conducted to assure compliance with relevant procedures and regulations and to determine the potential concerns of the public regarding the project. Agency coordination was initiated through the distribution of early coordination forms to the appropriate agencies. Responses concerning the project have been incorporated into this Environmental Assessment. Response are included in Appendix B. In general, the agencies were in agreement with the project approach and the level of analysis. Several agencies requested a copy of the Environmental Assessment to review. Copies will be distributed prior to the public hearing. Meetings and correspondence were conducted throughout the study. Several meetings were held with officials of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulatory agencies concerning the hazardous waste issue. These meetings resulted in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) as discussed in Section 4.3.3. Extensive coordination was also conducted with the PaSHPO concerning the historic Coraopoiis Bridge and potentially significant archaeological resources in the area. This coordination also resulted in a MOA described in Section 4.2.10, and other agreements concerningarchaeological investigations. Pertinent agency comments and coordination is included in Appendices A, B and C. Public involvement was conducted through special bi-monthly meetings. Newsletters and public announcements were also used to accomplish several objectives including: • educating the public and interested groups about the project; • identifying potential impacts and issues; • and to receive information from local officials and citizens. Due to the extreme public interest in the project, bi-monthly meetings were held with a citizens group. The meetings were attended by interested persons, representatives. of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Allegheny County, the Environmental Protection Agency, and public officials. Updates concerning the project were given at these meetings and questions from the public were answered. Included in Appendix A is selected meeting minutes. Proposed bridge replacement alternatives were presented, as well as the preferred alternative. No comments or concerns with the recommendations were expressed by the public. However, the public was interested in having the new bridge constructed as soon as possible. In addition, six newsletters were distributed to the public in the period from May 1989 to April 1991. These newsletters were prepared in order to keep the public informed of events and progress on activities related to the replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge. Newsletters are included in Appendix A. The results of these meetings and newsletters were that the public was continually updated on the status of the project, as well as issues involved in the development and design of the project. The primary public concern was the closing of the bridge. 3-021Veport*\082.ewh 5-1 AR30|lf72 which occurred during cold weather and restricted access as discussed in this EA. The public was most concerned with being provided with a replacement bridge as soon es possible to minimize the impacts caused by the temporary closing of the existing bridge. Coordination with the public established strong support for the proposed bridge replacement. The opportunity for a public hearing will be announced and if requested, a hearing will be held on the proposed project. The EA will also be circulated to the appropriate agencies and made available to the public prior to the hearing. All comments received as a result of the review of the EA and testimony received at the public hearing, and responses to these comments will be incorporated into the revised EA.

3-021\reporti\082.awh 5-2 AR30U73 CHAPTER 6 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.1 SUMMARY The No Build Alternative would have adverse impacts to community cohesion, public facilities and services, energy conservation, traffic patterns, and on air quality. Figure 6-1 includes a summary of Impacts. The no-build would not meet the project need. Alternative 2 (35 mph option) is recommended as the preferred alternative. This recommendation is based on engineering and environmental studies. Alternative 2 would be less costly, require simpler construction for the north abutment, and increase the maximum safe speed on the north approach by reducing the degree of horizontal curvature. The north abutment would also be located above the flood way. Construction time for Alternative 2 would be three months less than Alternative 1, thereby minimizing the inconvenience of the detour route and related social and economic impacts. This would reduce the amount of energy usage and reduceCO emissions generated by the use of the detour route. Also, it would not require the relocation of the Columbia Gas Company regulator building. Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of two acres of right-of-way; would impact potential hazardous materials; require the removal of the existing bridge, which is National Register eligible; and would impact a potential archaeological site, which wilt \^_^ be investigated during construction. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS As a result of this study, the following conclusions were reached: 1. The proposed action would have a minimal impact on the environment. 2. The proposed action would be beneficial in providing necessary access between Coraopoiis and Neville Island. 3. The existing bridge has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The removal would result in an adverse effect. This impact would be mitigated by the recordatlon of the bridge to Historic Architecture Engineering Record (HAER) standards. This includes a detailed documentation of the bridge through photographs and drawings. A MOA is included in Appendix A. 4. Based on the community involvement program and coordination with federal, state, and local officials, the proposed action is not controversial.

3-021\repoct«\082.awh 6-1 RGURE 6-1 Summary of Impacts Matrix Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement

Effect of Alternatives No Build Build Alternative Alternative Proposed Mitigation for Primary Areas of Concern s s Proposed Action Community Cohesion • O Displacement of People and - - . Businesses Public Facilities and Services • O Wetlands ~ — Surface and Groundwater Resources - - Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat ~ „• Historic Resources — _ • Recordation to HAER Standards •Archaeological Resources ~ - Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and Investigation Energy Conservation • o Traffic Volumes and Patterns " • . o Noise - — Air Quality • 0 Hazardous Waste • — „* A Health and Safety plan will be developed and implemented *Note: Effects limited to period of construction O *= Beneficial Impact - «= No Adverse Impact • = Adverse Impact

3-021\reports\082.owh 6-2 AR30H7.S REFERENCES ; . 1. Technical Basis Report. Coraooolte Bridge. 1991. 2. HvdroloQlc and Hydraulic Report. Coraopoiis Bridge. 1991 3. Desion Location Report. Coraopolis Bridge. 1991 4. Determination of Effect Report. Coraopoiis Bridge. 1990 5. Historical Engineering-Architectural Engineering Recordatlon. Coraopoiis Bridge. 1990

3-021 veporta\082.awh AR3.0W76 UST OF PREPARERS

This report was prepred in cooperation with the County of Allegheny by the follow!."r>.f staff members of HDR Engineering, Inc. ' 'V Wayne Miner, P.E., B.S. Civil Engineering, HDR Project Manager, 34 years' experience. C. David Feske, AICP, R.A., P.E., M.S. Urban Design, B.A. ARchitecture, HDR Technical Director of Environmental Programs, 28 years' experience. Sophie Ali, P.E., B.S. Civil Engineering, HDR Project engineer, 9 years' experience. David D. Patrick, Jr., B.S. Biology, HDR Senior Environmental Scientist, 7 years' experience. Steve Holden, B.S. Civl Engineering, HDR Project Engineer, 3 years' experience. Charles G. Lee, PhD., Geology, Licensed Professional Geologist, 15 years' experience. .

3-021 veport*\082.awh AR30lli77: Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and County of Allegheny

Environmental Assessment Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation

DECEMBER 1992

.AR3Q;U78 TABLE OF CONTENTS ' ' •

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION ...... 1 SECTION II - DESCRIPTION OF THE SECTION 4{f) RESOURCE ...... 2 SECTION III PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS ...... 4 1. No Build Alternative ...... 4 2. Rehabilitation (Alternative A) ...... 5 3. Build Alternatives...... 5 4. Avoidance Alternatives ...... 7 5. Conclusion...... 9 SECTION IV - MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 10 SECTION V - COORDINATION ...... 10

LIST OF FIGURES Rgure 4(f)-1 Project Location ...... 1 Rgure 4(f)-2 Alternatives Considered ...... 4

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1 Truss Configuration ...... 3 Photograph 2 Truss Ornamentation and Pony Truss Spans ...... 3 Photograph 3 Ornamental Railing ...... 3

AR30U79 SECTION I - INTRODUCTION The Coraopoiis Bridge was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on January?, 1986. In addition to its age and history, it is significant as a bridge designed by nationally renowned bridge engineer, Theodore Cooper. This Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared as part of the environmental clearance process for the replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. (See Rgure 4(f)-1) The evaluation fulfills the requirements set forth in Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC 303) and Section 138 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968 states: "The Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any public owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state or local significance as determined by federal, state or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, state or local significance unless: (1) there is no feasible or prudent alternative to the use of such land and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreation area, wildlife and water fowl refuge or i , historic site resulting from such use." The regulations of the Federal Highway Administration require the preparation of a Section 4(f) Evaluation should any Federally aided highway project cause an adverse effect to historic resource determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Applicability of the Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval process for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects that result in an adverse effect to historic bridges was issued by the FHWA in 1983. The Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation is applicable to the Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement Project for the following reasons: 1. The bridge will be replaced with Federal funds. The funding for replacement of the bridge is 80 percent Federal, 15 percent State and 5 percent Local. 2. The project will require the use of a historic bridge which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 3. The bridge is not a National Historic Landmark. 4. The FHWA Division Administrator determined that the facts of the project V^_y match those set forth in this report in the discussions on alternatives, findings, and mitigation. ^______• • • ' • /——————————————————N 1 AR30lAmerican Bridge Company at its plant in Ambridge, Pennsylvania for the Coraopoiis site in 1927 - 1928. Maintenance records kept by Allegheny County since 1913 indicate that no major alteration, other that those made as a result of the relocation were made to the Coraopoiis Bridge since it was constructed. The bridge was originally designed to carry two trolley tracks within the roadway. In the mid- 1940's, Grand Avenue was widened to four lanes, the existing trolley tracks removed, and a single trolley track relocated to the south side of the street. The bridge was constructed at the hew location with a pier located in the center of the Back Channel on the sailing line, the course for barge movement recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The existing structure consists of four simply supported trusses - two 137-foot pony trusses over several railroad tracks in Coraopoiis Borough and two 444-foot camel back trusses which span over the Ohio River Back Channel. Lighting is provided over the bridge deck and the sidewalk (refer to photographs). The bridge carries telephone lines on the west side, and electric lines and cable vision conduits along the west side under the sidewalk. The two simple-span, camel-back trusses have truss members typical of late 19th' century construction. They have paired eyebars and riveted sections, consisting of angles, plates, channels and lacing bars. The truss portals are ornamented with simple decorative ironwork. (See Photograph 1.) Truss members of the pony-truss spans consist of riveted steel sections with riveted joints, typical of 20th century truss construction. (See Photograph 2.) An ornamental steel hand railing is located along the outside edge of the sidewalk. Vi v;

Photograph 1 Truss configuration

Photograph 2 Trass Ornamentation and Pony Truss Spans Photograph 3 Ornamental Railing

A R3 011*85 SECTION HI PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS Alternatives for the replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge originally consisted of two build alternatives and a no-build alternative. Engineering and environmental studies were undertaken on these alternatives. The two build alternatives included a new bridge on the existing alignment; and a new bridge on an alignment skewed to the east of the existing alignment. Both alternatives, which would begin at the existing southern abutment, are described in more detail under Section 3, Build Alternatives. Based on the determination of the potential presence of hazardous waste materials (EPA superfund site) near the north bridge approach on Neville Island, six additional alternatives were developed in an attempt to avoid impacting the potential hazardous waste area. Four of these also serve as Section 4(f) avoidance alternatives since their implementation could allow the existing bridge to remain. A fifth alternative involved rehabilitation of the existing bridge. These alternatives are described in more detail in Section 4, Avoidance Alternatives. The limits of possible alternatives were the end of Neville Island to the west and Interstate Route 79 (1-79) to the east. Bridges beyond these limits would not serve the purpose of providing a local connection between Coraopoiis and Neville Island. It should be noted that Allegheny County as owner of the existing bridge would have to maintain the bridge if it were not removed. The County agrees with the need to remove the bridge. Alternative B, shown on Figure 4(f)-2, would be located just west of the existing bridge alignment. It would be skewed west from the current north abutment on Neville Island. This alternative was determined not to be feasible because it would require major construction and disruption to the community (four businesses and one residence displaced) and could not be connected to Fourth Avenue due to the elevation of the P&LE Railroad tracks. This alternative would also have a greater impact on the Superfund site on Neville Island. In addition to not meeting the established criteria discussed in Section 4, it would still require the removal of the existing bridge. 1. No Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would involve taking no action regarding the proposed project. It would require the continued maintenance of the existing bridge which is posted for a three-ton load limit and include the continued closure during periods of low temperatures. The cost of maintenance would continue to escalate and does not provide a cost effective alternative. The bridge would also have to eventually be closed permanently and is not a viable alternative for long-term preservation of the bridge. ' The No Build would not meet the project need. 4 AR30U87 2. Rehabilitation (Alternative A) This alternative would involve the rehabilitation of the existing bridge on its current alignment. Due to the condition of the bridge, this would involve rather extensive repairs to both the superstructure, as well as the substructure (piers). The rehabilitation alternative would also require an expensive and complicated temporary support system in order to make the required repairs. Furthermore, continued maintenance would still be required, making this alternative relatively expensive when compared to other rehabilitation alternatives. This alternative would only provide approximately 10 additional years of service life to the bridge and is not considered economically feasible. This alternative does not meet the project need of providing a permanent bridge replacement. Also, the existing bridge could not be widened to accommodate the third lane of traffic and would have to be closed while most of the repairs are made. This alternative would still impact the 4(f) status of the bridge due to the extent of repairs. 3. Build Alternatives. The two build alternatives were developed'based on "Urban" design criteria for arterials. For both alternatives, the existing bridge superstructure, abutments and piers would be dismantled and removed. Both Build Alternatives would have four piers, two in the Back Channel and two on the southern shore of the Back Channel. They would also include three 12-foot travel lanes and two, three-foot watertables (shoulders). Two lanes would serve southbound traffic and one lane northbound traffic. On the bridge, a six-foot sidewalk, which meets handicapped standards, would be provided and separated from the shoulder by a concrete barrier. Each alternative provides 45-foot minimum clearance over the river and 22.5 feet over the P&LERR tracks. This is approximately the same as the clearances provided by the existing bridge. Two options which could be implemented with either build alternative were developed for the northern approach using design speeds of 25 and 35 mph. For both options, the approach roadway would taper from the existing 50-foot width on Grand Avenue to the 42-foot width on the proposed bridge. New Bridge on Existing Alignment (Alternative C) Alternative C involves a new bridge on the existing alignment. It is a two span continuous steel girder unit over the P&LERR, and a three span continuous steel girder unit over the river. 5 AR~30ll»88 At the south approach, the bridge would connect at the existing SR 51 intersection. ^ The approach would be modified to improve access from SR 51 to the bridge and from the bridga to Fourth Avenue. Modification would include widening of the roadway, new curbs and modification of grade and curvature. The existing traffic signal would be modified to allow for a three-phase movement. For safety and capacity reasons, concrete barriers would be extended at the south approach. On the east side of the bridge, the barrier would be extended to the SR 51 curb to prohibit pedestrians from crossing west to Fourth Avenue. Pedestrians could only cross SR 51 south to Ferree Street. On the west side of the bridge, access on the north side of Fourth Avenue would be restricted by a similar extension of the concrete barrier. These restriction would provide for protected pedestrian crossings, freer vehicular turning movements, and reduced pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. The southbound approach roadway was developed using two design speeds. With the 25 mph option, the northern approach roadway and grade are similar to the existing conditions. The 28 degree (204 foot radius) curve is also similar to the existing condition (Rgure 3-3). This option requires a minimum amount of right-of- way and minimum reconstruction of Grand Avenue. This option would not impact the gas regulator building or the storm sewer from Grand Avenue to the Ohio River. (See Rgure 3-3). With the 35 mph option, the approach gradient is slightly less than the existing grade. ^ .. This approach, which is on a 14 degree curve (radius of 409 feet), is flatter than the existing curve. The existing curve has a degree of curve of about 28 degrees (Rgure 3-4). - ' Alternative C would require right-of-way from the parcel east of the roadway. The Columbia Gas Company regulator building and portions of the gas lines to the building would have to be relocated, and a portion of the existing storm sewer from Grand Avenue to the Ohio River would be reconstructed. In addition, it would require the removal of the existing Coraopoiis Bridge and may impact archaeological resources. For Alternative C, demolition of the existing bridge would occur at the beginning of the project. A six-mile detour route would be required for the entire construction period of 18 to 24 months. New Bridge Skewed East from Southern Abutment (Alternative D) Alternative D begins at the existing southern abutment but is skewed east (or ' upstream) of the existing bridge. It is a two span continuous steel girder unit over the P&LERR, and a three span continuous steel girder unit over the river. Its northern abutment is about 130 feet east of the existing northern abutment. .The southern approach would be similar to that for Alternative C but the bridge would be at a slight angle. Modifications to the pedestrian access and the traffic signal would be the same as with Alternative C. 6 AR30UB9 With both the 25 mph option and the 35 mph option, the gradient for the northern approach is slightly greater than existing but the curve length is reduced; this provides for Improved traffic operation. Alternative D would require right-of-way from the parcel east of the roadway. It would not directly impact the Columbia Gas Company regulator building, but would require relocation of the pipes near the building and the pipe crossing the river. It is anticipated the existing storm sewer would remain. In addition, it would require the removal of the existing Coraopotis Bridge and may impact an archaeological site. For Alternative D, the existing bridge would be closed less than 18 months. It would remain open during construction of the northern abutment and pier. Preferred Alternative Alternative D, with the 35 mph option, is the preferred alternative. This alternative meets the project need of providing a replacement bridge near the location of the existing bridge to provide access between the two communities. This alternative would also provide an upgrade of the bridge approach on Neville Island to current design standards. This alternative, referred to as Alternative 2 in the Environmental Assessment, would create no socioeconomic impacts and does not require any relocations. This alternative would also impact less of the potential hazardous waste site and much of the area of reconstruction has already been disturbed. It has the least potential to affect a significant archaeological site since much of the area has been disturbed. Based on the alternatives analysis, it is the preferred alternative from an engineering viewpoint, it fits in well with the existing street system and travel patterns, and would be the least costly. Based on engineering and environmental considerations, Alternative D is the preferred alternative. . 4. Avoidance Alternatives The general criteria for developing avoidance alternatives included providing a replacement river crossing; connecting to the existing street system; and minimizing community disruption. Rve avoidance alternatives were developed that would avoid the "use" of the resource as required under Section 4(f) guidelines. In addition to their engineering feasibility, potential community disruption and impacts to vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns, each alternative was reviewed for potential involvement with wetlands, known archaeological sites, and hazardous waste. The following describes each avoidance alternative and the reasons for eliminating them from further study. • • ' - - '•'.•• Each alternative is shown on Rgure 4(f}-2. 7 AR30i:ii-9.0 Maw Bridge Upstream at St. George Street - (Alternative E) This alternative would be located parallel to and sbout one-quarter mile east (or upstream) of the existing bridge alignment. It would extend from Grand Avenue on Neville Island and connect into St. George Street in Coraopoiis. The length of the structure would be 1,185 feet. It would require extensive realignment of the streets on Neville Island and in Coraopoiis. In addition, it would necessitate a major embankment on the southern approach in Coraopoiis affecting the P&LERR tracks. Three businesses and one residence would be displaced. This alternative would meet the project need. Alternative E was eliminated because it would cost significantly more than the preferred alternative; would be more disruptive to the community requiring displacements and extensive street realignment. This alternative would still create a visual impact of views to and from the 4(f) resource. New Bridge Upstream at Vine Street - (Alternative F) Alternative F, located just east of Alternative E, would also be parallel to the existing bridge. It would connect Grand Avenue on Neville Island to Vine Street in Coraopoiis. The length of the structure would be 1,355 feet. This alternative would not require the extensive street realignment, embankment construction, or displacements resulting from Alternative E. This alternative would impact wetlands on the Coraopoiis side near the railroad, in addition to impacting potential hazardous waste associated with the railroad. Alternative F would meet the project need. This alternative was eliminated due to its impacts on wetlands and potential hazardous materials. This alternative would also create a visual impact of views to and from the section 4(f) resource and should not be considered a total avoidance alternative. New Bridge Upstream at Oak Street • (Alternative Ql This alternative is about one-half mile upstream of the existing bridge. It would connect Grand Avenue on Neville Island to SR 51. The length of the bridge would be 1,715 feet. Alternative G would require displacement of 16 residences on Neville Island. This alternative would not fit into the existing street system on the Coraopoiis side since a "T" intersection would be required with SR 51. It.would also potentially impact hazardous waste on both sides of the river at the railroads. This alternative would meet the project need. 8 A R3 Oil* 91 Alternative G was eliminated due to the extensive community disruption it would create, as well as its potential impact on hazardous materiais. Uoorada Interstate 79 interchange • (Alternative H) This alternative involves the widening of Interstate 79 (1-79) and the completion of the Groveton Interchange at its southern approach in Robinson Township at SR 51. This construction would provide access to and from Neville Island from SR 51. This alternative would require local traffic to use the interstate and involves an additional two mile route between Coraopoiis and Neville Island. It would sever an important link between Neville Island and Coraopoiis and would require one business and one residential displacement. It was eliminated for the following principal reasons: • Local traffic must use interstate route; • Displacement of one business and one residence; • Eliminates sidewalk and proposed water line between Coraopoiis and Neville Island; . • Requires PAT and local school buses to use shuttle buses or circuitous routes • to serve the west end of Neville Island: • Results in only one local bridge to serve Neville Island; and, • Severs link between residential western end of Neville and community facilities in Coraopoiis. Alternative H would not meet the project need. While all five of the above Alternatives could be constructed without requiring the demolition of the existing bridge, they would not promote the long term preservation of the historic resource. Maintenance of the bridge would be continued and it would require Allegheny County's funding to maintain a structure that might be eventually used for pedestrian only. Maintaining the bridge is not a cost-effective alternative. 5. Conclusion There is no prudent or feasible alternative which would meet the project need and avoid impacting the Coraopoiis Bridge. The preferred alternative best meets the project need and is the recommended alternative.

AR30ll*92 SECTION IV - MITIGATION MEASURES , ' The proposed project would require the dcmciiticr, cf the existing Coracpolis Bridge. Therefore, A Determination of Adverse Effect Report has been prepared. In June of 1990, the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission concluded that the proposed project would have an adverse effect on the Coraopoiis Bridge (See Appendix C). The mitigation proposed in the report is the recordation of the structure. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the Coraopoiis Bridge has been submitted for review and concurrence. The MOA stipulates that the recordation of the Coraopoiis Bridge will be executed to Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards. A Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) report has been prepared. The HAER report documents the bridge and the elements which lead to its designation as a historic structure. It includes a historic report which documents the history of the structure at its previous site. Sixth Street, and at its current site. In addition, archival photo documentation records the structure as it exists currently and as it was historically. The photo documentation consists of 4x5 photocopies of historic views, and 8x10 views of bridge drawings. All documents wilt be prepared with in archival quality materials for submittal to the Library of Congress. Copies will be prepared for PennDOT and Allegheny County use. '••-. ••••.' SECTION V - COORDINATION The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) was notified on January 5,1989, of the proposed project. An early coordination form was presented to PHMC at that time. The PHMC responded to the project notification letter on February 6, 1989, requesting the preparation of a statement that applies the ACHP criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect (See Appendix C). Pursuant to implementing procedures set forth in 36 CFR Part 80, a Determination of Adverse Effect Report was prepared. The report concluded that the proposed project will have an adverse effect on the Coraopoiis Bridge. The mitigation proposed in the report is the recordation of the structure. On July 7, 1990 the Bureau for Historic Preservation at the PHMC stated that the Determination of Adverse Effect Report appears to meet the ACHP standards. As a result of the Determination of Adverse Effect, a Memorandum of Agreement stipulating measures to mitigate the adverse effect was executed by the Federal Highway Administration and the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer. PADOT and Allegheny County have concurred in MOA and the MOA has been forwarded to ACHP for review. The ACHP accepted the Memorandum of Agreement, thus concluding the Section 106 process for the project. A copy of the Memorandum is included in Appendix C.

10 AR30H93 ^^^Sf^lpf^ "-T^-^-r 1 • ' •'.•"'•'. -*...-•'.. VY :•:•'.-":.••.•'•-'• -.''•;' . ' " • • • , - ...

APPENDIX A PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE AND MINUTES OF MEETINGS

AR30U914 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESEARCH SERVICES. Inc S£LX£i. 403 E. Walnut Avenue North Wales. PA 19454 215-699-8006

0. Wayne Miner December 19, 1988 HDR Richardson Gordon 3 Gateway Center Pittsburgh. PA 15222 RE: Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement

Dear Mr. Miner: '

I have completed the architectural survey of the structures within the project corridor and wanted to tell you that there are no (0) historic structures within the project corridor. The only historic structure is the existing bridge, which you are recording to HAER standards. I have visited the site, checked with the local historical society, checked the PHMC site files, as well as the National Register files and there are no sites within the corridor. We do not feel that it is necessary to write this material up in a separate Historic Structures Survey Report when there are no structures. We will discuss the results of the survey in a separate section within a "Cultural Resources Survey Report." Since you wanted the results of the Historic Structure Survey by January 15, can this letter or a more formal letter act as a substitute in stating that there are no historic buildings or -structures other than the bridge in the corridor?

Please ask the individuals at Allegheny County if this will suffice, and let us know.

Sincerely,

Alan D. Tabachnick Preservation Specialist

IR30U9S, ARCHAEOLOGY. ARCHITECTURE, AND PRESERVATION SERVICES United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Suite 322 • c_ - 315 South Alien Street 5 C'n.- State College, Pennsylvania 16801 2? ^;~^ January 23, 1989 :r: •' * V Mr. Herbert C. Higginbotham ^ .•'•-7 Department of Engineering and Construction ea • County of Allegheny co 501 County Office Building Forbes Avenue and Ross Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Dear Mr. Kigginbothais: We have reviewed the plan of study for the proposed Coraopoiis Bridge replacement as requested in your January 5, 1989 letter. We concur with the level of review considering the heavily developed study area. On January 10, 1989, four federal agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers adopted "A Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictions! Wetlands". We, therefore, recommend use of this method to identify wetlands within the project area. -iv?5:Exceptvfor';occasionalL.trahsient.-spec1es, no federally listed or proposed" .c.'-ii?.threatened or,endangered species under our jurisdiction .are known -to exist-in r--._4Jtne project, impact area.. ^Therefore-, no Biological Assessment-or-further r; ;' - • ""'-Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat.. 884, as ..«. » v-L.amended;-16.U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required with the Fish and Wildlife•''•'•• • " ".^Service.^-Should project plans change, or if additional information-on listed -•-or proposed species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. for-the'early opportunity to review this project. Sincerely, " . •

Charles J. Kulp Supervisor COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1026 . > . -at*£r~«**r HAWHS8URC. JEW NSYlVftNIA 17108-1025 x— /

February 6, 1989 '.* ,• '

Herbert C. Higginbotham = ": County of Allegheny. e5. - Department of Engineering * and Construction • <-=» 501 County Office Building Forbes Avenue fi Ross Street • • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Re: 89-0462-003-A Coraopoiis, Allegheny County ; Replacement of Coraopoiis Bridge Dear Mr. Eigginbothan: The above named project tas been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980,- and the regulations (36 CFR Part ^ . 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and arena, -©logical resources. Because historic resources on or eligible for the National Register (listed below) are in the project area and because of the nature of the project activities, it is our opinion that • there will be an effect on historic resources and that the effect may be adverse. To comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, you must prepare a statement that applies the Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect (see 36 CFR 800.9 attached). This information should be sent to the Bureau for Historic Preservation. • . Coraopoiis Bridge Zf you need further information in this matter please consult Joanne Keim at (717) 783-8946 or 783-8947. Sincerely,

Brenda Barrett t-; " Director BB/JK ' cc:. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

fi'R30ll»97 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES '"^ - 1 7935

a ^VHMM ^ffljjj . Harrisbu*gt Pmrwayfvanta 17120 HO* | M ^^^I^W^^W ^^^fe • • « ' ' . Secretary's Office of Poffcy (717) 7S3-1566 February 14, 1989 S1 r./V;

Herbert C. Higginbotham, II, P.E., Director g ^'7- Department of Engineering and Construction a.- ;~,r!= County of Allegheny ^ X 2 5 501 County Office Building —' gg ~5- Fortes Avenue and Ross Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Dear Mr. Higginbotham: The Department of Environmental Resources has reviewed the Early Coordination Form and related materials for the proposed replacement of Coraopoiis Bridge, Allegheny County. We offer the following comments: ' •. i 1. If material from the bridge is to be disposed of, it must go to an approved landfill. If sand blasting will be done on the bridge, the residual material must be collected and disposed of at a proper residual or hazardous waste disposal site. Permits may be secured through DER's Pittsburgh Regional Environmental Protection Office, (412) 645-7100.' . 2. Activities proposed for this project are subject to regulation under the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act and will require a Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit. The EPA three parameter methodology to delinea^e^wetlands. will be required when submitting the Chapter 105 joint permit application. A 401 certification will also be needed from . ' the Bureau of Dams and Waterway Management, (412) 899-2377V. The Early Coordination Agency Response Form has been enclosed with our comments. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review this project. Si

r"t3. Carlson,;»Director-;. ••s Office of Policy •

V1 Pv* *w 1 *+ «*** «•«« '

AR30U98 84t Owitnui Stresi us.Depcrtn-.en? ' Suue/u oMtanspononon frn £ /;.... ,., pn-uwa.PA 19,0; Urban Moss ' ' *•*••' to MAR 2 Transportation ^ c AdmfnistratJon

Mr. Herbert C. Eigginbottcm, H Director County of Allegheny Departnsnt of Engineering and Obstruction SOI County Offica Building Fortes and Ross Avenues Pittsburgh, Fenrs/lvania 15219

Re:

Our review has dstesnined that the prqxised project contains no significant mass transportation, issues and we have no coanents to offer. Should you need *y^M t"i **"•** v ^p^flT^nat-4 m piesuse (215) 597-4179. •

Sincerely, v ,, ,-,. -V Sheldon A. Kinbar Regional Ifenager

fiR30|ti99 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES BUREAU OF WASTE MANAGEMENT Highland Building 121 South Highland Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206-3988 (412) 645-7100 (answers 24 hrs.) April 7, 1989

Mr. 0. Wayne Miner HDR Richardson Gordon, Inc. Three Gateway Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1074 RE: Coraopoiis Bridge Project Ohio River Allegheny County Dear Mr. Miner: This 1s in reply to your March 8, 1989 letter requesting information regarding uncontrolled hazardous waste sites or closed or inactive (100 or 300 series) solid waste sites near the proposed project. Please be advised that this project is located directly adjacent to the Ohio River Park on Neville Island. There is extensive contamination of soils and ground waters at the site.caused by past disposal of various hazardous wastes such as pesticides and coking sludges, as well as non-hazardous demoli- tion wastes and slag. The Department is currently evaluating further remedial action for the site and has referred the site to the U.S. EPA as a potential National Priorities List site requiring clean-up. Please recall that your firm was one of several consultants who investigated this matter for Allegheny County after they commenced development of a park at the site. Your files should provide additional information regarding the exact location. You are welcome to review the Department's files in this matter. I would strongly suggest that the exact location of buried wastes be determined prior to any excavation activities for the proposed project. If you have any further questions, please contact James Shack at the above number. Sincerely,

Gale Campbell Operations Chief GC:bc cc: County Region Chron J. Shack flR30:l500 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PITTSBURGH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILLIAM S. MOORHEAO FEDERAL BUILDING 1000 LIBERTY AVENUE. PITTSBURGH, PA 15222-4US June 9, 1989

Mr. David D. Patrick, Jr. Environmental Scientist HDR Engineering Incorporated Suite 225 5100 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609-1806 Dear Mr. Patrick: I refer to the proposed bridge replacement and realignment of the Coraopoiis Bridge between Coraopoiis Boro and Neville Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. . Based on a field view of May 25, 1989 by Mr. Richard Sobol of this office, we have determined that this project would not affect any regulated wetlands. A, permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will not be required. Before beginning work on this project you must receive • appropriate authorization from the O.S. Coast Guard and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. We have enclosed for your convenience a copy of the joint application . forms and guidebook to apply for your state permit:. The address for the Coast'Guard permit ist Mr. Roger Weibush Chief, Bridge Branch 2nd Coast Guard District 1430 Olive Street St. Louis, Missouri 63103 The phone number is 314-425-4607. Thank you for your attention to this*matter. Sincerely,

Eugene J. Chief, Regulatory Branch Enclosures

flRSOISOl COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF RESOURCES BUREAU OF FORESTRY P.O. BOX 1467 HARRISBURG, PA. 17120 717/787-3444 June 20, 1989

.Mr. David.D. Patrick, Jr. _ ~ HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 225 5100 V. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609-1806

Ret Presence of Inventory-Listed Species near Coraopoiis Bridge, Coraopolis, PA

Deer Mr. Patrick:

• request j;to-'.^reviev;the;area~for.;the .proposed'bridge jr:?repalriin .Coraopoiis, "-LPennsylvani a *vas processed-using the ••- ;:^^Pennsylyania..Hatural. .Diversityl-.Tnventcry. (PNDI). A^.specific^; rch'bf .the current" PNDI.Vocational, data fields.did"*.not reveal /natural-.resources of. special concern.in the.project .area. • •". - ": -Please'.remember, that legal authority^ f or Pennsylvania's ^biological-, resources .-resides vith three ^administratiy el agencies. . '.". The 'enclosure titled, '• PNDI "Species List," outlines Vhich species groups are managed by these -agencies. .'. Although PNDI functions solely as'."an information .system for natural resources.of concern, •the Pennsylvania Game Commission -maintains the Fish and Wildlife Data Base•vhich can provide data descriptive of all mammals and birds common to Pennsylvania. PNDI is a site specific information system vhich describes significant natural resources of Pennsylvania. PNDI includes data descriptive of plant and animal, species of special concern, exemplary natural communities and unique geological features. The data system is coordinated and maintained by the Department of Environmental Resources vith technical assistance 'from the Nature Conservancy and the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. This response represents the most up-to-date summary of the PNDI data system. Hovever, the data is not intended to be a conclusive compilation of the special concern resources at the project site. On-site biological surveys are recommended to better asssess. the natural resources of the project area. Thank You for using PNDI as part of your environmental review. Support for PNDI is predominantly derived from the Wild ftR30l502 Soscurce Conservation Fund vhich reelsves monies from the Pennsylvania State Income Tax Checkoff and from direct donations. Since the Department of Environmental Aeeources does not charge for PNDI information, enclosed is a llyer which explains the procedure whereby donations may be made to the fund should your firm wish to contribute. Please phone this office if you should have questions pertinent to this response, PNDI or the Department of Environmental Resources plant program.

Sincerely,

Kathy A. McKenna, Botanist Forest Advisory Services Bureau of Forestry

*'£?! J.-vViLr* . - -jfc.--.r-. •* • ;„—. ••. ,j-?- .- . , .^.•<]c-'.-.r-.- •^-- .Ti •".-• " * '• —'~-»:iCT" * ' •£-*£--»>*. .f'

-a? v.~r;:T:: .-:CCt/Charles Bier"PNDI-WEST" " r~* ;.;.. ~ " * John Arway, Pa. Fish Commission , •Jake Sltlinger,'. Pa. Game Commission

RECEfVD JJN2RI989

4- HDi, IMC. TAHPA. FLORIDA

flR30l503 PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL DIVERSITY INVENTORY . SPECIES LISTS

The statutory authority for Pennsylvania's animals and plants resides with three separate agencies. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources has the responsibility for the management of the Commonwealth's native wild plants. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission is responsible for the management of fish, reptiles, amphibians and aquatic organisms within the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania Game Commission has the responsibility for managing the state's wild birds and mammals. For information on current official status for a species, please consult the appropriate agency. Requests for information should be directed tot

PLANTS Botanist *'• Pa. Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Forestry - FAS P. 0. Box 14S7 Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717)787-3444 FISH, REPTILES. Endangered Species & Herpetology Coordinator AMPHIBIANS, Pennsylvania Fish Commission AQUATIC ORGANISMS . Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering 450 Robinson Lane Beliefonte, PA 16823 (814)359-5113 '.-'"' " ' . • BIRDS and MAMMALS Nongame and Endangered Species Coordinator • Pennsylvania Game Commission Bureau of Game Management P. 0. Box 1567 Harrisburg, PA 17105-1567 (717)362-3930 or (717)787-5529 In addition, groups of species not referenced above may have official federal status (e.g., invertebrates). For information contact: Endangered Species Specialist U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service One Gateway Center, Suite 700 . Newton Corner, MA 02158 (617)965-5100

Thank you for your request. Feel free to contact PNDI if we can be of further assistance.

fl-R30'l:50:i* •» -' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION Division of Fisheries Management <50 Robinson Lane Bdtefona. FA 16823-95!6 June 20, 1989

HDR Engineering, Inc. David D. Patrick, Jr., Environ. Scientist 5100 W. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33609-1806 Dear Mr. Patrick: I have examined the map accompanying your recent correspondence which shows the location of the proposed bridge replacement in Neville Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Among the species of amphibians and reptiles we currently list as endangered or threatened only the midland smooth softshell turtle (Trionyx muticus) Is recorded from the Ohio River at Neville Island. The record dates back to before the turn of the century (see enclosures) and recent river turtle surveys have failed to verify this species' extant occurrence In the Commonwealth. Enclosed 1s some information'concerning endangered and threatened species under our jurisdiction and that of the Game Commission. i *, Sincerely,

Clark N. Shlffer, Coordinator Herpetology and Endangered Species

mam Encl. cc: R. Snyder

flRSOISOS FBOTCCT • CONSERVE • CMHANCE ADMNOTIUTIVC BUHCAUS B .. COMMONWEAUH OF PENNSYUAN1A

iwfOWMnON » couonoN ...... Utt* KN>!0«CiM£X7 ...... rcT-WTt MEM. ISWC DIVISION. MANAGEMENT MFOfUMnON SX31 ELMERTON >WENUE g tvfTBMS ...... w-on HARRISBURG. PA 171 104797 July 17, 1989 RECEIVED JUL *'*'•- Mr. David D. Patrick, Jr. HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 225 5100 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609-1806

In re: Allegheny County 'V Coraopoiis Bridge, Coraopoiis, FA

Dear Mr. Fatrick: This is in response to your letter requesting our review and comments to the above referenced project. An office review has determined that no significant adverse effects on wildlife or wildlife habitats are expected V to result from the proposed construction. However, should plans change or if additional information on threatened or ..,/ endangered species becomes available or if any direct or "c"1 indirect Impacts to wetlands occur, this determination may be '"•-. reconsidered. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Gregory Grabovicz or Mr. Robert Gulp at 2001 Elmerton Aye., Harrisburg, FA 17110-9797, telephone area code 717-783-5957. Very truly yours, 0 - : Jacobvl. Sitlirfg>r, Director Bureaic of Land Management "

«;R30I506 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BOXIOZf KAR1USBVM. Jun« 7, 1990

Fred V. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Trasportation 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, FA 17120

R«t ER 89-0462-003-B Allegheny County Coraopoli* Bridge Replacement D«termination of Adverse Effect Report

Dear Mr. Bovserr The Bureau for Historic Preservation baa reviewed the above-referenced report. It appear* to meet ths Advisory Council'* standard* for Adverse Effect Documentation (36 CFR Part 800. 8(b) 6 (d). However* tht section called: Zdeafciflcatlon of Historic Properties* failed to mention the presence of archaeological sites under the bridge and what action* art being taken to evaluate these sites and their mitigation. Please add thi* to your report. tf you need further information in thi* natter please consult Susan K. Zacher at (717) 783-9920. Sincerely,

Kurt V, Carri Chief Division of Archaeology and Protection ect Advi*ory Council on Historic Preservation D. Sucui* PDOTt Bur. of Design D* Backman, PDOT, Bur. of Design KC/smc

AR30I507 COMMONWEALTH OP PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU TOR HISTORIC ?RS3SSVKT,C;S 60S1C2C HARIUSBUftO. PENNSYLVWU ITtOt-tOM 7/2/90 Fred H. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design, Department of Transportation, 1118 T & 8 Bldg. Karrlsburg, Pa. 17120 Res 50-0673-003 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement, Allegheny Cty. Dear Mr. Bowser i The abov* named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance- with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Our comment* ere summarized below* 1) This report was well done and meets the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Archaeological Properties as well as Pennsylvania State Guidelines for Archaeological Survey* 2) Sea page 26. He concur with your consultant's general recommendation that Phase t inventory take place if alternative 2 is selected. Ha further agree that Phasa Z inventory should taka place only after the questions of hazardous materials buried on- site have been resolved. He will comment on the specific numbers and locations of proposed subsurface tests when we are provided with a detailed topographic plan of alternative 2. 3) Please not* that the existing Coraopoiis Bridge was Hated on the National Register of Historic Places on 1/7/66. Pleas* consult with our office regarding the effects of the project on this resource. - - ' '" If you have any questions or comments regarding yea* proposals for archaeological survey for this project, please contact Joe Baker at (717) 783-9900.

AR30I508 Page 2 • If you have any questions or co*Gi«ntfi ?tto.*rding the of this project on the Coraopoiis Bridge itself, plea*e contact Susan Zacher at (717) 783-9520. Sincerely,

Kurt H. Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology and Protection CC: FHH*

AR30I509 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX1029 HARHfSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1020

June 4, 1991 FEED W BOWSER, DIRECTOR BUREAU OF DESIGN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 118 T 6 S BUILDING * •"':",'' : HARRISBURG PA 17120 • • * •.- -'-.I <••;. *.c »• .•;;/•: ' Re» ER| 90-0673-003-B Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Allegheny County

Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. " We cannot agree to your request that the Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement project be exempted from further archaeological investigation at this time. This determination should be made after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has concluded their investigation of the status of the site. Due to the archaeologically sensitive nature of this project area, we still recommend that a Phase I archaeological survey of the project area be conducted after the questions of on-site haeardous materials have been resolved. If you need further information in this matter please consult the Section of Archaeology &t (717) 783-9900. Sincerely,

Kurt w. Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology & Protection KCtdah

1R30I5IO UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION Of 041 Chestnut BuBdlng Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 18107 FEB2 Honorable Harris Wofford United States senator 1306 Liberty Canter Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Dear Senator Woffords This is in response to your letter of January 30, 1992 to Mr. Patrick Gaughan, community Relations Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"} in Wheeling, West Virginia, regarding tha concerns of your constituent, Mre. Hae Readier, chairman of tha Coraopolis-Naville Island Bridga Committee about the progress of the investigation of tha portion of the Ohio River Park Superfund site (tha "Site") affected by the proposed bridge project. Tha proposed bridge project includes an abutment and access roadway located on tha site, vhich is ona of approximately 95 sites in Pennsylvania on tha National priorities List. The potential disturbance of Sita contaminants, if any, in tha portion of tha Site affected by tha proposed bridga project and the potential risk to public health and welfare as a. rasult of W tha project dictate that the affect of the project on tht Site be v carefully considered and tha project be planned accordingly. EPA has been working vith representatives of Allegheny County to expedite a resolution of tha issues. EPA has negotiated an Administrative order by Consent ("Consent Order") vith Allegheny County, on January 24, 1992, EPA sent a final draft of the Consent order to Allegheny County for signature. EPA has just received tha signed Consent Ordar from Allegheny county and intends to sign it in the Region. After EPA executes the Consent Order and returns a fully executed copy to the County, it will become effective three business days following tha date of its receipt by the County. The Consent Ordar vill allow Allegheny County to undertake, under EPA oversight:, a. focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("Focused RI/FS") of the soils in the area of the Sita that vill be impacted by the bridge construction* Tha Focused RI/FS vill provide EPA vith the information needed to determine whether any remedial action will be required in connaction vith the soils in the area of tha site affected by tha bridge construction. Once the Consent Order is in effect, Allegheny County vill be required to submit to EPA & final vorkplan and other related project documents for conducting the Focused RI/FS. EPA has , , previously reviewed drafts of these documents and provided

AR30I5.1J commanto to the county, once EPA has received and approved the final vorkplan, tha County vill be authorized to bagin tha tiald investigation of tha soils in tha area of the sita that vill be . affected by the bridga construction. Based on a timely ^ submission .of all required documentation, EPA anticipates that 'the County vill be able to bagin the field investigation later this Spring. Wa hope this response ie catiafactory to you and ycur constituents.

Sincerely,

Edwin B. Erickson Regional Administrator

AR30I5I2 UKTTED STATES EN\m^^a!E^^y\L PROIH3TION AGENCY REOONBI 841 Chestnut Buflding.. PhDadelphSa, Pennsylvania 19107 Office of Superfund . .... ' ... . * • Direct Diai (215) 697-0439 Romuald A. floman,CSH Renredia! Project Manager .... MaiCode3HW23 November 30, 1992 Herbert Higginbotham, II, PE Director Allegheny County Department of Engineering and Construction 501 County Office Bldg. 542 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2951

Dear Sir, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approves the Focused Remedial Investigation Report for tha Bridge Portion of the Ohio River Site,' Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement Project Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, prepared for Allegheny County, FA and USEPA, prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. , and dated November 1992. . , ^'.i , \ If you have any. questions,, do not hesitate to call me at (215) 597-0439, or fax the information at (215) 597-9890.

Sincere

A. Roman, CIH cc: " • ,•.: . • ' H. Vaugham Blaxter,III D. Kutzavitz T. Reed S . Fang &.. Eopten P. Earth . /T. Stockhauser C. Leer Ph.D. J. Pike D. loven (3HW13) J. Newbaker (3HW13) G. Fospisil ((3RC23)

flR30ISI3 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission u Hwiisburg. Pennsylvania 17108-102fi

June 16, 1992 Fred w. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120

Re: ER 89-0462-003-D Allegheny County Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement, Adverse Effect Documentation Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance vith Section 106 of the national Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in I960, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 600) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project* s potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. In our opinion this project will have an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (listed below). Furthermore, it is our opinion that this project will adversely effect the historic and architectural qualities that make the property eligible. To comply with the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, you must follow the procedures outlined in 36 CFR eoo.5 (e), when the effect is adverse. You will need to notify the Advisory Council of the effect finding and continue to consult with the Bureau for Historic Preservation to seek ways to avoid or reduce the effects on historic properties. Coraopoiis Bridge

flR30IS|li; Page 2 F. Bowser June 16, 1992

The Bureau Ls still concerned with the potentially national Register eligible archaeological resources on and near the bridga project site. The archaeological component of the project must bc^mtifrjaTrf' prior to any filing with the Advisory Council or 'preparation of a Memorandum of Agreement for the project. If you need further information in concerning archaeological survey please contact the Archaeology 'Section at (717) 783-9900. If your need further information concerning -historic survey consult Susan M. Zachar at (717) 783-8946 orJ783-8947.

•• Sincaraly

Kurt carr, Chief Division of Archaeology fi ' Protection CGJ D. suciu, PDOT, Bur. of Design D. Bachiaan, PDOT, Bur. of Dasign Advisory Council on Historic-Preservation- KC/smz _..- .. .••

RR30I5I5 Juna 30, 1992 .* jt , • . i"' '• y Allegheny County • 'V ' Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement J(/( /fi o „ ldy« calyj £*6-'".'J2 tttnry K. nu thrown, P.E. District Engineer District 11-0

Fred H* Bowser, P.E* Director Bureau of Design

llaferenca is nade co our March 11, 1992 letter to the PA Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) requetting an Advaria Effact da termination for tha Coraopolia Bridge. Wa ara anclosing ona (1) copy of tha PfiMC'a Juna 16, 1992 raeponxa. Tha PKMC has concurrad that tha daaolition of tha National Regittar liatad Coraopolii Bridge con«tituta» an Advaria Effact. Plaa*a not a, however, that tha PHKC has requastad that tha Kanorandua of Agreement being prepared for the project mutt also address archaeological resources. Sinca tha need for archaeological investigations has still not been resolved and va still not rmyQlwA. a HqBtffran<^PP of Agreement _(HOA) va ara not to forward tha Adverse Effect report (for bridga danolition) to tha FHWA for coordination with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. We recommend that tha MOA be a topic of discussion at the July 8, 1992 meeting with Allegheny County, the PHMC, tha FHWA, and the Department. Please discuss this natter with Allegheny county prior to July B, 1992. Enclosure

4320/DAS/BB4 cci Allegheny Count" y (w/a•" ) FHWA, Attnt Mr. Can Johnson (v/e) FHHA, Xttnt Mr. Jose Baoirez P. fteny, Cist. 11-0 (v/e) B. A. McCOola, P.S., Fn. 506 D. It. Snciu, Bra. 506 0. C. Bachnan, Pa. 506 D. A. Schreiber, P.E., RIB. 1113

flR3°'5'6 POT PLAHERTY TOtf POCRSTER LARRY DUNN COMMWSIONBI CHAIRMAN OOMMIS»ONEH DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION

601 COUNTY OFFICE BLDGL, $42 FOftBES AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15216-2951 (412)355-6902 FAX (412) 355-5386 HERBSftT C. HIGQWBQTKAM, H. P.E. DJBECTOR July 20, 1992

Mr. Henry H. Hutbrown, P.E., District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Four Parkway Center 875 Greentree Road Pittsburgh, PA 15220 • . ATTN: Ms. Pat Remy REi Coraopoiis Bridge (OB02-0607) HEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT • Dear Mr. Nutbrowm '. Enclosed please find two copies of a Memorandum of Agreement in connection vith the captioned project. The Agreement has been signed by me and is submitted for further execution. The enclosed Agreement is a revision of that vhich was submitted under cover letter of July 27, 1990. This revised version incorporates a nev stipulation concerning the agreed upon archaeological investigation. . Pursuant to the June 30, 1992 memorandum from Fred Bowser to you, I trust that submission of the Memorandum of Agreement will nov permit PDT to forward the Determination of Adverse Effect Report - submitted December 1991 - to FHWA for coordination' vith the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Your immediate attention to the enclosed Agreement and the Adverse Effect Report vill be greatly appreciated. Please refer any questions to Mr. Ton Stockhausen of Maguire Group Xnc. at (412) 281-6393. Very truly yours,

, • • Herbert c. Higgra&otham, XX, P.E. Director HCH/RBH/rr . * cot Deputy Director Connors/GF ' ' . Thomas Donatelli, v/encl ' Dan Johnson, FHHA, v/encl Dean Schreiber, PDT CO, v/enol Kurt to.tr, PHMC, v/encl Bob Ziskey,'PDT 11-0; v/encl Maguire Group Inc., v/encl : flR30ISI7 WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the proposed replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge vill have an adverse effect upon the bridge, a property included in the National Register of His- toric Places and may have an effect on a potentially eligible National Register archaeological resource on the bridge site. WHEREAS, the FHWA has consulted vith the Pennsyl- vania State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and WHEREAS, the FHWA, PennDOT, and Allegheny County have explored all viable alternatives for rehabilitating the structure and none of these alternatives is acceptable due to the condition of the bridge and traffic requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA and the Pennsylvania SHPO agree that if the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) accepts this Memorandum of Agreement in accordance vith 36 CFR 800.6(a)(l)(i), the undertaking shall be imple- mented in accordance vith the following stipulations in or- der to take into account the effect of the undertaking on the historic property and archaeological resource.

stipulations The FHWA vill ensure that the following measure is carried out before.the undertaking is implemented: 1. Prior .to the demolition of the Coraopoiis Bridge, it. vill be recorded to Historic American En- gineering Record Standards so that there vill be a per- manent, record of its existence. A complete recordation of the historic structure vill include a historical narrative on the structure's significance and photodocumentation of the current condition, historic photographic vievs and copies of bridge plans and/or specifications. All documentation must be accepted in writing by HAER prior to the demolition of the bridge. Copies of this documentation vill be made available to the Pennsylvania SHPO and the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation.

flR30l5!8 2. A Phase X archaeological survey vill be un- dertaken following issuance of a record-of-decision (ROD)-by EPA pursuant to the EPA Administrative Order by Consent for a focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The Archaeological survey vill be conducted either prior to or during the construction phase of the project. The Phase X ar- chaeological survey vill be limited to the area of the proposed bridge abutment No. 2. Archaeological inves- tigation vill consist of the excavation of a two-meter square. This test vill be excavated to soils of Pleis- tocene age or to a depth of approximately 3.3 meters below the present ground surface. The testing vill be limited to a depth of 3.3 meters to avoid penetrating the vater table. Xf In situ cultural material is en- countered during the Phase X archaeological testing, a meeting vill be held between the staff of the Pennsyl- vania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau of His- toric Preservation; the County of Allegheny; the Pen* nsylvania Department of Transportation; and other in- terested parties to determine the significance of the finds and the next phase of archaeological vork. Qn- ' less the cultural material encountered is agreed to be significant on a National level, all additional ar- ' chaeological vork vill be confined to the area to be excavated for the placement of the bridge abutment No. 2. All archaeological vork vill be conducted in accor- dance vith the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's procedures as outlined in BHD-43Q-92- 29 "Archaeological Procedures for Highvay Project Development", and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission's "Cultural Resource Management, in Pennsylvania: Guidelines for Archaeological Survey and Mitigation" (amended 1991). . , Execution of the Memorandum of Agreement by the FHWA and the) Pennsylvania SHPO, its concurrence by the Pen- nsylvania Department of Transportation and Allegheny County and its/ subsequent acceptance by the Council, and the carry- ing out of the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA evidences that FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement project and its effects on historic properties and archaeological resources and that FHWA has taken into account the effects of the project on historic properties and archaeological resources.

AR30I5-I-9 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION By; ______;______Date: Division- Administrator

E^HXSTORXC PRESERVATION OFFICER ^/^~ Date: ftVX 2 g. fl? 7- State Historic Preservation Officer *

CONCUR: PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By; j/&iJ&&e*<2?: '/W*—1sZ—- Date:. Deputy Secretary

ALLEGHENY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING 6 CONSTRUCTION By; t:> y^ux^^^ Date; Director ""^ "

for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation By: ______Date: Chief, Eastern Office of Review & compliance

AR30I520 CORAOPOUS/NEVUXE BRIDGE COMMITTEE Minutes of Meeting Held Wednesday, September 25,1591

frrg of the Bridge Committee was held on Wednesday, September 25, 1991, at the Neville Township Municipal Building. Those in attendance at the t"e«*frg included the following: Mae Roedler, Bob Kreamalmeyer, Barbara Jenkins, Nick Kotik, Herbert Higginbotham, Thomas Stockhansea, Thomas Donateili, Raymond George (EPA), Pat Gaughan (EPA), Jim King, Aaron Kbhan, representatives from Neville T*H Company, a reporter and cameraman from Channel 11, reporters from the local paper and T^e Pittsburgh Press and approximately 20-25 local residents. Mae Roedler, Chairman of the Committee, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m, Mae introduced Herbert Higginbotham, Director of the Department of Construction, and Engineering for Allegheny County, who reported on the condition of the existing bridge. He stated that the bridge is inspected on a monthly basis. Thomas Stockbausen, engineering consultant to Allegheny County, reported on the three stages of the bridge project which are being simultaneously worked on: L • Design. Final design of the bridge, which includes the superstructure and substructure, has begun and will be complete by March; 1992. i , Results of the core boring recently taken win be complete by the end of October, 1991. When final design is complete, the review process of final design will begin, which . includes: ' • structural (3-4 months) • safety (several days) ... • plans (2 months) • PS & E (3-4 months) The'County win attempt to schedule construction of the bridge in 1993. 2. Hazardous Waste TnvestigatiQn. The EPA had requested that additional testing and investigation (a focused RI/FS) be done on the property on which the bridge is located. The County submitted its work plan to the EPA and hopes to receive their approval momentarily. 3. Environmental Assessment Study. This study consists of more than jost a hazardous waste investigation and includes the following: • archeological (the County's request for a waiver to conduct a field investigation was dented and the County has appealed the denial); there is a potential for archeological artifacts on the site

A:R"301S21 • historical record (documentation of the existing bridge for historical purposes; this has been submitted for approval) • technical basis report (energy, fo*d use, air/noise, etc. studies; this report has been submitted for approval) The Environmental Assessment report wfll summarize the environmental study, and it is to be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration for review and approval. Tom Stockhausen also reported that fimrfmg for the bridge design and construction comes from the following agencies in the following proportions: Federal Highway Administration 80% Perm Dot 15% Allegheny County 5% The County was authorized by the County Commissioners to proceed with the design at the risk of not receiving funds from the FHWA for the design. The additional cost to be incurred by the County will be $100,000. The County agreed to continue with the design of the bridge in conjunction with the hazardous waste investigation so that valuable time was not lost in the process. Further, the County is confident that all environmental testing at the site will be satisfactory and wfll not delay the design and approval process. In addition, the County has requested die EPA to allow the County's contractor to perform hazardous waste testing on the site prior to entering into a consent agreement. ' Tom Stockhausen and Herb Higginbotham stated that if the weather , cooperated, the bridge could be completed by the end of 1993. Ray George of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency described this situation as unique and one which the EPA had not dealt with in the past. He stated that the EPA and the County were currently negotiating the consent agreement under which the County and EPA would agree on the procedure for investigating and cleaning- up the site, if a dean-up was necessary. He left the impression that an agreement would be reached very soon. Pat Gaughan of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency generally reviewed the procedure under "superfund" from a community relations aspect Several residents asked questions of the Herb Higginbotham and Tom Stockhausen regarding the current condition of the bridge and the timetable which they hoped to follow. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 pjn. The next meeting of the committee was scheduled for Wednesday, October 23,1991. CORAOPOUS/NEVILLE BRIDGE COMMITTEE ' . Minutes of Meeting Held Wednesday, October 23, 1991

A meeting of the Bridge Committee was held on Wednesday, October 23, 1991, at the Neville Township Municipal Building. Those in attendance at the meeting included the following: Mae Roedler, Bob Kreamalmeyer, representatives from Neville Company, and approximately 6 local residents. Mae Roedler, Chairman of the Committee, called the meeting to order at 7:30 pun. Bob Kreamalmeyer read the minutes of the last meeting of the Bridge Committee and gave a financial report for the period gnrffag September 30, 1991, which were both approved. Bob read for the committee the press release issued by Neville Land Company, dated October 4, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto. Several questions were asked of the NLC representatives by the residents, and explanations were given: (1) the site was on the national priorities list and federal superfund regulations must be followed m studying and remediating the site; (2) the purpose of a risk assessment and feasibility study;'(JJ how the study would proceed; and (4) the way in which the EPA handles situations sfmflar to the bridge issue. One resident commented that the EPA was "a runaway organization that didn't have to report to anyone but itself." Several favorable comments were made concerning the bus service on Neville Island, and Mae reminded everyone that unless the service was used more frequently, it possibly would not continue. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pjn. Tne next meeting of the committee was scheduled for Wednesday, November 20,199L

flR30IS23 1

° NEVILLE LAND COMPANY 1900 Grant Building I Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 • Oct 4,1991 Contact William J. Green w or fl • David P.Mashek (412)281-5555 . . NEVILLE LAND COMPANY AWAITS EPA ACTION" TO BEGIN OHIO RIVER SITE STUDY

PITTSBURGH - The Neville Land Company (NLO win begin a privately-funded remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) of the Ohio River Site, in Neville Township, Allegheny County, under an agreement signed, and. forwarded by the company today to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The RI/FS is the first phase of a deanup process under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, known as Superfund. Under a RI/FS, an exhaustive study is conducted to assess the specific materials on a site, and alternatives for remediation are developed to evaluate the most appropriate actions for deanup. Neville Land Company will perform the activities at the Ohio River Site under EPA CERCLA regulations, incurring the full responsibility and cost for deanup. The company agreed to fund the project as early as 1989. The remedial investigation involves the collection of data to assess the condition of the site, the examination of the nature of the waste, the determination of risk to the environment and human health, and the evaluation of potential treatment techniques. The feasibility study will draw ^_^ from information gathered during the remedial investigation and fully evaluate the remediation alternatives most suitable for the site. AR3QI521* CORAOPOUS/NEV1LLE BRIDGE COMMITTEE • . Minutes of MccUsg Held Wednesday, November 20, 1991

A meeting of the Bridge Committee was held on Wednesday, November 20, 1991, at the Neville Township Municipal Building. Those in attendance at the meeting included the following: Mae Roedler. Barbara Jenkins, Nick Kotik, Tim Ohrum, representatives from Neville Land Company, and approximately 8 local residents. Mae Roedler, Chairman of the Committee, called the meeting to order at 7:35 p-m- Barb read the mitimes of the last meeting of the Bridge Committee, faieforfmg a press release issued by the Neville I .and Company dated November 18, 1991, and Mae gave a ffmn"**' report for the period ending October 31, 1991, which were both approved. Barb Jenkins read for the committee the press release issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated November 18, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto. Mae and the residents present complained of the apathetic attitude of the residents and business owners on Neville Island and in Coraopoiis regarding the bridge replacement and dosing for the winter. Mae reminded everyone that if it were not for the Bridge Committee, the process would not be as far along as it is. On separate occasions, representatives from the County have made **"s same comment. Nick Kotik and Tim Ohrum explained that the EPA was a federal agency answerable to federal senators and representatives, and that Nick and Tim worked for state representatives. They suggested that the Bridge Committee and residents express their concerns about the bridge by telephone and letter to Senators Specter and Wofford and Representative Coyne. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pjn. The next meeting of the committee was scheduled for Wednesday, January 22, 1992.

AR30I525 NEVILLE LAND COMPANY 1900 Grant Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219

Nov. 18,1991 Contact William J. Green or David P. Mashek (412)281-5555

NEVILLE LAND COMPANY RECEIVES APPROVAL BY EPA TO START RI/FS

' PITTSBURGH - The Neville Land Company today was given the formal approval of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to -• conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the Ohio River • . • Site in Neville-Township, Allegheny County. .- ~ The compan*.'•.y agreed to fun• d the deanup of the site as early as 1989 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, known as Superfund. . The necessary documents to begin the RI/FS were signed by Neville ' Land Company and forwarded to EPA on Oct 2, 1991. • The remedial investigation involves the collection of data to assess the • ' • condition .of the site, the examination of the nature of the waste, the * . determination of risk to the environment and human health, and the evaluation of potential treatment techniques. The feasibility study will draw /from information gathered during the remedial investigation and fully evaluate the remediation alternatives most suitable for the site.

AR30I526 NEVILLE BRIDGE COMMITTEE . Minutes of Meeting Held Wednesday, February 26, 1992

A meeting of the Bridge Committee was held on Wednesday, February 26, 1992, at the Neville Township Municipal Building. Those in attendance at the meeting included the following: Mae Roedler, Bob Kreamalmeyer, Nick Kbtik, Herb Higginbotham, Thomas Donatelli, Joseph Weis, approximately 30 local residents, Aaron. Kohan (Neville Township Commissioner), several business owners/operators from Coraopoiis and Neville Island, Richard Bierk (Pittsburgh Press), a reporter from the Coraopoiis Record, and representatives from Neville r^rri Company. Mae Roedler, Chairman of the Committee, called the meeting to order at 7:30 pjn. The minutes of the last meeting of the Bridge Committee and a finatrrfai report for the period ending January 31, 1992, were read and approved. The committee agreed to purchase an answering machine to be installed at i the Neville Township Municipal Building and dedicated to responding to calls received regarding the opening/dosing of the bridge. Neville Township will make arrangements to publish the telephone number. The purpose of the answering machine wfll be to •"• alleviate congestion on the Neville Township emergency lines. L Herb Higginbotham reviewed the reasons for the delay in proceeding with die construction of the bridge. He reported that Allegheny County had entered into a Consent Order, to be effective February 28, 1992, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A draft of a work plan was submitted to the EPA and approval was expected on the work plan within the next two weeks. Testing of the one acre on which the bridge is planned to be built will begin in March of 1992, and a Record of Decision from the EPA was expected by the middle of the summer, 1992. Herb Higginbotham stated that the design phase normally would not begin until the environmental work was complete and had been approved, but the County Commissioners instructed the County's Construction and Engineering Department to proceed with the design of the bridge prior to completion of the environmental work. Because this work was not done in proper sequence, the County forfeited federal funds to pay for the design of the bridge. At the present time, design of the bridge was 80 percent complete. Bids for construction were expected to be placed by the spring of 1993, construction would begin sometime in 1993 with an anticipated completion date of sometime in 1994. Herb Higginbotham stated that the County was attempting to get the cooperation of FHWA and Penndot in expeditious^ approving the various phases of the project. Herb Higginbotham reported that 5300,000 has been spent by the County in testing the bridge site for hazardous materials. He also explained that the existing piers could not be used in construction of the new bridge because the County could not build a bridge on piers which were expected to last only an additional 25 years.______• flR30l527 8~ w m _ commended him and the County for the frequent openings of the" bridge when the weather permitted during the winter tnnmhi;, ~ "' • I Tom Donate!!! reported that the bridge would be three fo™^ and that the Coast Guard had already approved certain specifications of the bridge. He stated that a £ waiver for the required archeological study was submitted to the Pennsylvania Historical m and Museum Commission last July, g^d to date the County has had no response after rqgHng several attempts to learn the status of the request. The historic rfftOTm>>qtatJon ft required to be prepared because the bridge is a historic landmark had been completed, 8 including copies of plans, pictures, etc, and were submitted for approval Mae Roedler introduced Joe Weis, Assistant to Senator Woffbrd, who 1 distributed a letter received by Senator Wofford from Edwin Erickson, Regional Administrator, of the EPA (copy attached). Joe Weis asked for recommendations and • suggestions from the residents as to ways in which Senator Wofford could assist in | expediting construction of the bridge. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. The next meeting of the committee 1 was scheduled for Wednesday, March 25,1992. I : ., • .' I

1 I I I

flR3 015,28 1

NEVILLE BRIDGE COMMITTEE Minutes of Meeting Held Wednesday, March 25,1992

A meeting of the Bridge Committee was held on Wednesday, March 25, 1992, at the Neville Township Municipal Building. Those in attendance at the meeting induded the following: Mae Roedler, Terry Klxkpatrick, Ann Deramo, Bob ' Kreamalmeyer, approximately 15 local residents, Harry Funk of the Coraopoiis Record, and representatives from Neville Land Company. Mae Roedler, Chairman of the Committee, called the meeting to order at 7 JO pjn. The minutes of the last meeting of the Bridge Committee and a financial . report for the period ending February 29,1992, were read and approved. The Committee suggested that copies of the minutes of the February 26 toeeting be sent to the Neville Township and Coraopoiis commissioners for their information, along with the minutes of all future meetings. Mae Roedler read a letter which she received from the Neville Township Commissioners th««fa'«g the Committee for purchasing an answering maeiwn^ which ' would alleviate «»« to the Township's emergency number regarding the opening and dosing of the bridge. Mae Roedler introduced Pat Gaughan, Community Relations Coordinator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Gaughan explained that 1 acre was carved out of the 32 acres designated as a superfund site for the purpose of expediting the testing of the 1-acre site where the bridge is to be constructed. This was the first *"ne in EPA's history that it agreed to such a procedure, and he gave credit to the Committee's efforts in qssfafag with this precedent-setting decision. Mr. Gaughan confirmed that the EPA had received Allegheny County's work plan and that as soon as the plan was approved by the EPA, the County could begin the testing required to be done. He said that he spoke with the County's representatives, and they confirmed to him that design of the bridge was moving along welL In response to questions from the residents, Pat Gaughan confirmed that the County itself would not be performing the tests on the one-acre site. It would hire a subcontractor to perform the tests, and the County would then submit the findings to the EPA for their review. He also confirmed that the site was listed as a superfund site in October, 1989. Representatives from Neville Land Company confirmed that the property on which the existing bridge is located and the location for the new bridge is owned by the Neville Land Company, and all the property had been considered to be one contiguous parcel by the EPA, • The following questions were raised by residents, and Fat Gaughan agreed that he would report back to the Committee with responses: HR30I529 • I I e to be ^1**^

the i^fffaSg%&fig»* "—"»-*««"» I I I

I I I

AR30I530 R i i •* : i © e P « e M e R c R e s P uHeeuiNc P . e 2

EPA Environmental News

Contact Patrick Gaughan (304) 234-0238 92-026; November 18, 1891 fPA ESilCHgS AGREEMENT WITH NEVILLE UND COMPANY FOR .REMEDIAL INVEStTGATIOWFEASffilUTY STUDY OF OHIO RIVER PARK STTE The Unhed Stales Environmental Protoctlon Agency (EPA) today announced that an agreement has been reached with the Nevie Land Company of Pittsburgh, under which the company will conduct a fun remedial Investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) of the Ohio Kver Park Superfund SHe on Neville Island, Allegheny Count/, Pennsylvania.

The Ohio Rrver Park Site is a Superfund site consisting of approximately 32 acres on the western end of Neville Island, In the Ohio Rfver, which was placed on the EPA National Priorities list (NPg fo August 1990. Neville Land Company has agreed to perform the RI/FS under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund. The RI/FS Is part of the process which wiH eventually lead to deanup of the she. -more- .

fiR30JS3l M0v~is-9i F-RT x •* : r 9 EPO eneRC RESP

The Ohio River Park site served as an Industrial landfill from approximately the early ' 1950's until the mld-1960's. Coking sludges, cement production wastes, pesticides, plant demolition material and slag were disposed en sita.

In 1978, Allegheny County began developing the site as a park but stopped construction after Industrial wastes were found. A county consultant reported on-sfte ground water and soil contamination, and concluded a public health threat existed at the site. Routine monitoring by the county's consultant consistently detects benzene and toluene In the ground water. Neville Land Company has further evaluated the site, and has Installed a number of muffilavet wells as part of the evaluation induding testing, pit excavation, toxflogfcal and hydrogeological evaluations. The Remedial Investigation Rl wiU investigate the various contaminants present at the site, assess the degree of contamination, and characterize the potential risks to the affected community and those nearby communities down-stream on the Ohio River. Following the RI, a Feasibility Study (FS) wi be conducted to Identify and evaluate various remedies for addressing contamination problems Identified during the RI. The RI/FS win be completed In approximately 16 months. * Based on the F$, the EPA will Issue a proposed plan that evaluates the various remedies set forth in the FS and Identifies the remedy R feels is most appropriate for , , deanup of the she.. After a public comment period, the EPA wiU issue a Record of • Decision in which ft selects a remedy for the site. Actual deanup of the site win begin after EPA has Issued the Record of Decision. The length of Cms needed to complete each of these steps varies greatly from sfte to site. . Throughout the Superfund process, the EPA will keep residents and officials Informed about the activities at the site and provide opportunities for citizens to participate In the decision making process.

####

AR30I532 NEVILLE BRIDGE COMMITTEE • -•'.••. Minutes of Meeting Held Wednesday, January 22, 1992

A meeting of the Bridge Committee was held on Wednesday, January 22, 1992, at the Neville Township Municipal Building. Those in attendance at the meeting included the following: Mae Roedler, Bob Kreamalmeyer, representatives from Neville land Company, ami approximately 9 local residents. Mae Roedler, Chairman of the Committee, called the meeting to order at 7:35 pjn. Bob Kreamalmeyer read the minutes of the last meeting of the Bridge Committee and gave a financial report for the periods ending November 30, 1991, and December 31, 1991, which were approved. Bob read letters which Mae Roedler, Chairman of the Committee, would mail the next day to Senator Harris L. Wofford, which requested his assistance, and to Fat Gaughan, US. Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), EPA Community Relations Coordinator, which asked for a progress report. Mae recalled that in September, 1991, Pat Gaughan stated that the residents of Neville Island would soon be "tired of seeing his face", but that since then no one has heard from Mae reported that Herb Higghbotham told her that the final design of the bridge would be complete in April, 1992, and that the County was waiting to hear from the USEPA on how to proceed with the study of the bridge site. Mae and the residents commended the County for the opening of the bridge on the wanner days throughout the winter months. The Committee discussed the Environmental Impact Study to be conducted by the County. Several individuals recalled that Herb Higginbotham stated at the September meeting that the study was started prior to completion of design of the bridge, which was not the usual order in which the study is conducted. No one was sure whether it had been completed. The Committee was reluctant to shift its focus from replacing the bridge to constructing a ramp, which everyone agreed was needed in addition to the bridge. The ramp would provide an alternative when the bridge is down completely during construction and is an alternative which would take less time in design and construction than the bridge. Mae and the residents questioned why Neville Township and Coraopoiis Bora coundlmen apd businessmen did not attend the bridge meetings. Also, they felt that the dosing of the bridge was the reason for people moving off the island and wondered what impact that would have on the value of their homes. It was stated that a bridge would be built when the USEPA was "good and ready" to allow its construction. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 pjn. The next meeting of the committee was scheduled for Wednesday, February 26", 1992.

ftR301533 NEVILLE BRIDGE COMMTTEEE Minutes of Meeting Held Wednesday, April 22,1992

A meeting of the Bridge Committee was held on Wednesday, April 22,1992, at the Neville Township Municipal Building. Those in attendance at the meeting included the following: Terry Kirkpatrick, Ann Deramo, approximately 6 local residents, Jim Thorner of the Allegheny Times, and representatives from Neville T-»™1 Company. Terry Kirkpatrick, Qia^rma'n of the Committee, called the meeting to order at 7:30 pjn. The minutes of the last meeting of the Bridge Committee and a financial report for the period ending March 31,1992, were read and approved. Terry Kirkpatrick read a letter which the Committee received from Pat Gaughan, U.S. EPA Community Relations Coordinator. In response to questions raised at the March 25 bridge meeting, he reported in his letter that the previous testing which was performed on the bridge site had not been done under "strict EPA guidelines which would assure quality control" and that groundwater affects the migration of contaminants. Jim Tboraer, a reporter for the Allegheny Times, raised the question: If the site was put on the NPL in October, 1989, why has it taken the EPA this long to act? After speaking with representatives from the' EPA and the County, he stated that this was still an unanswered question. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pjn. The next meeting of the committee was scheduled for Wednesday, May 27,1992.

AR30I53U. NEVILLE BRIDGE COMMITTEE Minutes of Meeting Held Wednesday, May 27,1992

A meeting of the Bridge Committee was held on Wednesday, May 27,1992, at the Neville Township Municipal Building. Those in attendance at the meeting included the following: . Mae Roedler, Chairman Terry Kirkpatrick, Vice President Herbert Higginbotham, Allegheny County Thomas Donatelli, Allegheny County Joe Weis, Senator Wofford's office Park Mitchell, Senator Specter's office ••:'• Nick Kotik, Representative Trello's office - •;;•:- Ann Gleason, Representative Coyne's office Bam Steel, Representative Mayernik's office Richard Curry, Penndot • Aaron Kohan and Bill Nickels, Neville Township commissioners . Harry Funk, Coraopoiis Record Approximately 20 local residents Representatives of the Neville Land Company Mae Roedler, Chairman of the Committee, called the meeting to order at 7:30 pjn. The minutes of the last meeting of the Bridge Committee and a financial report for the period ending April 30,1992, were read and approved. • ii.." Mae Roedler thanked the Neville Township Commissioners for the certificate recognizing her as the 1990 Qtizen of the Year. • ..... Herbert Higginbotham reported on the current status of three aspects of the bridge replacement: • (1) Hazardous waste investigation • Results of the samples taken on April 20-22,1992 from the one-acre site on which the bridge is to be built are expected to be returned to Allegheny County in mid-June. The County will then submit the (fadings to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by midsummer, and the County expects a record of decision from the EPA by September or October, 1992. (2) Bridge design - Design of the bridge is approximately 95 percent -complete. Tie only remaining details for bridge design include structural and foundation review, format of the documents, and request for permission to advertise for the project. (3) Environmental study - Historical, archaeological, and noise/air studies must be completed, and a final report is expected by January, 1993. The County had requested a waiver of the archaeological study, and a conference call among the County, Penndot, and the Federal Highway Administration is scheduled for Friday, May 29, 1992, to discuss the waiver. ——______AR30I535 Herb Higginbotham also reported that in a recent meeting with Secretary of Transportation Howard Yerusalim, he requested that Secretary Yerusalim give top priority to the Neville Island-Coraopolis bridge project. Richard Curry, representative of Penndot, reported oa the status of a ramp off southbound interstate Route 79 onto Route 51 at Groveton. He stated that an at Groveton would require a right-of-way and other modifications to meet interstate standards and was estimated to cost $6 minion. Richard Curry explained that getting a project on Penndot's 12-year program was the first step to getting a project completed. Two years ago when the 12-year program was last updated, the Groveton Interchange project was proposed, but did not make the 12-year program. Every two years the 12-year program is revised, and testimony is given by local communities requesting that a particular project be added to the program. The program is scheduled for revision in the summer of 1993; therefore, testimony is scheduled to be given in the spring of 1993. Richard Curry recommended that Neville Township provide testimony in support of adding the Groveton Interchange to the 12-year program. A method of accelerating advancement in the 12-year program is through the Partnership Act, which requires that the community benefiting from the project help pay for the project through local assessments. ~ Several residents commented that the priorities of individuals who live and work on Nevffle Island were being overlooked, and they believed that the Groveton Interchange would be invaluable when the Coraopolis-Nevflle Bridge was dosed for construction. • Ann Gleason from Representative Coyne's office and Joe Weis from Senator Wofford's office offered their assistance. • The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pjn. The next meeting of the committee was scheduled for Wednesday, September 23, 1992.

AR30I536 NEVILLE BRIDGE COMMITTEE . Minutes of Msetisg Held Wednesday, September 23, 1932

A meeting of the Bridge Committee was held on Wednesday, September 23, 1992, at the Neville Township Municipal Building. Those in att?n

AR30I537 1 I Herb Higginbotham stated that the bridge would stay open as long as possible when construction begins. By early 1993 he could better estimate when the bridge would have to be dosed turn! completion of the new structure. Joe Weis from Senator Wofford*s office encouraged the committee members and residents to continue writing letters, which assisted the senator's office in keeping current on bridge issues. "j-.TfT,-".., ...'...••-•''•'-'"' Hie meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pjn. The next meeting of the committee was scheduled for Wednesday, October 28,1992. The meeting following the October 28 meeting was scheduled for Thursday, December 3,1992.

E it E

AR30I538 CORAOPOLIS NEWS

ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION HERB HIGGINBOTHAM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DIRECTOR TOMFOERSTER PETE FLAHERTY CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE W. OUNN COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Issue no. 1 May, 1989

INTRODUCTION TO THE READER

Welcome to this, the County's first newsletter devoted to explaining the progress and development for replacing the Coraopoiis Bridge. The County's Intention Is to Issue these newsletter updates approximately every two or three months. With this newsletter, we hope to Keep you informed of past present, and future developments associated with the project. In this Issue, a brief indication wilt be given of the steps necessary to design the replacement bridge. Then, we win focus on one step and further explain It. In further newsletters, a different step In the process will be explained.

THE TEAM As with any major undertaking, It Is a team, not an, individual, effort. The project team consists of the following: • HDR-Rlchardson Gordon, Inc. is the firm performing the design. It Is a large, local firm located in Pittsburgh. • Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Is responsible for reviewing and approving the work. PennDOT's design criteria and design manuals are utilized for the project • Allegheny County's Department of Special Services and Maintenance Operations Is responsible for maintaining the existing bridge until such time that It is demolished to make room for the new bridge. • Allegheny County's Department of Engineering and Construction b responsible for the overall coordination and administration of the project

US30I539 INDEX MAP. REPLACEMENT OF CORAOPOLIS BRIDGE ALLEGHENY COUHTY, PA

CORAOPOLIS -J__ g• • 0.°*&fe =

NEVILLE ISLAND FERREE "" •ALT. i (25 MPH) ALT. 1(35 MPH}

ALT.2(25MPHH ALT 2(35 MPH)—'

400 800 FT. 5S= SCALE 1B30I5AJD .DESIGN STAGES The project can be separated Into the following major steps or stages during design: * Tentative Stage • Preliminary Stage • Pre-Flnal Stage • Final Stage Within each of these major steps are many intermediate steps. For example, within the Tentative Stage are the following: • Design Location Report • hazardous Waste Study • Historical Recordation • Permits (U.S. Coast Guard, U.5. Army Corps of Engineers, and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources) • Type, Size, and Location (TS&L) Report Each of these steps requires a review and approval by Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and/or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

DESIGN LOCATION REPORT This activity began on November 9, 1988. The purpose of the Design Location Report Is to develop alternate alignments for the proposed replacement bridge. The alternates are examined, considering horizontal and vertical alignments, number and type of interchanges and Intersections, drainage facilities, utility facilities, traffic data, property and right-of-way impacts, and estimates of costs. For this project, two replacement bridge alignments are being studied. Alternate 1 Is on the existing alignment' Alternate 2 skews the Mevllle Island abutment approximately ISO feet to the east of the existing abutment so that the geometry of this curve is not as severe. Curved approaches to Meville Island, meeting 25 and 35 mph design speed criteria were studied for both bridge alignments. These alternate alignments are shown on the Index Map. After examining the various factors, the Alternate 2 (35 mph) Alignment has been recommended and submitted to PennDOT for review and approval.

ft R 30 151* I .EXISTING CORAOPOLIS BRIDGE. The County Intends to keep the existing Coraopoiis Bridge open to traffic, although restricted in height and limited to a 3-ton weight, from early April through late Movernber, provided the average temperatures are above 32°. (The reasons for this temperature restriction will be explained In a future newsletter). A meeting was held with Coraopoiis, riev/tHe, and County police to explain and reach agreements to ensure that the bridge will be patrolled and the 3-ton weight restriction strictly enforced. This meeting was very productive and resulted in each agency pledging to provide patrols to improve police visibility at the bridge.

RELATED WORK The weight/height restrictions for the existing Coraopoiis Bridge have resulted in traffic problems in the neighboring areas. To help alleviate these problems, the County and PennDOT are participating In a joint effort to construct a temporary ramp from Route 51 in Groveton onto 1-79 northbound. On April 1, 1989, Allegheny County forces commenced earth moving operations to construct this ramp. Work is progressing on schedule.

FOR MORE INFORMATION We are trying to make the newsletters relatively short and Informative. The next newsletter will be issued In approximately two or three months. If you would like more detailed Information about the design process or methodology, or If you know someone who should be added to our mailing list, please contact the Department's project manager for the Coraopoiis Bridge project, Mr. Peter Fiortan at 355-4430 or write to him at 5O1 County Office Building, Pittsburgh. PA 15219.

44*30151*2- CORAOPOLIS BRIDGE NEWS

ENGINEERING A CONSTRUCTION HERB HIGGINBOTHAM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DIRECTOR TOMFOERSTER PETE FLAHERTY CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE W. OUNN COMMISSIONER - COMMISSIONER

Issue No. 2 July, 1989 INTRODUCTION Welcome to the second issue of the Coraopoiis Bridge Hews. As a recap for the previous readers and an introduction for first-time readers, the County Initiated this newletter as a means to keep you informed of past present and future de- velopments associated with the project to replace the Coraopoiis Bridge. These newsletter updates will be issued approximately every two months. Your input and comments are welcome. NEW BRIDGE DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION PROCESS There are numerous steps that must be taken before construction can begin on. a new bridge of this magnitude. Each step must be reviewed and approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and the Federal High- way Administration (FHWA) because these two funding sources are being utilized for the on-going pre-deslgn and design activities and the eventual construction of the new bridge. The following list provides an 'overview of these steps. It is not all-inclusive, but rather, provides a general Idea of the process. When viewed separately rather than as a bureaucratic red-tape process, the logic of the process becomes ap- parent The previous, current and future issues of this newsletter will explain the more important components so that the reader can gain a more than casual un- derstanding of a federal and state-funded highway project. • Determination and justification of project need • 'Establish detailed scope of work by County/PennDOT/FHWA • Consultant selection process by County • Enter into agreement with design consultant and issue a Hodce-to-Proceed • Design Location Report to develop alternate alignments • Environmental Studies: to Include Hazardous Waste, Historical, Archaeology, Air Quality, Molse • Geotechnical and geological engineering process • Type, Size, and Location (TSfit) Report • Permits: to Include U.5. Coast Guard, U.5. Havy Corps of Engineers, and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources • Preliminary design of the foundations, structure, and approach roadways ———————————————————————W30-15-II-3- — * Preliminary design of the maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT), traffic signals, and lighting plan • Final design of the structure and completion/coordination of the other de- signs (i.e. roadway, MPT, signals, and lights) * Advertising and obtaining bids from contractors for the construction work • Enter Into agreement with contractor and issue a Hotlce-to-Proceed • Construction of new bridge and demolition of the existing bridge • Acceptance and close out of the project normally, this process takes, as a minimum, two to three years after the design- er Is issued a notlce-to-proceed before construction can begin. The County Is taking all measures possible to expedite this project We are "cautiously optimis- tic" that construction can begin on the new bridge In late 1990 or early 1991.

ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION In the last newsletter, we discussed the Design Location Report. The report was submitted to PennDOT for review and approval. Their approval Is pending the results of the environmental investigation, currently underway. Records Indicate that during the 1920s, there was a service station on Hevllle Island in the vicinity of the proposed abutment of the new bridge. Because of this prior use, the possibility exists that materials (e.g., tars, petroleum products, tanks, etc.), that were not considered hazardous then but now are, may be un- derground In that area. Therefore, the County must perform an environmental In- vestigation to determine the possible presence of and type of any hazardous materials.

HISTORY The Coraopoiis Bridge is significant for Its association with a nationally recognized bridge engineer. Its span length. Its age and unique history, and Its transporta- tion role at two locations. It serves as an example of a metal truss bridge which was successfully relocated during the historic period of metal truss bridge con- struction. The bridge was listed on the national Register of Historic Places on January 7, 1986. The. County's proposed project calls for the complete removal and replacement of the existing structure. It will, therefore, have a direct effect on this national Register property. As a result of the national Register status of the bridge, the . County was required to comply with Section 106 of the national Historic Preser- vation Act of 1966, as amended. This involved the preparation and submission of a "Determination of'Adverse Effect Report." The report contains, among other Information, the unique history of the bridge. We have tried to summarize Its history In the following paragraphs. The existing Coraopoiis Bridge Is a four-span truss bridge, comprising two througn trusses and two pony trusses. The two 444'±. through or camel back trusses span over the back channel of the Ohio River and the two 137'jt pony trusses span over railroad corridors in Corapoits. See Figure 1.

Through or pony Camel Back Trusses Trusses Neville Coraopoiis^ •>"/• ^^r^r^^ ^r-r^ lslan<»

FIGURE 1 EXISTING CORAOPOLIS BRIDGE

The original plans and specifications for the bridge were prepared in 1891 by Theodore Cooper, a nationally renowned bridge engineer. He had important roles In the building of the Eads Bridge In St. Louis and the Brooklyn Bridge In Hew York, and was later noted for his railroad bridges. His Illustrious career ended in- glorious V as the monumental Quebec Bridge of 1907, for which he was super- vising engineer, collapsed, while under construction, with 82 lives lost neverthe- less, he remains a significant figure in American bridge engineering. The Coraopoiis Bridge is reported to be the only surviving work solely of his design. The bridge was erected in 1892 at the Sixth Street Bridge crossing over the Al- legheny River and linked the cities of Pittsburgh and Allegheny (present day north Side). It was privately financed by the Sixth Street Bridge Company and Fi- delity Title and Trust Company and built by Baird Brothers at a cost of . . : $56O,OOO. As was normally the case for roadway river bridges at that'time, it was privately built and operated as a toll bridge until It was acquired and declared free by the-County In 1911. . In 1919, the War Department declared that the Allegheny River bridges were ob- structions to river traffic and ordered them replaced. In 1926, the two main spans, I.e., the through trusses, of the old Sixth Street Bridge were disengaged, lowered onto coal barges, and floated. Intact, down the Allegheny and Ohio Rivers to Coraopoiis where they were re-erected to replace an earlier trolley bridge nearby. The entire operation took 14O days and cost $326,000, estimat- ed to be half of the cost of new construction. The existing pony trusses were designed and erected for the Coraopoiis site in 1927-28. This was an excellent example of a long-span truss bridge which was moved to a new location and successfully served Its purpose for another 6O years.

44*301 IELATED WORK- GROVETON RAMP. As ind'cated In the previous newsletter, to help alleviate the traffic prob!er»-»s in the area, the County and PennDOT are participating In a joint effort to construct a temporary ramp from Route 51 in Groveton onto 1-79 northbound. Progress on this work has been excellent The County, through Its Department of Special Services and Maintenance Operations, has completed its obligation, ahead of schedule and under budget The County's obligation to prepare for and construct the embankment was completed June 3O, 1989. PennDOT will now In- stall the base and roadway wearing course. Construction should be completed In August It should be noted that this ramp Is. only a temporary measure until the new Coraopoiis Bridge Is constructed and operational. At that time, this ramp will be removed. This was a specific condition placed upon the approval by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to construct this temporary ramp. FHWA must approve any addition or modification to the Interstate highway system. In addition, because of physical limitations, there are no current plans for constructing a similar ramp onto 1-79 southbound.

FOR MORE INFORMATION If you have comments or would like more detailed information about the design process or.- methodology, or If you know someone who should be added to our mailing list, please contact the Department's project manager for the Coraopoiis Bridge project Mr. Peter Flortan, at 355-443O, or write to him at 5O1 County Office Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.

AR30ISl»6 CORAOPOLIS NEWS

ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY——" ^^jjJiL «E«B HIGGJNBOTHAM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I Ili.V^9^ DIRECTOR TOM FOERSTER PETE FLAHEHTY CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE W. DUNN • COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER

(Issue no. 3 September, 1989

INTRODUCTION Welcome to the third Issue of the Coraopoiis Bridge Hews. We hope you are finding these newsletters to be Informative and helpful to keep track of our project to replace the Coraopoiis Bridge. We Intend to keep you informed of project news and to explain the rather complex process Involved in implement- Ing a major capital Improvement If you have only recently been added to our mailing list and have not received the previous two issues of the newsletter or if you are not on the mailing list and would like to be, please call Peter Fiorian, Chief Engineer of the Department of Engineering fit Construction at 355-443O.

NEW BRIDGE DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS In the last newsletter we reported that the design location report—which Is a study to determine the best alignment for the road and bridge—was being reviewed by PennDOT. Its review Is essentially complete; however. Its approval of the County's recommended alignment remains contingent on completion and approval of an environmental assessment of the project and. In particular, an assessment of the potential for hazardous waste within the recommended align- ment A preliminary draft of the environmental assessment has been completed for review by the County. We hope by the next newsletter to report that it too has been submitted to PennDOT for review. The hazardous waste part of the assessment is being'prepared as a separate document It Is nearing completion. and should be in draft form by late October.

•W 30 ISA 7 HAZARDOUS WASTE INVESTIGATION. The hazardous waste report is a very important component of the environmental assessment As most everyone knows, the Coraopolls Bridge and Its Hevllle Island approach cross an area where hazardous materials were reportedly buried. The area, once known as "Poison Park," is on the US Environmental Protection Agency's list of potentially hazardous sites. As a result, the County must do extensive Investigation to either document that the proposed alignment of the new bridge Is clear of waste, or Identify precisely what wastes are In the alignment so that they can be removed prior to construction of the project This Is a very complicated investigation requiring a great deal of field sampling, test- Ing and analysis.

CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION Another Important component of the environmental assessment of this particular. project Is. related to the assessment of cultural resources. This primarily Involves two areas of concern: archaeological and historical resources. On the Coraopoiis Bridge project, the assessment of archaeological resources will Involve field survey and sampling to document the presence of any archaeological resources that might be In the proposed alignments. For example. It Is conceivable that the area could contain Indian artifacts of significant historic value. As far as historical resources, the area contains a major one that will indeed be adversely Impacted by the project. That te the the existing Coraopoiis Bridge. The existing Bridge Is classified as a historic bridge. As a result the County must do extensive reporting and documentation of the Bridge. Involved Is a historic recordation which will ultimately make Its way to the Library of Congress to record for posterity the detailed features of the Bridge. The recordation includes not only assembling the original construction drawings but also an extensive photographic record of the Bridge. Unfortunately, completion of the draft reports mentioned above. I.e., environ- mental assessment and hazardous waste report te more of a beginning than an end. The process to review and approve these documents Is perhaps more time consuming than their preparation. The reviews involve a number of agencies at both the state and federal levels. It also Involves review by the public through public meetings and a public hearing. By the next newsletter, we should be able to inform you of the first scheduled public meeting to present the results of the planning studies. RELATED WORK -THE GROVETON RAMP. In an attempt to relieve, at least In part, the inconvenience of restrictions on the Coraopolfs Bridge, a new ramp has been constructed allowing Route 51 traffic in Coraopoiis to enter 1-79 northbound to Hevllle Island. The ramp is open to traffic and will remain open until the new bridge is completed. It appears to be working well and should be a great help. The Allegheny County Department of Special Services and Maintenance Operations and PennDOT District 11 deserve a "pat- on-the-back" for a good effort to get the ramp built so quickly.

NEW WATER CONNECTION A new waterifne connection between Coraopoiis and Hevllle Island will be built on the new Coraopoiis Bridge as part of the County's project The new connection will enable the two municipalities to share water during emergencies like the Mon River oil spill that took place a couple of years ago. That should be good news for those of you who suffered through water shortages as a result of that spill.

EXISTING CORAOPOLIS BRIDGE The County Intends to keep the existing Bridge open to traffic, although restrict- ed In height and limited to a 3-Ton weight through Hovember 27, 1989. The Bridge will remain dosed to traffic through the winter months and will reopen to traffic In early April, after a%cursory Inspection Is completed to ensure that there has been no significant change to the structure. The Coraopoiis Bridge Is closed during the winter because the steel In the Bridge te brittle. That brtttieness combined with the effects of corrosion and cold temperatures could cause an instant failure of a structural member, possibly leading to collapse of £ bridge span If the structure is open to, dynamic loading under these conditions. The Hew Jersey safety parapets installed with the last rehabilitation, protect the truss members from being Impacted by automobiles that may cause significant damage to the structure. The*weight of the concrete barriers Is not the cause of the restrictions on the bridge, as some people have suggested.

44^-015119 .FOR MORE INFORMATION. Our next newsletter te scheduled for late December or early January. We hope to report at that time that we have started actual design of the new bridge structure. In the meantime, if you have comments or would like more detailed Information, please contact Mr. Peter Florian, the Department's Chief Engineer, at 355-445O or write to him at 5O1 County Office Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.

-M30IS50 CORAOPOLIS BRIDGE NEWS

ENGINEERING A CONSTRUCTION COUMTY OF ALLEGHENY ————Tjpi^r^tlL «» HIGGINBOTHAM BOARD OF COMMI55IOMER5 llllll.P^^ DIRECTOR TOMFOERSTER . PETE FLAHERTY CHAIRMAN tAWRENCE W OUNN • COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER ISSUE HO. 4 FEBRUARY, 1990 INTRODUCTION Trite Is the fourth issue of what we expect will be a quarterly newsletter about the County's project to replace the Coraopoiis Bridge. We hope that you are finding the newsletter to be informative and helpful. If you have only recently been added to our mailing list and have not received the previous issues of the newsletter; or, if you are not on the malting list at all and would like to be, please send a note to: Herbert Higginbotham, Director Department of Engineering & Construction 501 County Office Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 If you have a question about the project or any of the material In the newsletter, call Tom Stockhausen of Maguire Group Inc. (the County's project manager) at 281-6393.

AH OPEN LETTER TO THE READERS OF THE CORAOPOUS BR/DGE HEWSLETTER FROM HERBERT C. H/GG/rtBOTHAtt, //, RE., O/RECTOR OF EHGJHEER/rtG & COttSTRUCTIOH I want to take this opportunity to dear up some misconceptions concerning the progress of the new Coraopolis/Nevllle Island Bridge. There are numerous requirements that must be met during the design and construction of a federally aided highway project of tills magnitude. If you have been reading the previous issues of this newsletter, you are aware of these steps. It has been our intent to describe tills process to all concerned citizens In order to keep you Informed of the magnitude and complexity of the requirements. Currently, we anticipate construction of a new bridge to occur during the 1991 construction season. Considering that the problems which forced the bridge to be restricted only became apparent In February of 1988, this progress Is extremely quick. This was because the County Commissioners gave the Department of Engineering and Construction the backing to Implement a major project that was not scheduled. Other projects were delayed and funds reapproprtated to make this possible, this dearly illustrates the County's commitment to the new bridge. The normal time from conception to completion of a major project Is six to ten years. We are fortunate that the County Commissioners reacted this rapidly. I would be remiss, not to mention the ongoing assistance that Representative Trelto provides, his Interest and dedication to the replacement of this structure Is an extcemeivLbeneficlal factor to the move- ment of th* project AR30I55I As described later In this newsletter, we are proceeding with the second phase of a hazardous waste study which te required because of the previous dumping that occurred on MevHte Island in the vicinity near and west of the existing bridge. We have proceeded with prelimi- nary design In advance of the necessary approvals assuming that our site will be "dean" of waste. If it is not or If the appropriate environmental agencies do not readily approve work as necessary, the schedule could slip. At this time, I fee! that the schedule outlined above can be met These newsletters win Keep you informed of our progress on the project A number of people mentioned projects which appeared to move more expedltiousty than this project One of these, the Sewickley Bridge, did have differences. The bridge was built on the existing piers which decreased various study and environmental requirements that •are necessary In a federal aid project In addition, today's regulations are more rigorous and time consuming and there are more projects in the system. We did investigate reuse of the existing piers for the Coraopolis/MevUte Island bridge, but tests, indicated that we could expect less than a 30-year remaining service life. Obviously, It doesn't make sense to build a new bridge with a 50-100 year expected life on these piers. Another project mentioned was the recent replacement of the span on the Bay Bridge between Oakland and San Francisco, California. Again, this is not a similar comparison. The Bay Bridge was a repair of one span of an existing bridge, not an entire replacement In a potentially new location. I hope that this provides an explanation to the most pressing questions concerning this bridge. I think that under the drcumstances we are making very good progress. This newsletter will continue to provide updates to the progress of this project I suggest using this informa- tion as opposed to word-of-mouth rumors.

Herbert C. Higginbotham, H, P.E. Director, Allegheny County Department of Engineering and Construction

NEW BRIDGE DESIGN PROGRESS .* Since the last newsletter In September, significant progress has been made on the design for the new bridge. At the end of December, 1989 we submitted to PennDOT our recom- mended preliminary design, known as the "Step 9 Design." This Step 9 Design, when approved, will establish the specific alignment for the new bridge and the approaches to the bridge. Our proposed alignment will Improve upon the existing alignment by eliminating the sharp curve on the hevtlle Island end of the bridge. The Step 9 Design also Identifies such things as the design standards, spedal design features, and the various components of the project that wffl become part of the construction drawings developed during final design. This te an Important milestone in the design process. Approval of the Step 9 Design—which we expect soon—allows us to proceed with the engineering drawings that will ultimately be part of the documents used to solicit construction bids and. build the project

M301552 Another major part of preliminary design is unfolding at the same time as the Step 9 Design. That is the type, size and location (T5 64.) for the new bridge structure itself. Where the Step 9 Design tells us where the roadway will be. Its width, etc., the 7561 tells us what the new bridge will look like. For example, will it be made of steel or concrete? how many spans will it have? will It be a suspension bridge like the 10th Street Bridge? an arch like me Fort Pltt Bridge? a deck girder like the 1-579 Veterans Bridge? or some other type? The County's consultant Is studying five different structure types. By the end of February they should be finished with that study and have a recommendation for the T561 of the new bridge. With approval of the recommended T5 St. by the County and PennDOT, the consultant can then begin final design of the new bridge structure. The design of the structure will be the "critical path" of the entire design process. Approval of the structure T5&L In March—our goal— will keep us on target to complete design by early 1991 and get construction started in that year. That Is a very ambitious schedule for replacement of a major river bridge. But we are working hard to meet It and PennDOT and the Federal Highway Administration are cooperating to help us meet It

HAZARDOUS WASTE INVESTIGATION In the last newsletter Issued, we reported that a hazardous waste investigation was required because of the potential for waste In the proposed alignment The alignment you will recall, crosses property which has been designated as a hazardous waste site. That does not necessarily mean there is hazardous waste In the proposed alignment but It does mean that we have to do exhaustive investigations to determine the possible presence of such materials. We have completed the first phase of our investigation which involved some limited soil sampling and testing. As a result of that Initial work, we have started a more detailed study which will Involve further sampling and testing as well as trenching. This second phase of the Investigation will be completed in March and is expected to tell us whether the alignment needs to be deaned of hazardous waste and what wastes. If any, are involved.

CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION Issue Ho. 3 explained that an Important component of our environmental assessment was an Investigation of the Impacts the project would have on archaeological and historic resources. Our archaeological investigation has, for all practical purposes, been completed, cut short by cancellation of archaeological field work because of the possibility of hazardous waste. Our historic Investigation, which Is focused on the existing bridge, is proceeding and nearly complete. The result of that hlstoriclnvestlgation will be a detailed photographic and plan documentation of the existing bridge which will be submitted to the Library of Congress.

EXISTING BRIDGE As you are all well aware, the existing bridge was dosed to traffic for the winter on Hovember 27th. We expect to be able to reopen the bridge in late March, weather permitting. In the meantime, the Groveton Ramp Is open to traffic from Route 51 to 1-79 northbound.

M30I153 PETER FLORIAN MOVES TO THE AIRPORT PROJECT You will notice that this issue, unlike the previous three issues of the newsletter, has con- spicuously changed your contact person from Peter Flortan to Tom Stockhausen. Peter has transferred to the Allegheny County Department of Capital Projects to. work on the new airport project

FOR MORE INFORMATION Our next newsletter Is scheduled for April. We hope to report at that time the results of our T56A. study (i.e., what the new bridge will look like) and the results of the hazardous waste Investigation. In the meantime. If you have any comments or need'more detailed Informa- tion, please contact Tom Stockhausen of Maguire Group Inc. at 281-6395.

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCT!© 501 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING PITTSBURGH, PA 15219

laguire Gtou_» iL— 301 Manoir Comdex, O 64 Forbes Avenue co - ee . 5: «> W Q. O < -> H i. L -, «

ftR30l55|i CORAOPOLIS BRIDGE NEWS

* CONSTRUCTION COUMTY OF ALLEGHENY COMMISSIONERMMI S TOMFOERSTER PETE FLAHERTY CHAfRMAN LAWRENCE W. OUNN COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER ISSUE NO. 5 AUGUST 1990

INTRODUCTION This b the fifth issue of the GoraopoHs Bridge Hews, a newsletter prepared by the Allegheny County Depart- ment of Engineering and Construction to keep you up to date on the status of our project to replace the CoraopoDs Bridge. t you have only recently been added to our mailing Rstand have not received the previous Issues; or, f you are not on the mailing list at aB and would like to be, please send a note to: Herbert ttkjgtnbotham, Director Department of Engineering and Construction SOI County Office Bunding Pittsburgh, PA 15219 f you have a question about the project or any of the material In the newsletter, cafl Tom Stockhausen of Maguire Group Inc. (the County's project manager) at 281-6393.

NEW BRIDGE DESIGN PROGRESS Since our last newsletter m February, progress on the new bridge design has slowed slightly, h part because we were concentrating more on resolving issues related to hazardous waste, and in part because of a delay In receiving approval of our proposed "structure type" for the new bridge, nonetheless, there was progress and we wn be working over the next several months to make up the lost time. In our last newsletter, we Informed you that we had submitted to PennDOT for approval the Step 9 Design, which establishes the specific alignment on which the project wJI be constructed. Wefl, the Step 9 Design has been approved. The approval has some conditions • none serious •which we are working to resolve. A second significant milestone in preliminary design b the T5&L or Type, Size & Location of the new bridge. We had hoped to have completed, and received approval of, the TS&L by April 1st. We did not meet that date because of a delay m receiving approval of the structure type study which ts a prerequisite the T5&L. We have since receK/ed approval of the structure type study and wBI be completed wthTS&L by mid-August. We expect approval of the TSfiiL by mid to late September. At that time, we cani begin final design of the new bridge—a five-span, steel deck girder (see enclosed figure).

AR30I555 fiR30IS56 Insert October IS, 1990

This insert is provided to the Coraopoiis Bridge Newsletter "because of delays in publishing and mailing this latest issue. For this, I apologize. There are a number of reasons why this occurred, but those problems have now been solved and future issues will be mailed on a more timely basis after their publication. Obviously, some of the news contained in this issue is stale thus the reason for this supplement. As you may be aware from recent accounts in the media, the Federal Highway Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation have ordered us to stop all design work as of mid-August. Thus the reference in this newsletter to our goal of initiating final design in September of 1990 has not occurred. The County is required to study potential alternate locations for 'the Coraopolis/Neville Island Bridge on locations between the existing bridge eastward to Interstate 79. It is our feeling that there are no other locations that are feasible because of cost and other impacts which must be reviewed. Obviously, the \j studies to be conducted will explore this and make the necessary assessments. We anticipate meeting with representatives of the Federal Highway Administration and PennDOT sometime in November to discuss these alternatives in addition to the original alternatives at the existing bridge site. The results of that meeting will dictate the future schedule of this project. Until that time, I can not hazard a guess as to the outcome. The County's position will be to continue to press for a replacement at the original bridge site with improvement to the geometric condition on the Neville Island approach as originally planned. If any other solution will yield a faster replacement and serve the needs of the communities, that obviously would receive our support. We will do our best to keep you informed of the developments on this project. The County is making every effort possible to move this project as expeditiously as possible. Believe me, it is extremely frustrating to not be able to show more results. : Respectfully submitted,

t^*£0&fe**«J Herbert c. Higginbo^m, II, P.E. Director HCH/wendy.bc

BR80I557 HAZARDOUS WASTE INVESTIGATION The County's hazardous waste Investigation of the area proposed for the new bridge has been completed. Based on that investigation, we anticipate that we wifl not encounter hazardous materials during the construe- Con of the new bridge. The draft has been prepared and reviewed by afl of the involved agendes. A final report should be completed by the first or second week m August. That's the good news. The bad news is that our proposed alignment for the new bridge - as well as the existing alignment • is in a see designated bytheU.5. Environmental Protection Agency for the national Priority Ust, commonly referred to as a Super fund see. Because of this designation, the EPA is guided by certain super fund regulations that are extremely restrictive with respect to use of land m a super fund site. Basically, the problem Is that untn EPA concludes ts Investigation of the see. probably some time late next year or early in 1992, t cannot establish deflnee boundaries for the see which, hopefully, will exclude our bridge alignment. For now, we must abide by the applicable federal regulations. Those regulations allow the County to proceed with the project but with the risk that at any time the EPA could stop the project. While the EPA recognizes that our hazardous waste investigation turned up nothing of consequence, the EPA must nevertheless stilt conduct Its own Investigation. Our hazardous waste work was not in vain, however. Even though the EPjA cannot accept t In place of ts own investigation; t does provide the County weh the background Information t win need to assess the risk of proceeding weh the project before EPA concludes ts Investigation. That assessment b underway, and a decision wifl be made by the time the bridge T5&L b approved marking the beginning of final design. The basic decision to be made b this: should the County proceed with final design and then construction • at a cost of more than $ 13 mutton with the knowledge that the EPA could stop the project at any time? ft is a dfftcutt decision. Complicating the County's decision b the fact that state and federal funding for the new bridge has been put m Jeopardy by the super funJ designation. The state and federal governments are programmed to pay 95 percent of the project costs. However, by being Involved In the County's bridge project, e seems they could also become a party to the dean up of hazardous waste in the hevffle Island Park see. Such a prospect has PennDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) rductant to fur^ the CoraopoBs Bridge project That prospect would put the entire bridge replacement cost on the County. Despite our pleadings to the EPA, e would not provide assurance that PennDOT and the FHWA would be pro- tected from responsibility for helping to pay to dean up Hevllle bland Park.Lawyers from the County, PennDOT and FHWA wB be working on an agreement whereby the County nnight protect crldemnfy PennDOT and FHWA. f that agreement can be worked out, and we have every reason to beDeve t can, we wfit have resolved one major bsue of securing state and federal funds for the new bridge. t b our hope that before the next Issue of our newsletter, we wi have resolved the Issue of state and federal funding, and, wffl have made the decision to proceed with the project despee the risk of an EPA stop. If so, we w81 inform you through a news release so that you can keep up to date with our progress.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Our newsletter reports on the design progress and hazardous waste status were perhaps more bad news than good. Thb report on the status of our progress toward an approved environmental assessment b more encouraging. We have now completed In draft or final form an of the required studies and reports that com- prise the environmental assessment And whOe environmental dearance may soil be' some time away, our progress toward that major milestone has been good.. And, test you think this b a minor achievement, the foOcwmg b a bt of some of the reports that we are preparing In compliance weh the enfc*onrnertalreb^*ements:

AR30I558 « Environmental Assessment Plan of Study (complete) • Technical Assessment Report '(draft complete} « Archaeological Reconnaissance Study (draft complete) • Design Location Study (draft complete) • Hazardous Waste Investigation (complete) • Determination of (historical) Adverse Effect Report (complete) • Historic American engineering Record Report (draft complete) • Section 4(T) Report (draft complete) • Environmental Assessment Ore-draft complete)

FOR MORE INFORMATION Our next newsletter should be bsued In Hovember. t you have arvcornrnentsccneedrnoredetaBedlnforrna- tton m the meantime, please contact Torn Stockhausen of Maguire Group he at 281-6595. Thank you for your patience.

CQUHTY OF ALLEGHEMY DEPARTMENT OF EHGIHEERIHG AMD COrtSTRUCTIOn 501 CQUHTY OFFICE BUILDIHG PITTSBURGH, PA 15219

f

———————HR30I5S9 li.iriililiuiilinlliiliu.titlitiitlimiUilnltl CORAOPOLIS BRIDGE NEWS

ENGINEERING fi CONSTRUCTION

ALLEGHENY COUNTY lET'^^ffiL. HERB HIGGINBOTHAM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS f liilli i ^^^ DIRECTOR TOM FOERSTER CHAIRMAN PETEFLAHERTY LAWRENCE W. DUNN "~ "'' ISSUE MO. 6 COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER MARCH 1991 INTRODUCTION This b the sixth bsue of the **Coraopolb Bridge Hews," a newsletter prepared by the Allegheny County Department of Engineering and Construction to keep you up to date on the status of our project to replace the Coraopoib Bridge. If you have only recently been added to our mailing list and have not received the previous Issues; or. If you are not on the mailing list at all and would nketo be, please send a note to: Herbert Higginbotham, Director Department of engineering and Construction 501 County Office Budding Pittsburgh, PA 15Z19 If you have a question about the project or any of the material In the newsletter, call Tom Stockhausen of Maguire Group Inc. (the County's project manager) at 281-6393.

NEW BRIDGE DESIGN PROGRESS In our last bsue sent to you In October, 1990 we reported that all design work on the project had been halted while we reanalyzed the location for the bridge. The objective'of that new analysis was to ensure that the location selected for the new bridge was In fact the best one given the additional complexities introduced into the project by the hazardous waste bsue. As Director Higginbotham reported In the October 18th insert m the previous newsletter, the results of the County's analysis, referred to as an "alternative analysis," were to be presented to officials of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) In Hovember. That presentation was made on Hovember 19th. We are pleased to report that PennDOT and FHWA confirmed that the County's proposed location for the new bridge was Indeed the best location. They also agreed that no additional analysis of any new alternative locations would be required. Inaddtton to confirming the location of the bridge, PennDOT and FHWA acyeed that the County should continue with the design process even though the hazardous waste bsue b still not completely resolved. This agreement meant that we were back in business with the design of the new bridge. We are happy to report that progress b again being made and that we took forward to starting final design very soon. The type, size and location (T5&L) for the new bridge that was discussed In the last newsletter b alt but approved except for resolution of a few questions about geotechnlcal conditions. We hope to receive final approval In March and Immediately begin development of final design drawing. i. One of the first things you wM see once final design begins w!S be ths drilling of soS borings both in the river and on land. We should be advertising for bids for that drilling work m late March, so took for the drill rtgs In April. The soil borings provide us with the Information about subsurface conditions that b needed to design the foundations of the new bridge. HAZARDOUS WASTE INVESTIGATION Our report in the last newsletter that we were completed with our hazardous waste investi- gation was perhaps premature. It seems that EPA would dke us to perform some additional testing of soil and groundwater In the area where the new bridge b to be constructed. We are negotiating with the County's desfcjn consultant to perform that additional work. We expect the work to be Initiated thb Spring. Once the additional testing b done, and assuming that our previous conclusion of no contamination of the new bridge right-of-way b confirmed, then the EPA may consider the study completed for that portion of the superfund site where the new bridge b to be built If EPA b Indeed satisfied, this could be the basb on which the bsue of hazardous waste b removed as a further obstacle to development of the bridge project

jr^Bjiar^^J»jr^^«La5jy-«^,Tir,^m!^nrirri~i7rwrniiiin'^r-*- ^Tffij>J^3fTTI|M87M^K^Kttttfr'lhi(ES^B^.^5^^^ »A ^Mvmam ^Httfr »~~»H. ______V __V

l£MJIJl -*^= fimjr i^xTum iMonTMun __ ___munim tMmrrouft

ARSOISS! ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY & DESIGN PROCESS Throughout the discussion about the Coraopolb Bridge project In the newsletters as well as at numerous meetings, we have attempted to explain how complex thb project b. Indeed any project to replace a major river bridge b complex.TTie Coraopolb Bridge project b some- what more so because of the historic nature of the Bridge and the fact that R b tecatcd in a stiperfund site. Well, we thought you might be interested to "see" exactly what we have been talking about. Enclosed as an insert to thb newsletter b a flow diagram of the major tasks involved In the environmental study and design of the Coraopolb Bridge. We developed thb flow chart to help us schedule these tasks. As you look at the flow chart, keep m mind that a lot of activi- ties preceded the first task. Some of those earlier activities Included the programming and budgeting of the project and the selection of a consultant to perform design. Consultant selection alone took several months, and that b normal. The flow chart does not Include alt of the activities that follow design involving bidding and awarding a construction contract That bidding and construction process, which takes at feast four months, must be complet- ed before construction can begin. It b a very lengthy and complex process In which a delay In one task can hold up the entire process. Perhaps by seeing how complex the process b you can better.understand why It takes so long to replace a bridge and particularly thb one. _.„ _ L^ --_- 4

i^ k tr~ * . - . ,•KM ewe* KvmM M*C§UWO«MSI »irmT8«iw » 1 T » '

——————p.———————•+•———!~r—«in»LMT«o>i emtrr at ^ aimer MY .trraieic- -.s 1

!._•] __ ,__. , , • rnui. tg _irfy/i»»««w»i. 1 ' • xmje Mum«M .1 «•«. ti . raw 1 n ,£vmw< fc uner IINHHM. mma w tnn*m ' _-***"'fc ^^ »• * ^ .

• • **rtO A AOAf ENVRONMENTU. ASSESS a OES16H FLOW DIAGRAM •CVUCD *-<4-»l COMPLETED AR30I562 ACTIVITY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY The status of our environmental study b virtually unchanged from the last newsletter. We have completed at least in draft form virtually all of the supporting technical reports to the Environmental Assessment. Each of those reports b being reviewed by PennDOT and FHWA. As we receive their comments we shall revbe and resubmK those documents for approval as quickly as possible. The County b performing the environmental study of the new bridge concurrently with the design development of the new bridge as a means of saving time in the whole process. Thus far, no environmental Impacts have been Identified that would cause us to postpone or have to alter the proposed new bridge design.

COUHTY OF ALLEGHENY ~ DEPARTMEMT OF ENGINEERING AMD CONSTRUCTION -5 501 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING H= PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 ?5

9 ! • ' ' fcagilrj C oup i 130301 HKinof Compt \ \ ! I j 464JFotbeo l Aver Ir8fi* PA . ca

4R30J563 o

APPENDIX B

• -' •'. •..'.-• •"-.. , • 1.: .;•_.... -.. . - .

AR30I56I) o

The Early Coordination Form, together with supporting mapping, was sent to interested Federal, State, and local agencies in early 1989. A cover letter with this Form invited formal comments and suggestions, to ensure that all relevant issues related to the proposed bridge replacement were properly addressed. The Form was sent to the following agencies: o Soil Conservation Service o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers o U.S. Coast Guard o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . o U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service o U.S. Department of Energy o U.S. Department of Health and Human Services o National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration o Appalachian Regional Commission o Urban Mass Transportation Administration o Federal Railroad Administration ' o Pennsylvania Fish Commission . - o Pennsylvania Game Commission . o Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission o Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission o Pennsylvania Department of Aging o Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture o Pennsylvania Department of Commerce o Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs o Pennsylvania Council on the Arts Commission - o Pennsylvania Energy Office o Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources o Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency o Governor's Office Human Relations Commission

AR30I565 EARLY COORDINATION FORM SUBJECT* Early Coordination Form for Highway Project Development

TO* /Ayertcy \. \Cor>racr/

Enc fneer Pennsylvania Department of Transporter ion Engineering nisTrfgt ll-o ______

-PA. If you need further Information, please con fact* PAT (Address) Foe/* P^g,i^^t-x CBSiu>Tg<^ Telephone (412.) ^57- For your convenience « a response form is included as page 8. Please complete the form and return ro. The DlstrfcT Engineer. ______j PrinT In BlacK InK. | ______; D I County A^i-gg-tfcMY ___S. R. ^J/A______Sect fon_ P.M.S. Number Federal Aid number c Project Common Nome (cgpt-A&g^EoT ef= T PROJECT DESCRIPTION ( length, termini, proposed improvement) See Attached U.S.G.S. Location Mapts) and Study Area Limit Map(s)

SO. SI

AR30I566 Coordination For*v» « wy* 2 of County_AUJg<&tf gVX______S. R. rt/A Sect ton PROJECT NEED AND ALTERNATIVES v^ > • • _ ^^ i Project Need ,jfI?JL. . -traffic C"\lu dar/rug p&ri'0c(* urfTh j-e-mf- over 30* F. Wrfhan APT of Z2tc& ve/iM€£ The. • n of 'fae r&itffK's ajrT&ufaJ roadkns.ci Suster>i ------of- ~n**- Ic&zJ road^nui neJ-iArork_ , bain* 'iei* of- The. Obio1U\&r -fo

Project Alternatives AI terna r tve __*__ ftertaonnenf 0-f- tite> &>tina .brtifae, j i . y < i 01- CimCrZs rge, //i C cthd mfaor trnproye rr*>i>ds -to The- ££ SI F&rree- ^- Sr. //91&'t~g€C-t~JOn and t^Alifffrmett^r c?P The. f\&trr'/f£* Approach. ^ T A I terna t Ive g &-f>'taeeme»r of- the, exis-ti*™ \ft &f~ C&r\C*t.fe' b*i'd./i£> frt -to The ex/$>hsT# Icea.'ftbn bc/i' skfwed ro the- r>or-tkea.si- C . __ /.< soufh abufomenf in gy/irW Ue*fte*\ nor 0 _2&J Alternative P L E T Alternative

W No But Id Alternative (Josvrt' Qrut def^o/hcr^ &£

See Attached Alternative Location Map* s) AR301S67 carly 'Coordination Form Page 3 of B

County AL6cTa#e'NY S.R. "/* Section *V4 PRELIMINARY IMPACT POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED ANALYSIS * * »- z >-< <_>o H- < — O IMPACT O< II PROPOSED AREAS ""o ANALYSIS 2|m-. 2V) IMPAC T \On t- NA—NO ANALYSIS SIGNIFICAN T • ON— QUALITATIVE NARRATIVE o ••DA- -DETAILED ANAYLS1S D REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY GROWTH y £?/V •'•• . I .and Us0 Manned Growth . S )eve 1 opmen t Po t terns T CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION R Soil Erosion and Sedimentation X QfiJ Veoeto1 Ion * fi/V I Geoloo col Resources y Q/S/ ttrecms . R ivers , Lakes X /9A/ C et lands X )X :loodploins X" )/ T vloviaoble Waterways A P/ Coastal Zones X NA Groundwater Resources A 1 NA Wild and Scenic Rivers X » MA T VI Id life and Wildlife Habitat X &M •ndanaered Plants and Animals X. rtN 0 'reductive Aoriculturol .ends X 6?N totlonol Natural Landmarks X N/\ to turo and Wild Areas X Nf\ C ••i Is tor ic Resources X i t-H Archeo oaical Resources {>* rnerov Conservation -&X- WA 0 ••ores and Recreation Facilities X /VA U PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES P Heo th and Educational Facilities X «N Pub ic ut» I ities A /9A/ 1 Fire, .Police ond other Emergency Services X &N E Pub I Ic Tronsoor tot ion X •^^ ou T COMMUNITY COHESION E Residential and Neighborhood Character ond Stobflttv X ox • . - Minority and other specific Groups ond Interests X MA Handicapped X NA Hderly X ^>A .oca 1 Tax Base X ^ A Vopertv Values j ^ A A-

» Place X In box as applicable. —— *« Explain the scope of the detailed analysts on fiRoOlbbu Ks). County /VLC^MeMY S.R. M/A- Section ufo PRELIMINARY IMPACT POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED ANALYSIS e

IMPACT o£ PROPOSED AREAS ANALYSIS 2| IMPAC T NA--NO ANALYSIS

SOM E IMPAC T • SIGNIFICAN T » ON—QUALITATIVE NARRATIVE ••DA— DETAILED ANAYLSIS NO T SIGNIFICAN D DISPLACEMENT OF PEOPLE , BUSINESS I AND FARMS Relocations A 6»fV S Replacement Housina A «/V Economic Act ivity Including T Employment Gains and Losses X rs/A i R AIR QUALITY X «N I NOISE X ttAJ C WATER POLLUTION X C».N i T HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES X 1 DA AESTHETICS AND OTHER VALUES • * T V Tsua I Qua 1 1 tv X 8 1 &rt Multiple Use Opportunities X MA 0 Joint Development X i\/A • MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS C OF PROJECT AND RELATED FACILITIES OPERATION AND USE OF EXISTING 0 HIGHWAYS OR OTHER TRANSPORTATION . . . M FACILITIES . Trcf f ic Volumes X. , DA P Travel Patterns A DA L OTHER E . T 1 _ E '

•\ i •

i i

» Place X tn box as applicable. ______-——— — - — «* Explain the scope of th& detailed analysis on a $R30 1 569*3 • sl • • .Early Coordination Form Page 5 of 8

County Ai-t- S.R. W/A Section A///f ENVIRONMENT DOCUMENTATION

Environmental Assessment Section 4( f) Evaluation Q Programmatic Section A( f) Evaluation Q Technical Basis Reports { list here)______

Q Composite Technical Basis Report S Technical Appendices D Coordination and Consultation Report JS Statewide Wetland Finding Q Category A EJ Category B Q Individual Wetland Finding G Fioodplain Finding G Determination of Eligibility Report 52 Criteria of Effect Report (Dot*—^^»*\ .(• *4 x/e«j<. Recordation . " ^ Special Purpose Documents < list here) PK«ise.I t.. IT* c*i % ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION Preliminary Design Report D Phase I Alternatives Report G Phase II Alternatives Report ^ Hydro logic and Hydraulic Report G Design Field View Type, Size and Location Submission Sol Is and Geologic Report G Wetlands Alternatives Analysis £5 Section 4( f) Avoidance Alternatives Analysis G Special Purpose Documents ( list here)

-HR30I510 criy Coordination Form Page 6 of 8

County A (--.gg-tf eXj^j______S.R. N//4____Section PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

• D Routine Community Relations Program Coverage Only T] Plans Display £3 Public Officials Meeting IS Public Meeting !XS Public Hearing [3 Special Purpose Meetings (list here)————.______

T n Newsletter LJ Special Committee (list here)

AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Notice of Intent (EIS's only) Early Coordination Letter S Early Coordination Form C& Scoping Field View/Meeting G Technical Review Field View/Meeting Q Environmental Review Committee Meeting Presentation G Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Board Presentation G Special Purpose Meetings ( 11st here)___^____.______F«v»\ • Fuye 7 of C

Coun ty AtL6aKgNY______S. R. M/A Sec t Ion PERMIT REQUIREMENTS I Army Corps of Engineers (404) Permit Q Nationwide S" Individual I Rl Coast Guard Permit S OER Waterway Encroachment < 105) Permit 21 OER 401 water Quality Certification D E—l, DER Erosion ond Sediment Pollution Control Permit 1 G OER Sol Id Waste Permit Q Other Permits ( 11st here) T

t______CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS C D DER Coastal Zone Management Program D DER Wild and Scenic River Management Plan Consistency Q FEMA Flood Map Modification G Other Consistency Determinations ( list here)______

fiR30l:572 Pcce 9 of AGENCY RESPONSE TO EARLY COORDINATION FORM SUBJECT* (Aoeoevt ______- _____ Response TO rne Early Coordination Form for Highway Project Development

O: tNQM) UgRSgST C. H1GG1MBOTHAM, lZJR.g.T DEPARTMENT OF eMSlNee«.\N

FROM: (Name). (Aoeney). (Adareaa) ______Te lepnone « )

County Ai-LgftUg-NV ._____S.R. MA_____Section P.M.S. Number ______^Federal Aid Project Number A Project Common M™*~ ' PgPUACEHENT OF CORAOPOUS G We have reviewed the Early Coordination Form and we have the following responses • N Q we have no corn-Tent. Q We agree that The approprlaTe proJecT alTernatives are being considered and The proposed scope of The analysis appears TO be correcT. Q we do not agree That the appropriate project alternatives are T being considered as we have explained on .the attached sheen s). 0 Q we do not agree that The proposed scope of the analysis appear to be correct as we have explained on the attached sheet(s). G We would like TO be contacted to attend a scoping field view. G'We have some questions regarding the project and request that we be contacted TO discuss Them. G we would like to receive a copy of the Environmental Assessment.

Signarure__J______Dare

S Rf 30 1-5 7 3 EARLY COORDINATION FORM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AREAS REQUIRING DETAILED ANALYSIS 23 November 1988 Replacement of Coraopoiis Bridge Project No. OB02-0607 Coraopoiis Boro and Neville Township 1. Wet!ands - The Army Corps of Engineers three-parameter methodology will be used to determine and delineate wetlands 1n the study area. Wetlands Identified will be classified and mapped using the guidance provided 1n the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States*. It Is anticipated that a Statewide Wetland Finding (Category B) will be applicable to the project. The study will assess the Impacts of the project alternatives on any wetlands Identified. If wetlands are found and Impacts do result, mitigation measures to minimize unavoidable wetland Impacts will be recommended. 2. Floodolalns - This analysis will Include a review of the hydraulic characteristics of flooding from the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Reports prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEKA). These will be used to provide estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected recurrence Intervals. These will be used to evaluate the Impacts the project alternatives would have on the existing fioodplain limits and flooding levels. This assessment will be based on Design Manual 2, Chapter 10, and be in compliance with Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management, dated Hay 24, 1977. . . 3. Navfoable Waterways -Information on existing vertical and horizontal clearances and the location of the existing channel line will be obtained as part of the development of the project alternatives. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard will be contacted to obtain required vertical and horizontal clearances and any other pertinent design criteria necessary to Incorporate in the design of the project alternatives. This Information will also be used to assess the Impacts of the project alternatives on navigation on the back channel of the Ohio River which flows under the bridge and to obtain the necessary U.S. Coast Guard permits. 4. Historic Resources - The existing Coraopoiis Bridge has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Consequently, the 106 Section procedures outlined in 36 CFR, Part 800, 'Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" will be followed. This will Include Include Initially preparation of a Determination of Effect 1n conjunction with the FHVA and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Following preparation "and agreement of the Determination of Effect, compliance with the Section 106 procedures is also anticipated to require preparation of a Preliminary Case Report, a Memorandum of Agreement and a Historic American Engineering Record. Due to the time-consuming nature of the Section 106 process, It will be initiated as soon as possible In the environmental assessment. 5. Areheolepical Resources - For the survey of archeological resources, a Phase I Archeological Survey of the study area will be completed. This survey will be completed In conforoance with the requirements outline in Strike-Off Letter No. 430-85-89, • 'Archeological Procedures for Highway Project Development", dated August 23, 1985* The area to be investigated Includes about one acre at the north end of the bridge on Neville Island which is the area affected by the replacement alternative on an alignment upstream of the existing bridge. This will Include a pedestrian reconnaissance of the alignment area and subsurface testing, literature review, and consultations with persons and agencies knowledgeable about the local area. This analysis will Identify known historical and archeological resources eligible or on the National Register of Historic Places. • . • . . ' .• The Impacts on these resources of the alternatives will be determined. If Phase II studies are necessary, they will be accomplished in confonnance with Federal rules and regulations and the PHMC "Guidelines for Archeological Survey and Mitigation*. The final IHKC finding will be Included In the environmental documentation. . • 6. Fnerov Conservation - An tssessnent will be preformed to determine the potential for significant changes In energy consumption due to the construction tnd operation of the proposed alternatives. This will Include a comparison of the one-tine energy expenditure associated vith the construction of the replacement bridge with the long-tern energy usage. This Simplified Energy Analysis Procedures (SEAP) will be based on the procedures outline in the Draft Guidelines, "Interim Policy of Energy Consumption*, Chapter 10, dated April 9, 1984* Emphasis will be . placed on the energy requirements of mainline construction, detours, and traffic delays, and will address the impacts of truck detours resulting from the present three-ton load limitation. 7. Operation and Use of Existing Highways - Changes In travel patterns, traffic volumes and characteristics, and overall transportation operations would result froa the re-oval of the present three-ton load liait as well as the closure of the bridge in cold weather. These will be assessed using data available before the load tnd service Hilts were iuposed, tnd for future years given forecasts of future ACT voltnes. These will be evtluated in conjunction with the review of energy consumption.

AR30I575 6. Hazardous or Residual Waste An assessment of the potential of finding hazardous wastes which may affect the project alternatives will be conducted in accordance with procedures outlined in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Strike-Off Letter No. 430-85-103, "Consideration of Hazardous Waste Site Encountered During Highway Project Development," dated September 24, 1985. This will Include a literature search including a review of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources' 100 or 300 series list of closed sites and the EPA's Inventory of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. However, no test pits will be excavated. If, as a result of the initial search, additional Investigations are warranted, a program for detailed analysis tailored to the specific waste situation will be developed

A-R30I-576 AGENCY RESPONf= TO EARLY COORDINATION FORM SUBJECT* <*q*nev> ______; ______ResporfeB The Early Coordination Form for Highway Project

TO* tNama) MgRSgRT C. VMGGINSCTH AM, IS., P.g., OIR.ECTOR DEPARTMENT OF en6,iNee«UNfc AND ceNSrR.uc-rio*f .7C COUNTY OF AULJEvGHeNY -5 - '• ' S sci COUNTY OFFICE " ( Addraaa) FCgeSLS AvSHQg A NO R.QSS _Ei_TT.SBUR;_ (Acency). i«pnone

Coun Ty Ai_i,gaugM'v______S. R. MA____Sec t Ion A P.M.S. Number ______Federal Aid Project Nunt>er ProjecT Conrnon MrtmA pgpUACSHgwT OF CORAOPO,,IS G We have reviewed the Early Coordina-tion Form and we have the following response* D We have no .cotutnen r. We agree Thar the appropriate project alternatives are being considered ana me proposed scope of the analysis appears to be correct. _ We do not agree That The appropriate project alternatives are T being considered as we have explained on the attached sheertsl. 0 D We do not agree Thar The proposed scope of the analysis appear to be correct as we have explained on the atTcched sheer(s). Q We would like ro be contacted to attend a scoping field view. C _ ••'-'• ,- We have some questions regarding the project and request that we be contacted TO discuss Them. J2_We would like to receive a copy of The Env Ironmen ra I Assessment.

S igna ture ^^ - no re

FROM* ' Nome) JJSQA SOIL CON^FRVATtOfl SERVICE <>flflnev> 1 PARKWAY CENTER. ROOM 115 .ROAD T« lepnone CMI5UUHUH, hA.

CounTy Ai_t_gg,ug-NV______S. R. MA____.Secr ion__ P. M. S. Nuntaer ______'_____Federc I A id Project Number Project Common M*™* P^PUACgHgNT OF eogAoPot-is.

we have reviewed the Early Coordination Form and we have the following response* Q We have no comjnenT. C D We agree mar The approprfaTe project alternarives are being considered and me proposed scope of me analysis appears ro be correcT. D We do noT agree mar me appropriate project alTernatives are* being considered as we have explained on me attached sheer(s). D We do noT agree mat me proposed scope of the analysis appear TO be correct as we have explained on tr»e-attached sheet(s). Q We would like TO be conrdcred to attend a scoping field view. C • • • •, . •..'.. Q We have some questions regarding me project and request that 0 we be contacted TO discuss mem. M We would like to receive a copy of me Environmental Assessment. P s j **~~~) /* S ignature /^-' rT ^*js->______0a te '''*'**

£-*--^**^uutcx, } ~?~ t-ff * v—^V»«***#x/^^. ~T?— -*-f •

AR30I578 race 8 of \GENCY RESPONL2 TO EARLY COORDINATIMQN^RM -^

SUBJECT* JAflwiev7 * lJA^TMA|«- T^flE-^W-----E „, «n*f4&r _^» ,-*?f.' .^ The ^Ear ly Coordlnat fan Form for Highway Project Oeve ! opmsn? ~: .V£ " • • " *

TO* CNarna) HSRSgRT C.. HlGGtMScrrtMMj. TT, P.t=L , DlR.Ec.TCR. w DEPARTMENT OF -_MGtN ee«llN

FROM*

Coumy Aii^gfeug'NV S. R. MA____.Sec r Ion MA A P.M. S. Nujrder______Federal Aid Pro jeer Numoer_ ProjecT Cojnnon M«r-A ggPUACEHgNT OP COPAOPO-.I& G ' We have reviewed The Early Coordination Form and we hdve the v, M following response* ^ We have no comjnenr. D We agree thar me approprlaTe projecT a ITernarives are being Y considered and me proposed scope of The analysis appears ro be correcr. _ We do nor agree mar me cpproprfaTe projeer alrernaTlves are T being considered as we have explained on me attached sheerts). Q Q we do nor agree mar The proposed scope of me analysis appear ro be correcr as we have explained on the arrached sheerts). O We would like ro be contacted ro attend a scoping field view. Q We have some quesTlons regarding The projeer and request rhar 0 we be conracred TO discuss Them. M D We would like ro receive a copy of me Environmenral Assessmenr. P y E _ Signarure. E

5"R301579 o or AGENCY RESPONSE TO * r?' EARLY COORDINATION FORM ~ :;*i SUBJECT* tAqanev) ______Respcftse 'ro~ r +••*:•• •*» The Early Coordinar'on norm for Highway Project Oevelopteenr .i.-_ • ' : ' • TO* CNoma) »€RBgRT C. HlGGlNgeTHAM^ C, P.g., QlR.Ec.TOR DEPARTMENT OF Et*&(N ee_«.\N

FROM* tNama) . f/t£fi/r£s*ph /T .If£/t (Agency) /t!'sist6,

Coun ry AiL-g

r.Mfr

301-S80 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Suite 322 315 South Alien Street State College; Pennsylvania 16801 2r? January 23, 1989 n: Mr. Herbert C. Higginbotham **_' Department of Engineering and Construction . County of Allegheny co 501 County Office Building Forbes Avenue and Ross Street ' Pittsburgh, PA 15219 . Dear Mr. Higginbotham: We have reviewed the plan of study for the proposed Coraopoiis Bridge * replacement as requested in your January 5; 1989 letter. We concur with the level of review considering the heavily developed study area. On January 10, 1989, four federal agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers adopted "A Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdiction! Wetlands". We, therefore, recommend use of this method to identify wetlands within the project area. Except for occasional transient species, no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species under our jurisdiction are known to exist in. the project Impact area. Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Should project plans change, or If additional information on listed or proposed species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. Thank you for the early opportunity to review this project. Sincerely,

Charles J. Kulp Supervisor

A R 3 01 5 81 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Pos_ t Offic_,„ •e Bo_ x 206.-,__,3> Harrisburg. PennsyfvanJa 17120

Secretary's Office of Policy (717) 783-1566 February 14.' 1989 03

Herbert: C. Higginbotham , II, P.E. , Director & Department: of Engineering and Construction ^ County of Allegheny . 501 County Office Building "' — •- £g Forbes Avenue and Rose Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 . Dear Mr. Higginbotham: The Department of Environmental Resources has reviewed the Early Coordination Form and related materials for the proposed replacement of Coraopoiis Bridge, Allegheny County. We offer the following comments: i 1. If material from the bridge is to be disposed of, it must go to an approved landfill. "If sand blasting will be done on the bridge, the residual material must be collected and disposed of at a proper residual or hazardous waste disposal site. Permits may be secured through DER's Pittsburgh Regional Environmental Protection Office, (412) 645-7100. 2. Activities proposed for this project are subject to regulation under the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act and will require a water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit. The EPA three parameter methodology .to delineate wetlands will be required when submitting the Chapter 105 joint permit application. A 401 certification will also be needed from . the Bureau of Dams and Waterway Management, (412) 899-2377. The Early Coordination Agency Response Form has been enclosed with our comments. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review this project. Si:

Carlson, Director s Office of Policy Enclosure Page 8 of AGENCY RESPONSE TO EARLY COORDINATION FORM • " •- • • % SUBJECT* (Aqanevi ______._ Response re The Early Cocrdlnarfon Form for Highway Projecr Development

TO* tNamal KgRS6.gT C. HVGGlMSOTH AMr DEPARTMCNT OP evlGlNEeRXNa AND COM STRUCT ION COUNTY OF AU-EG SCI COUNTY OFFICE F*CgegS AvEMUE A HP R.CSS

FROM* (Non»). ( Agency). .Te leprwne ( )

CounTy ALt-gGugHV______S. R. MA____Sec T Ion MA P.M.S. Number______Federal Aid Projecr Number A Projecr Common M«m* pgpi, A CEMENT OF CORAOPOI-I<>

We hove reviewed rhe Early Coordinar Ton Form ond we have /he following responses D We have no commenr. D We agree rhar The approprlare proJecT alTernarfves are being considered and The proposed scope of The analysis appears ro be correcr. Q We do noT agree Thar The approprfare prolecr alrernarlves are being considered as we have explained on me attached sheer(s). Q We do nor agree ThaT The proposed scope of rhe analysis appear ro be correcr as we have explained an rhe arrached sheer(s). We would like ro be con reared ro a Trend a scoping field view. C ^tf_ phof\*m jtu/nbtifb /xv ovf cfff'fA(A-f&- _i_5*-*—^*» D We have some cuesTTons regarding The prolecr end requesr rhar 0 we be contacted TO discuss Them. M We would like ro receive o copy of The Environmental Assessment. P L

•* *f » -tf » t^* • -•*• -«* -r-m——— ^-«nr - IT ii n-T i 1 mf n i -ITT-—————. - — • • T LJu I G E COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVAu.A PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1028 HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 1710Q-1026

GB » * * February 6, 1989 " •n .•:* CP. .% <"• Herbert C. Eigginbotham a.—. ;"!?.;£: County of Allegheny c| - ? * Department of Engineering and Construction 501 County Office Building Forbes Avenue & Ross Street Pittsburgh r Pennsylvania 15219 Re: 89-0462-003-A Coraopoiis r Allegheny County Replacement of Coraopoiis ' Bridge Dear Mr. Eigginbotham: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the national Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part v j 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. Because historic resources on or eligible for the National Register (listed below) are in the project area and because of the nature of the project activities, it is our opinion that there will be an effect on historic resources and that the effect may be adverse. To comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. you must prepare a statement that applies the Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect (see 36 CFR 800.9 attached). . This information should be sent to the Bureau for Historic Preservation. Coraopoiis Bridge • . . If you need further information in this matter please consult Joanne Keim at (717) 783-8946 or 783-8947. " Sincerely,

Brenda Barrett Director BB/JK cc: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AGENCY RESPONf "= - • Cyt'MTf TQ ' '•'• EARLY COORD INAT I ON FORM i-GTy ? \fifioII0______!______Response ro The Early CoordfnaTfon Form for Highway Pro] ecr Oeve I opnsnr-

TO: tNflma) »€RSgRT C. HlGglMSOTHAH, TS.y P.e.T OIR.Ec.TOR ' OSPARTHCMT OF eMfilNeeRlNG AND CONSTRUCTION COUNTY OF ALLJE-GrtO_NY SOI COUNTY OFFICE QUIUOIHQ, ( Addraaa) FOCSES AvSNUE ANOR.OSSSTR.ggT

FROM! (Agency). C JLddmaal Ta lepftone I )

CounTy ALLgGU^NVS. R. MASeer Ion MA P.M.S. Nuflfcer______Federal Aid Projecr Number Projecr Common M«K» PerP\_A

We have reviewed me Early Coordlndrlon Form and we have rhe following response* D We have no commenr. Q We agree mar me approprlaTe projecT a ITernarives are being considered and me proposed scope of The analysis appears TO be correct D We do noT agree mar me approprlaTe pro jeer aiTernaTlves are being considered as we have explained on me arrached sneer(s). Q we do noT agree mar The proposed scope of me analysis appear TO be correcr as we have explained on The arrachea sheer(s). D We would like TO be conraeTed TO a T Tend a scoping field view. C D We have some quesrIons regarding rhe projecr and requesr mar 0 we be conracred TO discuss mem. M We would like ro receive a copy of The Environment I Assessment.' P L E ^ T ROGEE3K. WIEBUSCH, Chief. Bridge Branch Commander (ob) • E 1430 Olive Street St. Louis, MO 63101-2398 AR30I'S85 Page 8 c " AGENCY RESPONSE TO t --3: EARLY COORDINATION FORM tAasnev* S P R P C.______Respon§e re The Early CoordlnaTion Form for Highway Projecr Developmenr

TO* 1N01T»> MSRSERTC.. J41GG \MSOTHAM, T".. P.g., DIRECT O^ ce> DEPARTMENT OF eNGlN eeRVNG AND COM STRUCT ION COUNTY OF AULEG SCI COUNTY CFFlCe {Addraaa) FCCSSS AVSMUC A NO

FROM: (Acency). (Adaraaai Talapnone « >

Coumy AUL^GU^NV S.R. wA Secrion MA A P.M.S. Number Federal Aid Projecr Number Projecr Common Nome Rgpu^cEh^T oF eoRftofiQui& MlOftF—— — C E We have reviewed rhe Early Coor a f nation Form and we have rhe . fo 1 lowing response* N D We have no cotnmsnr. C 'we agree that me appropriare project alTernarfves are being Y Xconsidered and The proposed scope of The analysis appears TO be correcT. D We do nor agree Thdr me approprlaTe pro jeer airernarives are T being considered as we have explained on rhe attached sheeT(s). 0 D We do no T agree maT me proposed scope of me analysis appear ro be correcr as we have explained an rhe a Trachea sheer(s). We would like ro be contacted to attend a scoping field view. C' D D We have some questions regarding rhe projecr and requesr mar 0 we be contacted TO discuss mem. . M )E$ We would 1 Ike TO receive a copy of th* Environmental Assessment. P •' L E j? i^_Jf ~jr* *\2r S ^ S S^) Jfa?^) si<7-- r\ if-*» **-..-*rt4l_f*-m<&S -*^S*t0'&+*<*eeA~*l&^' Ba rft ./ «_>V

TO* CNatna) MSRSgRT C. HlGGtMSOTHAM, IT, P.gL, OtR.Ec.TOR DEPARTMENT OF ett&tN eeRtNQ AND CONSTRUCTION COUNTY OF AU-EG SOI COUNTY CFFlCe ( Addreaa) FC gSSLS J\\l SHVJg AND R.OSS STREET

FROM* PA DgPT?

Counry Aiugg.ugMV______S.R. MA_____Seer ion MA A P.M.S. Number______Federcl Ala Projecr Number_ Projecr Common Mama ggPUACEHgNT OF COPAQPOL.I: G We have reviewed rhe Early Coordindrlon Form and we hdve The following response* N D We have no coramenr. • C We agree mar me approprlaTe projecT a ITernarives are being Y considered and The proposed scope df the analysis appears ro be correer. • Q We do noT dgree mar-me appropr fa re projecr alrernarlves are T being considered as we have explained on me attached sheerfsl.... C Q We do noT agree mar me proposed scope of me analysis apf&ar-^ ro be correcr as we have explained on. me aTTached sheertsf' c 4:."'._ " Q We would like ro be contacted TO attend d scoping field view; "' C D We hdve some quesTlons regarding me projecr dnd request rhdT • 0 we be conTacTea TO discuss mem. •-;_-- M D We would like ro receive a copy of me Environment I Assess*_£nr.- P L

_ Signa*»•-• //• —SV^G* sy' ^t^S £.'(/&//______oar/SI'SfJ S£f e T E

-W30IS87 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PITTSBURGH DISTRICT. CORPS OP ENGINEERS WIU1AM C. MOORHEAO FEDERAL BUILDING MI -jo-* i a 1000 LIBERTY AVENUE. PITTSBURGH. PA 15222-4186 ^—^ .-- January 24, 1939

Mr, Herbert C. Higginbotham, II, P.E., Director ._. . Department of Engineering and Construction ': County of Allegheny 501 County Office Building &' Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 V Dear Mr. Higginbotham: This is in response to your January 5, 1989 letter on the replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge between Coraopoiis Borough and Neville Township. The letter transmitted an Early Coordination Form on the proposed project. Our comments are on the enclosed "Agency Response" form. I have also enclosed a copy of our public notice, "Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program, Reauthorization of the Nationwide Permits," which provides information on the applicability of nationwide and individual Section 404 permits to bridge construction across navigable water. For additional information, please contact Mr. Eugene Homyak, Chief, Regulatory Branch, at 644-4201. Sincerely,

., P.E. Division Enclosure

=_• i*o iGENCY RESPOND Page 8 of TO EARLY COORDINATION FORM SUBJECT* < Aoanev> ______;______;______Response re me Early Coordinarion Form for Highway ProjecT OevelopmenT

TO* I Nona) MgRBgRT C. KlGGtMSCTHAM,. TSj P.g., OIR.EC.TOR DEPARTMENT OF CMG.IKtee3.lNfe AHO CONSTRUCTION COUNTY OF ALUSGHeNY SCI COUNTY OFFICE QUIW.O»NC> (Addraaa) FcgQSS AVSNUE ANO RCSS STREET______

FROM* (N Mr. George Cinelc. Jr.. P.E.. Chief. Planning Division (Aaanev) Fittsburgh District, U.S. Army Corp- of Engineers tAddreaa) 1000 Liberty Avenue Tfllapnana (412 > 6A4-6817 Pittsburgh, FA 1SZ22

CounTy AH-gc.ugrKV______S. R. MA____SeCTion A P.M.S. Nurroer______^Federal Aid Projecr Number Projecr Common *•«-_» PF-PL.AC-EMCMT OF COBAOPOL_I<, C We have reviewed The Early Coordinarion Form and we have me following response* D We have no commenr. HD We agree TMOT me approprlaTe projecT alTernarives are being considered and The proposed scope of The analysis appears ro be correcT. D We do'-.nor agree Thar The cppropricTe projecr alTernaTives are being considered as we have explained on me a Trachea sheerfs). Q We do noT agree ThaT The proposed scope of me analysis appear ro be correcr as we have explained on me c Trachea sheerts). O We would like TO be conracTed TO a trend a scoping field view. C* __ Q We have some quesrions regarding The projecT and requesr ThaT we be contacted TO discuss Them. D We would I Ike TO rece ive a copy of The EnvIronmenTal Assessment 841 cnestnut Street Suite 7U f eJlansponofion 4fff S /.'.'_,- ••» tn, 18107 Ur-xsnMass nifl "j f_^J? ? Transportation " Administration

Mr. Fprhp-rt C. Eigginbottaa, H Director GcxiRty of Allegheny _ of Engineering and 501 County Office Boilding Fo2±es and Pass Avenues Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219

Be: Ooracpolis Bridge -^placement EcLrly Ooordinaticn • Dear Hr. Higglnbottoa: '•• - . • '• • ' . Wa have received your January 5 request for early coordination on your zregarding the purposed enviromosntal actions neGuired to replace tha Oocaopolis Bridge.

Our £6Vi£W Yw$ ^at-ftrniir^fA tisat tt*ft m'yrxy15''^ pTBJ^CFb OOM^^P8* DO 'Briag-

Sinoerely,

. .^' is* A' '. Shf»Mnn A. Kit-par Manager

flR30l590 Mll^^t.^^^

APPENDIX C SECTION 106 COORDINATION

«R30l-59t NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION AND PENNSYLVANIA HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY FORMS

Al AR30I592 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY FORM 7. Lacai wrvey orfimut.en • j li t M«t» l ii.fn . IJR6AUPOH HISTORIC fH-S.RVATION Box 1026 Pittsbureh Hiltorv & Landmarks Foundation PA HISTORICAL i MUSEUM COMMISSION Harmbur-. PA 17120 6 ' •. tax parcel numoer/otner numoer 8. preparty ownart nama and acorn* C o ra n 'U'TU t P | t l7 ft 6 I- D I Allegheny County ion. Mtlinf less than one acre , 1 1 . iotner lurveyt. ii»t» *teJ \f* (- 6 u |l i/ C iA Allegheny County utai nortning tntals Afllbciuge 1;2^0CC Survey 1 (S 12. ciauiflcation IXdttelil (how d«tyg>y(»<3) 18. ttyle. deiign or folk typa 1«..rWn.lu« firldge 3= lit* < ) *lru«ik»re IX oolact ( ) -1 buiidiA(r ( } diit/lct t } 20. preunt vi. J thematic (x) «iOOt A B * — 17U4 QftUA _*W_* b^ ^44^ Bridge |83 16. architect or engineer 1 7. contractor or builder 18. primary building mat ./conttruc. 21.conoltlon _ Theodore Cooper fcaird Brothers Steel 22. Integrity Good Sixt h Stree t Uridr. c (I'ittsburj -

23. tita plan witn norm arrow 0 . otii« r min e Ililttod c ri.m I any !

SLACK AND WHITE FSINT(S) 3 1 /2" x B" enlergement or medium format contact note location ef negative In block 24.

24. pnoto notation . IFerre e Stree t (Coraopoiis ) an d Gran Avenu e (Nevill Township )

29. file/location 28. brlaf dattrlptlon (nota ununtal feature*. Integrity, environment, tnreati and anoclatad bulldlngi ) The Coraopoiis Bridge crosses the back channel of the Ohio River with c north-south orientation to connect the town of Coraopoiis with the west end of Neville Island. There is a simple pony truss approach at the south (Coraopoiis) end of the bridge, but the primary structure consists of two 445 foot spans. The spans are *teekon_BSJf fcfjjgfi, nacanaryt 27. hlitory. atgnif Icanca and/or background The Coraopoiis Bridge is significant for its design by prominent engineer Theodore Cooper, its age and unique history, and its transportation role at two locations. The Coraopoiis Bridge was originally erected in 1892 as the third Sixth Street Bridge linking the cities of Pittsburgh and Allegheny. Increased traffic required the replace- ment of a John A. Roeb ling— .designed suspension bridge at this important Allegheny . (eontlnua on back If necawry) 28. aourcet of information Proceedings of the Engineer's Society oE Western 29. prepared by: Pennsylvania. i-95,"lV27. / wjute? josepn ano ti.w. eernewi.cz> i,ne Martin Aurand Bridges of Pittsburgh. Pittsljurghi Cramer PrinciBpSm§. f^L^tliC&ry» PHLF Computer Coding (6 HP Survey Grant*** Muit Complete) -'O* , _9._O.. 7/85 31. county ___!£. 32. ctyla .&i . 32. construction material 06 r -_ • • 9M- •*"•* — :___

38. hlttorlc function l__LH_6j . . 37. conttructlon feature • „; • 38. a»t. wallf • ' 39. plan __ 40. facade width _ 41. roof materiel ___ 42. ttortat_ 43. daptn___

• AR30I593 -.DOlTlONA. OATA/PHOTOS 4. turvey code number all continuation* from front <26. Continued russes. They rest on three concrete piers—two at-the shorelines and one in the center of back channel. The trusses are constructed of a large number of pinned and riveted .enslon tund compression members. The extensive u$« of girders gives the bridge a lacy visual quality. Th«re are portal-like steel archways at the ends of each span. On these, lattice- work and rivets serve a partially decorative purpose. 'he bridge is potentially three lanes wide and originally carried trolleys as well as other vehicular traffic. But the present concrete deck carries just two lanes of auto traffic. There is a walkway with decorative steel balustrade on the east side. The concrete piers late from the bridge's re-erection at this site. #27. Continued liver crossing. The new bridge was privately financed by the Sixth Street Bridge Company and Fidelity Title and Trust Company. Theodore Cooper was hired as a consulting engineer. His design was accepted, and was given approval by both the U.S. War Department and the 'ittsburgh Coal Exchange which was very influential in waterway-related matters. The bridge •ras built by Baird Brothers at a cost of $560,000. - ' Theodore Cooper was a nationally renowned bridge engineer. He had important roles in the milding of the Eads Bridge in St. Louis and the Brooklyn Bridge in New York, and was later noted for his railroad, bridges. His illustrious career ended ingloriously as the monumental Quebec Bridge of 1907, for which he was supervising engineer, collapsed while under con- struction with 82 lives lost. But he remains a significant figure in American engineering. .'he Coraopoiis Bridge is reported to be the only surviving work solely of his design. In 1919 the War Department declared the then existing Allegheny River bridges to be •bstructions to river traffic and ordered them replaced. A new Sixth Street Bridge, also \^yicluded in this thematic nomination, vas built in 1927-28. The two main spans of the old bridge were disengaged, floated down the Ohio River on coal barges, and re-erected at Coraopoiis to replace an earlier trolley bridge slightly downstream. The entire operation took 140 days and cost $316,000, estimated to be half the cost of new construction. boundary Description and Justification! The nominated property consists of a 1163 x 66 foot rectangle bordered by the bridge perimeter.

•AUUATlON

EVALUATCR(S) AR30I591* ; N»$ f e»m tO-MO • - c,3 &K1 eJpir-i * United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS UM only National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections 1. Name

historic

and or common Alleehenv Countv Owned River Bridges Thematic Grouo 2. Location

street & number Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers a/a, not lor publication Pittsburgh, Homestead, city. town Coraopoiis, Neville Twp. JlLL vicinity ot . - • state Pennsylvania : code 042 county Allegheny . code 003 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use __district X public _JL occupied __.agriculture •__museum __bulldlng(s) __private ——unoccupied __commercial __park ___ structure __. both —_ work in progress ___ educational - private residence ___slte • Public Acquisition Accessible .__ entertainment __ religious __object _oJ_Un process ___ yes: restricted ——government __scientific _£j_hemacic a/a. being considered ___ yes: unrestricted __ industrial _X__ transportation ——'no ——military _.other: 4. Owner of Property

name County of Allegheny; Department of Engineering and Construction ______street & number 501 County Office Building, Ross Street ______city, town Pittsburgh o^B, vicinity of ______state Pennsylvania • 5. Location of Legal Description ______

courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Allegheny County Office Building ______street & number Ross Street ______city, town Pittsburgh ___ _" ______state Pennsylvania ____ _^ 6. Representation in Existing Surveys ____

title Allegheny County Survey ______has this property been determined eligible? __ yes . JL no The Sixteenth Street Bridge vas listed in the National Register AUgy?t 13, 1979 date 7_ ' —— federal —— state _JL county —— local depository lor survey records Pennsylvania Historical and MuseuTB^gm^sglon

city, town Harrisburg ______^_ftj> O n | C Q C «tate Pennsybwrtla 7. Description

Condition Check one Check on* ,__ excellent __ deteriorated __ unaltered JL original site i i K good ___ ruins x tllered _JL moved tf«te __ -X- fair .__ unexposed Describe th« present and original (if known) physical .pp«ar«nc« This thematic nomination consists of seven roadway bridees vhich cross the major rivers in Allegheny County and are owned by the county. The county-owned bridees are part of a croup of thirty-five roadvay bridees that cross the county's three major rivers. These thirty-five bridees are the most visually prominent, functionally important, and structurally slenlflcant of the county's more than 1,700 bridees. Of the thirty-five bridees, tventv-tvo are owned by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and thirteen are owned by Alleeheny County. Of the twenty-two state-owned bridees, two are listed In the National Reelster of Historic Places and others which are eligible for listing are currently being nominated for Inclusion. **0f the thirteen county-owned bridees, four are Inellelble because they are less than fifty years old. Two more county-owned bridees are Inellelble because they are belne replaced. The remalnine seven county-owned bridees are elleible for nomination because they pre-date 1935, are free of major alterations, and have significance in the areas of county transportation, enelneering and politics. One of the seven elleible bridees, the Sixteenth Street Bridge* is already listed on the National Reelster of Historic Places. The seven bridges included in this nomination cross Allegheny County's three major riv.ers: four cross the Alleeheny, two cross the Kononeahela and one crosses the Ohio. They are Important links In the tracery of bridees vhich tames the local topography and provides essential corridors for transportation. Five of the bridges—the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth* Sixteenth, and S. Tenth Street Bridees—link, dense urban areas vith Pittsburgh's downtown vhich occupies a triangle of. land at the confluence of the three •ivers. The Homestead High-level Bridee links the steel town of Homestead vith ^-Pittsburgh's residential East End. And the Coraopoiis Bridge links the town of Coraopoiis vith heavily Industrialized Neville Island by crosslne a back channel of the Ohio. Each bridge responds to both the topography and the land and vater transportation requirements of its site. The bridges are all multi-span structures, and ranee in leneth from 995 to 3107 feet. The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Street Bridges are notable for their rather abrupt terminations at the shorelines; but the Sixteenth Street and the Homestead Hlgh-Level Bridees, in particular* cross significant distances over land and riverside railroad and industrial facilities in preparation for their actual river croesines. The majority of the bridees spring from relatively flat land, but the northern end of the Homestead Hlgh-Level Bridge springs from a high bluff. All of the bridges are in use for automobile traffic, but they all originally carried streetcar lines as veil. Six of the bridges have four lanes of traffic, and sidewalks on both sides. The Coraopoiis Bridge is vide enough for three lanes* but nov carries two and has only a single sidevalk. All of the bridges have sufficient clearance over the rivers to allov for the passage of river traffic as required by-the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers for each specific site. Six of the bridges continue to meet the necessary requirements of their original sites. But the Coraopoiis Bridge* vhich vas originally located on the Alleeheny River at Sixth Street in Pittsburgh, vas moved to its present site in 1927. It has demonstrated unusual topographic versatility by its effective erection at two different sites. Its . movement, however, vas necessitated by its limitations In the face of changing land and vater transportation requirements.

1. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission is preparing a nomination of all state-qwned highway bridges in Pennsylvania that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

AR30IS96 ttpit** lO'tl'll United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form ALLEGHENY COUNTY OWNED RIVER Continuation sheet BRIDGES THEMATIC CROUP Item number 7 Page

The bridges range in date froo the 169- Corapolis Bridge to the 1937 Hose- stead Higli-Level Bridge. The other five were all built by the County during a period of particularly extensive public improvements between 1924 and 1932. The bridges are all essentially of steel construction, but they represent a variety of structural types. The Coraopoiis Bridge is a through truss bridge vith two bow string trusses. The Sixteenth Street Bridge is a through arch bridge with three tied arches. Three are nearly identical self-anchored eyebar-catenary suspension bridges: the Sixth, Seventh, and Kinth Street .Bridges. The S. Tenth Street Bridge is a vire-cable suspension bridge. And the Konestead High-Level Bridge is a deck truss bridge eaploying a Wicnert continuous truss. Six of the seven bridges rest on piers faced with masonry; only the Coraopoiis Bridge has unadorned concrete piers. The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Street Bridges and the Sixteenth Street Bridge have decorative masonry pylons rising above the deck at the abutments. These contain lanterns at the first three bridges, and are topped vith elaborate bronze winged seahorse and globe sculptures at the Sixteenth Street Bridge. The towers of the S. Tenth Street Bridge are architectonic and have a Modernistic quality. But, for the most part, the bridges rely on their structural foitis for aesthetic iopact. The through truss and through arch bridges display complexity and rhythm; the suspension bridges coomunicate grace and lightness; and the deck truss Homestead High-Level Bridge presents elegant if spare functionaliom. Aside from general maintenance and repairs, deck work, and the new woi-k (including piers) necessary to reerect the Coraopoiis Bridge, the bridges are not known to have experienced any major alterations.

AR301597 . 8. Significance

Period Areas of Significance— Check and justify below ~ prehistoric archeology-prehistoric . community planning . landscape architecture religion 1400-1499 archeology-historic conservation .. law .... science ,._. 1500-1 599 .agriculture .economics . literature . . sculpture _T1 1500-1*599 architecture education . military . social* 71T 1700-1799 .art X engineering —— music humanitarian Jt_ 1800-1899 .. commerce . . exploration settlement ..... philosophy —— theater xZ 1900- -- communications industry __. politics- government ___ transportation . invention —— other (specify)

Specific dates 1892-1937 SlJL1.^ * JtVar.lou.s.) ...... _.._ __ ._ _ .-. Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) Allegheny County, Pennsylvania is one of the country's foremost centers for bridge-building. The county's bridges meet specific topographical conditions in a terrain of hills and valleys and four rivers, and are essential elements in determining the visual character of Pittsburgh and its environs. They also aeet local transportation needs, and have played a crucial functional role in regional urban development. Because of the overall significance of bridges to Allegheny County, the means whereby bridge-building has been carried out here assume importance. The County itself has been the major local bridge-building agency. Its modes of operation and the bridges vhich it built are important aspects and elements of American bridge-building history. But 'aside from their significance as the product of a political vehicle in a region that both requires and showcases bridges, the bridges themselves are significant as the work of prominent engineers and architects and, in some cases, 'as nationally acknowledged examples of innovative engineering.

. Allegheny County is carved out of the rugged terrain of western Pennsylvania. The land is generally uneven with steep hills and deep narrow valleys. But the major topographical features are the broad river valleys, for its is in Allegheny County that the region's four rivers— the Youghiogheny, Konongahela, -• Allegheny, and Ohio — conjoin. Bridges played an early role in the development of this land from the simplest bridge over a narrow stream or "run," to the first river crossing of the Saithfield Street Bridge over the Monongahela in 1613. Today the county has over 1700 bridges spanning from hill to hill and shoreline to shoreline. These bridges include nearly every standard bridge type— except for ones with movable spans and very recent varieties— as well as some examples of rare types. The river bridges are the cost prominent. A view along any of the county's rivers yields a rhythmic succession of • crossings. There are both railroad and roadway crossings, but the roadway bridges ere the more numerous and dramatic and better visually emphasize the area's topographic forms and Its unique patterns of development. And they are . part of a nationwide trend: after 1925, the longest and most important bridges, and the great majority of all bridges, were built for roadways. 1 All of the roadway bridges included in this nomination have served notable river crossings. The Coraopoiis Bridge stood from 1892-1927 as the third bridge at the Sixth Street crossing of the Allegheny River which first linked downtown Pittsburgh and its sister city of Allegheny in 1819.2 The bridge's current Coraopolis-Neville Island site on a back channel of the Ohio River is- ^^considerably less conspicuous; but its successor Sixth Street Bridge of 1928 and the contemporary. Seventh and liinth Street Bridges which also replaced

AK30I598 Mrs •••"» lo-wo-a o.i* 3o. icj4-ec:i t*flr»» io-)i'tr United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory — Nomination Form ALLEGHENY COUNTY OWNED RIVER . Continuation sheet BRIDGES THEMATIC GROUP Item number 8 ______Pag e 1

' -Lll ' • ' ' ' ' " . ' earlier bridges, are also included in this nomination. That three nearly consecutive streets required river crossings and a succession of new bridges signifies the importance of the connection between downtown Pittsburgh and Allegheny (Pittsburgh's North Side after annexation in 1907). The Sixteenth Street Bridge (1923), further lip river, has served a similar purpose after replacing an earlier structure. The S. Tenth Street Bridge of 1932 is sited at the narrowest point on the Monongahela River's course through Pittsburgh, and connects central Pittsburgh to the city's South Side. The bridge was expressly planned to improve this linkage by replacing an earlier bridge and complementing the Armstrong Tunnel, built through a bluff at the bridge's north end in the. 1920s. The Homestead High-Level Bridge (1937), further up the Monongahela, replaced the 1S91 Brown's Bridge which had been 1,300 feet long but only 19 feet wide, had a steep and winding northern approach, and ended in a succession of railroad £rade crossings. The present bridge is slightly downstream from the former crossing, and gains its name from its much higher course which evaded the northern approach and spanned the railroads. • . . ' . Vith rare exceptions, roadway river bridges were privately built and operated as toll crossings throughout the nineteenth century. The Coraoplis Bridge, for instance, when first erected at Sixth Street, Pittsburgh in 1892, was built by the Sixth Street Bridge Company and Fidelity Title and Trust Company. It was a toll bridge, until acquired and declared free by the County in 1911. The other bridges included in this nouination, however, were all built by Allegheny County itself and never collected tolls. When the Sixteen Street Bridge was erected in 1923, the County employed a few engineers under the supervision of a County Engineer—Jame s G. Chalfant at this time. Much of the engineering work on this bridge, however, was actually done by an outside consultant, and a Hew York architectural firm and sculptor also contributed to the design. Despite isolated projects like the Sixteenth Street Bridge, there was a broad perception in the early 1920s that the coonunity at large "due to the war and other causes had been dilatory in carrying on [its] annual normal necessary public improvements. "3 A new Board of County Commissioners sought to rectify this situation and assume County leadership for public works projects. The commissioners undertook an extensive program of bridge and highway construction in 1924 with two pivotal acts: they issued bonds totaling $29,207,000 and established an Allegheny ' County Department of Public Works so t hat t they] would have a responsive engineering organization to carry out the nandate of the people in an efficient and expeditious manner. "4 ' '

flR30IS99 » to-Mfra cm «e. 102t.oat» o-o ttpittf 10-11.tr United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places • Inventory—Nomination Form ALLEGHENY COUNTY OWNED RIVER Continuation sheet BRIDGES THEMATIC CROUP_____Hem number 8 _____Page •_ I ^•i^»i«^I^M-____^-»____«*^MB_-^_WH^^^^^^^^^^^^^"^^^^^^^^^^^^"<^^^-' __-___-

The new Department of Public Works consisted of a Bureau of Bridges, a Bureau . of Highways, a Bureau of Tests and Materials, and a Department of Archi- tecture with some responsibility for assistance in bridge design. Vernon R. Covell, a long-time county engineer, was.appointed Chief Engineer of the Bureau of Bridges, and Stanley Roush, a local architect, was placed in charge of the Department of Architecture. The Department of Public Works quickly acquired a large staff of engineers and architects because of the need to meet an ambitious schedule of projects, and political patronage. The Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Street Bridges were among the many major County _., • projects completed between 1924 and 1928. A second bond issue was made in ;• 1928 totaling $43,680,000. This work extended to 1932 and included the S. Tenth Street Bridge. While running for re-election in 1931, Joseph G. Armstrong was able to claim that the County public works program had made a . major contribution to local employment both through construction work and the patronizing of local Industries—every pound of steel used in the bridges was manufactured locally, and that more County improvements had been made during i:he prior eight years than during the previous 136 years of the county's . existence.5 • Armstrong and his fellow commissioners were not re-elected, however. A new Board of Commissioners dismissed most of the Department of Public Works staff and divided the Department's responsibilities between the County Planning Com- --. mission and a County Works Department. In 1936 bridge-building responsi- : bility was consolidated under the County Works Department. The major ' projects of this period, however, were completed under the control of the Allegheny County Authority which was established to take advantage of federal Public Works Administration funds. The Authority was supervied by a board of i engineers and architects, and employed outside consultants as well as a staff which included former County employees. The Homestead High-Level Bridge was built by the Allegheny County Authority as part of PWA project no. 2976. In addition to volatile political conditions, a framework of external controls has molded Allegheny County bridge-building practice. During the 1920s, '• plans for each bridge over a navigable stream were approved by over a dozen 1 official and civic organizations including such diverse authorities as the U. S. War Department and the Pittsburgh Municipal Art Commission. The impact of these two was most thoroughly felt along the Allegheny. The then existing . Sixth, Seventh, and Hinth Street Bridges were condemned and ordered removed by the War Department in 1919 because they were obstructions to navigation. The replacement bridges of the 1920s met War Department requirements. But they were also a product of the Municipal Art Commission which virtually dictated tiieir form because of a preference for suspension bridges. The Commission had greatly influenced the design of the rather baroque Sixteenth Street Bridge. • flR30I600 I I N»*'•*•• «»•»* . out no. I9t4.tett c-ra t*ftr*» to-ii'tf United States Department of the Interior National Park Service ^National Register of Historic Places * Inventory—Nomination Form ALLEGHENY COUNTY OWNED RIVER j Continuation sheet BRIDGES THEMATIC GROUP lt«n number 8______Page t _•_«_- ' • " '" " " ~ "' ______- ______

; V nuiuber of significant engineers were associated with the bridges included k in this nomination. Theodore Cooper had important roles in building the Sads Bridge in St. Louis and the Brooklyn Bridge in Hew York, and by the turn af the century was an eminent railroad bridge engineer. The monumental luebec Bridge of 1907, however, collapsed with 82 lives lost while being con- structed under his supervision. Before this inglorious end to an illustrious career, Cooper designed the Coraopoiis (formerly Sixth Street) Bridge of 1892, which is reported to be the only surviving work solely of his design. The Sixteenth Street Bridge is credited to county engineer James G. Chalfant. But K.G. Balcom of 'Jew York was & consulting engineer, and the bridge can be added to his distinguished list of engineering works which includes Grand .•' Central Station, Rockefeller Center, and the Empire State Building. The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and S. Tenth Street Bridges are generally attributed to Vernon R. Covell. Covell worked for the County from 1906 into the 1930s and was Chief Engineer after 1922. Most of the actual design work was apparently done by subordinates, but the bridges, and other works produced ider Covell's authority, are of uniformly high quality. These include the rch West End Bridge which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. One notable subordinate was George S. Richardson who largely designed the Homestead High-Level Bridge for the Allegheny County Authority. The genius of this bridge, however, was Pittsburgh engineer E. M. tflchert who developed and patented the "Automatically Adjustable Continuous Bridge." '•VV A few of the bridges reflect the work of notable architects. Warren and Wetmore of New York, architects for the Sixteenth Street Bridge, had a nationwide private practice and did design work for Grand Central Station and an extensive collection of railroad stations and hotels. Stanley Roush's . work, on the other hand, was almost solely local and public. Re was Pittsburgh City Architect from 1914-21 and County Architect from 1921-32. He made necessary alterations to B.H. Richardson's Allegheny County Courthouse after street-lowering operations, designed new portals for Gustav Lindenthal's Sraithfield Street Bridge after it was widened, designed the Allegheny County Office Building, and contributed to the design of many of the county's tunnels, bridges, and other public works. His projects include the Sixth, ; Seventh, Ninth, and S. Tenth Street Bridges. These men designed bridges which reflected national trends in bridge-building. By the turn of the century, steel had become the choice structural material. It enabled engineers to design bridges that, for all practical purposes, would not need to be replaced. This advantage was accompanied by a steady increase in the quality and decrease in the cost of steel. All of the bridges included 'n this nomination are products of this new age of steel. The Coraopoiis and V^/ixteenth Street Bridges reflect the early large-scale applications of steel

rAR3016TN Ml r«rm 10-MO.. . • Out »o. ICJl-OOll o-ea t*pit*i to-n-tr United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form ALLEGHENY COUNTY OWNED RIVER Continuation sheet BRIDGES THEMATIC GROUP item number 3 ______Page | .M.....I... Ill

in heavy truss and arch bridges which reached their peak of development in the ' early twentieth century. The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and S. Tenth Street Bridges represent the popularity of the leaner steel suspension bridge in the 1930s. The Homestead High-Level Bridge represents a stage in experi- , nentation with the ideal continuous steel truss. In addition to (or in spite of) their participation in national trends, four of the nominated bridges are widely acknowledged examples of innovative enjineerias. The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Street Bridges have three claims to national significance: they were the United States' first self-anchored • suspension bridges; are the only important surviving examples of the , eyebar-catenary suspension bridge in this country; and are the nation's only trio of virtually identical spans.6 (The Sixth Street Bridge, completed in 1928, also received the first annual most beautiful bridge of the year award from the American Institute of Steel Construction). • The three self-anchored suspension bridges were a creative solution to the i conflicting demands of official bodies and the bridge sites. The Allegheny **-x/River shorelines were not suitable for the anchorages of typical suspension bridges, as desired by the Municipal Arts Commission. With the self-anchored suspension bridge, the anchorages ore eliminated by using the stiffening « girder which carries the deck as a compression member to resist the horizontal pull of the suspension system. Eyebars were chosen for the suspension system ;.: because they could better connect with the stiffening girder. The bridges were actually erected as cantilever structures until the catenaries were completed.7 The Homestead High-Level Bridge was the first major span of Wichert trusses • ever built. The Wichert truss was a solution to the problems posed by the continuous truss: a truss which passes over multiple points of support but functions as a single structural member along its entire length. The key to , the Wichert truss was a Y-shaped member, rising from each pier, to which the lower chord of each span was hinged. The result was that each span could act independently, but the load was distributed over the length of the bridge.8 The Wichert truss was a major advance, but received limited use because 1 alternate cieans of continuous truss design were soon developed. The Homestead High-Level Bridge is just short of fifty years old, but its signi- ficance as a rare and prominent example of an innovative engineering i technique, and its role in the history of Allegheny County bridge-building, qualify it as a part of this thematic nomination.

AR30I602 «o-ae»* : OKI no. I0t4.ooit ••'".• . t*ftf»* lo-Ji-ii United States Department of the Interior National Park Service ^National Register of Historic Places ' inventory—Nomination Form ALLEGHENY COUNTY OWNED RIVER Continuation sheet BRIDGES THEMATIC CROUP Item number____8

1. Carl W. Condit. AmericanJBuiIdtne (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 214. 2. The second Sixth Street Bridge was on early (1859) suspension bridge designed by John A. Roebling. 3. Norman F. Brown. "Allegheny County Improvements started in 1928 Total $43,680,000," Greater Pittsburgh. December 222, 1928, p. 21. 4. Brown, p. 19. • - ' ' • ' 5' Joseph G. Arias t rone. "8 Eventful Years" (pamphlet). 6. David Plowden. Bridges; The Spans of North Aneriea (Hew York: The • Viking Press, 1974), p. 238. 7. Plowden, p. 238. Only seven large eyebar suspension bridges were built in North America; five were in Pittsburgh. 8. Plowden, p. 256. •

AR30I603 9. Major Bibliographical References Armstrong, Joseph G. "8 Eventful Years" (pamphlet). 1931. Irown, Norman F. "Allegheny County Improvements Started in 1928 Total $43,680,000," greater Pittsburgh.December 22, 1928, p. 19-2.1. 10. Geographical Data______Acreage of nominated property Various n«m» AmbHdgP, Pitt-fm»gh East End Quadrangle scale JLiMiPJL. UTM References Pittsburgh West quadrangles A|NAJ lltl.il I i I . I . . I B-i i i I I . I . . I i . I . I . . I Zone Easting . Northing Zone Easting Northing cLU Mil.il I . i . I . i I D| . I I I . i " . . I I . I . I . . I El . I Mil..! I . I . -I . . I F\ , I I I . I , . I I . I , I . , I I i . I i i i r . I . i v . i . HI . i i i . i . . i i . i . i . . -i Verbal boundary description and justification

K/A - ; List all states and counties tor properties overlapping state or county boundaries •tate N/A ______code K/A county N/A ______. code state N/A ______code N/A county N/A ______cod e N/A _____ 1 . Form Prepared By ______1 - » name/title Hartin Aurand; Director. Preservation Research _____ ; ______; ______organization Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation-ate July 1985 ______- ^______450 The Landmarks Building street & number One :S tation Square ______telephone (.412) 471-5808 ____ ..*'•'**• " • ,. city or town Pittsburgh state Pennsylvania. 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: ' ______3 L national ___ -1 state ____ —— tocal ______| ______• As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 8&- 665), I hereby nominate this property for Inclusion In the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Service. State Historic Preservation Officer signature ___ ' ______•

' • *- • • ' - ' * title Dr. Larry E. Tise, State Historic Preservation Of fieer date FbrNPS useoniy ' I hereby certify that this property Is Included In the National Register date Keeper of the National Register Attestt______• ______date Chief of Registration ______£1830 I > to-too-. United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory — Nomination Form ALLEGHENY COUNTY OWNED RIVER Continuation sheet BRIDGES THEMATIC GROUP Item number 9 ______Page

Coadit, Carl W. Ataepiean Building. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963 .

Plowden, David. Bridges: ThejSoans ef North America. Hew York;: The Viking Press, 1974.

Proceedings of the Engineer* a Society of Western Pennsylvania. Various years.

Richardson, George S. History of Allegheny County Bridges (Manuscript). 1979. . . •

White, Joseph and M. W. von Bernewitz. The Brldigea of Pittoburffh. Pittsburgh: Cramer Printing & Publishing Company, 1928.

fiR30!605 SITS :ar_ooolis Bridge Allegheny Zone 17 2571340 34435170

^*

Bl AR30I607 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOXtOZ. HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17108-10Z6 rt •• t- C5 • February 6, 1989 •- o*. Herbert C. Higginbotham 5.rr. '•. County of Allegheny co. -; Department of Engineering' and Construction *"° 501 County Office Building Forbes Avenue & Ross Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Re: 89-0462-003-A Coraopoiis, Allegheny County Replacement of Coraopoiis Bridge . . Dear Mr. Higginbotham: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the .State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. Because historic resources on or eligible for the National Register (listed below) are in the project area and because of the nature of the project activities, it is our opinion that there will be an effect on historic resources and that the effect may be adverse. To comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, you must prepare a statement that applies the Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect (see 36 CFR 800.9 attached). This information should be sent to the Bureau for Historic Preservation. Coraopoiis Bridge If you need further information in this matter please consult Joanne Keira at (717) 783-8946 or 783-8947. Sincerely,

Brenda Barrett Director . ; BB/JK . . cc: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

' AR30I608 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1028 HARHISBURC. PENNSYUANtA 17108-1020 June 7, 1990

Fred V. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Trasportation 1116 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, FA 17120

Re: ER 89-0462-003-B Allegheny County Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement Determination of Adverse Effect Report

Dear Mr. Bowser: The Bureau for Historic Preservation has reviewed the above-referenced report. It appears to meet the Advisory Council's standards for Adverse Effect Documentation-(36 CFR Part 800.8(b) & (d). However, the section called: Identification of Historic Properties, failed to mention the presence of archaeological sites under the bridge and what actions are-being taken to evaluate these . sices and their mitigation. Please add this to your report. If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan H. Zacher ac (717) 783-9920. Sincerely,

Kurt W. Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology and Protection

cc: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation D. Sucui, PDOT, Bur. of Design D. Baebnan, PDOT, Bur. of Design KC/smz

flR30!609 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Bimaa foe Kluaric Prt-uvaUoA Post Offict Box 102fi H*nijburg.PeruuyJvanUl7106-102S

June 16, 1992 Fred w. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation • • ni •,. 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. ...*' "-' Harrisburg, PA 17120 ^" - V •'*-' •- • •'

Re: ER 89-0462-003-D Allegheny County Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement, Adverse Effect Documentation. Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the national Historic Preservation. Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources.. In our opinion this project will have an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (listed below). Furthermore, it is our opinion that this project will adversely effect the historic and architectural qualities that make the property eligible. To comply with the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, you must, follow the procedures outlined in 36 CFR 800.5 (e), when the effect is adverse. You will need to notify the Advisory Council of the effect finding and continue to consult with the Bureau for Historic Preservation to seek ways to avoid or reduce the effects on historic properties. Coraopoiis Bridge

AR30I6IO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PITTSBURGH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILUAM 8. MOORHEAO FEDERAL BUILDING 1000 LIBERTY AVENUE. PITTSBURGH. PA 15222-4186

January 2*1, 1989 *-r

Mr. Herbert C. Higginbotham, II, P.E., Director Department of Engineering and Construction *: County of Allegheny * 501 County Office Building •£-' • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Dear Mr. Hlgginbothan: This Is in response to your January 5, 1989 letter on the replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge between Coraopoiis Borough and Hevllle Township. The letter transmitted an Early Coordination Form on the proposed project. Our comments are on the enclosed "Agency Response" form. I have also enclosed a copy of our public notice, "Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program, Reauthorization of the Nationwide Permits," which provides information on the applicability of nationwide and Individual Section 404 permits to bridge construction across navigable water. For additional information, please contact Mr. Eugene Homyak, Chief, Regulatory Branch, at 644-4204. • Sincerely,

, P.E. Division Enclosure

R30I6II Pace 8 of »GENCY RESPON1.: TO . . . EARLY COORDINATION FORM SUBJECT* < Agency) ______Response re Early Coordination Foru for Hftfway Projecr Oev« I opaent

TO* tNama) MSRSgRT C. KlGGtUGCTHAM, g., P.g. T Plggg.-re>g DEPARTMENT OP" ENGlNeeR-lNS AND COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY SCI COUNTY OFFICE GUiUOmG, FCgeSLS AVENUg A NO R.CSS STRSST PA isa.to> FROM: (Ncma> Mr. George Cingle. Jr.. P.E.. Chiaf. Planning Divlaion (Agency) Pittsburgh District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers______i Addraaa) 1000 Liberty Avenue______Ta lepnone f 412 i 644-6817 Pittsburgh, PA 15222

County ALLgreugMV______S. R. MA ___Seer ton MA P.M.S. Nuroer______Federal Aid Projecr Number c Project Common M*mv» ggpV-ACEMgNT OF CORAOPOL-IS, We have reviewed the Early Coordination Form and we hdve rhe following responses N D We have no conjnent. C HO We agree that me appropriate project alternatives are being Y considered and the proposed scope of the analysis appears to be correct. D We do not agree that the appropriate project alternatives are T being considered as we have explained on me attached sheet(s). 0 D We do not agree that the proposed scope of the analysis appear ro be correcr as we have explained an the attached sheertsi. Q We would like ro be contacted to attend a scoping field view. D We have some questions regarding the project dnd request that 0 we be contacted to discuss them. M D We would like to receive a copy of the Environmental Assessment. P L £ T Qd E

-flR30l6f- -.'•'•• . ' ' 84t Chestnut Street n$ Deportment . Suite 71* fLfs C ft pniaoeipnia. FA 19107 / nr« 0 /..' {-c '«« in* • J _K_jt I» ta Trenspcrtation MAwR 2t.9 yMw wjo? Administration

Mr. Herbert C. Eiggintottan, U Director cemnty of Allegheny Deparbaent of Engineering and Construction 501 County Office Building Forbes and Boss Avenues Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219

Ee: Ooraocxolis Bridge Replacement Early Dear Hr. Higginbottcm: We have received your January 5 request for early coordinaticn on your regarding tfae proposed caivironinental. fictions recjoired to replace tbe Cbraopolis Bridge. Our review has determined that the proposed project contains no significant transportation issues and ve have no airnnenta to offer. you need «

Sincerely,

Sheldon A. Kinbar Manager

. ,. -flR3016l3 • • • • * . •*-- :--- .u,'.7 . . •".- , • • -..'.''' ; •-."...'• ~ . ' ' •.-.''..••'.'.. "'••' ••':'. ; - ' • • ' • •

APPENDIX C . . SECTION 106 COORDINATION

"•• ;-V, =//- ...- . ' .; -^:^-:-,-.- -.--^ ::-.:. ,-v- : ' ."..•-• NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION - . AND PENNSYLVANIA HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY FORMS

Al AR30I6I5 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY FORM 7. Local aurvav organisation 6JREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Box 1026 ficcsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation U HISTORICAL t MUSEUM COMMISSION Hamtburq. PA 171?0 I. preoarty pwnart nama ana iddrtM S. ui parcal numoar/otnar mtmoar 10. U.TJUIi. U-J k <7 ft 6 Allegheny Councy _ona aauin; less than one acre ,§ 12: 11. atatua lotnar aurvayt. IMta ate4 K (fc 18 6 ft |7 0 I Allegheny County utgl nortmnf Survev tnaati Ambridge l:. atructura IX CB|«cr ( J 189.; movea 192T "••*•"•" — Bridge building I )«tetriet( I . parted Bowsering 20. praaant UM thematic (x) ______1881-1900 Bridge 1C. arehlMet •(• angina*/ IT. contractor «r buUdar IS. primary Building mat^eanttrue. 2t. condition Fair Theodore Cooper Baird orochers Steel 22. Intagnry Good 2X alta plan «ritn norm arrow _ _ sit :f

• LACK AND WHITE PRtMTIS) fl 31/2" ( B" anlaro»mant or madlum format contact not* location of nagath* In block 24. Si

CD CT

24. pnoto notation

3 ffi _- C.PI C 29. (Ha/location OR 7S -I (5 >— D < 28. orlal dattrlption (not* wnuiual taatijraa, IntagftTy, anviranmant, triraaa and anoetatad bulldlngt) 3 M C The Coraopoiis Bridge crosses the back channel of the Ohio River with a north-south O.rr -j 1 orientation to connect the town of Coraopoiis with the west end of Neville Island. There <>n a c-r is a simple pony truss approach at the south (Coraopoiis) end of the bridge, but the' IB rr r. primary structure consists of two 445 foot spans. The -pans are tceej^feowggfjjgg,, Mcmifyt S ?r 27. nictery. algnlfleanca and/or background n o> The Coraopoiis Bridge is significant for its design by prominent engineer Theodore Zt00t =S Cooper, its age and unique history, and its transportation role at two locations. <-3 C t—Q f- The Coraopoiis Bridge was originally erected in 1892 as the third Sixth Street Bridge linking the cities of Pittsburgh and Allegheny. Increased traffic required the replace- ment of a John A. Roebling —designed suspension bridge at this important Allegheny (continue an btcK If nacatury) _ 2H.aourcaaofinformation Proceedings of the Engineer's Society of Western 29. praparad by: • CD Pennsylvania. 18vj. iv--« / xni.ce. jo.epn ana ti.x. aernewic-. me"Martin Aurand Bridges of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh! Cramer PHLF Comoutar Coding {VHP Survay Cranta«t Muat Complata) ravtaionlai 7/85 at. county -VV-* 33. nyta _i__ _—j ___:——_ —— 33. eonitrucilon inatarUI Oo T — • ' • ___ 34. roof 35. Cation tnM • _ ; ___ 38. Matorlefunction 1.2.SUt&SLJ-i-. ———————— _;

37. aonrcructlon *-•••••* • . • 35. axl. wall* • ____ 39. plan . 40. facada widtft •_ 41. roof matarlal ___ 42. norlM __ 43. daot»-__ 44. an. datlgn 4S. Int. datlgn AR30I6I6 -.COITION A. OATA/f>HOTOS 4. aurvay coda number ill continuation! from front <26. Continued russes. They rest on three concrete piers—two at-the shorelines and one in the center of back channel. The trusses are constructed of a large number of pinned and riveted :ension and eessprassIon members. The extensive >jsff of girders giv»s the bridge t lacy "isv»l quality*. There are portal-like steel archways ar tb* «nds of *»ch span. On r.h«s«> laccic-- work and rivets serve a partially decorative purpose. 'he bridge is potentially three lanes wide and originally carried trolleys as well as other vehicular traffic. But the present concrete deck carries just two lanes of auto traffic. There is a walkway with decorative steel balustrade on the east side. The concrete piers late from the bridge's re-erection at this site. #27. Continued liver crossing. The new bridge was privately financed by the Sixth Street Bridge Company and Fidelity Title and Trust Company. Theodore Cooper was hired as a consulting engineer. His design was accepted, and was given approval by both the U.S. War Department and the . 'ittsburgh Coat Exchange which was very influential in waterway-related matters. The bridge was built by Baird Brothers at a cost of $560,000. - Theodore Cooper was a nationally renowned bridge engineer. He had important roles in the milding of the Eads Bridge in St. Louis and the Brooklyn Bridge in New York, and was later noted for his railroad bridges. His illustrious career ended ingloriously as the monumental Quebec Bridge of 1907, for which he was supervising engineer, collapsed while under con- itruction with 82 lives lost. But he remains a significant figure in American engineering. .'he Coraopoiis Bridge is reported to be the only surviving work solely of his design. In 1919 the War Department declared the then existing Allegheny Elver bridges to be obstructions to river traffic and ordered them replaced. A new Sixth Street Bridge, also in this thematic nomination, was built in 1927-28. The two main spans of the old bridge were disengaged, floated down the Ohio River on coal barges, and re-erected at 'oraopolis to replace an earlier trolley bridge slightly downstream. The entire operation :ook 140 days and cost $316,000, estimated to be half the cost of new construction. boundary Description and Justifications . rhe nominated property consists of a 1163 x 66 foot rectangle bordered by the bridge perimeter.

ALUATION flRaoTeTr CVALUATOFHS) K£r.,m,0.»00 CM . United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS UM .my National Register -of Historic Places inventory— -Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries — complete applicable sections 1. Name

historic

and or common Allechenv Countv Owned River Bridees Thematic Grout) 2. Location

street & number Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers nXa. not for publication Pittsburgh, Homestead, city, town Coraopoiis , Neville Twp. JILL vicinity of . * state Pennsylvania code 042 county Allegheny . code 003 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use _.district _JL public ____, occupied ——agriculture • __museum ._building(s) __ private __ unoccupied ___ commercial ____park __structure ——both ——.work In progress __educational __. private residence __ site' Public Acquisition Accessible ___ entertainment ' religious __object _o__Un process __. yes: restricted __government _.scientific _j£jtheoacic n/a. being considered ___ yes: unrestricted __ industrial JL. transportation •______——'no ______military ______other:______4. Owner of Property ______

name County of Allegheny; Department of Engineering and Construction______street & number 501 County Office Building, Ross Street ______city, town Pittsburgh •*____, yjdnlty of state Pennsylvania • 5. Location of Legal Description______

. courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Allegheny County Office Building______• ______street & number Ross Street ______city, town Pittsburgh state Pennsylvania 6. Representation in Existing Surveys______

title Allegheny County Survey______has this property been determined eligible? __ yes . JL no The Sixteenth Street Bridge was listed in the National Register AUgt»t 13,1979 date 1879-1084 ' —— federal __ state A county __ local depository tor survey records Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission ____.

c.tv.town Harrisburg______flR3Q i'6 I 8 7. Description

Condition Check one Cheek on* __ excellent __ deteriorated __ unaltered _JL original site ———.ruins .JSLaltered «2L.moved •*••• 1927 (CoraBDOlis Bridee) _ _ _ unexposed Itoscrib* th« present and original |H known) physical •pp«sronce This thematic nomination consists of seven roadway bridees vhich cross the major rivers in Allegheny County and are owned by the county. The county-owned bridges are part of a eroup of thirty-five roadway bridees that cross the county's three major rivers. These thirty-five bridees are the most visually prominent, functionally important, and structurally slenif leant of the county's more than 1,700 bridees. Of the thirty-five bridees, twentv-two are owned by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and thirteen are owned by Alleeheny County. Of the twenty-two state-owned bridees, two are listed in the National Reelster of Historic Places and others which are elleible for listing are currently being nominated for Inclusion. **0f the thirteen county-owned bridees, four are Inellelble because they are less than fifty years old. Two more county-owned bridees are Inellelble because they are belne replaced. The remalnlne seven county-owned bridges are elleible for nomination because they pre-date 1935, are free of major alterations, and have significance In the areas of county transportation, engineering and politics. One of the seven elleible bridges, the Sixteenth Street Bridge, Is already listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The seven bridges Included in this nomination cross Allegheny County's three major rivers: four cross the Alleeheny, tvo cross the Honnngahela and one crosses the Ohio. They are important links In the tracery of bridees vhich tames the local topography and provides essential corridors for transportation. Five of the bridges—the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Sixteenth, and S. Tenth Street Bridges— link dense urban areas with Pittsburgh's downtown vhich occupies a triangle of land at the confluence of the three -Ivers. The Homestead High-Level Bridee links the steel town of Homestead vith ^_ytttsburgh's residential East End. And the Coraopoiis Bridge links the town of Coraopoiis vith heavily industrialized Neville Island by crossing a back channel of the Ohio. Each bridge responds to both the topography and the land and vater transportation requirements of Its site. The bridees are all multi-span structures, and ranee In leneth from 995 to 3107 feet. The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Street Bridges are notable for their rather abrupt terminations at the shorelines; but the Sixteenth Street and the Homestead High-Level Bridees, in particular* cross significant distances over land and riverside railroad and industrial facilities In preparation for their actual river crosslnes. The majority of the bridees spring from relatively flat land, but the northern end of the Homestead High-Level Bridge springs from a high bluff. . All of the bridges are in use for automobile traffic, but they all originally carried streetcar lines as veil. Six of the bridees have four lanes of traffic and sidewalks on both sides. The Coraopoiis Bridge Is vide enough for three lanes, but now carries two and has only a single sidewalk. All of the bridges have sufficient clearance over the .rivers to allow for the passage of river traffic as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for each specific site. Six of the bridees continue to meet the necessary requirements of their original sites. But the Coraopoiis Bridge* vhich vas originally located on the Allegheny River at Sixth Street in Pittsburgh, vas moved to Its present site In 1927. It has demonstrated unusual topographic versatility by Its effective erection at two different sites. Its movement* however, vas necessitated, by its limitations in the face of changing land and vater transportation requirements.

1. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Is preparing a nomination of all state-owned highway bridges in Pennsylvania that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

AR3QI6I9 MPjp.n-to.Ma-a o*» »o. tot4.een C*ptr*t iO-Jl'l* United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory— Nomination Form ALLEGHENY COUNTY OWNED RIVER Continuation sheet BADGES THEMATIC CROUP item number 7 Page

The bridges range in date froo the 1692 Corapolia Bridge to the 1937 Home- stead High-Level Bridge. The other five were all built by the County during a period of particularly extensive public improvements between 1924 and 1932. The bridges are all essentially of steel construction, but they represent a variety of structural types. The Coraopoiis Bridge is a through truss bridge with two bow string trusses. The Sixteenth Street Bridge is a through arch bridge with three tied arches. Three are nearly identical self-anchored eyebar-catenary suspension bridges: the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Street .Bridges. The S. Tenth Street Bridge is a wire-cable suspension bridge. And the Koaestead .High-Level Bridge is a deck. truss bridge enployinb a Wichert continuous truss. Six of the seven bridges rest on piers faced with masonry; only the Coraopoiis Bridge has unadorned concrete piers. The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Street Bridges and the Sixteenth Street Bridge have decorative masonry pylons rising above the deck at the abutnents. These contain lanterns at the first three bridges, and are topped with elaborate bronze winged seahorse and globe sculptures at the Sixteenth Street Bridge. The towers of the S. Tenth Street Bridge are architectonic and have a Modernistic quality. But, for the most part, the bridges rely on their structural forcis for aesthetic iopact. The through truss and through arch bridges display complexity and rhythm; the suspension bridges communicate grace and lightness; and the deck truss Homestead High-Level Bridge presents elegant if spare functionalist!. Aside from general maintenance and repairs, deck work, and the new work (including piers) necessary to reerect the Coraopoiis Bridge, the bridges are not known to have experienced any major alterations .

fiR30l620 . 8. Significance

Period Areas of Significance— Check and Justify below prehistoric archeology-prehistoric . community planning . landscape architecture religion 1400-1495 archeology-historic conservation .. law ... science _ 1500-1 599 .agriculture .economics . literature . . . sculpture ._._ 1600-1699 . architecture education . military . social' . .? 1700-1799 .art X engineering —— music humanitarian JC_ 1800-1899 .. commerce . . exploration settlement ..... philosophy — .theater Jt~ 1900- ..- communications industry JL. politics- government _2L transportation . invention —— other (specify)

Specific dates 1892-1937 . J^l*!^*-"."^ . .(V*r.ious.? ...... _.._ __ Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) Allegheny County, Pennsylvania is one of the country's foremost centers for bridge-building. The county's bridges meet specific topographical conditions in a terrain of hills and valleys and four rivers, and are essential elements in determining the visual character of Pittsburgh and its environs. They also meet local transportation needs, and have played a crucial functional role ir. regional urban developaent. Because of the overall significance of bridges to Allegheny County, the means whereby bridge-building has been carried out here assume importance. The County itself has been the major local bridge-building agency. Its modes of operation and the bridges which it built are important aspects and elements of American bridge-building history. But 'aside from their significance as the product of a political vehicle in a region that both requires and showcases bridges, the bridges themselves are significant as the work of prominent engineers and architects and, in some cases, 'as nationally acknowledged examples of innovative engineering.

Allegheny County is carved out of the rugged terrain of western Pennsylvania. " The land is generally uneven with steep hills and deep narrow valleys. But the major topographical features are the broad river valleys, for its Is in Allegheny County that the region's four rivers—the Youghiogheny, Monongahela, -: Allegheny, and Ohio— conjoin. Bridges played an early role In the development of this land from the simplest bridge over a narrow stream or "run,11 to the first river crossing of the Soithfield Street Bridge over the Konongahela in 1818. Today the county has over 1700 bridges spanning from hill to hill and shoreline to shoreline. These bridges Include nearly every standard bridge type—except for ones with movable spans end very recent varieties— as well as some examples of rare types. The river bridges are the cost prominent. A vieu along any of the county's rivers yields a rhythmic succession of ' crossings. There are both railroad and roadway crossings, but the roadway bridges are the more numerous and dramatic and better visually emphasize the area's topographic forms and its unique patterns of development. And they are .' par. of a nationwide trend: after 1925, the longest and most important bridges, and the great majority of all bridges, were built for roadways. 1 All of the roadway bridges included in this nomination have served notable river crossings. The Coraopoiis Bridge stood from 1892-1927 as the third bridge at the Sixth Street crossing of the Allegheny River which first linked downtown Pittsburgh and its sister city of Allegheny in 1819.2 The bridge's current Coraopolis-Neville Island site on a back channel of the Ohio River is- v^ considerably less conspicuous; but its successor Sixth Street Bridge of 1928 and the contemporary. Seventh and Ninth Street Bridges which also replaced

AR30I62I Page 2 . P. Bowser •• June 16, 1SS2

The Bureau is still concerned with the potentially National Register eligible archaeological .resources on and near the bridge project site. The archaeological component of the project must t£jse_*c*g3-t-»*f prior to any filing with the Advisory council or preparation of a Memorandum of Agreement for the project. ***If *yo u need further informatio'— n- i n concernin'" g archaeological survey please contact the Archaeology'Section at (717) 782-9900. If your need further information concerning-historic survey consult Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-8946 orJ83-8947.

Kurt Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology fi 'Protection i , ect D. suciu, PDOT, Bur. of Design ^-^ D. Bachnan, PDOT, Bur. o£ Design* Advisory Council on Historic..Preservation- KC/smz ...... •

AR30I622 Jun« 30, 1992 T^' . • . '"' . y- Allegheny County • •«' Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement Jj/£ /(/I/ .,-,... M«»«r«* Effect ta termination (Corabpolii Bridge only) *• <•£ '« '

H«mry M. Rutbrovn, P.E. District Engineer Engineering District 11-0

Fred W. »ow»«r, P.Z. Director Bureau of Design

. Mf«r«nc» is Bade to our March 11, 1992 letter to the PA Historical and Museum Commission (PKMC) requesting an Adv«r_e Effect determination for the Coraopoiis Bridge. »• are enclosing one (1) copy of the PHMC 'a June 16, 1992 response. The PHMC h&s concurred that the demolition of th* National Register li*ted Coraopolia Bridge constitutes an Adverse Effect. Please note, however* that the PHMC has requested that tha Memorandum of Agreement being prepared for the project must also address archaeological re source B. Since the need for archaeological investigations has a till not been resolved and we rfc havftLatlll net rtfc«t<™*< « *»-*>-•»* *mn ftf Agreement (HOA) vet ara not 1 19* able ^° forward the Adverse Effect report (for bridge demolition) to the FHWA for coordination with the Advisory council on Historic • Preservation. We recommend that the HOA be a topic of discussion at tha July 8, 1992 meeting with Allegheny County , the PHMC, the FHUX, and the Department. Please discuss thi. natter with Allegheny county prior to July 8, 1992. Enclosure 4320/DAS/ams

* . • " cos Allegheny County (w/a) FHWA, Attnt Mr. Dan Johnson (v/e) FHHA, Attni Mr. Jose Ramirer P. Beny, Diet. 11-0 (v/e) B. A. KcCoola* P.E./ Bm. S06 D. L. Suciu, Rm. 506 0. C. Bachman, fa. 506 D. A. Schreiber, P.E.r Kn. 1113

flR30!623 PETE FLAHERTY T0« FOERSTER LARRY DUNN COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER •- . DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION

501 COUNTprnrsBURGKY OFFICE BLEW.. PA, 12219-295 542 FORBE1 S AVENUE . (412)355-5902 FAX (412} 355-5386 HERBERT C. HIGGINBOTHAM, H, P.E. DIRECTOR July 20, 1992

Mr. Henry H. Kutbrown, P.E., District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Four Parkway Center 875 Greentrea Foad Pittsburgh, PA 15220 ATTN: Ks. Pat Remy RE i Coraopoiis Bridge (OD02-0607) MEHORAHDUH OJf AGREEMEKT Dear Mr. Nutbrovn: '• Enclosed please find two copies of a Memorandum of Agreement in connection vith the captioned project. The Agreement has been signed by me and is* submitted for further execution. The enclosed Agreement is a revision of that vhich vas submitted under cover letter of July 27, 1990. This revised version incorporates a.nev stipulation concerning the agreed upon archaeological investigation. . Pursuant to the June 30, 1992 memorandum from Fred Bowser to you, I trust that submission of the Memorandum of Agreement vill nov permit PDT to forvard the Determination of Adverse Effect Report - submitted December 1991 - to FHWA for coordination ' vith the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Your immediate attention to the enclosed Agreement and the Adverse Effect Report vill be greatly appreciated. Please refer any questions to Mr. Tom Stockhausen of Maguire Group Inc. at (412) 281-6393. Very truly yours,

/ •• ' Herbert c. Higgita&otham, II, P.E. Director HCH/RBH/rr co: Deputy Director Connors/GF Thomas Donatelli, v/encl Dan Johnson, FHWA, v/encl Dean Schreiber, PDT CO, w/encl Kurt Carr, PHMC, v/encl Bob ziskey, PDT 11-0 ; v/encl Haguire Group Inc., v/encl • MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the proposed replacement of the Coraopoiis Bridge vill have an adverse effect upon the bridge, a property included in the National Register of His- toric Places and may have an effect on a potentially eligible National Register archaeological resource on the bridge site. WHEREAS, the FHWA has consulted vith the Pennsyl- vania State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and WHEREAS, the FHWA, PennDOT, and Allegheny County have explored all viable alternatives for rehabilitating the structure and none of these alternatives is acceptable due to the condition of the bridge and traffic requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA and the Pennsylvania SHPO agree that if the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) accepts this Memorandum of Agreement in accordance vith 36 CFR 800.6(a) (1) (i), the undertaking shall be imple- mented in accordance vith the following stipulations in or- der to take into account the effect, of the undertaking on the historic property and archaeological resource.

Stipulations The FHWA vill ensure that the following measure is carried out before.the undertaking is implemented: 1. Prior . to the demolition of the Coraopoiis Bridge, it vill be recorded to Historic American En- gineering Record Standards so that there vill be a per- manent record of its existence. A complete recordation of the historic structure vill include a historical narrative on the structure's significance and photodocumentation of the current condition, historic photographic vievs and copies of bridge plans and/or specifications. All documentation must be accepted in writing by HAER prior to the demolition of the bridge. Copies of this documentation vill be made available to the Pennsylvania SHPO and the Pittsburgh History and • V, Landmarks Foundation.

AR301625 2. A Phase I archaeological survey vill be un- dertaken following issuance of a record-of-decision (ROD) "by EPA pursuant to the EPA Administrative order by Consent for a focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The Archaeological survey vill be conducted either prior to or during tha construction phase of the project. The phase I ar- chaeological survey vill be limited to the area of the proposed bridge abutment No. 2. Archaeological inves- tigation vill consist of the excavation of a two-meter square. This test vill be excavated to soils of Pleis- tocene age or to a depth of approximately 3.3 meters below the present ground surface. The testing vill be limited to a depth of 3.3 meters to avoid penetrating the vater table. If In situ cultural material is en- countered during the Phase I archaeological testing, a meeting vill be held between the staff of the Pennsyl- vania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau of His- toric Preservation; the County of Allegheny; the Pen- nsylvania Department of Transportation; and other in- terested parties to determine the significance of the finds and the next phase of archaeological vork. Un- less the cultural material encountered is agreed to be significant on a National level, all additional ar- chaeological vork vill be confined to the area to be excavated for the placement of the bridge abutment No. 2* All archaeological vork vill be conducted in accor- dance vith the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's procedures as outlined in BHD-430-92- 29 "Archaeological Procedures for Highway Project Development", and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission's "Cultural Resource Management, in Pennsylvania: Guidelines for Archaeological Survey and Mitigation" (amended 1991). . , Execution of the Memorandum of Agreement by the FHWA and the Pennsylvania SHPO, its concurrence by the Pen- nsylvania Department of Transportation and Allegheny County and its subsequent acceptance by the Council, and the carry- ing out of the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA evidences that FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment .on the Coraopoiis Bridge Replacement project and its effects on historic properties and archaeological resources and that FHWA has taken into account the effects of the project on historic properties and archaeological resources.

AR30I626 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Bys DiviBion- Administrator

JTBISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Date: fty* 2 State Historic Preservation Officer '

CONCUR: PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bv: f^^ Data: puty Secretary - ~

ALLEGHENY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION By; <*v*r- y.bc«^ Data: Director

ACCEPTED for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation By; ' • ______• Date: Chief, Eastern Office of Review & Compliance

AR30I627 '— '• ••": '••:'" '•-- .'...;•' •/••'•: ..''.-' .•."•""..;.•••'.::":••'. •'.--•;! t "" '.•.•'-".' ' "'v •;...-••• • " -- -, ••- '• ' .'. ': • .'•"••"" '•-"-•"-'"- -v ".'..,'-.'":''..''.• ';;".-'/'•:'-.'... "V::\" •""-.' '.':'.".'•'/-/ ^"; • '•'...' '•.'.-'•-• ."'." •'•" / '- , ,'••'/'' • .•••? .-..--'.:. -; '•/••'' ;-.::';.'-;:• ;•. --.;''i. "<;.•• •':. -' . ' •" " ,; '.' • . •''• "

APPENDIX D EXISTING BRIDGE PLAN. ELEVATION AND SECTION, AND TYPICAL SECTION

- '

- : '•-''--':?•'-:^- .;/•'.•''•','/•['.-: '': :-• •-.-•:'<-- • , ' ..V - ••/:.• •",•-.- ••-:•'•' ••••: •". .-,.- ;. . '.. •-.-::: , . ^

AR30I628 JUR-30I6Z9 I i II

>VtJ

e> _ n

I

ac* 3g. 5Zj n !«fi •r*o » 5 C3 AR30I630 APPENDIXE -'-"• . '" ••:•' :••••'•• - '• • • •:•"--. -" . BUILD ALTERNATIVES PROFILES

AR30I63I *R30I632 I . J

AR30I633 IatI

** "J

' . '• . :' .-••'. V.' •. ...--'•"-

. , "• •'. '- -• -.- . : •-••,.' -• . t ' '. ";"-','. ;". - - ' ' - " - •'•- •' V ,1 APPENDIXF - . --.".",--: :• .-• ;•-. • • . -. - • - : FLOODWAY BOUNDARY MAP

•-•••: • • '. • . .- .. • . .: .;• •'. v-'; • ',".

-Vj:'- . .•••', .:.;"%.• r./ - "' -. . ' '. . •-. .. . - ;..-•-•• • - •-•:, .:..- ':;';-;". '."-• rJ. .;v::- " .;•.' '• ... "- - .-. ,- '. ;, •• : '• •.. --' '••'"'•.""'''.:'.' ''••'':• '•-"-.'' 'V:.'_;; ..-. . • ' .- "" ';; •.-'"•-•._ .-;".' "•:" - . •" "•'• ' • ••: •'.'.•'-.'•••-•.":" .- "-:, "•''"•: -•'••• :- '-- .

AR30I635 i '4 "•• . J! •= ;. Ua - i £ _„ ~ » |* .? =:s|J *< SsS'o g|fll ll hi; III III lit O -SS-eissS. 5 <<<":s - s 5< 9 <>! ^> 3s!: £«-x NNNN N N N ^ Q N £ ^ ii.

•W30I636