FINAL DRAFT Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan Update

Plan Sponsor: North Hills Council of Government

Report Prepared by:

January 2021

Contents

Figures ...... 3

Tables ...... 4

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 6

Units of Measure ...... 6

1. Introduction and Project Background ...... 1 1.1 Additional Watershed Planning Documents in the Pine Creek Watershed ...... 1 1.2 Clean Water Act Section 319 Eligibility ...... 3

2. Watershed Description ...... 5 2.1 Land Use ...... 5 2.2 Soils ...... 7 2.3 Topography and Drainage ...... 9 2.4 Population and Jurisdiction ...... 11

3. Water Quality ...... 14 3.1 Water Quality Standards and Assessment Status ...... 14 3.2 Water Quality Data ...... 18

4. Sources of Pollutants ...... 21 4.1 Sources of Sediment ...... 21 4.2 Sources of Phosphorus ...... 26 4.3 Sources of Nitrogen ...... 29

5. Previous Water Quality Improvement Projects ...... 32

6. Overall Recommended Management Measures ...... 34 6.1 Retrofitting Existing Stormwater Practices ...... 35 6.2 Installation of New Stormwater Practices ...... 38 6.3 Stream Restoration ...... 41 6.3.1 Stream Riparian Buffers ...... 41 6.3.2 Floodplain Restoration ...... 42 6.3.3 Stream Channel and Streambank Restoration ...... 42 6.4 Land Conservation and Protection ...... 44 6.4.1 Steep Slope Protection ...... 45 6.4.2 Land Conservation and Habitat Restoration ...... 45 6.5 Flood Control ...... 46

7. Targeting Implementation Activities ...... 48 7.1 Critical Areas for Water Quality Improvement Practices ...... 48 7.2 Priority Areas for Flood Management and/or Erosion Control ...... 54

8. Funding and Technical Resources ...... 59 8.1 Partners ...... 59 8.2 Estimated Costs ...... 59 8.3 Funding ...... 60

9. Education and Outreach...... 66 9.1 Existing Education and Outreach ...... 66 9.2 Additional Education and Outreach Needs ...... 66

10. Schedule and Milestones ...... 67

11. Evaluating Progress and Adaptive Management ...... 71

12. Monitoring Plan ...... 73

13. References ...... 77

Appendix A. NHCOG Municipal Managers Listing 2020 ...... 79

Appendix B. ATTAINS Impairment Listings ...... 80

Appendix C. Local Sponsor Issues and Concerns ...... 101

Appendix D. Model My Watershed Results ...... 102

Appendix E. Town of McCandless Pine Creek Restoration Project ...... 114

Appendix F. Etna Green Infrastructure Master Plan Demonstration Project ...... 115

Figures Figure 1. ALCOSAN service area...... 3 Figure 2. Land use in the Pine Creek watershed (NLCD 2011)...... 6 Figure 3. Soils in the Pine Creek watershed (NRCS SSURGO) ...... 8 Figure 4. Pine Creek watershed topography (USDA NRCS 2020)...... 10 Figure 5. Subwatersheds in the Pine Creek watershed (Image from 2009 Pine Creek WIP)...... 11 Figure 6. City and township members of the North Hills Council of Government...... 13 Figure 7. Aquatic life impairment in the Pine Creek watershed...... 16 Figure 8. Aquatic recreation impairments in the Pine Creek watershed...... 17 Figure 9. Surface water sampling locations in the Pine Creek watershed queried from eMapPA...... 20 Figure 10. Nonpoint sources of sediment to the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 22 Figure 11. Nonpoint sediment loading rates (lbs/ac/yr) by subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 23 Figure 12. Results of the Pine Creek Watershed Riparian Risk Assessment (Figure (NAEC 2010)...... 24 Figure 13. Nonpoint sources of phosphorus in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 26 Figure 14. Nonpoint phosphorus loading rates (lbs/ac/yr) by subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 27 Figure 15. Nonpoint sources of nitrogen in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 29 Figure 16. Nonpoint nitrogen loading rates (lbs/ac/yr) by subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 30 Figure 17. Existing stormwater dry pond locations in the Pine Creek watershed (Figure from 2009 Pine Creek WIP)...... 37 Figure 18. Cross section of a rain garden (image from DEP 2006)...... 39 Figure 19. Plan view of a wet pond/retention basin (image from DEP 2006)...... 41 Figure 20. Existing conditions (left) and restored conditions (right) of a floodplain (Images from DEP 2006)...... 42

iii

Figure 21. Potential streambank restoration projects in the Pine Creek watershed (Figure from 2009 Pine Creek WIP. Modified for WIP Update) ...... 44 Figure 22. Portions of the Pine Creek watershed upstream and downstream of the North Park Lake dam...... 49 Figure 23. Critical areas for water quality improvement in the Pine Creek watershed...... 51 Figure 24. Priority areas for flood management and/or erosion control in the Pine Creek watershed. ... 56 Figure 25. Adaptive management iterative process (U.S. EPA 2008)...... 72 Figure 26. Suggested monitoring locations within the critical areas for water quality improvement...... 75 Figure 27. Conceptual layout plan for Pine Creek Restoration Project (Image created by Gateway Engineering Firm)...... 114

Tables Table 1. Comparison of TMDL Study and Implementation Plan to U.S. EPA’s Nine Elements ...... 4 Table 2. Hydrologic Soil Group Descriptions ...... 7 Table 3. Municipalities within the Pine Creek watershed. (Table from 2009 Pine Creek WIP)...... 12 Table 4. Population trends for municipalities in the Pine Creek watershed (2009 Pine Creek WIP and US Census https://data.census.gov/cedsci/)...... 12 Table 5. Summary of impaired stream assessment units in the Pine Creek watershed (Pennsylvania Integrated Report 2020)...... 15 Table 6. Summary of macroinvertebrate data and stream attainment status in Pine Creek watershed... 18 Table 7. Summary of sampling results from PA DEP’s eMapPA website...... 19 Table 8. Total sediment load (ton/yr) by source for each subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 25 Table 9. Total phosphorus (lbs/yr) by source for each subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 28 Table 10. Total nitrogen load (lbs/yr) for each subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 31 Table 11. Summary of projects in the Pine Creek watershed that received 319 funding 2009-present (U.S. EPA 2020 Grants Reporting and Tracking System and information provided by Pine Creek stakeholders)...... 33 Table 12. Center for Watershed Protection's Purpose of the Steps in the Stormwater Retrofitting Process (Reformatted from 2009 Pine Creek WIP)...... 35 Table 13. Potential Pine Creek watershed stream restoration projects ...... 43 Table 14. Action Items, as provided by local municipalities, from the Allegheny County HMP 2020 Update...... 46 Table 15. Critical areas for water quality improvement in the Pine Creek watershed...... 50 Table 16. Implementation scenario within the Montour Run Critical Area for Water Quality Improvement ...... 52 Table 17. Implementation scenario within the Crouse Run Critical Area for Water Quality Improvement ...... 53 Table 18. Implementation scenario within the Fish Run Critical Area for Water Quality Improvement ... 54 Table 19. Priority areas for Flood Management and/or Erosion Control in the Pine Creek Watershed .... 55 Table 20. Implementation scenario within the Priority Areas for Flood Management and/or Erosion Control ...... 57 Table 21. Costs for implementation within the critical areas for water quality improvement ...... 60 Table 22. Funding and technical resources ...... 61 Table 23. Targeted audiences in the Pine Creek watershed ...... 66

Table 24. Milestones for Implementation in the Montour Run critical area for water quality improvements ...... 68 Table 25. Milestones for implementation in the Crouse Run critical area for water quality improvements ...... 69 Table 26. Milestones for implementation in the Fish run critical area for water quality improvements. . 70 Table 27. Progress benchmarks...... 71 Table 28. Data Requirements for Delisting 303(d) Waters. (From DEP Assessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams (2018))...... 73 Table 29. ATTAINS impairment listings for waterbodies in the water quality critical area subwatersheds...... 80 Table 30. ATTAINS impairment listings for waterbodies in the priority area subwatersheds...... 85 Table 31. ATTAINS impairment listings for waterbodies within the Pine Creek watershed, outside the critical areas...... 92

Acronyms and Abbreviations

3RWW Three Rivers Wet Weather ALCOSAN Allegheny County Sanitary Authority AU assessment unit BMP best management practice CAST Chesapeake Area CSO combined sewer overflow CWF cold water fishery DCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan HSG hydrologic soil groups HUC hydrologic unit code IBI Index of Biotic Integrity MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system NAEC North Area Environmental Council NHCOG North Hills Council of Government NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL North Park Lake SSO separate sewer overflow TDS total dissolved sediment TMDL total maximum daily load TN total nitrogen TP total phosphorus TSF trout stream fishery TSS total suspended solids USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS U.S. Geological Survey WIP Watershed Implementation Plan WPAC Watershed Plan Advisory Committee WQv Water quality volume

Units of Measure ac acre d day L liter lbs pound mg milligram yr year

1. Introduction and Project Background The ultimate goal of a Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) is to reduce nonpoint source pollution in a cost effective and timely manner by identifying appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) in targeted areas and creating a mechanism and schedule for implementation. WIPs help to achieve reductions and attain water quality standards and will result in a cleaner, healthier watershed for the people who depend on the resources of the watershed for their livelihood now and in the future.

The Pine Creek WIP Update provides a framework that watershed stakeholders may use to guide implementation of BMPs to address phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment in the Pine Creek watershed and serves as an update to the 2009 Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan (PEC 2009), and can be considered a stand-alone document. A secondary goal of the WIP Update is to support implementation of erosion control and flood and water quantity management practices. BMPs will be identified to address both water quality and water quantity concerns in the watershed.

The framework for the WIP Update is flexible and incorporates adaptive management to allow watershed stakeholders to adjust the implementation plan to align with their priorities and limitations. This flexibility is necessary because the implementation of nonpoint source controls is voluntary. For example, an implementation plan that specifies a parking lot location for permeable pavement installation would be of little use to watershed stakeholders if the property owners at the specified locations are unwilling or unable to implement. Adaptive management is also necessary because factors unique to specific localities may yield better or worse results for a certain BMP (or suite of BMPs) and the implementation plan will need to be modified to account for such results.

1.1 Additional Watershed Planning Documents in the Pine Creek Watershed Successful, holistic watershed plans recognize the unique features of the watershed and work to achieve improvements on numerous fronts such as water quality, water quantity, and aquatic and terrestrial habitat. As such, the Pine Creek WIP Update incorporates additional watershed planning efforts including updates from previous planning documents and information from several complimentary planning efforts in the Pine Creek Watershed and surrounding area.

Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan (2009): Much of the information in the Pine Creek WIP Update was developed in the original Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan, or “2009 Pine Creek WIP”. The 2009 Pine Creek WIP plan was completed in 2009 by the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. References to the 2009 Pine Creek WIP are provided throughout this document. The 2009 Pine Creek WIP addresses nutrients, pathogens, and siltation in the watershed using the following recommended BMPs: 1. The proper implementation of the Act 167 Stormwater Management Ordinance requirements adopted by the Pine Creek municipalities in 2008. These requirements will ensure that all significant future development or redevelopment in the watershed be constructed using water quality BMPs. The ordinance encourages flow volume reduction through the use of natural area conservation, stream buffers, enhanced swales, infiltration zones (rain gardens), and environmentally sensitive subdivisions. 2. The construction of approximately 19,000,000 cubic feet of additional water quality BMPs in the watershed to reduce pollutant loading from developed areas. It is recommended that a portion of these water quality volume (WQv) BMPs be developed by retrofitting existing stormwater dry ponds into wet ponds.

3. The stabilization of stream banks to reduce erosion. It was determined that approximately 5.3 more miles of stream bank should be stabilized to control the total suspended solids (TSS) loads to that of the pre-developed condition. 4. The use of “Green Streets” concepts in the lower, highly urbanized portions of the watershed located in Etna Borough. This concept uses methods such as the disconnection of impervious areas and roofs, infiltration practices, and street side planting areas/rain gardens to reduce urban runoff and sewer overflows into the waterway. 5. The protection of steep slopes and natural areas in the watershed. It is recommended that municipalities adopt steep slope protection ordinances and encourage the use of conservation easements to protect natural areas within the watershed.

An estimated construction cost of $11 to $12 million was provided for recommendations 2, 3 and 4 throughout the entire Pine Creek Watershed. The costs of the other recommendations were not provided as they could not be determined at the time of the study.

Pine Creek Watershed Channel and Riparian Assessment and Restoration Plan (2010): The Pine Creek Watershed Channel and Riparian Assessment and Restoration Plan (NAEC 2010) was conducted to assess stream channels and riparian areas in the Pine Creek watershed to support the 2009 Pine Creek WIP. Proposed projects, priority ranking, and relative costs were provided for each assessed stream segment.

Pine Creek TMDL (2013): U.S. EPA developed fecal coliform Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in the Pine Creek watershed (HUC 0501000902) to address 71 segments impaired for their recreation uses (118 river miles). TMDLs were established using a calibrated and corroborated Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC) for the 17 allocation groups. Wasteload allocations were developed for 16 regulated MS4s (14 communities and 2 state transportation agencies), 8 industrial and private sewerage systems covered by individual NPDES permits, 7 combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls, and 1 separate sewer overflow (SSO) outfall. The model also simulated septic systems, wildlife and waterfowl, and livestock operations; their loads are within the TMDLs’ load allocation. Appendix G of the TMDL report consists of a TMDL implementation framework for regulated MS4 wasteload allocations. The accuracy and technical basis for the load estimates and achievability of the project reductions in the report were jointly disputed by the Pine Creek municipalities through the North Hills Council of Government (NHCOG).

Allegheny County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: The Allegheny County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) was updated in 2020 concurrently to this update of the Pine Creek WIP. The four main mitigation strategies were carried over from the 2015 HMP plan:

1. Reduce the possibility of damage and loss to existing community assets including addressable structures, critical facilities, and infrastructure due to all hazards that affect Allegheny County 2. Promote disaster-resistant future development to reduce and eliminate risk from all hazards 3. Promote hazard mitigation as a public value that ensures safer, more sustainable communities 4. Protect natural resources within hazard areas and use them to reduce risk and losses

New additions to the 2020 HMP Update include incorporating the 2020 Allegheny County stormwater management plan by documenting those vulnerable areas that are prone to stormwater issues. Specifically, the Allegheny HMP includes the following strategy: Evaluate all structural/infrastructure and natural systems protecting mitigation projects within the Pine Creek watershed to identify where Pine

Creek WIP priority areas overlap and where there may be an opportunity for mutual financial, risk reduction, and improved water quality benefits.

Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) Controlling the Source (2020): Source control is one of the methods selected by ALCOSAN in its Clean Water Plan to meet its compliance obligations. Building on the source control-related efforts undertaken by ALCOSAN and customer municipalities, ALCOSAN developed a methodology to help identify and implement impactful source control projects in their service area. It should be noted that the ALCOSAN service area includes only some of the Pine Creek watershed and expands well beyond the watershed bounds. As such, only some of the Pine Creek watershed is impacted by these planning efforts. Figure 1 provides its service area. In addition, a full list of ALCOSAN plans and reports can be found here: https://www.alcosan.org/our-plan/plan-documents

Figure 1. ALCOSAN service area.

1.2 Clean Water Act Section 319 Eligibility

An important factor for successful implementation of the WIP is access to technical and financial resources. One potential source of funding is the Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management grants. Section 319 grant funding supports implementation activities including technical and financial assistance, education, training, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of nonpoint source implementation projects. To be eligible for these funds, watershed management plans must address nine elements identified by U.S. EPA (2008, revised 2014) as critical for achieving improvements in water quality. These nine elements include:

• Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar sources that need to be controlled to achieve load reductions estimated within the plan • Estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures

• Description of the nonpoint source management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load reductions estimated in element 2; and identification of critical areas • Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and the sources and authorities (e.g., ordinances) that will be relied upon to implement the plan • An information and public education component; early and continued encouragement of public involvement in the design and implementation of the plan • Implementation schedule • A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint source management measures or other control actions are being implemented • Criteria to measure success and reevaluate the plan • Monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time

The Pine Creek WIP updates the current watershed plan to meet U.S. EPA’s nine elements. Table 1 illustrates which sections of the document contain information that fulfill U.S. EPA’s nine elements. Although 319 funding is designed to specifically address nonpoint source pollution, improvements to point source pollution control, such as that within municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted areas, and flood control activities may also have significant impacts on ambient water quality in the watershed. As such, these activities are also included in the WIP Update but may not be eligible for 319 funding. See Section 8.3 for additional funding opportunities.

Table 1. Comparison of Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan Update to U.S. EPA’s Nine Elements Section 319 Nine Elements Applicable Section 1. Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar sources that need to be Section 4 controlled to achieve load reductions estimated within the plan. 2. Estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures Section 7.1 3. Description of the nonpoint source management measures that will need to be implemented to Section 6 and 7 achieve load reductions estimated in element 2; and identification of critical areas 4. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and the Section 8 sources and authorities (e.g., ordinances) that will be relied upon to implement the plan. 5. An information and public education component; early and continued encouragement of public Section 9 involvement in the design and implementation of the plan. 6. Implementation schedule Section 10 7. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint source management Section 10 measures or other control actions are being implemented. 8. Criteria to measure progress and reevaluate the Section 11 plan 9. Monitoring component to evaluate the Section 12 effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time

2. Watershed Description Understanding the physical attributes of a watershed is crucial to understanding the issues it faces and subsequently developing appropriate solutions to manage them. Pine Creek is a 22.8 mile long stream in northern Allegheny County that begins in Pine Township and drains into the Allegheny River in the Borough of Etna. Its watershed is 67.3 square miles (43,072 acres) and contains approximately 128 stream miles. The watershed is located within the larger Lower Allegheny Watershed (HUC 05010009). This section was developed based on information provided in Chapter 1 of the 2009 Pine Creek WIP and updated as necessary.

2.1 Land Use

The Pine Creek watershed in located within several suburban communities. As such, land use in the Pine Creek watershed is predominantly developed with large pockets of forested and other green areas (Figure 2). According to the 2009 Pine Creek WIP, many of the existing green and forested spaces can be explained by steep forested slopes, which are unable to be developed, as well as by managed recreation areas, such as North Park. The Allegheny County Natural Heritage Inventory, published by the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy in 1994, listed several Pine Creek sites as significant natural heritage areas for the county. These sites either provide habitat for species of special concern or serve as an educational and scientific area with the potential for natural areas management. Sites listed are:

• Allegheny River • Willow Run Slopes, North Park • Crouse Run • North Park • Hemlock Grove, North Park • Beechwood Farms Nature Reserve • Cold Valley

Figure 2. Land use in the Pine Creek watershed (NLCD 2011).

2.2 Soils Soils in the Pine Creek watershed vary in thickness, composition, and porosity. Generally, most of the soil is well drained on the uplands. However, the floodplains are typically poorly drained.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey publishes soil surveys for each county within the U.S. These soil surveys contain predictions of soil behavior for selected land uses. The surveys also highlight limitations and hazards inherent in the soil, general improvements needed to overcome the limitations, and the impact of selected land uses on the environment. The soil surveys are designed for many different uses, including land use planning, the identification of special practices needed to ensure proper performance, and mapping of hydrologic soil groups (HSGs).

HSGs refer to the grouping of soils according to their runoff potential. Soil properties that influence the HSGs include depth to seasonal high water table, infiltration rate and permeability after prolonged wetting, and depth to a slower permeable layer (e.g., finer grained). There are four groups of HSGs: Group A, B, C, and Group D. Table 2 and Figure 3 describe those HSGs found in the Pine Creek watershed.

As noted in the 2009 Pine Creek WIP, Allegheny County is highly susceptible to landslides due to a combination of a humid temperate climate, locally steep and rugged topography, weak rock strata, springs, and a great diversity in the weathering and erosion characteristics of near surface sedimentary rocks. Landslides can be triggered by: • Addition of fill, which increases the stress on underlying materials • Removal of trees • Changes in the quantity or direction of water flow • Surface and subsurface excavations (including coal removal) • ‘Red Beds’- bedrock in hillsides composed of claystones and shales that are 40-60 feet deep. This bedrock weathers easily, especially when wet, and causes unstable slopes. Stabilization and repair can cost thousands to millions of dollars.

Table 2. Hydrologic Soil Group Descriptions HSG Group Description

Sand, loamy sand or sandy loam types of soils. Low runoff potential and high infiltration rates even A when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels with a high rate of water transmission.

Silt loam or loam. Moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly or moderately deep B to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures.

Soils are sandy clay loam. Low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of soils with a C layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine structure.

Soils are clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay or clay. Group D has the highest runoff potential. Low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling D potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface and shallow soils over nearly impervious material.

HSG Group Description

B/D Dual Hydrologic Soil Groups. If Group D soils can be adequately drained, then they are assigned to dual hydrologic soil groups based on their saturated hydraulic conductivity and the water table depth when C/D drained. The first letter applies to the drained condition and the second to the undrained condition.

Figure 3. Soils in the Pine Creek watershed (NRCS SSURGO)

The historic stream damming for gristmills, sawmills and farm ponds has created reservoirs of legacy sediments in addition to other valley grade control structures and abandoned industrial dump sites for mill and other wastes . The associated sediment deposits are mobilized by stream incision and erosion in high water events exacerbated by long term changes in watershed landuse on stream hydrology. The role of these” legacy sediments” in generating high sediment yields from stream channels is becoming recognized in eco-system restoration efforts in Pennsylvania and other states and may be significant in the Pine Creek Watershed.

The watershed is also characterized by the Quaternary Alluvial formation in the area of its confluence with the Allegheny River. These valley fill deposits have higher hydraulic transmissivity and have potential for use with infiltration BMPs .

2.3 Topography and Drainage

Elevation in the Pine Creek watershed ranges from over 400 meters to 216 meters, or approximately 1,300 to just over 700 feet, near its confluence with the Allegheny River (Figure 4). Elevation is generally higher in the northwestern portion of the watershed and lower in the downstream, southeastern portions. North Park Lake and dam divide the upper and lower portions of Pine Creek. In the 2009 Pine Creek WIP, the larger Pine Creek watershed was segmented into smaller drainage areas, or subwatersheds, as provided in Figure 5.

North Park Lake Dam

Figure 4. Pine Creek watershed topography (USDA NRCS 2020).

Figure 5. Subwatersheds in the Pine Creek watershed (Image from 2009 Pine Creek WIP).

2.4 Population and Jurisdiction The Pine Creek watershed is located in the northern suburbs of Pittsburgh and is largely urbanized. Portions of 14 municipalities are contained within the boundaries of the watershed (Table 3). Over the last 10 years population has, in general, increased in several of the municipalities in the upstream portions of the watershed and decreased in the lower portions of the watershed. The largest percent increase in population from 2000 to 2010 was seen in Indiana and the largest percent decrease in population was seen in Etna (Table 4).

Table 3. Municipalities within the Pine Creek watershed. (Table from 2009 Pine Creek WIP).

Table 4. Population trends for municipalities in the Pine Creek watershed (2009 Pine Creek WIP and US Census https://data.census.gov/cedsci/). 1990 2000 2010 Municipality % Change % Change Population Population Population Bradford Woods 1,329 1,149 -14% 1,171 2% Etna 4,200 3,924 -7% 3,451 -12% Fox Chapel 5,319 5,436 2% 5,388 -1% Franklin Park 10,109 11,364 12% 13,470 19% Hampton 15,568 17,526 13% 18,363 5% Indiana 6,024 6,809 13% 7,253 6.5% Marshall 4038 5,996 48% 6,915 15% McCandless 28,781 29,022 0.8% 28,457 -2% O’Hara 9,096 8,856 -3% 8,407 -5% Pine 4,048 7,683 90% 11,497 50% Richland 8,600 9,231 7% 12,814 39% Ross 33,482 32,551 -3% 31,105 -4% Shaler 30,533 29,757 -3% 28,757 -3% Sharpsburg 3,781 3,594 -5% 3,446 -4%

The Pine Creek watershed is within the boundary of The North Hills Council of Governments (NHCOG) coalition. According to the NHCOG website; the NHCOG is a voluntary coalition of 19 municipalities in Allegheny County and is a non-profit corporation. The organization was created as a result of the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Action of 1972 and acts as a mutual forum to: • discuss and bring into focus regional challenges and opportunities • collect and maintain data of a regional interest • strive to improve communication, coordination and intergovernmental cooperation between all levels of government

• facilitate cooperative agreements • seek technical assistance; and coordinate Federal, State and Local programs of regional importance Municipal boundaries of the NHCOG members are provided in Figure 6. A full list of municipal managers in the NHCOG is provided in Appendix A.

Figure 6. City and township members of the North Hills Council of Government.

3. Water Quality

3.1 Water Quality Standards and Assessment Status Water quality standards set the general and specific goals for the quality of our surface waters. They are based upon the designated water uses to be protected, the surface water conditions that need to be maintained or attained to support those uses, and an anti-degradation policy which protects and maintains existing uses. Waterbodies that are not meeting their water quality standards are considered impaired.

All surface waters in Pennsylvania have been assigned statewide water uses and should be able to support these uses: aquatic life, water supply, and recreation (25 Pa 93.3). For the aquatic life use, the Pine Creek watershed is designated as a Cold Water Fishery (CWF) from its headwaters to North Park Lake Dam and a Trout Stocked Fishery (TSF) from the North Park Lake Dam to its mouth. For recreational use, all streams are protected for fishing, boating, water contact sports, and aesthetics.

Pennsylvania adopted numeric criteria for the protection of water contact sports (25 Pa 93.7). During the swimming season (May 1 through September 31), the 30-day geometric mean of Escherichia coli (E.coli) may not exceed 126 colony forming units (cfu) per 100 milliliters (ml) and no more than 10 percent of samples may exceed 410 cfu /100 ml during the 30-day period. During the rest of the year, the 30-day geometric mean of fecal coliform may not exceed 2,000 cfu / 100 ml. Pennsylvania also adopted narrative criteria that protect aquatic life from harmful discharges of point and nonpoint sources, including turbidity (25 Pa 93.6). Pennsylvania has not adopted numeric criteria for nutrients or sediment. These narrative criteria apply to nutrient and sediment pollution that impair aquatic life:

(a) Water may not contain substances attributable to point or nonpoint source discharges in concentration or amounts sufficient to be inimical or harmful to the water uses to be protected or to human, animal, plant or aquatic life. (b) In addition to other substances listed within or addressed by this chapter, specific substances to be controlled include, but are not limited to, floating materials, oil, grease, scum and substances that produce color, tastes, odors, turbidity or settle to form deposits.

An overview of impaired stream reaches in the Pine Creek watershed is provided in Table 5. According to the Pennsylvania Integrated Report (2020):

• Category 4a streams are defined as “waters impaired for one or more uses, not needing a TMDL, because a TMDL has been completed.” • Category 5 waters are defined as “waters impaired for one or more uses by a pollutant that require the development of a TMDL.”

Aquatic life impaired streams (Category 5 only) and their associated causes and sources are provided in Figure 7. Figure 8 includes waterbodies impaired for aquatic recreation and their associated causes and sources of impairment. All aquatic recreation impairments have a completed TMDL. While there are aquatic recreation impairments due to pathogens in the Pine Creek Watershed, this WIP focuses on the aquatic life impairments due to nutrients and siltation from this point on as these are the main priorities of the local sponsors.

Table 5. Summary of impaired stream assessment units in the Pine Creek watershed (Pennsylvania Integrated Report 2020). Designated Category Causes & Sources* Use Nutrients from urban runoff from storm sewers and rural residential areas (86 AUs, 50.0 miles) Aquatic Life Category 5: 92 AUs Organic enrichment from on-site treatment systems (septic and similar decentralized systems (4 AU, 2.0 miles) Siltation from Road runoff and site clearance (60 AUs, 36.29 miles) Category 4A: 252 AUs Recreation Pathogens from Unknown sources (119.8 miles) Category 5: 1 AU *Numerous AUs are listed for more than one cause and source, so AU counts to not add up to the category count, which represents the total number of AUs.

Figure 7. Aquatic life impairment in the Pine Creek watershed.

Figure 8. Aquatic recreation impairments in the Pine Creek watershed.

3.2 Water Quality Data

In-stream water quality data for the Pine Creek watershed were obtained from a variety of sources and summarized below.

According to the 2009 Pine Creek WIP “In 2005, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, in cooperation with a coalition of organizations, municipalities, and volunteers, prepared the Pine Creek: Watershed Assessment, Protection, and Restoration Plan (Assessment). The Assessment provided baseline data on water quality throughout the watershed and included a comprehensive database of its municipalities’ current land use policies and practices. The Assessment’s water quality data were gathered by volunteers at 16 locations throughout the watershed. Volunteers were trained and operated under the auspices of the Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement/Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps.” During this process, water column samples taken from February 2002 through August 2004 were evaluated for alkalinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, pH, phosphate, sulfate, and temperature; benthic macroinvertebrates were also collected. Collective Efforts, LLC, evaluated the water quality data and concluded that “temperature, dissolved oxygen, and alkalinity water quality results [were] within acceptable criteria ranges for the stream’s designated uses” (PEC 2005, p. 5). Nitrate data, however, were determined to be unusable during the data review process (PEC 2005, p. 38). Phosphate concentration was determined for samples collected from 14 sites and ranged from 0.10 to 2.00 mg/L, with an average of 0.82 mg/L. Collected Efforts, LLC concluded that “phosphate levels were consistently high at almost all tested sites” (PEC 2005, p. 52), supporting the IR causes of nutrients and siltation.

The Water Quality Portal (https://www.waterqualitydata.us/) was queried on February 3, 2020 to identify any additional pertinent water quality monitoring data collected in Pine Creek watershed. Three U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sites were identified with nutrient or bacteria data: 1. North Fork Pine Creek near Wexford, PA (USGS 03049700) - 6 nitrate results from 1960s 2. Pine Creek near Bryant, PA (USGS 03049750) - 18 nutrient results from 1976 3. Pine Creek at Etna, PA (USGS 03049810) - 9 bacteria indicator results and 9 turbidity results in June-July from 2007-2009. Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) data were collected at three monitoring stations within the Pine Creek watershed from 2007-2008. All locations were evaluated for attainment using the Pennsylvania DEP’s 2012 freestone IBI guidance (DEP 2012). IBI scores were non-attaining at all three monitoring locations, indicating impairment. The Pine Creek stations are located just upstream of the NPL dam on Pine Creek and the Montour Run station is near the confluence of Montour Run with Pine Creek (Table 6).

Table 6. Summary of macroinvertebrate data and stream attainment status in Pine Creek watershed. Impairment IBI Station ID Stream Name Difference Status Threshold Score 20070718-1415-abransteit Pine Creek 1 43 13 -30 Impaired 20070718-1445-abransteit Pine Creek 2 43 23 -19 Impaired 20080108-1100-gkenderes Montour Run 50 38 -12 Impaired

The Pennsylvania DEP’s eMapPA website (https://www.depgis.state.pa.us/emappa/) was queried on September 8, 2020 to identify any additional pertinent water quality monitoring data collected in the

Pine Creek watershed. Eight monitoring stations with relevant parameter data were identified (Table 7 and Figure 9). TSS samples were collected at all monitoring stations between the years 1996 and 2020. Total dissolved solids (TDS) samples were collected in two locations in North Park Lake and in Willow Run from 2013-2019. Total phosphorus (TP), Total nitrogen (TN), and Nitrate-N samples were only collected within the North Park Lake. As Pennsylvania has not adopted numeric criteria for nutrients or sediment, these data cannot be compared to a water quality standard, however, they can provide some baseline understanding of water quality conditions in the Pine Creek watershed. There are insufficient data at this time to determine trends within the watershed.

Table 7. Summary of sampling results from PA DEP’s eMapPA website. Number of Monitoring Station Parameter Sampling date range Average Units samples TSS 8/3/2017 - 8/4/2020 8 20.0 mg/L TDS 8/3/2017 - 8/4/2020 8 410.3 mg/L North Park Lake 1 TP 8/3/2017 - 8/4/2020 8 0.0413 mg/L TN 8/3/2017 - 8/4/2020 8 1.47 mg/L Nitrate-N 10/31/2018 - 8/4/2020 6 0.97 mg/L TSS 8/3/2017 - 8/4/2020 28 15.6 mg/L TDS 8/3/2017 - 8/4/2020 28 399.66 mg/L North Park Lake 2 TP 8/3/2017 - 8/4/2020 28 0.0413 mg/L TN 8/3/2017 - 8/4/2020 28 1.56 mg/L Nitrate-N 4/25/2018 - 8/4/2020 24 0.97 mg/L Pine Creek 1 TSS 4/21/2010 1 2,070.0 mg/L Pine Creek 2 TSS 4/21/2010 1 1,110.0 mg/L Pine Creek 3 TSS 9/11/1996 - 1/13/2004 20 20.1 mg/L Pine Creek 4 TSS 9/11/1996 - 1/13/2004 30 21.5 mg/L Pine Creek/Crouse TSS 4/21/2010 1 33.0 mg/L Run TSS 5/21/2013 - 8/22/2019 14 16.2 mg/L Willow Run TDS 5/21/2013 - 8/22/2019 14 821.9 mg/L

Figure 9. Surface water sampling locations in the Pine Creek watershed queried from eMapPA.

4. Sources of Pollutants Nutrients from residential runoff and storm sewers and siltation from land development and roadway runoff are the most identified causes and sources of pollutants to impaired streams in the Pine Creek watershed, impacting 92 assessment units over 53 stream miles (Table 5). In addition, streambank erosion and excess sedimentation/siltation were identified by the local sponsor group as the 3rd and 4th issues and concerns in the watershed (Appendix B). As such, a more in-depth analysis of the various sources of sediment and nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) was conducted using information from previous studies in the watershed and using the Model My Watershed online modeling tool (Sections 4.1 through 4.3). Model My Watershed is a watershed-modeling application that can be used to model stormwater runoff and estimate water quality impacts using real land use and soil data on a watershed scale. For the WIP Update, subwatersheds delineated during the 2009 Pine Creek WIP (Figure 5) were used as areas of analysis in which to run Model My Watershed .

4.1 Sources of Sediment Under natural conditions, TSS is carried into the waterway via a variety of pathways. Increased levels of suspended solids, however, can affect aquatic life by smothering aquatic invertebrates and fish eggs, and can affect the ability of fish to breathe and eat.

According to Model My Watershed, sediment loading in the Pine Creek watershed is entirely from nonpoint sources. Streambank erosion is the predominant source of sediment to the watershed overall with agricultural (hay/pasture and cropland) and developed sources ranking as the second and third largest contributors (Figure 10). Estimated loading rates of sediment for each subwatershed ranged from 85.9 to 877 lbs/ac/yr with the Pine 3 subwatershed having the largest loading rates per acre (Figure 11). A breakdown by contributing sources of sediment modeled in each subwatershed is provided in Table 8.

In addition to the results from Model My Watershed, a qualitative stream channel assessment for the Pine Creek watershed evaluated the riparian areas of streams in the watershed. Areas with poorer ranks are likely higher sources of sediment loading from stream erosion than segments with better ranks. The following is an excerpt from that assessment (NAEC 2010): “Over 56 linear miles of stream channels containing 122 segments in the Pine Creek watershed were evaluated using the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Visual Assessment protocol. The watershed has reaches (segments) ranking poor, fair, and good (no streams ranked excellent). While some streams showed a significant trend in the score of one parameter or another (e.g., bank stability) from the upstream to downstream portions, there was no consistent trend in ranking from the headwaters to the mouth of any tributary. Stream reaches that had little adjacent development, relatively few storm drains entering them, and that retained forested riparian zones generally showed fair to good quality.” No stream segments were assessed as “excellent”. Stream segments and their riparian ranks are provided in Figure 12.

Hay/Pasture Cropland Wooded Areas Developed 2% 1% <1% 3%

Open and Barren Land <1%

Stream Bank Erosion 94% SEDIMENT

Figure 10. Nonpoint sources of sediment to the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed).

Figure 11. Nonpoint sediment loading rates (lbs/ac/yr) by subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed).

Figure 12. Results of the Pine Creek Watershed Riparian Risk Assessment (Figure (NAEC 2010).

Table 8. Total sediment load (ton/yr) by source for each subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed). Total suspended solids (ton/yr)

Run & Run

Sources East Creek Creek West Creek

Run Run Run

Fish Run Fork North Montour Willow Crouse Gourdhead McCaslin Little Pine Little Pine Pine 5 Pine 4 Pine 3 Pine 2 Pine 1 Hay/ 0.36 38.9 33.5 5.16 2.88 15.01 27.0 4.86 19.3 7.21 1.19 - - Pasture Cropland 0.35 21.1 19.6 4.71 1.04 3.63 17.9 - 18.9 0.07 4.94 - - Wooded Areas 0.54 6.73 4.56 2.18 1.10 1.81 3.76 1.52 2.90 0.89 1.77 0.10 0.05 Open and Barren 0.04 1.86 0.50 0.61 0.07 0.35 7.93 1.16 1.23 0.23 2.91 - - Land Stream Bank 148.9 957.4 235.0 241.1 321.1 297.9 264.5 888.9 1,275.4 31.8 3,042.7 22.9 25.8 Erosion Developed 10.7 22.8 7.43 9.17 20.4 10.9 8.23 37.80 45.7 3.48 45.5 4.93 6.12 TOTAL 160.9 1,048.8 300.6 262.9 346.6 329.6 329.3 934.2 1,363.4 43.7 3,099.0 27.9 32.0

4.2 Sources of Phosphorus Phosphorous is an essential nutrient for aquatic life, however; excess levels of phosphorus can lead to eutrophication and depleted oxygen levels when the excess plants and algae decompose. There are many natural sources of phosphorus such as plant and animal life, soil, and rocks.

According to Model My Watershed, streambank erosion is the predominant nonpoint source of phosphorus loading to the watershed overall with developed and agricultural (hay/pasture and cropland) sources the second and third largest contributors (Figure 13). Estimated loading rates of phosphorus from nonpoint sources for each subwatershed ranged from 0.087 to 0.347 lbs/ac/yr with the Pine 3 subwatershed having the largest estimated loading rates per acre (Figure 14). A breakdown by modeled point and nonpoint contributing sources of phosphorus in each subwatershed is provided in Table 9. In addition to having the largest estimated loading rate of nonpoint phosphorus per year, Pine 3 is the only subwatershed with point source loading.

Hay/Pasture Cropland Wooded Areas Developed 5% 4% 1% 14% Open and Barren Land <1%

Farm Animals 4%

Subsurface Flow 14%

Stream Bank Erosion 58% PHOSPHORUS

Figure 13. Nonpoint sources of phosphorus in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed).

Figure 14. Nonpoint phosphorus loading rates (lbs/ac/yr) by subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed).

Table 9. Total phosphorus (lbs/yr) by source for each subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed). Total phosphorus (lbs/yr)

West &

Run

Sources East Creek

Run Run Run

Pine Creek Creek Pine Fish Run Fork North Montour Willow Crouse Gourdhead McCaslin Little Pine Little Pine 5 Pine 4 Pine 3 Pine 2 Pine 1

Hay/ Pasture 1.30 110.9 91.7 13.9 8.80 48.8 83.1 16.3 59.2 21.7 3.80 - -

Cropland 1.30 71.2 63.7 15.3 3.30 14.0 72.5 - 70.5 0.20 18.7 - -

Wooded 2.30 24.8 14.1 9.50 4.70 7.40 16.3 6.0 12.3 3.30 10.0 0.60 0.20 Areas Open and 0.10 4.60 1.20 1.5 0.20 0.90 21.1 3.50 3.40 0.60 8.00 - - Barren Land

Farm Animals 9.90 45.7 24.9 20.4 - 17.9 27.8 30.3 48.1 5.00 48.1 2.50 2.50

Stream Bank 99.2 562.2 134.5 136.7 185.2 183.0 169.8 623.9 811.3 19.8 1,995.2 17.6 19.8 Erosion Subsurface 42.0 137.4 119.8 54.2 0.00 75.0 131.4 114.7 190.5 18.1 200.7 14.4 10.9 Flow

Point Sources ------48,691.3 - -

Developed 52.4 108.5 34.9 45.9 107.6 55.7 41.2 188.5 229.2 16.4 229.8 23.3 31.1

TOTAL 208.5 1,065.3 484.8 297.4 309.8 402.7 563.2 983.2 1,424.5 85.1 51,205.6 58.4 64.5

4.3 Sources of Nitrogen Nitrogen is an essential nutrient for aquatic life. However, as with phosphorus, an increase in nitrogen, under the right conditions, can set off undesirable events in a stream, including accelerated plankton and aquatic plant growth, a process called eutrophication. The death and decomposition of algae and aquatic plants by oxygen consuming bacteria results in low dissolved oxygen causing the death of fish, invertebrates, and other aquatic animals.

According to Model My Watershed, subsurface flow is the predominant nonpoint source of nitrogen loading to the watershed overall with developed, streambank erosion and septic systems also contributing large amounts (Figure 14). The Pine Creek Watershed, like many other streams system in southwestern PA, is characterized by meager baseflow during seasonal dry weather periods. This factor may affect the correspondence between estimated loadings from Model My Watershed and those actually observed in Pine Creek and its tributaries.

Estimated loading rates of nitrogen from nonpoint sources for each subwatershed ranged from 1.14 to 26.7 lbs/ac/yr with the Little Pine Creek West subwatershed having the largest loading rates per acre (Figure 16). A breakdown by modeled point and nonpoint contributing sources of nitrogen in each subwatershed is provided in Table 10. Little Pine Creek West and Pine 3 are the only two subwatersheds with point source nitrogen contributions in addition to nonpoint sources.

Cropland Wooded Areas 2% Hay/Pasture 2% Open and Barren Land 1% 0% Farm Animals Developed 2% 17% Stream Bank Erosion 14%

Septic Systems 12%

Subsurface Flow NITROGEN 50%

Figure 15. Nonpoint sources of nitrogen in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed).

Figure 16. Nonpoint nitrogen loading rates (lbs/ac/yr) by subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed).

Table 10. Total nitrogen load (lbs/yr) for each subwatershed in the Pine Creek watershed (Model My Watershed). Total nitrogen (lbs/yr)

Run Run

Creek Creek

Sources Run Run Run

Fish Run Fork North Montour Willow Crouse Gourdhead McCaslin & Little Pine East Little Pine West Pine 5 Pine 4 Pine 3 Pine 2 Pine 1 Hay/ 2.4 230.6 189.4 29.0 18.7 97.3 153.0 28.5 116.7 42.4 7.0 - - Pasture Cropland 3.8 250.0 223.9 55.0 11.2 51.4 252.2 - 238.6 0.8 59.8 - - Wooded 18.7 202.6 90.7 97.2 46.2 64.3 142.7 39.6 106.9 24.0 108.8 6.1 1.8 Areas Open and 1.3 30.5 7.3 10.2 1.5 8.4 67.1 17.2 17.4 3.9 34.2 - - Barren Land Farm 37.4 170.8 93.6 76.1 74.9 66.7 104.0 113.4 180.2 18.7 180.2 9.3 9.3 Animals Stream Bank 178.6 1,122.2 262.4 269.0 370.4 339.5 297.6 1,040.6 1,534.4 37.5 3,500.9 26.5 24.3 Erosion Sub-surface 1,034.2 5,249.8 2,951.1 2,070.9 1,786.3 1,847.6 3,238.1 2,785.4 4,694.0 692.9 4,735.3 682.0 377.8 Flow Point ------2,795.5 - - 412,741.0 - - Sources Septic 369.4 806.4 220.2 159.9 671.4 223.8 198.9 1,396.1 1,570.2 117.2 1,548.8 252.2 287.7 Systems Developed 503.5 1,040.9 332.2 433.3 1,032.7 529.3 393.1 1,819.8 2,204.6 157.5 2,213.2 227.3 300.7

TOTAL 2,149.3 9,103.8 4,370.8 3,200.6 4,013.3 3,228.3 4,846.7 10,036.1 10,663.0 1,094.9 425,129.2 1,203.4 1,001.6

5. Previous Water Quality Improvement Projects Progress has been made towards implementation of the 2009 Pine Creek WIP.

Municipalities in Pine Creek Watershed have adopted the model Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Ordinance under Act 167, a high priority recommendation from the 2009 Pine Creek. WIP.

Act 167 provides for the regulation of land and water uses for flood control and stormwater management purposes. Prior to Act 167, stormwater control was done on a site-specific basis. Act 167 encourages the cooperation between state, local, and county officials to incorporate watershed considerations into stormwater management planning. As stated in Act 167- Section 3:

The “policy and purpose of this Act is to: 1. Encourage planning and management of stormwater runoff in each watershed which is consistent with sound water and land use practices; 2. Authorize a comprehensive program of stormwater management designated to preserve and restore the flood carrying capacity of Commonwealth streams; to preserve to the maximum extent practicable natural stormwater runoff regimes and natural course, current and cross-section of water of the Commonwealth; and to protect and conserve groundwaters and groundwater recharge areas; and 3. Encourage local administration and management of stormwater consistent with the Commonwealth’s duty as trustee of natural resources and the people’s constitutional right to the preservation of natural, economic, scenic, aesthetic, recreational, and historic values of the environment.”

Using third party funding and technical support, the municipalities in the Pine Creek watershed and the neighboring watersheds (Girty’s Run, Squaw Run, and Deer Creek) jointly drafted a model ordinance with provisions consistent with the PADEP model Act 167 Stormwater Management Ordinance.

The development of the updated ordinance was overseen by the Watershed Plan Advisory Committee (WPAC). The WPAC was made up of individuals from the North Area Environmental Council (NAEC), the Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC), Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Allegheny County Conservation District, the Allegheny County Department of Economic Development, the NHCOG, and municipal managers, planners, and engineers.

There are many significant provisions contained within the new regional Act 167 Stormwater Management Ordinance, such as: • The incorporation of water quality and infiltration standards, • Provision of credits for the use of non-structural best management practices, including: the protection of existing wooded and natural areas, the use of stream buffers, the use of enhanced swales and infiltration practices, and the use of low-density development practices, • Continued 2, 10, 25 and 100-year storm peak rate reduction requirements, • The application of stormwater management requirements to all sites having a disturbed area of greater than 400 square feet, • Stormwater management requirements for existing sites that undergo redevelopment, • Language preventing the waiving of ordinance requirements by the local municipality and requiring that they must be approved by Allegheny County or its designee, • The development of a standardized BMP design method for small projects.

The revised Stormwater Management Ordinance was adopted by the municipalities within the watershed in October 2008. In 2018, Allegheny County received PADEP approval for a county wide revision to its Act 167 Plan with its own model ordinance. The Pine Creek communities worked together through their Stormwater Management Committee to keep their Stormwater Ordinances consistent with the county wide ordinance as well as changes in the MS4 Program. More information on Allegheny County Act 167 can be found on the Allegheny County Land Use and Planning website: https://www.alleghenycounty.us/economic-development/land-use-planning.aspx .

A number of projects have been funded through the 319 program in the Pine Creek watershed since the development of the 2009 WIP and are provided in Table 11.

Table 11. Summary of projects in the Pine Creek watershed that received 319 funding 2009-present (U.S. EPA 2020 Grants Reporting and Tracking System and information provided by Pine Creek stakeholders). Reduction Project Year Practices Implemented Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (ton/yr) North Fork Pine Creek Stream Restoration (design, 2013 Stream restoration - - 14 permit, and construction) • 396 linear feet infiltration trenches • 15 downspouts disconnected (9,484 square feet of roof area) Green Streetscape • 4,450 square feet pervious parking Phases 1/1A (design, 2014 pavement/ infiltration system 250 50 50 permit and • 12 trees in tree pit infiltration areas construction) • 1,460 cubic feet of subsurface infiltration modules • Inlet with water quality insert • 13 downspouts disconnected (23,550 square feet roof area) • 1,800 square feet pervious pavement/ infiltration system Etna Borough Green • 1,900 square feet rain park planting Streets Phase 2 2018 area 1.6 1.0 0.2 (design, permit and • construction) 9 trees in tree pit infiltration areas • 2 subsurface stormwater infiltration facilities totaling 2,470 cubic feet total • Inlet with water quality insert • 480 linear feet of natural channel Crouse Run Stream restoration Restoration - 2019 • 480 linear feet of stream channel - - 17 construction stabilization • 120 trees/shrubs established • 14 downspouts disconnected Etna Borough Green 2020 (19,618 square feet roof area) 2.7 1.8 0.37 Streets Phase 3 • Planting area

(design & permit; • 6 trees in tree pit infiltration areas under construction) • 2 subsurface stormwater infiltration facilities totaling 4,636 cubic feet and managing approximately 1.08 million gallons per year • 3 inlets with water quality insert • 10 downspouts disconnected (22,300 square feet roof area) • Planting area Etna Borough Green • 9 trees in tree pit infiltration areas Streets Phase 5 2020 3.2 1.4 0.38 • (design) Subsurface stormwater infiltration facility totaling 2,860 cubic • 1 Inlet with water quality insert • 260 square foot rain garden

The Township of Hampton has completed the following sediment removal practices through their MS4 permit application and pollution reduction plan for a total of 213,584 lbs of sediment removed per year.

• Basin outlet modification at Villas at Grandeur – 13,449 lbs sediment/yr • Township Park Raingarden – 4,750 lbs sediment/yr • Streambank restoration at the Sewage Treatment Plant (1 Side) – 80,500 lbs sediment/yr • Lower Allison Park Streambank and Floodplain Restoration – 59,685 lbs sediment/yr

6. Overall Recommended Management Measures This update to the Pine Creek WIP recognizes the significant effort that was put into developing the implementation activities for the 2009 Pine Creek WIP and recommends that Pine Creek watershed stakeholders continue to implement these activities as needed. According to the 2009 Pine Creek WIP, “[s]everal types of BMPs may be used to improve water quality in the watershed. These include constructed stormwater management wet ponds, bioretention (rain gardens), stream buffers, stream channel stabilization, streambank stabilization, and protection of existing steep slopes and wooded areas.” Information on these recommended activities and additional recommendations for the WIP Update is provided below. Specific projects or programs for each category of recommended activity are provided in blue call out boxes.

Recommended implementation activities for the Pine Creek WIP Update consist of previously recommended activities from the 2009 Pine Creek WIP that have not yet been implemented as well as any additional practices. Where applicable, additional practices are supplemented with information from Pennsylvania’s Stormwater Manual (DEP 2006). The full manual is available at: https://pecpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Stormwater-BMP-Manual.pdf.

Appropriate implementation activities can vary depending on location within the watershed. Upstream locations, for example, are facing increased development (and therefore increased imperviousness) and should focus on implementation activities that treat and store water in order to reduce the volume of water sent to downstream communities and improve the quality of water they do send. Communities farther downstream that are already highly developed and therefore limited on space can focus on in- stream improvements and increasing green spaces within their jurisdiction. Water quantity and quality

are highly interconnected in the Pine Creek watershed and, whenever possible, both aspects should be considered when determining implementation activities.

6.1 Retrofitting Existing Stormwater Practices Stormwater practice retrofitting was a primary recommendation in the 2009 Pine Creek WIP and was also identified as a desirable practice during the 2020 update. As such, much of this section is excerpted directly from the 2009 Pine Creek WIP with minor revisions.

Although the Act 167 Stormwater Management Ordinance addresses many of the problems related to new development and provides new stormwater management requirements on existing sites as they undergo redevelopment, an effort will need to be made to address the BMP deficit on previously developed areas by looking for opportunities to improve, or retrofit, the existing BMPs and to add additional BMPs within the watershed. This effort will largely consist of retrofitting dry stormwater ponds, that are not considered to provide water quality improvement, into wet stormwater ponds to provide treatment.

The Center for Watershed Protection’s 2007 manual on urban retrofit practices outlines the recommended steps in a retrofitting process (Table 12). Although a complete retrofit analysis is outside the scope of this report, the concepts in the manual can be used to when converting existing dry stormwater ponds into wet stormwater ponds.

Table 12. Center for Watershed Protection's Purpose of the Steps in the Stormwater Retrofitting Process (Reformatted from 2009 Pine Creek WIP). Step and Purpose Key Task

• Screen for subwatershed retrofit potential Step 1. Retrofit Scoping • Review past, current, and future stormwater Refine the retrofit strategy to meet local restoration • Define core retrofitting objectives objectives • Translate into minimum retrofitting objectives • Define preferred retrofit treatment options Step 2. Desktop Retrofit Analysis • Secure GIS and other mapping Search for potential retrofit sites across the • Conduct desktop search for retrofit sites subwatershed • Prepare base maps • Advances preparation Step 3. Retrofit Reconnaissance Investigation • Evaluate individual sites Investigate feasibility of retrofit sites in the field • Finalize site evaluation sheets back in office • Complete storage retrofit concept designs Step 4. Compile Retrofit Inventory • Finalize on-site retrofit delivery methods Develop initial concepts for best retrofit sites • Assemble retrofit inventory • Neighborhood consultation Step 5. Retrofit Evaluation and Ranking • Develop retrofit screening criteria Choose the most feasible and cost-effective sites • Create retrofit priority list Step 6. Subwatershed Treatment Analysis • Compute pollutant removal by storage retrofits Determine if retrofits can achieve subwatershed • Compute pollutant removal by on-site retrofits restoration objective • Compare against restoration objective

Step and Purpose Key Task • Secure environmental permits Step 7. Final Design and Construction Assemble • Obtain landowner approval and easements design package to lead to successful retrofit • Perform special engineering studies construction • Put together final design package • Contract and project management Step 8. Inspection Maintenance & Evaluation • Construction inspection Ensure retrofits are working properly and achieving • Retrofit maintenance subwatershed objectives • Project tracking and monitoring

As noted in the 2009 Pine Creek WIP, highly urbanized areas in the watershed, particularly the Borough of Etna and the abutting portions of Shaler Township, are not suitable for the construction of wet ponds due to the lack of open area and therefore alternate methods such as the incorporation of bioretention concepts into the existing storm sewer system or the use of catch basin water quality inserts may be considered. Many of the remaining portions of the watershed, however, have open areas and existing stormwater management ponds. The existing stormwater ponds are dry ponds that could be reconstructed as stormwater management wet ponds and in some cases resized to increase the existing flood protection storage volume in the watershed.

Locations of existing dry ponds in the Pine Creek watershed were determined in the 2009 Pine Creek WIP and provided in Figure 17.

Figure 17. Existing stormwater dry pond locations in the Pine Creek watershed (Figure from 2009 Pine Creek WIP).

For the purposes of the WIP, it is assumed that the peak flow protection provided by each pond will not be reduced and that each retrofitted pond will be modified with the following strategies: • Replacement or modification of the existing raisers • Increasing pond storage by deepening or raising the embankment • The addition of forebays to the ponds • Outfall stabilization when needed

Act 167 Stormwater Management Pond Evaluation The NHCOG has coordinated an evaluation of each of the significant stormwater management ponds located within the Girty’s Run, Pine Creek, Squaw Run, and Deer Creek watersheds (the Act 167 Study Area).

The inspection was completed from May through August of 2008. The ponds were located using a GIS database of the significant stormwater ponds that was developed for the Act 167 project. An inspection crew of two people visited each of the stormwater ponds (+/-179 ponds) during the inspection period. At each pond, the inspectors recorded information about the condition of each pond, preparing a dimensioned sketch of the outlet structure, photographing the facility, and recording the coordinates of the outlet structure, spillway, and discharge pipe using sub-centimeter GPS equipment.

The inspection database developed from this project is integrated into the GIS coverage of stormwater management facilities for the study area. An important aspect of the project is to develop a consistent watershed approach for the ongoing inspection, maintenance and improvements to the existing and proposed stormwater management infrastructure in the North Hills area. The inspection findings have been reported to each of the municipalities involved in the study. It is hoped that a focus on the condition of the existing stormwater management infrastructure will result in improved maintenance and corrective actions where needed.

6.2 Installation of New Stormwater Practices In addition to the pond retrofits noted above, additional stormwater practices can be implemented to achieve water quality and quantify improvements in the Pine Creek Watershed. The 2009 Pine Creek WIP noted that in order to provide the recommended water quality treatment in the Pine Creek watershed, an additional 15,289,741 cubic feet of new stormwater treatment should be constructed throughout the entire watershed. Select stormwater practices recommended in the Pennsylvania Stormwater Manual (DEP 2006) are provided below.

Pervious pavement with underlying infiltration systems are effective in reducing contaminants such as TSS, metals, and oil and grease when properly designed, constructed, and maintained. They are best suited for parking lots, walking paths, sidewalks, playgrounds, plazas, tennis courts, and in driveways if the homeowner is aware of the stormwater functions of the pavement and able to properly maintain it.

Infiltration basins are shallow impoundments designed to temporarily store and infiltrate stormwater runoff. The size and shape can vary from one large basin to multiple, smaller basins throughout a site. Ideally, the basin should avoid disturbance of existing vegetation. Infiltration basins can be subsurface by placing the storage media beneath the proposed surface grade. Vegetation will help to increase the amount of evapotranspiration taking place.

Subsurface infiltration beds generally consist of a vegetated, highly pervious soil media underlain by a uniformly graded aggregate bed for temporary storage and infiltration of stormwater runoff. They are ideally suited for large, flat open spaces located downhill of nearby impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from impervious areas can be conveyed to the bed. If designed, constructed, and maintained

properly, subsurface infiltration beds can stand alone as significant stormwater runoff volume, rate, and quality control practices. They have the added benefit of functioning year-round, given that the infiltration surface is typically below the frost line.

Etna Borough’s Green Streets Program The objective of the program is the removal of runoff from roofs and paved areas in the Borough of Etna Butler Street central business district from its combined sewer system with consequent reduction in the amount of urban runoff. This concept uses impervious area disconnection where flow from rooftops, parking lots and sidewalks is directed to infiltration BMPs to reduce urban runoff and sewer overflows into the waterway. The overall list of BMPs proposed are pervious pavements, bio-infiltration areas, rain gardens/bio-retention, routing impervious surfaces to vegetated areas, tree pits, and water treatment inserts for inlets among other GGII approved practices and technologies. The project will retrofit new green stormwater infrastructure features into the renovated streetscape.

Among the benefits to water quality, green infrastructure can reduce stormwater peak flows and volumes. The completed Etna Green Streetscape Project (all phases) will ultimately manage an estimated 4.8 million gallons annually in a typical year (2003). Using the event mean concentration values presented in PA Stormwater Best Management Practices (DEP 2006) it is estimated that the project will reduce annual loads from contributing areas upon completion of the Streetscape Program by 2,685 lbs TSS, 8.0 lbs TP and 15 lbs TN for those six projects.

Infiltration trenches are buried perforated pipe systems designed to slowly “leak” water into the surrounding ground. Typically buried in a stone filled trench with a level bottom, infiltration trenches are usually part of a conveyance system so that large storm events are conveyed through the pipe with some runoff volume reduction. Volume reduction is higher the smaller the storm, however all trenches should be designed with a positive overflow.

Rain gardens/bioretention are excavated shallow surface depressions planted with specially selected native vegetation to treat and capture runoff. Rain gardens/bioretention consist of a mulch layer that filters and settles out sediment, and a plant/soil/microbe complex media layer in which stormwater infiltrate and additional pollutants are removed (Figure 18). Rain gardens also provide habitat improvements by the inclusion of native vegetation.

Figure 18. Cross section of a rain garden (image from DEP 2006).

The Three Rivers Rain Garden Alliance The Three Rivers Rain Garden Alliance is a group of environmental and gardening organizations that has come together to promote the installation of rain gardens through education and facilitation as a means of reducing stormwater impacts in Allegheny County. The Alliance hopes to develop highly visible demonstration projects and encourage homeowners to install them on their properties. Rain gardens are particularly successful at removing nutrients and solids. While it would take a significant number of properties installing rain gardens to make an impact on the water quality of local streams, the low cost and relative ease of installation coupled with the increase in education and awareness make this a good investment. The Center for Watershed Protection's Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual estimated that the cost of installing a rain garden ranged from $4.00 per cubic foot (volunteer installation) to $7.50 per cubic foot (professional installation).

Municipalities and organizations can take part in the Rain Garden Alliance activities and promote rain gardens on private and municipally owned properties. They can take advantage of the resources and expertise of Alliance members to achieve these goals. Information about the Alliance can be found at www.raingardenalliance.org.

Although rain barrels are not part of the Alliance’s focus at this time, there are successful rain barrel programs in the region. The cost of a rain barrel can range from $100 to $200, and it allows for the complete removal of pollutants from the waterway. Municipalities can encourage homeowners to install a rain barrel on their properties.

Dry wells/seepage pits are subsurface storage facilities, which may be excavated pits filled with uniformly graded aggregate wrapped in geotextile or prefabricated storage chambers or pipe segments, that temporarily store and infiltrates stormwater runoff from the roofs of structures. Roof leaders connect directly into the drywell. Stormwater is then discharged from the dry well via infiltration into the surrounding soils. In the event that a drywell is overwhelmed in an intense storm event, an overflow mechanism is recommended to ensure that additional runoff is safely conveyed downstream.

Vegetated swales are broad, shallow channels designed to slow runoff, promote infiltration, and filter pollutants and sediments in the process of conveying runoff. They typically consist of a ban of dense vegetation with high pollutant removal efficiencies underlain by at least 24 inches of permeable soil with a high level of organic material and provide an environmentally considerate alternative to conventional curb and gutter systems. Swales are designed to attenuate, and in some cases infiltrate, runoff volume from adjacent impervious surfaces, allowing some pollutants to settle out in the process. In steeper slope situations, check dams may be used to further enhance attenuation and infiltration opportunities.

Vegetated filter strips are permanent and maintained strips of vegetation that intercept sources nonpoint pollution before entering a waterbody. Filter strips are gently sloping, densely vegetated areas that filter, slow, and infiltrate sheet flowing stormwater. They are best used to treat runoff from roads and highways, roof downspouts, small parking lots, and pervious surfaces. In highly impervious areas, they can be used as pretreatment for other practices such as infiltration trenches or bioretention areas.

Constructed wetlands are shallow marsh systems planted with emergent vegetation that are designed to treat stormwater runoff. Constructed wetlands mitigate peak rates, reduce runoff volume to an

extent, have one of the highest pollutant removal rates of stormwater practices, and provide a variety of wildlife and aesthetic benefits. Opportunities for constructed wetlands, however, maybe limited by the relatively large amount of space and adequate source of inflow required to maintain the permanent water surface. They are often incorporated in floodplain restoration projects.

Wet pond/retention basins are stormwater basins that include a permanent pool for water quality treatment and additional capacity above the permanent pool for temporary runoff storage. They should include one or more forebays that trap coarse sediment, prevent short-circuiting, and facilitate maintenance (Figure 19). The pond perimeter should generally be covered by a dense stand of emergent wetland vegetation. Like constructed wetlands, they can also provide aesthetic and wildlife habitat benefits but require an adequate source of inflow to maintain the permanent water surface.

Figure 19. Plan view of a wet pond/retention basin (image from DEP 2006).

6.3 Stream Restoration Many of the streambanks within the Pine Creek watershed have been altered from their natural states. Streambank channelization, incision, and erosion from increases in stream flashiness and volume are common throughout the watershed, especially in the lower reaches.

6.3.1 Stream Riparian Buffers Riparian buffers are composed of vegetation that is tolerant of intermittent flooding and/or saturated soils located in the transitional zone between upland and aquatic habitats. Riparian buffers can effectively address water quality degradation from sediment and phosphorus loading while enhancing habitat. Riparian buffers that include perennial vegetation and trees can filter runoff from adjacent cropland, provide shade and habitat for wildlife, and reinforce streambanks to minimize erosion. The root structure of the vegetation used enhances infiltration of runoff and subsequent trapping of pollutants. Riparian buffers, however, are only effective when the runoff enters the BMP as a slow

moving, shallow “sheet”; concentrated flow in a ditch, gully, or pipe will quickly pass through the vegetation offering minimal opportunity for retention and uptake of pollutants.

Generally, the wider and more diversely planted the buffer, the more likely it will be to provide positive benefits. In addition, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources recommends a mix of native plants including deciduous and evergreen trees. Native plant recommendations and planting tips can be found on the following website: https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/WildPlants/LandscapingwithNativePlants/Pages/default.aspx

6.3.2 Floodplain Restoration Floodplain restoration works to mimic natural conditions and interactions between the groundwater, stream baseflow, and root systems of riparian vegetation in a stream corridor (Figure 20). Restoring natural conditions and interactions can provide many benefits including the filtering of sediments and nutrients through retention of frequent high flows onto the floodplain, removal of nitrates from groundwater, reduction of peak flow rates, groundwater recharge/infiltration, and increase of storage and reduction of flood elevations during higher flows. Other benefits of this BMP include thermal cooling of the stream base-flow, improved benthic community species diversity and habitat, re- establishment and significant increases of wetland areas and native plant species on the floodplain, reduction of invasive plant species, and increased aquatic habitat and riparian areas (DEP 2006).

Figure 20. Existing conditions (left) and restored conditions (right) of a floodplain (Images from DEP 2006).

6.3.3 Stream Channel and Streambank Restoration

The 2009 Pine Creek WIP determined that an additional 5.3 stream miles in the Pine Creek watershed will need to be stabilized in order to achieve annual TSS loads expected in the natural state. Opportunities for stream bank restoration projects in Pine Creek were determined during the 2009 Pine Creek WIP development and by stakeholder input during the development of this update. Opportunities for streambank restoration projects are provided in Figure 21 and Table 13. These projects should continue to be implemented as part of the WIP Update. Additional data will be needed to determine how much of each segment is suitable for restoration or stabilization. Bradford Woods Borough is also working to restore streambanks to prevent erosion and sedimentation within their jurisdiction. As information is available regarding specific project locations and sizes, Table 13 can be updated accordingly.

Table 13. Potential Pine Creek watershed stream restoration projects Project Location Project # Project Length (LF) Little Pine Creek West (Fawcett Fields) 1 1,500 Pine Creek (Bryant Road – Phase II) 2 1,000 Pine Creek (at Hampton WWTP) 3 600 Little Pine Creek West (DS of Fawcett to Wetzel) 4 1,200 Pine Creek (Municipal Park in Etna) 5 1,500 Bryant Rd. – Phase III (Upstream of Phase II) 6 1,600 Bryant Rd. – IV (Below Phase II) 7 1,200 Crouse Run (Sample to Wildwood)a 8 6,500 Pine Creek Below Spillway (to McCandless WWTP) 9 2,750 Harts Run (starting at Rt. 8 upstream) 10 300 Pine Creek (Wildwood Highlands to Willow Run) 11 4,259 Little Pine Creek West (Hodil to Vilsack – primarily around Hodil) 12 3,200 Gourdhead Run (above Hampton Lake) 13 500 Pine Creek (parallel to Duncan crossing Mt. Royal Blvd.) 14 4,000 Little Pine Creek East (around Kat St.) 15 300 Pine Creek (curve at Kat St.) 16 2,500 North Fork Pine Creek (along Pearce Mill Rd.) 17 750 Montour Run (segments between Rt. 910 and Wildwood) 18 1,000 Pine Creek (along Pine Creek Rd.) 19 1,000 Wexford Run (segments between Rt. 910 and Pine Creek Rd.) 20 1,200 Rinaman Run (segments between Grubbs and Pine Creek Rd.) 21 600 Pine Creek (Willow Run to Sample) 22 1,200 Little Pine Creek West (Byerleye Dr. to Marylue Dr.) 23 600 Confluence of Pine Creek and Crouse Run (Sample Road at Royal Planning/Design in 24 View Drive) process Franklin Park Fish Run restoration project 25 1,750 a. The Township of Hampton has committed to completing projects in 2021/2022 for streambank restoration and sediment reduction at this location.

Figure 21. Potential streambank restoration projects in the Pine Creek watershed (Figure from 2009 Pine Creek WIP. Modified for WIP Update) Note, project #20 was incorrectly placed in above map from the 2009 Pine Creek WIP. Rinaman Run is a tributary to the Pine Creek north of the NPL dam. Rinaman Run and Project #20 are located within the Pine Creek 5 priority area for flood management and/or erosion control.

6.4 Land Conservation and Protection Soils in the Pine Creek watershed are highly susceptible to landslides and erosion. In addition, much of the watershed has been developed and urbanized. Land conservation and protection activities can reduce erosion and increase land stability, therefore reducing the amount of sediment available to be washed into streams via runoff. This section contains excerpts from the 2009 Pine Creek WIP on steep slope protection and land conservation and habitat restoration.

6.4.1 Steep Slope Protection One of the best ways to reduce further impacts of development in the watershed is by the protection of existing undisturbed natural areas and of wooded steep slopes. Wooded areas and steep wooded slopes provide substantial benefits to the watershed. Wooded and natural areas reduce pollutant loading, slow runoff, and reduce the frequency of flooding in the watershed. The process of transpiration ensures a substantial volume of rainfall moves back into the atmosphere via plant respiration, rather than running off the land surface. Wooded areas along streams also provide shade and lower the water temperature in the stream. Most importantly, wooded areas and hillsides add greatly to the beauty of the region. It is recommended that each of the municipalities in the watershed adopt or strengthen their existing steep slope ordinance.

6.4.2 Land Conservation and Habitat Restoration A conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and an eligible organization that restricts future activities on the land to protect its conservation values. It is either voluntarily sold or donated by the landowner. Across America, thousands of landowners who care about their land have partnered with easement holders - nonprofit organizations and public agencies - to ensure the land is protected in perpetuity. Easements are a good way to protect important features in a landscape like steep slopes. The Allegheny Land Trust and the Pine Creek Land Conservation Trust are local nonprofit organizations that can assist property owners who are interested in developing a conservation easement for their property.

Pine Creek Watershed Conservation Plan The NAEC received a grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) to complete a Watershed Conservation Plan for the entire Pine Creek Watershed. This document summarizes existing information about the natural, cultural, and recreation resources of the watershed, gathers public input about their visions for the watershed and its current needs, and provides a list of projects or strategies that will enhance, restore, or conserve those resources. Public input played a major role in the development of this Plan. Projects listed in an approved Conservation Plan are eligible to apply for implementation funds from DCNR. The full plan is available here: https://www.conservationsolutioncenter.org/images/watersheds/Plans/PineCreekWatershedPlan_ FullReport_02.18.2011.compressed.pdf

North Park Lake Restoration North Park is Allegheny County’s largest park. Its main attraction is North Park Lake, a man-made lake created by the impoundment of Pine Creek that provides fishing and boating opportunities to visitors. When the lake was created in 1935, it had a surface area of 75 acres and a depth of 24 feet. Sedimentation from upstream development has reduced its surface area to approximately 60 acres and cut its depth in half. The drainage basin contributing to the lake is 25 square miles.

The U.S. Corps of Engineers and Allegheny County have developed a project to restore the lake. Phase 1 of the North Park Lake Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project will restore 33 acres of the lake by dredging the sediment and removing it to an offsite location. Phase 1 will cost $8 million and will be funded by a grant from the Corps of Engineers and by Allegheny County. It is expected to last two years. This phase will restore at least 8,000,000 cubic feet of water quality volume to the watershed. The details for Phase 2 are not available, but it is expected to address the remaining 42 acres of the lake. Mitigation projects by the Pennsylvania Turnpike are being planned that will create two additional wetlands near the lake.

In 2009, the Allegheny Land Trust purchased 73 acres of wooded land adjacent to North Park. The property includes a small tributary to Pine Creek, Irwin Run, and densely wooded slopes and wetlands that trap sediment before it reaches the lake. It is estimated that this land holds back 60 million gallons of rainwater each year.

6.5 Flood Control In-stream and localized flooding has been identified as major problems in the Pine Creek watershed. In- stream flooding refers to stream water levels over-topping their banks or road crossing structures such as culverts and bridges. Localized flooding occurs outside of the stream channel in upstream areas of the watershed. Flooding can be caused from a variety of factors including loss of pervious areas, improperly sized stormwater infrastructure, and/or increased frequency and intensity of precipitation events, among other issues. Flood control practices are often site-specific but can include floodplain restoration (see Section 6.3.2), infrastructure upgrades, such culvert resizing and road crossing upgrades, and upstream volume control and diversion practices (see Section 6.2).

The Allegheny County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update was recently completed. Among the many potential hazards addressed in the plan, flooding was recognized as a significant problem (Allegheny County Department of Emergency Services, 2020). Several action items within the plan update address hazards related to flooding and water quality. The relevant action items provided for inclusion in this WIP Update are provided in Table 14. Planning to mitigate flooding while also incorporating water quality improvement elements can provide synergies between the Hazard Mitigation Plan and this WIP.

Table 14. Action Items, as provided by local municipalities, from the Allegheny County HMP 2020 Update. Action Community Description Status Item 142 Pine, Richland, Evaluate all structural/infrastructure and natural On-going McCandless, systems protection mitigation projects within the Pine Hampton, Ross, Creek watershed to identify where Pine Creek WIP Shaler, Etna, O’Hara, priority areas overlap and where there may be an Indiana, Fox Chapel,

Action Community Description Status Item Bradfordwoods, opportunity for mutual financial, risk reduction, and Franklin Park improved water quality benefits

16 Etna Borough Provide elevation and flood-proofing projects to homes Proposed in hazard areas. 55 Etna Borough and Purchase and install flood barriers at the Fire Station Proposed Oakdale 56 Etna As old facilities become vacant, acquire, demolish, and On-going establish stormwater management areas prohibiting redevelopment as established in municipal comprehensive plan. 57 Etna Construct flood wall behind industrial site at Crescent Proposed Avenue/Grant Avenue to and past the Butler/Kittanning Street Bridge and purchase Stop Barrier for the Bridge and for Butler Street near Duquesne Electric Company. 69 Pine Use Municipal newsletter to provide information to On-going residents to help educate them on preparedness, with an emphasis on severe weather-related events 92 Etna, Hampton, Reduce possibility of damage and loss of function to On-going McCandless, O’Hara, community-identified critical facilities in the floodplain. Richland, Shaler, Sharpsburg 102 Etna Natural restoration of streambank through riparian On-going buffer restoration to prevent erosion and sedimentation of the stream. 103 Etna Conduct mitigation programs along roads near hillsides Proposed to prevent landslides. These can include restore hillsides, regrading, tree plantings, and wall supports. 119 Pine Develop and implement a Continuity of Operations Plan Complete and in to ensure critical services can continue through and use after a disaster. 120 Pine Provide education and information about flooding and On-going storm drains to residents through Township Newsletter and Website 126 Richland Remove and replace collapsed storm pipe along Complete Blossom Drive. 143 Etna Acquisition and demolition of old industrial building Proposed complex that is located in both the floodplain and floodway. Restore floodway/floodplain with greenspace

Hazard Mitigation: Acquisition and Demolition of Old Industrial Complex in Etna Borough The Etna Borough submitted a mitigation project as a part of the Allegheny County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (action number 143 in the hazard mitigation plan). This project is also part of Etna’s Comprehensive Plan, Green Infrastructure Master Plan, and is included in the most recent EcoDistrict Plan. The industrial complex that previously housed major manufacturing and chemical operations is in a state of disrepair. It is located within the floodway of the Pine Creek and has experienced major flooding over the last several years (1986, 1987 and 2004). The project would include: • Acquisition and demolition of the structure • Brownfield site cleanup • Creation of green open space and a stormwater management area Project costs are estimated to be $650,000. A full explanation of this project is available under Etna Borough’s latest Comprehensive Master Plan.

7. Targeting Implementation Activities This plan contains multiple areas as the focus of implementation activities; critical areas have been identified as the focus of water quality implementation activities within the first 5-10 years of implementation, and priority areas, have been identified as the focus of water quantity implementation activities within the first 5-10 years. Pollutant source assessment, water quality data analysis, and stakeholder feedback were used to delineate critical areas for water quality improvement and priority areas for flood management and erosion control in the Pine Creek watershed.

7.1 Critical Areas for Water Quality Improvement Practices Critical areas for water quality improvement are prioritized specific subwatersheds in which to target BMPs that address causes and sources of water quality impairments, allowing impaired segments in these subwatersheds to meet water quality standards within the first 5-10 years of implementation efforts. Critical areas are the focus of nonpoint source pollution control activities within this plan and have been delineated to address impairments due to sediment/siltation and/or nutrients. Eligible projects within these critical areas will be prioritized for 319 funding. The goals for each critical area are to achieve water quality standards and the objectives are to implement the required amount of BMPs to achieve those standards.

The watershed was evaluated in two sections for critical area delineation: upstream of the North Lake Pond Dam, and downstream of the North Lake Pond Dam (Figure 22). While the upstream and downstream sections of the watershed are still hydrologically connected, the dam acts as a large treatment practice, slowing the flow of water and allowing pollutants like sediment and nutrients to settle out of the water column. Therefore, practices upstream of the dam are not likely to have as large of an impact on the main stem Pine Creek as practices implemented downstream of the dam.

A tiered approach was used to determine critical areas for water quality improvement. To begin, potential critical areas for water quality improvement were narrowed down to the subwatersheds of impaired streams for the pollutants of concern for stakeholders in the Pine Creek WIP: sedimentation/siltation and/or nutrients.

Figure 22. Portions of the Pine Creek watershed upstream and downstream of the North Park Lake dam.

Available and relevant water quality data were then evaluated for these subwatersheds to identify “low hanging fruit” or locations in the watershed that were closer to water quality standards and therefore expected to require fewer resources to achieve standards. Montour Run was selected as a critical area for water quality improvement using this approach.

Very little additional water quality data was available to support critical area evaluation so impaired subwatersheds were then sequenced spatially using the basic principles of water flow and the most upstream impairments were selected for the remaining critical areas for water quality improvement (Crouse Run and Fish Run). As water quality conditions in the furthest upstream stream segments, or headwaters, improve, incremental improvements to water quality downstream can also be expected. In

addition, as impairments in the headwaters are addressed, implementation can move downstream in the watershed until all impairments have been addressed.

Based on the methods described above, three subwatersheds were selected as critical areas for water quality improvements in the Pine Creek watershed (Table 15 and Figure 23).

Table 15. Critical areas for water quality improvement in the Pine Creek watershed Critical Area for Impairment Cause and Water Quality Rationale Source (PA 303(d) List) Improvement The macroinvertebrate IBI score on Montour Run was the closest to standards (12 below standard). The Montour Run subwatershed is therefore expected to take the least amount of resources to meet water quality standards, or “low hanging Montour Run Siltation from road runoff fruit”. In addition, Montour Run is located in the headwaters of the watershed and improvements to Montour Run are also expected to improve downstream water resources and bring them closer to water quality standards. Crouse Run is the second most upstream subwatershed with impairments related to pollutants of concern in the portion of the Pine Creek watershed below the North Park Lake dam. Nutrients from urban Crouse Run Work in the Crouse Run subwatershed is expected to also runoff/storm sewers improve downstream water resources and bring them closer to water quality standards. No IBI scores are available for Crouse Run. Fish Run is the most upstream subwatershed with Nutrients from urban impairments related to pollutants of concern in the portion of runoff/storm sewers the watershed above the North Park Lake dam. Work in the Fish Run Fish Run subwatershed is expected to also improve Siltation from land downstream water resources and bring them closer to water development quality standards. No macroinvertebrate IBI scores are available for Fish Run.

Figure 23. Critical areas for water quality improvement in the Pine Creek watershed.

Although the critical areas for water quality improvement for the Pine Creek watershed were selected based on their ability to improve water quality conditions and provide areas where Section 319 funding will be targeted in the watershed, water quantity and quality are highly interconnected in the Pine Creek watershed. Whenever possible, water quantity should also be considered when selecting appropriate BMPs within critical areas for water quality improvement.

Model My Watershed was used to simulate the expected reductions in TP, TSS, and TN for an implementation scenario within the critical areas for water quality improvement. Practices were selected based on recommendations in the 2009 Pine Creek WIP and expanded upon and modified by stakeholder input during this 2020 process (Table 16, Table 17 and Table 18). These implementation scenarios are comprised of voluntary actions to improve water quality in the critical areas. The Model My Watershed results are provided in Appendix D.

The 2009 Pine Creek WIP evaluated the runoff water quality volume control necessary in the watershed to mitigate the impacts of development and control nonpoint source pollution. Most of the volume control in the watershed was designed before water quality was considered in stormwater management. Therefore, the 2009 Pine Creek WIP recommended addressing this gap through retrofitting existing dry ponds to wet ponds to take advantage of existing infrastructure and constructing new wet ponds to provide water quality improvements and an improved hydrologic regime closer to that of pre-development conditions. The 2006 WIP estimated the total volume control needed to achieve pre-development runoff conditions.

For this WIP, the volume control estimated in the 2006 WIP was used to extrapolate the number of acres that would need to be treated in each of the critical areas by water quality stormwater treatment BMPs. For the purposes of estimating treatment area and costs, additional wet ponds were assumed to be the practice of choice for consistency with the 2006 WIP recommendations. However, runoff reduction practices are also encouraged as they provide enhanced water quality benefits and are better suited to smaller drainage areas and when there is little space to construct large ponds.

Streambank stabilization and restoration projects in each of the critical areas for water quality improvement were derived from the stakeholder identified practices in Table 13 and the NAEC Pine Creek Watershed Riparian Risk Assessment (2010).

Because there are not TMDLs or numeric water quality standards for the pollutants addressed, the load reduction goals are set at the estimated load reductions for implementation of all practices in each critical area for water quality improvement. Goals were set for the parameters for which each critical area has impaired waterbodies.

Table 16. Implementation scenario within the Montour Run Critical Area for Water Quality Improvement Critical Area TSS TP TN for Water Implementation Practice Unit Removal Removal Removal Quality (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Improvement Streambank restoration project 1,000 stream #18: Montour Run (segments 115,000 174.00 192 Montour Run feet between Rt. 910 and Wildwood) Retrofit dry ponds to wet ponds 9 wet ponds 33,705 8.12 16.88

Critical Area TSS TP TN for Water Implementation Practice Unit Removal Removal Removal Quality (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Improvement treating approximately 178 acres Approximately New stormwater treatment 294 acres 54,719 16.57 36.35 practices treated Allegheny County HMP Action See Table 14 Not applicable Items 69, 92, 120, and 142 for full list Load reduction goal 22,106 -- --

Total estimated load reduction 203,424 199 245

Table 17. Implementation scenario within the Crouse Run Critical Area for Water Quality Improvement Critical Area TSS TP TN for Water Implementation Practice Unit Removal Removal Removal Quality (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Improvement Streambank restoration project #8: 6,500 stream 747,500 1,131 1,248 Crouse Run (Sample to Wildwood) feet Streambank stabilization project #24: Confluence of Pine Creek and Unknown, to be updated upon completion of planning Crouse Run (Sample Road at and design phase. Royal View Drive) 13 wet ponds treating Retrofit dry ponds to wet ponds 59,606 17.81 55.12 approximately Crouse Run 257 acres Approximatel New stormwater treatment y 622 acres 140,479 47.48 158.55 practices treated 5,280 stream Vegetated/forested riparian buffers feet or 24 4,134.80 1.19 2.90 acres Allegheny County HMP Action See Table 14 Not applicable Items 92 and 142 for full list Load reduction goal -- 1,197 1,464 Total estimated load reduction 952,271 1,197 1,464

Table 18. Implementation scenario within the Fish Run Critical Area for Water Quality Improvement Critical Area TSS TP TN for Water Implementation Practice Unit Removal Removal Removal Quality (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Improvement Streambank restoration and 1,750 stream 201,250 304.50 336.00 riparian buffer planting feet 15 wet ponds treating Retrofit dry ponds to wet ponds 53,865 14.25 39.00 approximately Fish Run 296 acres Approximately New stormwater treatment 395 acres 70,306 23.35 67.40 practices treated Allegheny County HMP Action See Table 14 Not applicable Items 142 for full list

Load reduction goal 325,421 342 442

Total estimated load reduction 325,421 342 442

7.2 Priority Areas for Flood Management and/or Erosion Control A focus of the Pine Creek WIP Update is to identify areas with multi-beneficial improvement opportunities. Increased flooding was the number one issue and concern identified by stakeholders in the Pine Creek watershed (Appendix C). To address this important issue facing the watershed, priority areas for flood management and erosion were also delineated for the Pine Creek WIP Update. Water quantity and quality are often related, and water quality improvements can be expected with many water quantity management activities.

Similar to the critical area delineation process, the Pine Creek watershed was evaluated as two separate sections when delineating priority areas for flood management and erosion control: upstream of the North Park Lake dam and downstream of the North Park Lake dam. Data provided by local sponsors on an interactive, online mapping platform were evaluated to identify issues and concerns related water quantity and velocity concerns: streambank erosion and channelization and in-stream and localized flooding. Subwatersheds with the most data points were selected as priority areas.

Based on the methods described above, four subwatersheds were selected as priority areas for flood management and/or erosion control in the Pine Creek watershed (Table 19 and Figure 24).

Table 19. Priority areas for Flood Management and/or Erosion Control in the Pine Creek Watershed Priority Area for Flood Management and Issue/Concern Rationale Erosion Control Flooding along stream Stakeholders identified areas of flooding and large debris Little Pine Creek East and streambank erosion moving along this tributary to downstream communities. Flooding along stream Stakeholders identified areas of flooding and stream Little Pine Creek West and stream channelization on this tributary to downstream communities. channelization Stakeholders identified numerous areas of extreme flooding Flooding along stream Pine 1 & 2 within these subwatersheds. Subwatersheds combined into and streambank erosion one priority area due to their size. Localized flooding in Stakeholders identified areas of flooding within residential Pine 5 neighborhoods and areas. streets

Figure 24. Priority areas for flood management and/or erosion control in the Pine Creek watershed.

Although the priority areas for flood management and/or erosion control in the Pine Creek watershed were selected based on known flooding and stream channel issues, water quantity and quality are highly interconnected in the Pine Creek watershed and, whenever possible, water quality improvements should also be considered when selecting appropriate BMPs within priority areas for flood management and erosion control.

An implementation scenario within the priority areas for flood management and/or erosion control is provided Table 20. This implementation scenario is comprised of voluntary actions to improve flood and erosion control in the priority areas.

Table 20. Implementation scenario within the Priority Areas for Flood Management and/or Erosion Control Priority area for flood management and/or Implementation Practice Unit erosion control Streambank restoration project #15: Little Pine Creek East 300 stream feet (around Kat St.) Little Pine Creek East Recommendations from ALCOSAN’s Controlling the See interactive map Source Allegheny County HMP Action Items 92 and 142, and See Table 14 for full list others as applicable Streambank restoration project #1: Little Pine Creek West 1,500 stream feet (Fawcett Fields) Streambank restoration project #4: Little Pine Creek West 1,200 stream feet (DS of Fawcett to Wetzel) Streambank restoration project #12: (Hodil to Vilsack – 3,200 stream feet primarily around Hodil) Little Pine Creek West Streambank stabilization project #23: Little Pine Creek 600 stream feet West (Byerleye to Marylue)

Recommendations from ALCOSAN’s Controlling the See interactive map Source Allegheny County HMP Action Items 92 and 142, and See Table 14 for full list others as applicable

Streambank restoration project #5: Pine Creek (Municipal 1,500 stream feet Park in Etna)

Streambank restoration project #16: Pine Creek (curve at 2,500 stream feet Kat St.) Pine 1 & 2 Etna Green Streets Projects, acquisition and demolition of old industrial complex (Allegheny County HMP Action See Appendix F for #143) and other projects identified in the Etna Green details Infrastructure Master Plan Allegheny County HMP Action Items 16, 55, 56, 57, 69, See Table 14 for full list 102, 103, 142, and 143, and others as applicable

Priority area for flood management and/or Implementation Practice Unit erosion control Recommendations from ALCOSAN’s Controlling the See interactive map Source

Streambank restoration project #19: Pine Creek (along 1,000 stream feet Pine Creek Rd.) Streambank restoration project #21: Rinaman Run 600 stream feet (segments between Grubbs and Pine Creek Rd.) Pine 5 See Appendix E for Town of McCandless Pine Creek Restoration Project details Allegheny County HMP Action Items 92 and 142, and See Table 14 for full list others as applicable

8. Funding and Technical Resources

8.1 Partners Numerous partners exist in the project area that will continue to be instrumental to a successful WIP Update.

The Pine Creek Watershed Coalition (Coalition) is a group of stakeholders committed to improving the health of the Pine Creek watershed. Coalition participants include members of environmental organizations, sportsmen’s groups, businesses, elected officials, municipal staff, and volunteers.

The objectives of the Coalition are to: • Monitor the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the watershed • Promote environmentally and economically sound land use • Educate watershed residents about the importance of a healthy Pine Creek.

The Coalition is chaired by the North Area Environmental Council (NAEC). NAEC has worked to protect and improve the Pine Creek watershed for more than 30 years. It manages several projects, including the Riparian and Stream Channel Assessment and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ Watershed Conservation Plan. NAEC also coordinates all of the volunteer monitoring efforts currently underway.

The North Hills Council of Governments (NHCOG) is a voluntary coalition of nineteen municipalities, in both Allegheny County. It has taken the lead in organizing and managing the Act 167 Plan for the communities within the Pine Creek, Girty’s Run, Squaw Run, and Deer Creek watersheds.

Three Rivers Wet Weather (3RWW) is a nonprofit environmental organization created in 1998 to support 82 Allegheny County municipalities and the City of Pittsburgh in addressing the region’s wet weather overflow problem. It was founded jointly by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) and the ALCOSAN. 3RWW is committed to improving the quality of Allegheny County's water resources by helping communities address the issue of untreated sewage and stormwater affecting the region's waterways. To promote the most cost-effective, long-term, sustainable solutions, 3RWW develops technical guidance and resources to assist municipalities with regulatory compliance, convenes forums to encourage a consensus-based approach for feasible and affordable wet weather planning, educates the public and advocates inter-municipal partnerships which will lead to consolidation of the fragmented municipal sewer collection system.

8.2 Estimated Costs Estimated implementation costs for implementation within the critical areas for water quality improvement the Pine Creek WIP Update are estimated at between $25.2 and $25.6 million. . Total estimated costs were determined using capital costs per unit provided in the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST) Cost Profiles for the State of Pennsylvania, costs for the 2009 Pine Creek WIP adjusted for inflation, and local input (Table 21). Costs of wet ponds were used as a proxy for new stormwater treatment practices as there is a wide range of costs in stormwater treatment practices. Actual costs of implementation may vary.

Table 21. Costs for implementation within the critical areas for water quality improvement Critical Area for Cost Water Quality Implementation Practice Unit Unit Total Improvement

Streambank stabilization project #18: $ 104.86 - $104,860 - Montour Run (segments between Rt. 910 1,000 stream feet $141.87 per $141,870 and Wildwood) stream foot a Montour Run 9 wet ponds $11,504.51 per Retrofit dry ponds to wet ponds $2,047303 treating 178 acres acre treated b $11,504.51 per New stormwater treatment practices 294 acres treated $3,382,325 acre treated $ 104.86 - $681,590 - Streambank stabilization project #8: 6,500 stream feet $141.87 per $922,155 stream foot a $75,000 - $100, Streambank stabilization project #24 unknown -- 000 c 13 wet ponds $11,504.51 per Retrofit dry ponds to wet ponds $2,956,659 treating 257 acres acre treated b Crouse Run $11,504.51 per New stormwater treatment practices 622 acres treated $7,155,805 acre treated $899 per acre grassed 5,280 stream or $21,576 - Vegetated/forested riparian buffers 24 acres $97,488 $4,062 per acre forested Streambank restoration and riparian buffer $513.21 per 1,750 stream feet $898,117 planting stream foot

15 wet ponds $11,504.51 per Fish Run Retrofit dry ponds to wet ponds $3,405,335 treating 296 acres acre treated b

$11,504.51 per New stormwater treatment practices 395 acres treated $4,544,281 acre treated

Total cost $25,272,851 - $25,551,338 a. Costs provided in the 2009 Pine Creek WIP for streambank stabilization and adjusted for inflation (CPI inflation calculator, December 2020 rates (https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) b. Costs provided are for wet pond creation. Costs may vary for retrofitting existing dry ponds. c. Engineering costs estimates provided by Hampton Township on January 26, 2021.

8.3 Funding There are many existing financial assistance programs which may assist with funding implementation activities within the Pine Creek watershed. Many involve cost sharing, and some may allow the local contribution of materials, land, and in-kind services (such as construction and staff assistance) to cover a portion or the entire local share of the project. These programs are presented in Table 22. In addition to these programs, partnerships between local governments can help to leverage funds.

Table 22. Funding and technical resources Program Type Entity Information More information National Funding Programs

The BRIC program guiding principles are supporting communities through capability- and capacity-building; encouraging and enabling innovation; promoting partnerships; enabling large projects; maintaining flexibility; and providing consistency. Building Resilient It aims to categorically shift the federal focus away from reactive disaster spending https://www.fema.gov/grants/ Infrastructure and and toward research-supported, proactive investment in community resilience. Grant FEMA mitigation/building-resilient- Communities infrastructure-communities (BRIC) FEMA anticipates BRIC funding projects that demonstrate innovative approaches to partnerships, such as shared funding mechanisms, and/or project design. For example, an innovative project may bring multiple funding sources or in-kind resources from a range of private and public sector stakeholders or offer multiple benefits to a community in addition to the benefit of risk reduction.

Environmental education programs that promote environmental awareness and https://www.usendowment.or Environmental stewardship and help provide people with the skills to take responsible actions to g/what-we-do/non-traditional- Education Grants Grant USEPA protect the environment. Local, state, non-profit, noncommercial, tribal and markets/healthy-watersheds- Program college/university programs are eligible. consortium/

Healthy watershed program development projects that aim to preserve and protect natural areas, or local demonstration/trainings. Conservation easements are not USEPA, eligible. Grants awarded are generally within three categories: Healthy NRCS, U.S. - Short term funding to leverage larger financing for targeted watershed https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wp Watersheds Grant Endowment for protection s/portal/nrcs/main/national/pr Consortium Grant Forestry - Funds to help build the capacity of local organizations for sustainable, ograms/easements/forests/ Communities long term watershed protection - New replicable techniques or approaches that advance the state of practice for watershed protection.

Program Type Entity Information More information

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation awards competitive grants through our National Fish and programs to protect and conserve our nation's fish, wildlife, plants and habitats. The Wildlife Foundation works with public and private partners in all 50 states and U.S. https://www.nfwf.org/apply- Grant NFWF Foundation territories to solve the most challenging conservation problems. Explore our grant (NFWF) grant programs below to learn about their conservation goals and strategies, and the species and landscapes they support.

NWQI provides targeted funding for financial and technical assistance in small https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wp National Water watersheds most in need and where farmers can use conservation practices to s/portal/nrcs/detail/national/pr Quality Initiative Cost share NRCS make a difference. Conservation systems include practices that promote soil health, ograms/initiatives/?cid=stelpr (NWQI) reduce erosion and lessen nutrient runoff, such as filter strips, cover crops, reduced db1047761 tillage and manure management. Regional RCPP provides funds for producers to install and maintain conservation activities. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wp Conservation Cost share NRCS The program is not a grant program, but partners can leverage RCPP funding in s/portal/nrcs/main/national/pr Partnership their programs. ograms/financial/rcpp/ Program (RCPP) https://www.epa.gov/wetlands Wetland Program Wetland Program Development Grants fund projects to research, protect, manage, /wetland-program- Development Grant USEPA and restore wetland resources. Nonprofits, state, tribal, and local government development-grants-and-epa- Grants agencies are eligible for funding. wetlands-grant-coordinators State and Regional Funding Programs

Allegheny County The GROW program is an effort to reduce excess water from entering an already Sanitary Authority overloaded sewer collection system. The grants may be used to install green storm Allegheny Green water infrastructure, remove streams from the sewer system, reduce the amount of County https://www.alcosan.org/our- Revitalization of Grant water seeping in through groundwater or to separate out storm sewers. In addition Sanitary plan/grow-program Our Waterways to financial support, ALCOSAN provides technical expertise and other assistance to Authority (ALCOSAN municipalities for the projects, all with the aim of removing unnecessary storm water GROW) program and ground water from the system.

Program Type Entity Information More information Provides affordable financing for projects related to wastewater collection, treatment https://www.pennvest.pa.gov/ or disposal facilities, stormwater management, and nonpoint source pollution Clean Water State USEPA, PA Information/Funding- Low-interest controls. Projects involving the installation of agricultural BMPs and Revolving Fund DEP, Programs/Pages/Clean- loan watershed/estuary management also qualify. Low interest loans with flexible terms (CWSRF) PENNVEST Water-State-Revolving- are awarded by the PENNVEST Board depending on the relative needs of the Fund.aspx system.

Funding is available from the DCNR to support planning, acquisition, development, Community and restoration of public spaces and conservation areas. Grants are available for https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Com Conservation Matching community parks and recreation improvements, land acquisition projects, munities/Grants/Pages/defaul Partnerships DCNR grant development and improvement of water trails, and the installation of riparian buffer t.aspx Program (C2P2) habitats. Applications are accepted annually from municipalities, counties, and other Grants governmental bodies.

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Com DCNR Bureau Community Recreation and Conservation Planning Funding is available from the Community Parks munities/Grants/CommunityP Matching of Recreation DCNR’s Bureau of Recreation and Conservation to support planning, acquisition, and Recreation arks%20andRecreationGrant grant and and development of public spaces and conservation areas. Applications accepted Grants s/Pages/default.aspx Conservation annually from municipalities, counties, and other governmental bodies.

Competitive grants for public or private sector innovation in resource conservation Conservation https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wp Matching that improve water quality, soil health, and wildlife habitat. Available at the state and Innovation Grants NRCS s/portal/nrcs/main/pa/progra grant federal level. CIG generally funds pilot projects, field demonstrations, and on-farm (CIG) ms/financial/cig/ conservation research. Flood Mitigation Matching Municipalities, institutions, watershed organizations, and businesses are eligible for https://dced.pa.gov/programs/ DCED Program (FMP) grant grant funding for authorized flood mitigation projects. flood-mitigation-program-fmp/ Foundation for The Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds awards grants to citizen groups with http://pennsylvaniawatershed Pennsylvania 501(c)3 nonprofit status. Program areas include nonpoint source pollution, riparian Grant FPW s.org/ Watersheds buffer zones, wetland preservation and design, abandoned mine drainage, and land

(FPW) Grants protection and acquisition. https://www.alleghenycounty. Gaming Economic These grants are administered by the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny Allegheny us/economic- Development Grant County (RAAC). They are intended to provide financial assistance to entities to County development/authorities/gedtf Tourism Fund facilitate economic development projects in Allegheny County. -fund.aspx

Program Type Entity Information More information

Growing Greener has helped to slash the backlog of farmland-preservation projects https://www.dep.pa.gov/Citize statewide; protect open space; eliminate the maintenance backlog in state parks; Growing Greener ns/GrantsLoansRebates/Gro Grant PA DEP clean up abandoned mines and restore watersheds; provide funds for recreational program wing-Greener/Pages/What-is- trails and local parks; help communities address land use; and provide new and Growing-Greener.aspx upgraded water and sewer systems.

The H2O PA was established by the General Assembly in July 2008. The Act https://dced.pa.gov/programs provides for single-year and multi-year grants for the construction of drinking water, -funding/commonwealth- H2O PA Act Grants CFA sanitary sewer and storm sewer projects; the construction or renovation of flood financing-authority-cfa/h20- control projects; and the repair or rehabilitation of high-hazard unsafe dams. pa/

Environment & Health Program focuses on protecting and enhancing environmental Heinz Endowment https://www.heinz.org/progra Heinz systems and public health in Pittsburgh and the surrounding region. Funding for Environment & Grant ms/environment-and-health Endowments available for projects that enhance and protect natural resources, protect clean air Health Program and water resources, and focus specifically on vulnerable communities.

Provides landowners with financial and technical assistance to restore fish and Partners for Fish US Fish and wildlife habitats, especially wetlands, upland areas, riparian zones, and grasslands. https://www.fws.gov/northeas and Wildlife Partnership Wildlife The program supports partnerships between other federal agencies, educational t/pafo/partners/ Program institutions, businesses, conservation organizations, and private landowners.

Richard King Grants available to fund conservation projects, including watershed restoration, https://www.rkmf.org/pages/fu Mellon Foundation Grant Mellon community development, and land acquisition. Grants are available nation-wide but nding-priorities Grants Foundation targeted to projects in western Pennsylvania.

Eligible projects should reduce pollutants from nonpoint sources, such as urban and agricultural runoff, streambank and shoreline degradation, and energy resource https://www.dep.pa.gov/Busin extraction. Priority is given to projects that implement cost-effective corrective and Section 319 USEPA, PA ess/Water/PlanningConservat Grant preventative BMPs on a watershed scale, including projects identified in an existing Nonpoint Source DEP ion/NonpointSource/Pages/d WIP. Also available for BMPs on a non-watershed scale and the development of efault.aspx information/education nonpoint source pollution control programs. Projects that meet requirements of a NPDES permit are not eligible for 319 funding.

Program Type Entity Information More information

Funding program to assist municipalities with small water, sewer, storm sewer, and Small Water and Matching https://dced.pa.gov/programs/ PA DCED flood control infrastructure projects. Applicant must match 15% of total eligible Sewer Program grant pa-small-water-sewer/ project cost which must be between $30,000 and $500,000.

Funds available to finance acquisition, construction, or improvement of drinking https://www.rd.usda.gov/prog Water & Waste water, sewer, solid waste, and stormwater systems. Eligible areas include rural Low-interest USDA Rural rams-services/water-waste- Disposal Loan & areas and towns with a population of 10,000 or less, and tribal lands. Projects is loans, grants Development disposal-loan-grant- Grant Program given to cost-effective projects and are encouraged to partner with other local program/pa funding entities. The program’s purpose is to restore and maintain impaired stream reaches Watershed impacted by nonpoint source pollution, and to ultimately remove them from the https://dced.pa.gov/programs/ Restoration and Cost share PA DEP, PA Impaired Waters list. This involves support for installation of BMPs for agriculture, watershed-restoration- Protection grant DCED stormwater, streambank and channel restoration, and for repair/upgrade of these protection-program-wrpp/ Program (WRPP) practices. Eligible projects must monitor and track the load reduction impacts resulting from the project.

Supports the development and improvement of fish and wildlife habitat on private https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wp Wildlife Habitat agricultural and forest land. Typical contracts provide funding from 1-3 years, but s/portal/nrcs/detailfull/pa/prog Incentives Fund Payments NRCS longer-term agreements may be developed for targeted species. Prioritizes projects rams/financial/eqip/?cid=NRC (WHIP) with a developed conservation/management plan. S142P2_018210

CFA – Commonwealth Financing Authority DCNR – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources DCED – Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development FPW – Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds PA DEP – Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service NFWF – National Fish and Wildlife Foundation PENNVEST – Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

9. Education and Outreach Education and outreach are crucial elements to successful implementation of a watershed plan and can build community buy-in and acceptance. Providing consistent communication and education is key for developing meaningful involvement by targeted audiences. The goal of education and outreach during implementation of the Pine Creek WIP Update is to raise awareness and ensure broad involvement of key target audiences in developing, implementing, and evaluating actions to reduce pollutant loads through restoration and protection activities. The WIP development process itself was an opportunity to bring together many organizations and entities with an interest in improving water quality, reducing flooding and controlling streambank erosion, coordinated through this plan’s sponsor, NHCOG.

9.1 Existing Education and Outreach There are numerous existing education and outreach programs and efforts in the Pine Creek watershed. The Pine Creek Watershed Coalition has managed several outreach projects including the publication and distribution of a Resident’s Guide to Protecting Water Quality. These booklets were available for distribution at municipal offices and local libraries. The Coalition designed and developed a display on riparian buffers that was transported to different libraries in the watershed and hosted public and municipal programs by the Stroud Water Research Center.

Municipalities educate and reach residents in the Pine Creek using a variety of formats. Municipal websites, newsletters, and mailers are common formats for reaching residents. In addition, communities are using phone applications to send updates and receive input from residents. Community events including the Pine Creek Awareness Day provide an opportunity for municipalities to educate residents on the watershed and importance of restoration and protection activities.

Several nonprofit organizations including 3RWW (https://www.3riverswetweather.org/) and Tree Pittsburgh (https://www.treepittsburgh.org/) are active in the watershed and surrounding areas supporting environmental and water resources education and outreach efforts.

9.2 Additional Education and Outreach Needs In addition to the continuation of the aforementioned education and outreach activities, it is important that the Pine Creek WIP Update identify common themes and campaigns that can then be tailored to targeted audiences for future education efforts. Effect targeted messaging 1) repeats frequently, 2) resonates with targeted audiences, and 3) connects impacts of project to audiences’ life and experiences. Table 23 provides an overview of each identified targeted audience in the Pine Creek watershed, their potential water quality related interests and concerns, and effective communication channels to best engage with each audience.

Table 23. Targeted audiences in the Pine Creek watershed Targeted Audience Potential Audience Concerns Communication Channels • Flooding • Aesthetics • General public Newspapers • Livability for future generations • Websites • Recreation • Social media • Property values • Community/civic groups and Local businesses • Tourism events • Flooding • Local media • Property values • Local governments Landowners • Flooding

Targeted Audience Potential Audience Concerns Communication Channels • Newspapers • Websites • Social media • Livability for future generations • Community/civic groups and Environmental • Water quality events Nonprofits • Habitat • Volunteer monitoring • Fisheries • Advisory/Watershed Committees • Conferences • State agencies • Other local governments County Officials • Pine Creek Watershed Coalition • NAEC • Livability for future generations • NHCOG • Potential additional programmatic • Municipal Officials and regulatory requirements County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania • Pennsylvania State Association of Elected County Elected Officials Officials • Conservation Districts

10. Schedule and Milestones A key part of U.S. EPA’s nine-elements is interim milestones that provide meaningful evaluation points and a focus for program activities. Interim milestones are steps that demonstrate that implementation measures are being executed in a manner that will ensure progress over time. Milestones are not changes in water quality. Measurable milestones are an important tool for directing limited resources towards the array and number of sources and nonpoint source pollution problems across the watershed. Interim measurable milestones are provided for each critical area in Table 24.

A 10-year implementation schedule is assumed and divided into three phases: Year 1-2, Year 2-5, and Year 10+. Each phase will rely on an adaptive management approach and will build upon previous phases. Short-term efforts (Year 1-10) include implementing practices in critical areas in which waters are expected to be delisted due to implement on activities. This includes evaluating the success of projects installed (success rate, BMP performance, pollutant reductions realized, actual costs, etc.). Long-term efforts (Year 10+) will focus on obtaining water quality improvements in the remaining areas of the watershed and solidifying protection activities for the long term.

Table 24. Milestones for Implementation in the Montour Run critical area for water quality improvements BMP Milestones a Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Work with watershed Identify watershed partners to expand partners to conduct monitoring capacity monitoring Monitoring/ Adaptive Continued monitoring Explore requirements management Complete baseline for DEP Tier 3 (see section 12 for Monitoring Tier 3 monitoring monitoring for chemical monitoring Plan) approved by DEP and macroinvertebrate parameters Reevaluate and update plan, as needed 1,000 stream feet 1,000 stream feet Streambank restoration - restored restored 5 dry to wet pond 9 dry to wet pond 2 dry to wet pond retrofits retrofits retrofits

Stormwater treatment 147 acres treated by 294 acres treated of 74 acres treated by new new stormwater new stormwater stormwater practices practices practices Allegheny County HMP Implement action items 69, 92, 120, and 142 according to the Allegheny Action Items County 2020 HMP Update Expected Total pollutant suspended 22,106 159,212 203,424 reductions solids (lbs) a. Milestones are cumulative

Table 25. Milestones for implementation in the Crouse Run critical area for water quality improvements BMP Milestones a Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Work with watershed Identify watershed partners to expand partners to conduct monitoring capacity monitoring Monitoring/ Adaptive Continued monitoring Explore requirements management Complete baseline for DEP Tier 3 (see section 12 for Monitoring Tier 3 monitoring monitoring for chemical monitoring Plan) approved by DEP and macroinvertebrate parameters Reevaluate and update plan, as needed 6,500 stream feet 6,500 stream feet Streambank restoration - restored restored 3 dry to wet pond 7 dry to wet pond 13 dry to wet pond retrofits retrofits retrofits

Stormwater treatment 156 acres treated by 311 acres treated by 622 acres treated by new stormwater new stormwater new stormwater treatment practices treatment practices treatment practices 1,000 feet of buffer 2,000 feet of buffer 5,280 feet of buffer Riparian buffers restored restored restored

Allegheny County HMP Implement action items 92 and 142 according to the Allegheny County 2020 Action Items HMP Update Expected Total pollutant phosphorus 16 1,164 1,197 reductions (lbs) Total nitrogen 54 1,356 1,464 (lbs) a. Milestones are cumulative

Table 26. Milestones for implementation in the Fish run critical area for water quality improvements. BMP Milestones a Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Work with watershed Identify watershed partners to expand partners to conduct monitoring capacity monitoring Monitoring/ Adaptive Continued monitoring management Explore requirements Complete baseline (see section 12 for Monitoring for DEP Tier 3 Tier 3 monitoring monitoring for chemical Plan) monitoring approved by DEP and macroinvertebrate

parameters Reevaluate and update

plan, as needed 1,750 stream feet 1,750 stream feet Streambank Restoration - restored restored 4 dry to wet pond 9 dry to wet pond 15 dry to wet pond retrofits retrofits retrofits

Stormwater treatment 99 acres treated by 198 acres treated by 395 acres treated by new stormwater new stormwater new stormwater treatment practices treatment practices treatment practices Conduct riparian assessment in Fish Restore priority buffers, All priority buffers Riparian buffers Run (see Figure 12) to as needed restored identify priority areas for riparian buffers Allegheny County HMP Implement action item 142 according to the Allegheny County 2020 HMP Action Items Update Total suspended 31,045 263,335 325,421 solids (lbs) Expected Total pollutant phosphorus 9.4 323 342 reductions (lbs) Total nitrogen 26.6 389 442 (lbs) a. Milestones are cumulative

11. Evaluating Progress and Adaptive Management Water quality benchmarks are also identified to track and evaluate progress towards attaining watershed implementation goals in critical areas for water quality improvement. Progress benchmarks (Table 27) are intended to reflect the time it takes to implement management practices, as well as the time needed for water quality indicators to respond.

Water quality benchmarks were determined using the U.S. EPA’s ecoregion standards for nutrient and sediment (U.S. EPA 2000). As additional monitoring is conducted and existing in-stream conditions are better known in the watershed (see section 10), benchmarks can be updated and quantified.

Table 27. Progress benchmarks. Water Quality Timeframe Parameter Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Long-Term Montour Run Macroinvertebrate IBI 38 (Nov-May) 44 (Nov-May) Meet attainment threshold of: Full attainment of water 43 (Jun-Sep) or quality standards 50 (Nov-May) Crouse Run Macroinvertebrate IBI Monitor existing Increase by ½ Meet attainment Full attainment of water conditions difference between threshold of: quality standards year 2 and year 10 43 (Jun-Sep) or 50 (Nov-May) Fish Run Macroinvertebrate IBI Monitor existing Increase by ½ Meet attainment Full attainment of water conditions difference between threshold of: quality standards year 2 and year 10 43 (Jun-Sep) or 50 (Nov-May) Entire watershed Annual watershed wide Annual watershed educational event held wide educational Annual watershed wide Annual watershed for Pine Creek event held for Pine educational event held wide educational watershed Creek watershed for Pine Creek watershed event held for Pine Public engagement Creek watershed Continued public buy-in Expanded Increased public and public advocacy implementation of buy-in and watershed restoration education and understanding of outreach efforts benefits of practices Regular Pine Creek Regular Pine Creek Regular Pine Creek Regular Pine Creek WIP Municipal official WIP agenda item WIP agenda item WIP agenda item agenda item during engagement during NHCOG during NHCOG during NHCOG NHCOG meetings meetings meetings meetings

To ensure management decisions are based on the most recent knowledge, this WIP follows the form of an adaptive and integrated management strategy and establishes milestones and benchmarks for evaluation of the implementation program. U.S. EPA (2008) recognizes that the processes involved in watershed assessment, planning, and management are iterative and that actions might not result in

complete success during the first or second cycle. For this reason, it is important to remember that implementation will be an iterative process, relying upon adaptive management.

Adaptive management is a commonly used strategy to address natural resource management that involves a temporal sequence of decisions (or implementation actions), in which the best action at each decision point depends on the state of the managed system. As a structured iterative implementation process, adaptive management offers the flexibility for responsible parties to monitor implementation actions, determine the success of such actions and ultimately, base management decisions upon the measured results of completed implementation actions and the current state of the system. This process, depicted in Figure 25 enhances the understanding and estimation of predicted outcomes and ensures refinement of necessary activities to better guarantee desirable results. In this way, understanding of the resource can be enhanced over time, and management can be improved.

Figure 25. Adaptive management iterative process (U.S. EPA 2008).

In addition to focusing future management decisions, with established assessment milestones and benchmarks, adaptive management can include a re-assessment of the impaired waters. Re-assessment of impaired waters is particularly relevant when completion of key studies, projects or programs result in data showing load reductions or the identification/quantification of alternative sources. More information on the de-listing process by DEP is provided in section Error! Reference source not found.. In cases where there is little monitoring data at the beginning of the implementation process to help guide decision-making, the collection of monitoring data in the first few years will be important to refining implementation strategies and determining the next steps in implementation, which may need to be adjusted based on the results of new data.

Further into the implementation cycle, the implementation milestones and benchmarks will guide the adaptive management process, helping to determine the type of monitoring and implementation tracking that will be necessary to gauge progress over time. Evaluation for adaptive management can include a variety of evaluation components to gain a comprehensive understanding of implementation progress. An implementation evaluation determines if non-structural and structural activities are put in place and maintained by implementation partners according to schedule; this is often referred to as an output evaluation. An outcome evaluation focuses on changes to behaviors and water quality as a result of implementation actions. This type of evaluation looks at changes in stakeholder behavior and awareness, BMP performance, and changes to ambient water quality.

12. Monitoring Plan Documented changes in water quality and improvement over time are the true measure of a successful watershed implementation plan. In addition, long-term monitoring of the overall health and quality of the project area is important. Monitoring will help determine whether the implementation actions have improved water quality and support future resource management decisions. In addition, monitoring will help determine the effectiveness of various BMPs and indicate when adaptive management should be initiated. The primary goals of the monitoring plan are to assess the effectiveness of source reduction strategies for attaining water quality standards and designated uses and determine when streams can be removed from the 303(d) list.

According to the DEP’s Assessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams (Shull and Pulket 2018), “[w]hen conditions improve in impaired waters it is possible to delist a cause or causes of impairment.... In addition, if a cause of impairment is no longer appropriate, it can be removed despite the waterbody remaining impaired for other sources or causes. Any removal of a cause of impairment…is subject to EPA review and approval and must come with reasoning and data to support the change”.

Delisting requirements for the state of Pennsylvania are provided below. Full assessment methods and monitoring protocol for DEP can be found at the following links. DEP encourages that local monitoring staff connect with them for training on these protocols. • DEP Assessment Methods: http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%20Water%20and%20Facility%20Regulation/Water QualityPortalFiles/Methodology/2015%20Methodology/Assessment_Book.pdf • DEP Monitoring Protocols: http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%20Water%20and%20Facility%20Regulation/Water QualityPortalFiles/Technical%20Documentation/MONITORING_BOOK.pdf

The monitoring plan for the Pine Creek WIP should incorporate these parameters outlined below and follow the protocols detailed in the DEP Monitoring Protocols document.

Table 28. Data Requirements for Delisting 303(d) Waters. (From DEP Assessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams (2018)). Assessed Use Delisting Data Requirements Aquatic Life - macroinvertebrate Data collected using DEP data collection protocols (Shull and Lookenbill 2018), that generates an IBI score above the attainment benchmark (50 (November-May) and 43 (June-September)) set by the sampling protocol. Multiple stations are required to bracket land use changes, nonpoint and point source influences, and any other influences that could affect water quality within the potential delisted waterbody. Aquatic Life - chemistry Macroinvertebrate sample results are preferred. Chemistry results must demonstrate that the applicable criterion is being met 99% of the time as set forth in 25 Pa. Code Chapters 93 and 96 Recreation The geometric mean of all 5 samples must be below the criterion for fecal coliforms (200 cfu/100 ml) and no single sample above 400cfu/100 ml as described in the Bacteriological Assessment Method for recreational use section of this book.

With the exception of one total suspended solids sampling from 2010, there are no water quality data for the water quality critical areas in the Pine Creek watershed, which is heavily impacted by urban stormwater runoff and development. Baseline monitoring should be conducted early in the implementation of this plan to establish current water quality and biological conditions and determine the difference between current conditions and conditions necessary for attainment. Regular monitoring of Crouse Run, Fish Run, and Montour Run critical areas should follow baseline monitoring. Baseline chemical and physical water quality parameters should be collected monthly from the downstream- most location in each critical area, and upstream at key points, including the confluences between the various unnamed tributaries to better define the degree of impairment, the highest source loading areas where implementation should be targeted and to track changes as implementation occurs. Suggested approximate monitoring locations are shown in Figure 26. Within the critical areas, waters are impaired for siltation and nutrients. A suite of parameters should be analyzed, including at a minimum flow, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids. However, a more comprehensive panel of parameters is recommended including, in addition to those already mentioned, dissolved phosphorus, ortho-phosphorus, nitrate, nitrate+nitrite, ammonia, turbidity, and total organic carbon.

Figure 26. Suggested monitoring locations within the critical areas for water quality improvement.

Macroinvertebrate sampling, a habitat screening and fish population survey should be conducted early in the implementation of the WIP to establish baseline biological conditions, most specifically, using the IBI scores. These assessment locations may be established in proximity to the water quality sampling locations to provide some correlation between the two data sets. Biological sampling frequency is needed less frequently than water quality sampling due to the slower response time of biology to chemical and habitat changes. Following baseline monitoring, aquatic biological surveys will be conducted at least every five years during base flow conditions to determine the effects of implementation activities on the recovery of aquatic life.

Upon completion of each of the stream restoration and stabilization projects upstream/downstream water quality should be monitored monthly to track improvements in water quality resulting from the restoration activities. The suite of parameters described above should be collected and analyzed for these sites. Biological monitoring should also be conducted at least bi-annually at larger restoration projects.

More generally, throughout the entire Pine Creek watershed, including the priority areas for flood management and erosion control, monitoring should be expanded to include additional sampling points along Pine Creek and its, and ensuring that monitoring occurs up and downstream of the North Park Lake dam. Samples should be collected on an annual basis to the extent possible. Potential future sampling locations can include those locations already sampled in 1996-2020, as shown in Figure 9, to provide longitudinal sampling. As with the critical areas, if stream restoration and stabilization projects are implemented, upstream/downstream water quality and biological monitoring should be conducted to track improvements following project completion.

The DEP Water Quality Division is responsible for assessment and delisting determinations. Typically, water quality assessments are performed by DEP staff; however, external data can be accepted, provided it meets specific quality assurance requirements. If monitoring data is collected in accordance with the Tier 3 requirements, it can be used in a reassessment or delisting assessment. “Tier 3 data are assessment level data that have approved quality assurance plans, follow appropriate study designs, and follow DEP monitoring protocols” (Shull and Pulket 2018). To be accepted as Tier 3 data, individuals designing and implementing a monitoring plan should be trained and audited by DEP staff prior to submitting data to DEP. Given the limited availability of DEP staff to reassess streams outside of the regular 10-year assessment cycle, DEP encourages local monitoring staff to coordinate with them for training on these protocols to ensure locally collected data can be used for future delisting assessments. The monitoring plan for the Pine Creek WIP Update should incorporate Tier 3 requirements to ensure usability and DEP assessment staff should be consulted throughout the monitoring process.

DEP’s Water Quality Division assesses watersheds on a 10-year cycle. If a delisting assessment if warranted prior to the Water Quality Division’s return to the watershed, they can complete assessments outside of the 10-year cycle if adequate water quality data have been collected to show that a reassessment would very likely result in a delisting. Therefore, the Pine Creek stakeholders should make every effort to conduct water quality monitoring to support more rigorous assessment as water quality reaches attainment.

13. References

ALCOSAN (Allegheny County Sanitary Authority) 2020. Controlling the Source. July 2020. Available: https://www.alcosan.org/docs/default-source/clean-water-plan-documents/controlling-the- source/2020-07-10_gsi-sc_cts_mainreport_final_r0.pdf?sfvrsn=11875ff6_8

Allegheny County Department of Emergency Services. 2020. Allegheny County 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Prepared by Michael Baker International, Inc. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lz9wEVwEVRKIoA7WBRe-luHflQzKuUWU/view

Buchart Horn, Inc. 2014. Etna Green Infrastructure Master Plan Demonstration Project.

Center for Watershed Protection. 2007. Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices. Version 1.0. August 2007.

DEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 2006. Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. Pennsylvania DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management. December 30, 2006. Document number 363-0300-002.

-----. 2012. A Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity for Wadeable Freestone Riffle-Run Streams in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania DEP, Division of Water Quality Standards. March 2012. https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Water/CleanWater/WaterQuality/Pages/Macroinvertebrates .aspx. Accessed July 15, 2020.

-----. 2020. 2020 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report. DEP, Office of Water Programs, Bureau of Clean Water. https://www.depgis.state.pa.us/2020_Integrated_Report/

NAEC (North Area Environmental Council). 2010. Pine Creek Watershed Channel and Riparian Assessment and Restoration Plan. NEAC in partnership with the Pine Creek Watershed Coalition. March 2010. Available: https://spcwater.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/01/PineCreek_RiparianAssess_030110-1.pdf

NLCD (National Land Cover Database). 2011. Downloaded from: https://www.mrlc.gov/data?f%5B0%5D=category%3ALand%20Cover

NRCS SSURGO (Soil Survey Geographic Database). Downloaded from: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_053627

PEC (Pennsylvania Environmental Council). 2005. Pine Creek: Watershed Assessment Protection and Restoration Plan. March 2005.

-----. 2009. Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan. October 2009.

Shull, D. R., and M. J. Lookenbill. 2018. Water Quality Monitoring Protocols for Streams and Rivers. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Shull, D. and M. Pulket. 2018. Assessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Water Programs, Bureau of Clean Water. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services). 2020a. National Cartography & Geospatial Center. National Elevation Dataset 30 Meter 1-degree Tiles. Edition: . Downloaded from: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov

U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion XI. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. December 2000. EPA document number 822-B-00-20.

-----. 2013. Bacteria TMDLs to Address the Recreation Use Impairment in the Pine Creek Watershed Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. U.S. EPA, Region 3. February 2013.

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. 1994. Allegheny County Natural Heritage Inventory. Prepared for the Allegheny County Board of Commissioners by the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. February 1994.

Appendix A. NHCOG Municipal Managers Listing 2020 North Hills Council of Governments Municipal Managers Listing 2020

BLAWNOX HAMPTON O’HARA ROSS Kathy Ulanowicz Chris Lochner Julie Jakubec Ron Borczyk 376 Freeport Road 3101 McCully Road 325 Fox Chapel Road 1000 Ross Municipal Dr Pittsburgh, PA 15238 Allison Park, PA 15101 Pittsburgh, PA 15238 Pittsburgh, PA 15237 412-828-4141 412-486-0400 412-782-1400 412-931-7055 [email protected] chris.lochner@hampton [email protected] [email protected] -pa.org BRADFORD WOODS INDIANA OHIO SHALER Natalie Thiess Dan Anderson John Sullivan Tim Rogers P.O. Box 163 3710 Saxonburg Blvd. 1719 Roosevelt Road 300 Wetzel Road Bradford Woods, PA Pittsburgh, PA 15238 Pittsburgh, PA 15237 Glenshaw, PA 15116 15015 412-767-5333 412-364-6321 412-486-9700 724-935-2990 danderson@indianatow [email protected] [email protected] bradfordwoods@zoomint nship.com ernet.net ETNA MARSHALL PINE SHARPSBURG Mary Ellen Ramage Julie Bastianini Scott Anderson Bill Rossey 437 Butler Street Box 2094 230 Pearce Mill Road 1611 Main Street Pittsburgh, PA 15223 Warrendale, PA 15086 Wexford, PA 15090 Pittsburgh, PA 15215 412-781-0569 724-935-3090 724-625-1591 412-781-0546 Ext. 11 meramage@etnaborough. [email protected] [email protected]. manager@sharpsburgbor org ll.pa.us us ough.com

FOX CHAPEL MC CANDLESS RESERVE WEST DEER Gary Koehler Bob Grimm Donna Kaib Daniel Mator 401 Fox Chapel Road 9955 Grubbs Road 33 Lonsdale Street 109 E. Union Road Pittsburgh, PA 15238 Wexford, PA 15090 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Cheswick, PA 15024 412-963-1100 412-364-0616 412-322-1551 724-265-3680 gkoehler@fox- rgrimm@townofmccand [email protected] dmator@westdeertowns chapel.pa.us less.org om hip.com FRANKLIN PARK MILLVALE RICHLAND WEST VIEW Rege Ebner Ed Figas Dean Bastianini Bruce Fromlak 2344 West Ingomar Road 501 Lincoln Avenue 4019 Dickey Road 441 Perry Highway Pittsburgh, PA 15237 Millvale, PA 15209 Gibsonia, PA 15044 Pittsburgh, PA 15229 412-364-4115 412-821-2777 724-443-5921 412-931-2800 rebner@franklinparkboro [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ugh.us .us m

Blue boxes indicate municipalities that have jurisdiction within the Pine Creek watershed

Appendix B. ATTAINS Impairment Listings Table 29. ATTAINS impairment listings for waterbodies in the water quality critical area subwatersheds. Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name (miles) Cause Source Critical Area Stream Name Crouse Run Crouse Run PA-SCR- 1.821 4a 123972108 Crouse Run-123972108 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 1.821 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972108 Crouse Run-123972108 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- 0.305 4a 123972134 Crouse Run-123972134 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 0.305 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972134 Crouse Run-123972134 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- 0.304 4a 123972139 Crouse Run-123972139 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 0.304 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972139 Crouse Run-123972139 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- 1.565 4a 123972172 Crouse Run-123972172 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 1.565 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972172 Crouse Run-123972172 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- 0.118 4a 123973409 Crouse Run-123973409 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 0.118 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123973409 Crouse Run-123973409 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- 0.099 4a 123973421 Crouse Run-123973421 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 0.099 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123973421 Crouse Run-123973421 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- 0.022 4a 123973437 Crouse Run-123973437 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 0.022 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123973437 Crouse Run-123973437 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Critical Area Stream Name Crouse Run Unnamed Tributary to Crouse Run PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.481 4a 123972135 Crouse Run-123972135 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.481 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972135 Crouse Run-123972135 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.760 4a 123972140 Crouse Run-123972140 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.760 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972140 Crouse Run-123972140 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.231 4a 123972141 Crouse Run-123972141 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.231 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972141 Crouse Run-123972141 NUTRIENTS SEWERS

PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 1.087 4a 123972142 Crouse Run-123972142 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 1.087 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972142 Crouse Run-123972142 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.884 4a 123972143 Crouse Run-123972143 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.884 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972143 Crouse Run-123972143 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.052 4a 123972235 Crouse Run-123972235 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.052 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972235 Crouse Run-123972235 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.025 4a 123972236 Crouse Run-123972236 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.025 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972236 Crouse Run-123972236 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Critical Area Stream Name Fish Run Fish Run PA-SCR- 0.588 4a 123971473 Fish Run-123971473 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 0.588 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123971473 Fish Run-123971473 NUTRIENTS SEWERS 0.588 SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971473 Fish Run-123971473 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.396 4a 123971474 Fish Run-123971474 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 0.396 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123971474 Fish Run-123971474 NUTRIENTS SEWERS 0.396 SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971474 Fish Run-123971474 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 1.484 4a 123971479 Fish Run-123971479 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN 1.484 SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971479 Fish Run-123971479 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 1.484 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123971479 Fish Run-123971479 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Critical Area Stream Name Fish Run Unnamed Tributary to Fish Run PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.560 4a 123971463 Fish Run-123971463 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN 0.560 SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971463 Fish Run-123971463 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.560 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123971463 Fish Run-123971463 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.155 4a 123971472 Fish Run-123971472 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.155 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123971472 Fish Run-123971472 NUTRIENTS SEWERS 0.155 SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971472 Fish Run-123971472 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.941 4a 123971511 Fish Run-123971511 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.941 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123971511 Fish Run-123971511 NUTRIENTS SEWERS 0.941 SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971511 Fish Run-123971511 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.150 4a 123971512 Fish Run-123971512 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN 0.150 SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971512 Fish Run-123971512 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.150 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123971512 Fish Run-123971512 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.088 4a 123971519 Fish Run-123971519 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN 0.088 SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971519 Fish Run-123971519 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.088 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123971519 Fish Run-123971519 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.052 4a 123971520 Fish Run-123971520 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN 0.052 SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971520 Fish Run-123971520 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.052 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123971520 Fish Run-123971520 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Critical Area Stream Name Montour Run Montour Run PA-SCR- Montour Run- 1.362 4a 123972136 123972136 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN 1.362 HIGHWAY/ROAD/BRIDGE RUNOFF (NON- PA-SCR- Montour Run- CONSTRUCTION 5 123972136 123972136 SILTATION RELATED) PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.853 4a 123972150 123972150 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN 0.853 HIGHWAY/ROAD/BRIDGE RUNOFF (NON- PA-SCR- Montour Run- CONSTRUCTION 5 123972150 123972150 SILTATION RELATED) PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.174 4a 123972165 123972165 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.174 HIGHWAY/ROAD/BRIDGE 5 123972165 123972165 SILTATION RUNOFF (NON-

CONSTRUCTION RELATED) PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.022 4a 123973327 123973327 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.074 4a 123973338 123973338 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.337 4a 123973347 123973347 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.478 4a 123973363 123973363 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.295 4a 123973372 123973372 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.586 4a 123973396 123973396 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.374 4a 123973407 123973407 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN 0.374 HIGHWAY/ROAD/BRIDGE RUNOFF (NON- PA-SCR- Montour Run- CONSTRUCTION 5 123973407 123973407 SILTATION RELATED) PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.064 4a 123973410 123973410 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN 0.064 HIGHWAY/ROAD/BRIDGE RUNOFF (NON- PA-SCR- Montour Run- CONSTRUCTION 5 123973410 123973410 SILTATION RELATED) PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.140 4a 123973424 123973424 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN 0.140 HIGHWAY/ROAD/BRIDGE RUNOFF (NON- PA-SCR- Montour Run- CONSTRUCTION 5 123973424 123973424 SILTATION RELATED) PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.031 4a 123973426 123973426 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.086 4a 123973427 123973427 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.076 4a 123973428 123973428 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.040 4a 123973430 123973430 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Montour Run- 0.023 4a 123973431 123973431 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Critical Area Stream Name Montour Run Unnamed Tributary to Montour Run Unnamed Tributary to 1.058 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123972151 123972151 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.115 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123972166 123972166 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

Unnamed Tributary to 0.160 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123972170 123972170 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.112 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123972230 123972230 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.129 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973013 123973013 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.546 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973016 123973016 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.531 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973020 123973020 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.274 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973021 123973021 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.171 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973026 123973026 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.037 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973055 123973055 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.298 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973346 123973346 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.672 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973354 123973354 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.030 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973355 123973355 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.323 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973364 123973364 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.077 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973369 123973369 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.229 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973373 123973373 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.018 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973374 123973374 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.012 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973375 123973375 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.605 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973376 123973376 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

Unnamed Tributary to 0.149 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973377 123973377 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.603 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973392 123973392 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.091 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973397 123973397 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.646 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973400 123973400 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.410 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973406 123973406 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.521 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973411 123973411 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.117 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973425 123973425 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.030 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973429 123973429 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to 0.016 PA-SCR- Montour Run- 4a 123973833 123973833 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

Table 30. ATTAINS impairment listings for waterbodies in the priority area subwatersheds. Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name (miles) Impairment Cause Source Priority Area Stream Name Little Pine Creek East Little Pine Creek PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 1.914 4a 123972055 123972055 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 1.231 4a 123972069 123972069 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.295 4a 123972080 123972080 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.153 4a 123972082 123972082 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 1.726 4a 123972085 123972085 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.016 4a 123973834 123973834 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Priority Area Stream Name Little Pine Creek East Unnamed Tributary to Little Pine Creek Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 1.021 4a 123972070 123972070 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.608 4a 123972078 123972078 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.985 4a 123972081 123972081 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.444 4a 123972084 123972084 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.612 4a 123972089 123972089 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.950 4a 123972201 123972201 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Priority Area Stream Name Little Pine Creek West Little Pine Creek PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.244 4a 123971453 123971453 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.782 4a 123971454 123971454 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.078 4a 123971456 123971456 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.073 4a 123971458 123971458 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.952 4a 123971459 123971459 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 4.358 4a 123972042 123972042 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.550 4a 123972074 123972074 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.472 4a 123972207 123972207 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.007 4a 123972255 123972255 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Priority Area Stream Name Little Pine Creek West Unnamed Tributary to Little Pine Creek Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.364 4a 123971452 123971452 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.364 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123971452 123971452 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.432 4a 123971455 123971455 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.780 4a 123971457 123971457 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.722 4a 123971503 123971503 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.349 4a 123971504 123971504 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.408 4a 123971516 123971516 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.094 4a 123971533 123971533 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.708 4a 123972075 123972075 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.708 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972075 123972075 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 1.065 4a 123972079 123972079 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Little Pine Creek- 0.160 4a 123972093 123972093 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Priority Area Stream Name Pine Creek 1 & 2 Pine Creek PA-SCR- 1.001 4a 123972258 Pine Creek-123972258 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 1.001 5 123972258 Pine Creek-123972258 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 1.001 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972258 Pine Creek-123972258 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.370 4a 123972259 Pine Creek-123972259 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.370 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972259 Pine Creek-123972259 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.370 5 123972259 Pine Creek-123972259 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 1.155 4a 123972948 Pine Creek-123972948 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 1.155 5 123972948 Pine Creek-123972948 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 1.155 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972948 Pine Creek-123972948 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.094 5 123972949 Pine Creek-123972949 NUTRIENTS AREAS)

SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.094 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972949 Pine Creek-123972949 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.094 5 123972949 Pine Creek-123972949 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Priority Area Stream Name Pine Creek 5 Pine Creek PA-SCR- 0.525 4a 123971464 Pine Creek-123971464 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.525 5 123971464 Pine Creek-123971464 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.525 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971464 Pine Creek-123971464 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.403 4a 123971465 Pine Creek-123971465 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.403 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971465 Pine Creek-123971465 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.403 5 123971465 Pine Creek-123971465 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 1.333 4a 123971467 Pine Creek-123971467 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 1.333 5 123971467 Pine Creek-123971467 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 1.333 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971467 Pine Creek-123971467 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.066 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971469 Pine Creek-123971469 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.094 4a 123971476 Pine Creek-123971476 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.094 5 123971476 Pine Creek-123971476 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.094 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971476 Pine Creek-123971476 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.669 4a 123971478 Pine Creek-123971478 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.669 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971478 Pine Creek-123971478 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.669 5 123971478 Pine Creek-123971478 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 0.451 4a 123971480 Pine Creek-123971480 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.451 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971480 Pine Creek-123971480 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT)

PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.451 5 123971480 Pine Creek-123971480 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 1.429 4a 123971483 Pine Creek-123971483 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 1.429 5 123971483 Pine Creek-123971483 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 1.429 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971483 Pine Creek-123971483 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.441 4a 123971510 Pine Creek-123971510 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.441 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971510 Pine Creek-123971510 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.441 5 123971510 Pine Creek-123971510 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 1.112 4a 123973041 Pine Creek-123973041 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 1.112 5 123973041 Pine Creek-123973041 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 1.112 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123973041 Pine Creek-123973041 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.034 4a 123973042 Pine Creek-123973042 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.034 5 123973042 Pine Creek-123973042 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.034 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123973042 Pine Creek-123973042 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) Priority Area Stream Name Pine Creek 5 Rinaman Run PA-SCR- Rinaman Run- 1.696 4a 123971468 123971468 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Rinaman Run- 0.952 4a 123971486 123971486 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Priority Area Stream Name Pine Creek 5 Unnamed Tributary to Pine Creek PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.851 4a 123971460 Pine Creek-123971460 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.644 4a 123971462 Pine Creek-123971462 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.530 4a 123971470 Pine Creek-123971470 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.575 4a 123971481 Pine Creek-123971481 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.033 4a 123971482 Pine Creek-123971482 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 1.045 4a 123971484 Pine Creek-123971484 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 1.045 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971484 Pine Creek-123971484 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 1.045 5 123971484 Pine Creek-123971484 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.152 4a 123971488 Pine Creek-123971488 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.002 4a 123971491 Pine Creek-123971491 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.019 4a 123971492 Pine Creek-123971492 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.122 4a 123971507 Pine Creek-123971507 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.055 4a 123971508 Pine Creek-123971508 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.680 4a 123971509 Pine Creek-123971509 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.244 4a 123971513 Pine Creek-123971513 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.244 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971513 Pine Creek-123971513 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.244 5 123971513 Pine Creek-123971513 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.016 4a 123971515 Pine Creek-123971515 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.051 4a 123971521 Pine Creek-123971521 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.051 5 123971521 Pine Creek-123971521 NUTRIENTS SEWERS SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.051 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971521 Pine Creek-123971521 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.032 4a 123971524 Pine Creek-123971524 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.019 4a 123971525 Pine Creek-123971525 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.038 4a 123971526 Pine Creek-123971526 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.022 4a 123971527 Pine Creek-123971527 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.037 4a 123971528 Pine Creek-123971528 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.058 4a 123971529 Pine Creek-123971529 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.043 4a 123971530 Pine Creek-123971530 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.030 4a 123971531 Pine Creek-123971531 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.017 4a 123971532 Pine Creek-123971532 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

Priority Area Stream Name Pine Creek 5 Unnamed Tributary to Rinaman Run Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Rinaman Run- 0.139 4a 134880722 134880722 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Rinaman Run- 0.636 4a 134880725 134880725 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Rinaman Run- 0.064 4a 134880727 134880727 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Priority Area Stream Name Pine Creek 5 Unnamed Tributary to Wexford Run Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 0.106 4a 123971500 123971500 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 0.106 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971500 123971500 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 0.106 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123971500 123971500 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 0.718 4a 123973039 123973039 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 0.718 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123973039 123973039 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 0.718 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123973039 123973039 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Priority Area Stream Name Pine Creek 5 Wexford Run PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 2.248 4a 123971477 123971477 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Wexford Run- URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 2.248 5 123971477 123971477 NUTRIENTS SEWERS SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 2.248 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971477 123971477 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 0.109 4a 123971501 123971501 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 0.109 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971501 123971501 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Wexford Run- URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.109 5 123971501 123971501 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 0.463 4a 123973040 123973040 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Wexford Run- 0.463 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123973040 123973040 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Wexford Run- URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.463 5 123973040 123973040 NUTRIENTS SEWERS

Table 31. ATTAINS impairment listings for waterbodies within the Pine Creek watershed, outside the critical areas. Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name (miles) Impairment Cause Source Gourdhead Run PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.902 4a 123972091 123972091 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.398 4a 123972101 123972101 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.984 4a 123972103 123972103 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.646 4a 123972111 123972111 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN McCaskin Run PA-SCR- McCaskin Run- 0.116 4a 123972122 123972122 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- McCaskin Run- URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.116 5 123972122 123972122 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- McCaskin Run- 1.790 4a 123972194 123972194 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- McCaskin Run- URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 1.790 5 123972194 123972194 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- McCaskin Run- 0.053 4a 123972240 123972240 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- McCaskin Run- URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.053 5 123972240 123972240 NUTRIENTS SEWERS North Fork Pine Creek PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.455 4a 123971485 123971485 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.235 4a 123971490 123971490 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.197 4a 123971493 123971493 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.300 4a 123971494 123971494 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.378 4a 123971496 123971496 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.235 4a 123971523 123971523 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.260 4a 123973009 123973009 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.016 4a 123973011 123973011 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.841 4a 123973015 123973015 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.166 4a 123973017 123973017 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.109 4a 123973018 123973018 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.504 4a 123973023 123973023 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.504 4a 123973028 123973028 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.076 4a 123973029 123973029 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.190 4a 123973034 123973034 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.129 4a 123973037 123973037 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.047 4a 123973046 123973046 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.029 4a 123973048 123973048 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.092 4a 123973049 123973049 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.034 4a 123973051 123973051 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.111 4a 123973052 123973052 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.017 4a 123973053 123973053 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.134 4a 123973054 123973054 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Pine Creek PA-SCR- 0.066 4a 123971469 Pine Creek-123971469 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.066 5 123971469 Pine Creek-123971469 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 0.480 4a 123971471 Pine Creek-123971471 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.480 5 123971471 Pine Creek-123971471 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.480 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971471 Pine Creek-123971471 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.813 4a 123971475 Pine Creek-123971475 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.813 5 123971475 Pine Creek-123971475 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.813 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971475 Pine Creek-123971475 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.312 4a 123971517 Pine Creek-123971517 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.312 5 123971517 Pine Creek-123971517 NUTRIENTS AREAS)

SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.312 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971517 Pine Creek-123971517 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.838 4a 123971518 Pine Creek-123971518 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 0.035 4a 123972090 Pine Creek-123972090 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.035 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972090 Pine Creek-123972090 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.035 5 123972090 Pine Creek-123972090 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 1.880 4a 123972092 Pine Creek-123972092 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 1.880 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972092 Pine Creek-123972092 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 1.880 5 123972092 Pine Creek-123972092 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 0.218 4a 123972099 Pine Creek-123972099 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.218 5 123972099 Pine Creek-123972099 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.218 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972099 Pine Creek-123972099 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.150 4a 123972102 Pine Creek-123972102 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.150 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972102 Pine Creek-123972102 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.150 5 123972102 Pine Creek-123972102 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 0.538 4a 123972105 Pine Creek-123972105 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.538 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972105 Pine Creek-123972105 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.538 5 123972105 Pine Creek-123972105 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 0.333 4a 123972109 Pine Creek-123972109 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.333 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972109 Pine Creek-123972109 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.333 5 123972109 Pine Creek-123972109 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 1.350 4a 123972112 Pine Creek-123972112 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 1.350 5 123972112 Pine Creek-123972112 NUTRIENTS AREAS)

SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 1.350 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972112 Pine Creek-123972112 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.992 4a 123972125 Pine Creek-123972125 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.992 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972125 Pine Creek-123972125 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.992 5 123972125 Pine Creek-123972125 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 0.399 4a 123972127 Pine Creek-123972127 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.399 5 123972127 Pine Creek-123972127 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.399 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972127 Pine Creek-123972127 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.800 4a 123972128 Pine Creek-123972128 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.800 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972128 Pine Creek-123972128 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.800 5 123972128 Pine Creek-123972128 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 0.130 4a 123972226 Pine Creek-123972226 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 0.252 4a 123972227 Pine Creek-123972227 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.252 5 123972227 Pine Creek-123972227 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.252 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972227 Pine Creek-123972227 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.046 4a 123972228 Pine Creek-123972228 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.046 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972228 Pine Creek-123972228 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.046 5 123972228 Pine Creek-123972228 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 0.176 4a 123972229 Pine Creek-123972229 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 0.030 4a 123972238 Pine Creek-123972238 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.030 5 123972238 Pine Creek-123972238 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.030 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972238 Pine Creek-123972238 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.204 4a 123972239 Pine Creek-123972239 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.204 5 123972239 Pine Creek-123972239 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.204 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972239 Pine Creek-123972239 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.062 4a 123972251 Pine Creek-123972251 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.062 5 123972251 Pine Creek-123972251 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.062 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972251 Pine Creek-123972251 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 0.651 4a 123972252 Pine Creek-123972252 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 0.651 5 123972252 Pine Creek-123972252 NUTRIENTS AREAS) SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 0.651 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972252 Pine Creek-123972252 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- 2.589 4a 123972256 Pine Creek-123972256 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 2.589 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972256 Pine Creek-123972256 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 2.589 5 123972256 Pine Creek-123972256 NUTRIENTS AREAS) PA-SCR- 2.083 4a 123972257 Pine Creek-123972257 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- 2.083 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123972257 Pine Creek-123972257 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- RURAL (RESIDENTIAL 2.083 5 123972257 Pine Creek-123972257 NUTRIENTS AREAS) Unnamed Tributary to Gourdhead Run Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.054 4a 123972095 123972095 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.054 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972095 123972095 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.185 4a 123972097 123972097 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.185 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972097 123972097 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.692 4a 123972098 123972098 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.692 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972098 123972098 NUTRIENTS SEWERS

Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.547 4a 123972110 123972110 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.413 4a 123972202 123972202 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.413 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972202 123972202 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.680 4a 123972203 123972203 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- Gourdhead Run- 0.680 URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 5 123972203 123972203 NUTRIENTS SEWERS Unnamed Tributary to North Fork Pine Creek Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.338 4a 123971489 123971489 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.688 4a 123971495 123971495 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.178 4a 123971497 123971497 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.806 4a 123971498 123971498 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.144 4a 123971499 123971499 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.034 4a 123971522 123971522 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.134 4a 123973008 123973008 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.045 4a 123973010 123973010 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.217 4a 123973012 123973012 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.533 4a 123973014 123973014 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.656 4a 123973019 123973019 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.574 4a 123973022 123973022 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.226 4a 123973024 123973024 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.442 4a 123973025 123973025 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.677 4a 123973027 123973027 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 2.021 4a 123973030 123973030 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 1.089 4a 123973031 123973031 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.244 4a 123973032 123973032 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.954 4a 123973033 123973033 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.235 4a 123973035 123973035 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.175 4a 123973038 123973038 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.025 4a 123973043 123973043 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.096 4a 123973044 123973044 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.071 4a 123973045 123973045 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.027 4a 123973047 123973047 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.148 4a 123973050 123973050 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to PA-SCR- North Fork Pine Creek- 0.020 4a 123973832 123973832 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN Unnamed Tributary to Pine Creek PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.452 4a 123971461 Pine Creek-123971461 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.628 4a 123971466 Pine Creek-123971466 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

SITE CLEARANCE (LAND PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.530 DEVELOPMENT OR 5 123971470 Pine Creek-123971470 SILTATION REDEVELOPMENT) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.530 5 123971470 Pine Creek-123971470 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 1.453 4a 123971502 Pine Creek-123971502 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.023 4a 123971514 Pine Creek-123971514 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 1.100 4a 123972067 Pine Creek-123972067 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN ON-SITE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (SEPTIC 1.100 SYSTEMS AND SIMILAR PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to ORGANIC DECENTRALIZED 5 123972067 Pine Creek-123972067 ENRICHMENT SYSTEMS) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 1.100 5 123972067 Pine Creek-123972067 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.780 4a 123972083 Pine Creek-123972083 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.780 5 123972083 Pine Creek-123972083 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.496 4a 123972086 Pine Creek-123972086 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.496 5 123972086 Pine Creek-123972086 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.606 4a 123972087 Pine Creek-123972087 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.606 5 123972087 Pine Creek-123972087 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.569 4a 123972096 Pine Creek-123972096 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 1.276 4a 123972100 Pine Creek-123972100 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 1.183 4a 123972113 Pine Creek-123972113 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.238 4a 123972118 Pine Creek-123972118 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.824 4a 123972126 Pine Creek-123972126 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.474 4a 123972138 Pine Creek-123972138 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.889 4a 123972204 Pine Creek-123972204 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN ON-SITE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (SEPTIC 0.889 SYSTEMS AND SIMILAR PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to ORGANIC DECENTRALIZED 5 123972204 Pine Creek-123972204 ENRICHMENT SYSTEMS) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.889 5 123972204 Pine Creek-123972204 NUTRIENTS SEWERS

PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.158 4a 123972237 Pine Creek-123972237 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.012 5 123972249 Pine Creek-123972249 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.011 4a 123972250 Pine Creek-123972250 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN ON-SITE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (SEPTIC 0.011 SYSTEMS AND SIMILAR PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to ORGANIC DECENTRALIZED 5 123972250 Pine Creek-123972250 ENRICHMENT SYSTEMS) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.011 5 123972250 Pine Creek-123972250 NUTRIENTS SEWERS PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to URBAN RUNOFF/STORM 0.006 5 123972253 Pine Creek-123972253 NUTRIENTS SEWERS ON-SITE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (SEPTIC 0.006 SYSTEMS AND SIMILAR PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to ORGANIC DECENTRALIZED 5 123972253 Pine Creek-123972253 ENRICHMENT SYSTEMS) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 0.600 4a 123973036 Pine Creek-123973036 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

100

Appendix C. Local Sponsor Issues and Concerns Issues and concerns identified by local sponsor response to survey. State agency votes are not represented.

Average rank (5 being most Issue or Concern important, 1 being least) Increased flooding 4.7 Stream flashiness 4.3 Streambank erosion and channelization 3.7

Excess sedimentation/siltation in our rivers and streams 3.6

Degraded fish and aquatic bug communities 3.4

Excess nutrients (phosphorus, nitrogen) in our rivers and 3.2 streams

Excess bacteria (E. coli) in our rivers and streams 3.2 Loss of habitat and natural areas in contributing 3.1 watersheds

101

Appendix D. Model My Watershed Results

102

Appendix E. Town of McCandless Pine Creek Restoration Project

Figure 27. Conceptual layout plan for Pine Creek Restoration Project (Image created by Gateway Engineering Firm).

114

Appendix F. Etna Green Infrastructure Master Plan Demonstration Project

115

ETNA GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN DEMONSTRATION PROJECT BH 7690400

BUCHART HORN, INC. LANDBASE SYSTEMS

MAY 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study was financed by a grant administered by the Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC). The objective of the study to assess the feasibility of reducing/eliminating proposed gray infrastructure alternatives by managing the 90% of Typical Year 2003 runoff through the implementation of green solutions within the Borough of Etna, a combined sewer system community.

The project used innovative site screening techniques developed by Landbase Systems to conceptually locate and size green stormwater infrastructure (GSI), also referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs). The screening started not with availability of sites but identification and prioritization of high yield inlets via the Etna GIS where GSI could be most advantageously sited.

The Etna Borough GIS model was used in tandem with available soils, slope, and other land use/cover data to characterize the individual catchment areas contributing to the Etna combined sewer system. Each of the catchments was associated with a combined sewer overflow.

The calibrated SWMM Etna sewer system model is used to evaluate the impacts of GSI on the volume and rate of flow during the so-called Typical Year 2003. These impacts would be measured as changes in the frequency duration and volume of overflows. As the SWMM model extends to the ALCOSAN point of connection, it was possible to estimate the impacts on the volume to be conveyed and treated by ALCOSAN after implementation of a program of GSI in the Borough.

Based upon Municipal priorities, available funds, and GSI opportunities, the team established 5 phases for primary GSI projects (including 23 sites) and a future phase with up to 26 GSI sites.

The work done for this master plan estimates it is feasible to manage a total of 39.4 mg of runoff per year if all GSI sites are implemented.

Implementing all 23 projects detailed under the Master Plan will manage a total of 16.1 mg annually at an estimated cost of $6.1 million. This translates into a cost of $0.38/gal. This includes the Streetscape components not directly related to RO management. When these components are backed out of the total, the estimated cost for the GSI elements becomes $4.1 mil and $0.25/gal of RO managed.

Based our review of modelling results, the GSI will only have very limited benefits in the reduction of grey infrastructure requirements. This is due to the limited improvements to Etna Combined sewer system and the amount of capacity needed in the Etna Trunkline to convey sewage flows from upstream communities. However GSI may be of value in avoiding the cost of $ 1.3 million needed in Etna collection system improvements if the next Level of CSO Control is required.

The Existing Conditions SWMM model for Pine Creek estimates about 28% of reduced flow volume from GSI would benefit ALCOSAN operations and infrastructure.

i ETNA AND SHALER GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN DEMONSTRATION

BH 7690400

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 3.0 GSI SITE FACTORS 4.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 5.0 GREY VERSUS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE 6.0 GSI TOOLBOX 7.0 SCREENING BY RANKED LOCATIONS USING LBS GOALPROCESS 8.0 GSI COST ESTIMATE 9.0 ETNA MASTERPLAN 10.0 GSI IMPLEMENTATION COST 11.0 POTENTIAL GSI BENEFITS WITH REPSECT TO GREY INFRASTRUCTURE

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H

ETNA AND SHALER GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN DEMONSTRATION

BH 7690400

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Borough of Etna Allegheny County PA has received funding for this Master Plan under a grant from the Pennsylvania Environmental Council to address to demonstrate the opportunities for and limitations of green infrastructure to reduce combined sewer overflows in the region. This grant is administered by 3Rivers Wet Weather. A primary objective is to identify, quantify and cost the potential for GSI to complement proposed “grey infrastructure” under the Borough’s draft Wet Weather Control Plan.

Green Infrastructure is being both considered and implemented by the Borough of Etna to achieve better Water Quality and Sustainability. It is also being evaluated as a means to address compliance and regulatory challenges facing the Borough. These requirements stem from the existing water quality criteria in the local streams that are not being met, some as a result of combined overflows.

Pine Creek is a 22.8 mile long tributary to the Allegheny River. Its watershed is 67.3 square miles in area and contains approximately 128 stream miles. Its watershed is located just north of the City of Pittsburgh and the land use varies from highly urban areas in the lower part of the watershed to typical suburban commercial and residential developments. The population within the watershed is estimated to be 91,000 persons. The estimated impervious cover in the watershed is 10.6%.

The Borough of Etna is the most downstream community in the watershed. The Borough is highly urbanized and densely populated. It contributes stormwater to adjacent sections of Pine Creek via its combined sewer system, dedicated stormwater facilities and direct runoff. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's 2008 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report identified several segments of streams within the watershed as impaired for one or more designated uses. The report lists nutrients, pathogens, and siltation as the types of pollutants affecting the waterway. These pollutants are primarily from urban runoff and storm sewers, but other sources include land development, on-site wastewater, small residential runoff, and unknown sources.

Consistent with its status as small CSO community, the Borough is electing to develop a range of Combined Sewer Overflow control alternatives that would meet one of EPA's criteria for the presumptive approach.

On March 8, 2013, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) were established to address fecal coliform bacteria related recreational use impairments associated with unknown causes in the Pine Creek Watershed in southwestern Pennsylvania. The TMDL establishes reductions for Etna’s CSO discharges as well as its dedicated stormwater facilities under the MS4 Permit Program.

The proposed Master Plan would also support active and planned local efforts by Etna to improve the Pine Creek Watershed by continuing to implement a PADEP and EPA 319 non-point source (NPS)

1-1

pollution funded Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) prioritized project designed to reduce urban runoff impacts in the lower Pine Creek basin.

The Borough is currently engaged in five Green Infrastructure (GSI) initiatives:  Residential Downspout Disconnection Program  Green Streetscape Phase I, IA and Phase II Projects currently funded by Section 319 Grants  Green Infrastructure Specific projects: Community Pool Bioswale and School Street Municipal Parking Lot.  Street Tree Planting

A critical consideration addressed under the GSI Master Plan Project is to determine where investment in GSI is indicated. Etna Borough as a CSO community wants to be able to integrate Green Infrastructure into its COA and NPDES Permit compliance. The Master plan addresses the major challenge is how anticipate CSO volume reductions and be able to write Green Infrastructure into a legally enforceable order/permit provisions.

However a second challenge is phasing the costs and funding a multi-year and multiple phase program, given the many uncertainties of long term implementation. These uncertainties are:

 Pending regulatory approval of the ALCOSAN Wet Weather Plan- particularly the schedule for implementation  Pending regulatory approval of the Etna Draft Wet Weather Plan and final level of CSO control that might be required  Implementation requirements for the Pine Creek TMDL  Performance uncertainties associated with GSI  Cost of GSI

The current level of political support for the Green infrastructure in the Borough of Etna is strong on part of its Council. In spite of its limited resources, the Borough has consistently supported GSI project proposals and provided matching funds when needed in order to advance GSI goals. It has implemented a residential downspout disconnection program via ordinance and voted to implement program incentive via environmental fee credits. Council has also supported residential outreach programs for GSI awareness. It has signed long term maintenance agreements with property owners for pervious parking areas. It has endorsed incorporating green features into public facilities such as parking lots. It has supported the acquisition of vacant tax delinquent land for “rain parks” under the Allegheny County vacant properties program. Borough government has regularly met with commercial district property and business owners to enlist support for the Borough’s Green Streetscape Program. Council members regularly attend presentations and sessions addressing Green Infrastructure issues. The Borough has sponsored and participated in educational presentations on GSI implementation. The GSI Master Plan will provide a road map for the Borough and others. It is intended to demonstrate how planning for source reduction can be done to meet defined compliance objectives within the context of a densely developed urban community.

1-2

2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS

Borough of Etna is a combined sewer community. Etna has comprehensively built a sewer system spatial database that incorporates physical survey data, connectivity and legacy information for its sewer pipe, manholes, regulator structures, combined overflow structures (CSOs), inlet catch basins and dedicated storm water management network (Appendix A). This GIS information is used to manage operation and track improvements to the Borough’s sewer system (Figure 2-1 below).

Figure 2-1

Storm water is primarily managed by its combined sewer system but there are also a smaller number of dedicated municipal storm systems in the Borough. The account drain less than 55 acres in area (<11% 0f the Borough) and are redundant to the combined sewer system in many areas.

The Etna combined sewer system consists of smaller sub-systems that portions of the Borough and connect at various points to the Etna Trunkline via sewer mains. The Etna Trunkline eventually connects to the ALCOSAN System at Structure A-68. The following Figure 2-2 presents the delineated individual sewer catchments in the Borough.

2-1

Figure 2-2

A number of Etna’s collection sewers also service upstream catchment areas in Shaler Township that are directly connected into the Etna combined sewer system and are conveyed to the Etna Trunk line.

Due to the fact the Etna sewer system must manage both sewage and storm water, the system must regulate flow and incorporate points of relief to prevent backups and interruptions in service. The Borough of Etna combined sewer system has nine permitted overflows to Pine Creek; this includes an additional point of relief exists in the Etna-Shaler Trunkline at MH-7 added at the last NPDES Permit renewal. There are also two unpermitted points of discharge at MH-B23 (Parker Street) and MH-C108 (Maplewood). The following figure 2-3 shows the location of the CSOs and system regulators.

2-2

Figure 2-3

Because of hydraulic overloading of the Etna Trunkline, ALCOSAN system wet weather backups, regulator issues and limited collector system capacity, overflows occur to Pine Creek. Field observations and monitoring data indicate frequent overflow events occur from the Etna Combined Sewer system.

The existing Etna sewer system performance has been evaluated using the ALCOSAN/3RWW flow monitoring data and the calibrated ALCOSAN Storm Water Management Models (SWMM). The SWMM model results provide the system baseline for Grey Infrastructure and GI improvements under so-called Typical Year conditions, a regulatory wet weather benchmark for the ALCOSAN region.

During the Typical Year it is estimated that a total of 676 million gallons flow through the Etna sewer system. Of this amount, it is estimated that 66 million gallons or 10% of the total annual flow through the Etna collection system comes from upstream areas of Shaler Township. The model also predicted the frequency and volume of overflows.

2-3

Approximately an estimated 83 million gallons of sewage overflows annually to nearby Pine Creek and West Little Pine Creek or 13.6% of the total yearly sewer flow.

From the standpoint of the ALCOSAN Point of Connection (POC) and again based on the Typical Year, SWMM modeling estimates Shaler contributes 66% of the annual flow volume to A-68. Etna and Ross contribute 25% and 9% respectively of annual total. The estimated total annual volume of sewage conveyed is on the order of 2400 million gallons.

The Etna SWMM model was used to develop CSO statistics including the percent of combined sewage captured in response to the presumption approach of the CSO Control Policy. The model was run to determine how much of the wet weather combined sewage volume per year would be captured during the Typical Year 2003. Based on the analysis of wet weather events during the Typical Year, it was determined that baseline capture percent for the Etna combined sewer system was 65.83%. This fell below the minimum capture percent under the Presumption Approach of the CSO Control Policy.

The Etna SWMM model result were also employed to compute the baseline loads of pollutants identified as impairing receiving waters. Pine Creek is on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters due to fecal coliform (FC) bacteria loads. Using accepted values for the fecal coliform in raw sewage, the SWMM model results were used to estimate the baseline FC loads from the Etna CSOs during the Typical Year 2003. The baseline annual FC load is estimated at 5.64E +14.

2-4

3.0 GSI SITE FACTORS

The Borough of Etna presents a densely developed urban setting that is challenging for GSI. Steep slopes, poorly draining soils, and dense development characterize much of the Borough.

As a major consideration of this study is relating the runoff management impacts of GSI sites on the Borough’s CSOs, it is necessary to relate site factors with respect to each CSO tributary area or catchment that may limit or facilitate GSI performance. Figure 3-1 below again presents the respective catchments for the CSOs, shown as triangles in the combined sewer system.

Figure 3-1

The detailed GIS analysis performed to characterize the respective slopes, soils, and impervious surfaces for each CSO tributary area is presented in Appendices B, C, and D.

SLOPES

Etna’s CSO catchment topography is dominated by areas with steep slopes-more than 75% of the tributary areas have slopes greater than 5%. The table summarizes the GIS analysis performed to determine the acreage and overall percentage of catchment area represented by steep slopes (> 5%) in each catchment:

3-1

Total CSO Catchment Steep Slopes % Steep Slopes Catchment size Acres (>5%) Acres (>5%) 1 84.1 58.6 70% 1A 47.1 26.7 57% 2 142.3 119.1 84% 3 157 131.9 84% 4 27.9 11.9 42% 5 60.5 46.1 76% 7 13.1 12.1 93% 8 15.44 6.1 40% Parker B-23 96.87 75.2 78% C-108A* 14.56 13.1 90% Total: 644.31 487.7 76%

* Sub-Catchment CSO 1A

With the exception of the catchments for CSO 4 and CSO 8, the majority of the Etna CSO catchment areas are mapped as steep slopes. Steep slope are an important factor limiting GSI facilities.

OPEN SPACE

The amount of open space is significant in providing general guidance with respect to development density and potential GSI sites. The table below present the amount of open space mapped for each catchment:

Total CSO Catchment Open Space Catchment size Acres (Acres) % Open Space 1 84.1 1.9 2% 1A 47.1 0.6 1% 2 142.3 0.7 0% 3 157 4.9 3% 4 27.9 0.9 3% 5 60.5 2.2 4% 7 13.1 0.0 0% 8 15.44 2.3 15% Parker B-23 96.87 5.4 6% C-108A* 14.56 0.3 2% Total: 644.31 18.9 3%

There is little available open space in the Borough’s CSO catchments. Overall 3% of total area contributing to the CSOs is mapped as open space.

IMPERVIOUS AREA

The Borough is oriented along hydrologic features and transportation corridors. As can be seen in the Figure 3-2 below large amounts of roofs, parking lots and other impervious surfaces adjoin watercourses. The amount of impervious area is significant in providing general guidance with respect to potential GSI sites.

3-2

Figure 3-2

The following table summarizes the amount of impervious cover associated with each CSO catchment tributary area:

Project CSO Boundary (sq Impervious Impervious Catchment ft) Cover (sq ft) Cover % 1 3,663,391 1,532,994 41.8% 1A 2,074,922 1,178,899 56.8% 2 5,923,925 1,011,666 17.1% 3 6,839,500 1,460,064 21.3% 4 1,214,743 702,245 57.8% 5 2,637,071 1,059,851 40.2% 7 569,502 56,812 10.0% 8 785,686 510,457 65.0% Parker B-23 4,185,848 1,012,954 24.2%

SOILS

Soils are a critical determining factor in GSI design. Information on the availability of appropriate soils for infiltration is needed for GSI planning unless recourse is made to engineered soil materials. Figure 3- 3 presents the mapping of soils by hydrologic soil group. In general, Hydrological soil group B (the green areas in the figure) are amenable to GSI installations. The remainder of the Borough is mapped as

3-3 either group C (purple or orange) or C/D (yellow). However the extensive industrial land use and long term human habitation of the area has caused many areas to be mapped as Urban land reflecting the soil column disturbance and alteration that may have occurred. Unfortunately the reliability of the mapping is often compromised in this context and greater reliance must be placed upon field evidence or corroborating documentation.

Figure 3-3

The following table summarizes the relative mapped soils by hydrologic group by each CSP catchment:

CSO Soil Hydro Soil Hydro Soil Hydro Catchment Group B Group C Group C/D 1 65% 35% 0% 1A 56% 22% 23% 2 7% 11% 82% 3 6% 5% 89% 4 0% 94% 6% 5 61% 16% 22% 7 49% 2% 49% 8 15% 85% 0% Parker B-23 12% 25% 63%

As can be seen in the table, soils in Hydrologic Group B predominate in the areas tributary to CSOs 1, 1A, 5 and 7.

3-4

It has been discussed that problems with soils mapping often occur when tracts are mapped as Urban land. When the reliability of the soils mapping is in question, care must be taken in applying exclusionary criteria in GSI planning studies. A second hazard lies in that the hydrogeological context may be obscured. The Borough of Etna, sections of the City of Pittsburgh and similar situated municipalities on all three rivers are located on regionally significant Quaternary Alluvial formation, also known as the valley fill formation (Piper, 1933). Traditionally utilized for water supply and downtown building heating/cooling, (Gallager, 1973; Van Tuyl, 1951), this sand and gravel formation has potential opportunities and limitations with respect to GSI. Recent intensive hydrogeological investigations in Etna have yielded a majority of hydraulic conductivity results that fell in the range of 10 to 100 feet/day. The results also indicate infiltration should be done with provisions to avoid degradation. Consequently all GIS planning concepts that divert and remove stormwater from the combined sewer system employ some kind of treatment- green inlets, high rate bio-filtration, etc. –before storage for infiltration and/or discharge to the environment.

PARCEL SIZE

Along with the limitation imposed by soils and slopes, the available space on to which a GSI must be sited greatly influences GSI facility planning and implementation. Figure 3-4 below illustrates the property parcels within the Borough of Etna.

Figure 3-4

3-5

The following table average and median parcel size along the average building footprint in areas zones residential R-1 and R-2.

Total Ave Bldg Footprint CSO Catchment Avg Parcel Size Median Parcel Area Resid Zoning: Catchment size Acres (SF) Size (SF) R-1, R-2 (SF) 1 84.1 6,327 4,067 725 1A 47.1 10,934 4,021 725 2 142.3 8,969 2,741 773 3 157 13,561 5,835 988 4 27.9 4,801 2,568 823 5 60.5 6,195 4,654 802 7 13.1 6,867 5,087 840 8 15.44 3,778 2,484 1,112 Parker B-23 96.87 20,486 5,507 997 C-108A* 14.56 6,874 4,856 716 Total: 644.31

* Sub-Catchment CSO 1A

The median parcel size ranges from 2500 square feet to 5800 square feet. The limited available land suggested that finding a well situated site for GSI may be challenging. It also suggested that source reduction technologies that are not as space consumptive as other techniques be examined closely for potential use in planning GSI in Etna.

3-6

4.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Etna’s Feasibility Report, mandated under its consent order, identified surcharging segments and associated surcharge levels projected for the Typical Year storms. Improvements are needed for higher levels controls as neither the existing combined sewer system nor the Etna Trunkline can convey required wet weather sewage volumes within the CSO activation range specified by regulatory guidance. Moreover, CSO volume reductions have been mandated under the Pine Creek TMDL to achieve water quality compliance. The TMDL also required load reductions from the Borough’s stormwater outfalls under its MS4 permits.

Etna has evaluated the collection system conveyance improvements required to reduce the number of activations at its permitted overflows and the two unpermitted points of overflow from its combined sewer system unpermitted overflows MH-B23 (Parker) and MH-C108A (Maplewood).

Based on the above requirements, the Borough has concluded that the 8-12 overflows per year level of control is appropriate for the Etna combined sewer system for the following reasons:

1. It achieves the elimination or capture for minimum treatment of no less than 85% by volume of the combined sewage collected during precipitation events on a system-wide annual average basis. Table 1 below summarizes the capture statistics for these levels of control versus the computed Typical Year 2003 Baseline system wide capture.

CSO Level of Control (Activations) Wet Weather CSS Capture Volume (%) TY 2003 Baseline 65.8 0-3 CSO Events/ TY 2003 99.3 4-7 CSO Events/ TY 2003 99.1 8-12 CSO Events/ TY 2003 95.2

It can be seen that the 8-12 overflow level of control provides 95% capture.

2. It achieves 85% reduction in fecal coliform CSO loads to receiving waters. The 8-12 CSO level of control achieves an 88% load reduction from baseline TY 2003 loads.

The Borough’s feasibility Study has been submitted and is under review by regulators. Although the proposed level of control has not been accepted by regulatory agencies, it provides a useful basis for the purposes of the Etna GSI Master Plan in demonstrating GSI in achieving compliance objectives.

4-1

5.0 GREEN VS GREY INFRASTRUCTURE

In recent years, Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) has found their way into Combined Sewer Long Term Control Plans (LTCPs) and Wet Weather Plans (WWPs) as plan components. To date successful local and regional examples of GSI implemented for CSO control have been limited. Moreover it is unlikely that in most cases GSI technologies alone are sufficient to fully control CSOs. The current thinking appears GSI has a complementary role to play to “grey infrastructure”- traditional conveyance or treatment system improvements-as part of larger programs. Clearly that approach asks the question as to how much of the potential reduction can be achieved and at what cost.

For the purposes of this plan, GSI will also refer to source controls and other traditional stormwater BMPs in that they represent a sustainable stormwater management practice.

The Borough’s current compliance strategy currently emphasizes “grey components” because of observed conveyance issues. The Etna Trunkline is subject to hydraulic overloading from upstream sources and from backwater conditions created by the ALCOSAN system. Both of these factors result in an excessive frequency and volume of combined sewer discharges to Pine Creek from the Etna sewer system discussed previously. As Etna contributes approximately 25% of the total annual flow to the ALCOSAN Point of Connection (currently A-68) it is difficult to envision GSI solutions implemented in Etna playing a central role sufficient to convey the combined peak sewer flows from Etna, Ross Township, Shaler Township, and other upstream municipal systems without hydraulic overload.

Limited improvements to Etna Combined sewer system are needed to accommodate TY 2003 flows without surcharge and remove local restrictions that influence the operation of the collection system. These costs appear to be on the order of $300,000 if a level of control of 8-12 overflows is assumed. However the costs associated with Borough collection system improvements rise sharply to $1.3 million if a level of CSO control of 4-7 CSO activations would be required.

Therefore under its 2013 Feasibility Study the Borough stated it would look to achieve further reductions in CSO frequency at selected CSO points via the use of targeted “green infrastructure” where appropriate. The Borough thus envisions compliance control goals can be achieved at least in part by implementation of Green Infrastructure in tandem with traditional grey facility improvements.

Among the benefits, the Borough wants to evaluate if GSI can potentially reduce stormwater peak flows and volumes in both its Combined (CSS) and MS4 systems so that:

 CSS Peak reduction will reduce conveyance facilities size and cost  CSS Volume reduction will benefit both the Etna and the regional sewage treatment authority ALCOSAN/Regional system in reducing the amount of unbilled water to treat  The frequency and volume of CSOs will be reduced for the Borough’s NPDES mandated Long Term Control Plan.

Etna is also looking to see if GSI can be advantageously applied to mitigate the two unpermitted points of overflow from its combined sewer system at MH-B23 (Parker) and MH-C108A (Maplewood).

5-1

6.0 GSI TOOLBOX

GSI is designed to fit the surrounding land use and can depend on the following site specific factors:

 Slopes  Soils  Tributary area  Depth to water  Buffer distances to Roads, Streams, Buildings.

At the project inception, the following GSI measures were considered for inclusion under the Etna Master Plan:

a) Pervious pavement b) Rain barrels/cisterns c) Green roofs d) Tree planting e) Creation of green space on vacant lots such as Rain Parks f) Green streets g) Basin retrofits

Cisterns and rain barrels can be placed at most properties located within the sewershed without regard to soils, slope, perviousness, etc. There are no basins sited in the Borough that are candidates for retrofits for improved stormwater management. Likewise, the potential Green Roof installations involved private buildings other than the Borough Building and required a structural analysis to assess feasibility that was beyond the scope of this project. These were eliminated from the GSI analysis for this reason.

6-1

7.0 SCREENING BY RANKED LOCATIONS USING LBs GOAL PROCESS SOFTWARE

The RO Control Management strategy as well as the GSI facilities under the Etna Master plan need to reflect the physical realities of the Borough and the adjacent areas of Shaler Township. Runoff is generated from many small lots in steeply sloped upland areas in residential districts. This ultimately becomes surface water flowing along curb lines within public rights-of-way to be intercepted by the Etna combined sewer system.

The fundamental GSI philosophy under the Etna Master Plan is management of 90% of the runoff at “high yield” inlets that now enter the Borough’s sewer system as opposed to control of runoff from a percent of impervious surfaces.

The challenge is to retrofit GSI into an existing built environment rather than part of new construction. The most affordable and cost effective retrofit Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) in combined stormwater areas are located and sized where:

 Installation sites are just above existing combined stormwater inlets that see higher flow. In the Etna and elsewhere in the Pittsburgh area, we have found that 5% of the inlets handle more than 30% of existing runoff flows. When comparing inlets it is possible rank them by the amount of water entering the combined sewer system at that point. It is thus possible to identify the top 5% higher ranked inlets.in the system. Similarly the top 10% of the system inlets handle nearly half (47.1%) of inlet runoff. Higher ranked inlets typically have more than 0.5 acre of drainage area with higher percentages of impervious surface.  Land adjacent to the concentrated surface water flow paths (usually curb lines) need enough space and depth to intercept, pretreat, and slow release runoff preferably keeping any outflow from reentering the combined sewer network.

Therefore the starting point for the process is the base information for the Etna combined wastewater and stormwater network and the best available consistently integrated spatial databases containing overflow structures, catch basins (where surface water flows into the combined network), 3D surfaces, curbs, gutters, surface cover (paving, buildings, pervious surfaces), property ownership and uses.

The GOALprocess uses detailed 3D landform shape with curbs, gutters, buildings, surface cover, low points, and puddles to model how and where rain water flows through the landscape. Catch basins along curb lines and at low points are structures designed to get rainwater into the subsurface pipe network.

The following map shows where catch basins are located and ranks catch basins and their contributing drainage areas by annual rainwater runoff volume. Referring to the figure, 67.3 % of the runoff or 142.3 million gallons (mg) during the Typical Year 2003 would expected to reach 20% of the inlets identified as the two top ranked groups of inlets.

7-1

7-2

The top 50 high-yield potential surface water management sites are identified from the integration of the GOALprocess surface flow, the SWMM combined network model, and engineering evaluation of each site for its potential to intercept, filter or delay, and manage up to 90% of annual runoff from each drainage area. The Goal softwarewas able to determine potential contributing areas to each GSI site as can be seen below.

7-3

In order to evaluate GSI for compliance purposes it is necessary to group the potential GSI installation site and its associated drainage area by the CSO catchment where it is located.

7-4

The following map groups and highlights the ALCOSAN Basin Planner defined SWMM (EPA Storm Water Management Model) catchment name in which each installation site and its associated drainage area is located. A SWMM catchment is a defined area that flows into the modeled pipe network. The relationship allows GSI installations to be evaluated using the SWMM model.

7-5

The following map presents the annual volume of overflow computed by the Etna Existing Conditions pipe network model using the TY2003 rainfall. It also presents the computed runoff component for each catchment.

7-6

If the Etna Trunkline in Pine Creek is increased in size in accordance with Pine Creek Sewershed Joint Feasibility Study, this map groups and highlights the sharp reduction in TY 2003 modeled annual CSO volumes that would be discharged into Pine Creek following this gray infrastructure upgrade.

7-7

By varying storage and other GSI parameters, GOALprocess software was used to size GSI and surface water management features to achieve the desired 90% runoff management for the Typical Year 2003 rainfall. This map groups and displays the simulated performance of Etna GSI sites in Millions of Gallons of managed rainwater runoff for the typical year.

7-8

A final consideration is whether the GSI removes surface water via infiltration / evapotranspiration /diversion from the Etna sewer system (FIRm) or delays and return it via storage (DRt). Both management strategies are used depending on the location and the site specific considerations.

7-9

The map highlights two surface water management strategies. Both strategies illustrated here intercept surface water runoff along existing curb lines within public rights-of-way. The strategies differ based upon how they manage water and where the sites are located in Etna. A GSI strategy of 'Filter, Infiltrate, and Remove' (FIRm) is proposed for high flow sites on the lower and main streets of Etna that are close to Pine Creek or in locations that have been mapped as being in the Valley Fill (Quaternary) sands and gravel formation in Figure 7-1 below . Based on the modeling it possible to manage 17.3 mg annually in this manner.

Figure 7-1

On the other hand, sites with steep slopes or far from Pine Creek would use 'Delay and Return' (DRt) with no or limited removal. In this strategy runoff is intercepted, delayed, and then returned to the existing network. The strategies are not mutually exclusive. If a DRt strategy is used, a future phase could extend a pipe down to a Green Stormwater infrastructure filtering and removal infiltration areas. Based on the modeling it is possible to manage 22.1 mg annually in this manner.

Based on the work done for this master plan it is feasible to manage a total of 39.4 mg year if all GSI sites are implemented. However, this level of RO management may neither be needed from a

7-10 compliance perspective or affordable financially. The potential sites were then reviewed and prioritized with respect to the following factors:

 CSO Catchment  Annual Volume RO Removed  Annual Volume RO Managed  Cost  Implementation

Because of the emphasis on flow paths in locating GSI sites and the necessity for interception of surface runoff along curb lines in the functioning of GSI, it was appropriate to look to new technologies that would be suited for roadway right of way (ROW) GSI installations.

Permeable pavements were not suitable for ROW sites due to suppliers’ concerns regarding sediment entrained in drainage run on and maintenance cost concerns. In addition, permeable pavements were not cost competitive as they involve a limited number of suppliers and installers. There were also concerns raised by PennDOT during the Highway Occupancy Permit process for the Phase 1 Green Streetscape project.

Permeable pavers appeared a better choice for municipal streets in that specialty installers were not required, they tolerate entrained sediment from run on, and maintenance was significantly easier and cheaper.

We have become convinced of the need to pretreat in the GSI process in advance of storage/infiltration facilities. Consequently we added “green” inlets to our revised GSI toolkits. A number of manufacturers are producing permanent pretreatment inserts for use in standard inlets. With minor design modifications, these appear to provide a degree of filtering as well as adsorbant and sediment control.

Because the necessity to pretreat/filter within the typical small lot size available in the Borough, we also looked proprietary high rate biofiltration systems and other technologies which can function within a smaller footprint. The Borough has installed one of these systems in order to evaluate their performance.

Lastly we looked for GSI technologies that are compatible with PennDOT standard designs as a number of locations involve installations within the PADOT ROW.

7-11

8.0 GSI COST ESTIMATES

The conceptual level costs presented under the Master Plan are based on retail materials costs, price quotes, and recent tabulated bid prices on GSI projects. PennDOT Street Restoration and Maintenance Bonds reflect actual costs for HOP security.

These are presented in the following table:

Cost Estimation Units Unit Costs Project Design, Engineering, & Construction Mgmt % 15.00 Outflow End Treatment lump sum $8,000 Each installation (23 installations total) Interception Structure each $6,500 Cubic Foot Volume Price /cuft $25.00 Square Foot Volume Price /sqft $10.00 Outflow Structure each $3,000 Outflow Pipe Length /ft $100 PADOT Bond (HOP ROW) $/1000 $30.25 Contingency % 25.00 Streetscape Portion Pavement SF $13.00 Curbing /ft $32.00 Grate /ft $300.00 Pervious Pavers SF $14.00 Trees each $520.00

8-1

9.0 MASTERPLAN

The Etna Borough Green Infrastructure Master Plan presents a prioritized program for the Borough consisting of:

 Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Projects  Residential Downspout Disconnection Program  Tree Planting (TreeVitalize)  Vacant Property Opportunity Projects (Rain Parks)

Although all these measures carry benefits to the community beyond regulatory compliance, the Master Plan focuses on the potential for GSI, or more precisely source reduction, to achieve compliance objectives in densely developed urban setting.

9-1

9.1 GSI PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

This section presents the planned and prospective GSI projects recommended for implementation in the Borough of Etna. Overall, the 23 projects represent a total of 33.6 acres GSI managed acres with 13.4 acres of managed impervious area. The Master Plan generally prioritizes projects into phases with respect to stormwater removal potential from the combined sewer system, benefits in meeting compliance goals such as CSO reduction, and their relationship to ongoing programs, e.g. Green Streetscape. Aside from the Green Streetscape, lower priority was given to GSI sites that required work within a state road right of way (ROW) because of permitting and bonding considerations. The figure below provides an overview of the Etna GSI Master Plan by phase and number of projects.

Phase 1: Green Streetscape

9-2

The objective of this multi-year multi-phase project is the removal of runoff from roofs and paved areas in the Borough of Etna Butler Street central business district from its combined sewer system with consequent reduction in the frequency and volume of combined sewer overflows as well urban runoff reduction. The project will retrofit new GSI features into the renovated streetscape.

The project will entail other improvements and traffic calming/safety features. By improving the aesthetics and function of Etna’s commercial district with a green streetscape, the community will encourage development that serves the economy, community, public health and the environment.

The full implementation of the Green Streetscape project in Etna will create storage sufficient to retain the runoff generated from between 2- and 5-year 1-hour storm from the contributing business district roofs and pavements. This translates into an estimated 155,000 gallons in runoff reduction from the design event of 1.25 inches. The following table summarizes the estimated annual capture based on TY 2003 simulations as well as the combined sewer outfall that would see the reduction in flow.

9-3

Individual site images are in Appendix F. A description of each Green Streetscape project phase follows:

Etna Green Streetscape Phase 1: Phase 1 of the project (047) is currently under construction- supported by PADEP Growing Greener and US EPA Section 319 Grants with a match by the Borough of Etna.

Acreage Managed: 0.598 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.470 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

This first phase would involve reconstruction of the east side of Butler Street between Bridge and Freeport Streets as well as the reconstruction of the north side of Freeport Street between Butler Street and Union Alley. This phase would involve installation of with 12 street trees, 2300 cubic feet of underground storage that would promote infiltration, 3900 square feet of pervious pavers, downspout disconnection and restatement to new conveyances and related work.

The project will entails other improvements and traffic calming/safety features: 562 feet of realigned curbing to create bump-outs, 4776 square feet of new concrete sidewalk, 403 feet of 12” wide decorative ADA compliant grate and trench, tree grates, four new curb ramps and two new inlets to accommodate parking area drainage.

Cost: $475,000 including engineering (Actual to date)

Etna Green Streetscape Phase 2: The design of the Phase 2 has been completed; supported by PADEP Growing Greener and US EPA Section 319 Grants. Construction is pending receipt of funding.

Acreage Managed: 0.621 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.425 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

This second phase (196) would involve reconstruction of the south side of Butler Street between Winschel and Freeport Streets as well as the reconstruction of the south side of Freeport Street between Butler Street and Cherry Alley. This phase would involve installation of planting areas with 9 street trees, 2400 cubic feet of underground storage in two locations that would promote infiltration, 1800 square feet of pervious pavers, a “Rain Park”, downspout disconnection and restatement to new conveyances and related work. Phase 2 would also include planting areas adjacent to the municipal parking lot on Winschel Street.

9-4

The project will entails other improvements and traffic calming/safety features: 554 feet of realigned curbing to create bump-outs, 6280 square feet of new concrete sidewalk, 660 feet of 12” wide decorative ADA compliant grate and trench, tree grates, six new curb ramps and a new inlet to accommodate parking area drainage.

Cost: $571,550, including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Etna Green Streetscape Phase 3: Phase 3 design is presently in the conceptual phase.

Acreage Managed: 0.829 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.638 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

This third phase (234) would involve reconstruction of the north side of Butler Street beginning opposite Praeger and extending to Walnut Street. It would also include the reconstruction of the west side of Butler Street between Walnut and High Streets. This phase would involve installation of planting areas with street trees, 3600 cubic feet of underground storage in two locations that would promote infiltration, downspout disconnection and restatement to new conveyances and related work.

The project will entails other improvements and traffic calming/safety features: feet of realigned curbing to create bump-outs, 7080 square feet of new concrete sidewalk, 640 feet of 12” wide decorative ADA compliant grate and trench, tree grates, five new curb ramps and a new inlet to accommodate parking area drainage.

Cost: $701,100, including engineering and contingency (Estimated)

Etna Green Streetscape Phase 4: Phase 4 design is presently in the conceptual phase.

Acreage Managed: 1.429 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.815 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

This fourth phase (060) would involve reconstruction of the west side of Butler Street beginning at High Street and extending to Maplewood Street. This phase would involve installation of planting areas with street trees, 2250 cubic feet of underground storage in two locations that would promote infiltration, downspout disconnection and restatement to new conveyances and related work.

The project will entails other improvements and traffic calming/safety features: 425 feet of realigned curbing to create bump-outs, 4400 square feet of new concrete sidewalk, 383 feet of 12” wide decorative ADA compliant grate and trench, tree grates, and new curb ramps.

Cost: $427,800, including engineering and contingency (Estimated)

Etna Green Streetscape Phase 5: Phase 5 design is presently in the conceptual phase.

Acreage Managed: 0.845 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.747 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

9-5

This fifth phase (374) would involve reconstruction of the east side of Butler Street beginning at Bridge Street and extending past Maplewood Street along the former industrial building frontage. This phase would involve installation of planting areas with street trees, 2250 cubic feet of underground storage in two locations that would promote infiltration, downspout disconnection and restatement to new conveyances and related work.

Cost: $828,200, including engineering and contingency (Estimated)

Etna Green Streetscape Phase 5A: Phase 5A design is presently in the conceptual phase.

Acreage Managed: 1.403 Impervious Acreage Managed: 1.273 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

This sixth phase (057) would involve reconstruction of the north side of Bridge Street beginning at Butler Street and extending to intersection with Freeport Street. This phase would involve downspout disconnection from the large industrial building, restatement to new conveyance piping to 3450 cubic feet of underground storage.

The project will entails other improvements: 525 feet of curbing, 4400 square feet of new concrete sidewalk, 383 feet of 12” wide decorative ADA compliant grate and trench, tree grates, and new curb ramps.

Cost: $416,900, including engineering and contingency (Estimated)

All streetscape components are within the public right of way with two exceptions:

 The four private parking pads fronting Union Alley: permission to construct GSI has been secured by Agreements with owners.  Potential use of a private gravel parking area as an infiltration area and storage for Green Streetscape Phases 3, 4, 5 and 5A (see figure below) This area would also be potentially used for Phase 2 project areas 056 and 056a. See figure below for the location of the subsurface infiltration area. The area would continue to be used for commercial vehicle parking.

9-6

The cost for the infiltration beds is proportionally included under the cost for each of the Streetscape phases. In the event the permission cannot be secured from the current owner of the parcel, subsurface storage and infiltration facilities would be incorporated into the respective streetscape phases as shown in the individual site images in Appendix F.

Phase 2 GSI Facilities

The objective of this phase is the management of runoff from areas tributary to CSO 1 that have potential for reductions in the frequency and volume of combined sewer overflows as well urban runoff reduction. Two sites (056 and 056a) adjoin the Borough of Etna Butler Street central business district and would complement Green Streetscape projects. The other two projects represent opportunity projects that could be implemented as funding opportunities present themselves. In the case of Site 225, GSI facilities have been funded by Three Rivers Wet Weather as project enhancement to the resurfacing of the Municipal Parking Lot No. 2. However additional GSI facilities are needed to manage remaining stormwater. Site 209 is located in Shaler Township but is tributary to CSO 1, therefore GSI implementation would benefit the Borough.

Refer to Individual site images in Appendix F.

The following table summarizes the estimated annual capture based on a 90/10 management strategy applied to TY 2003 simulations.

A description of each Phase 2 project follows:

9-7

Etna Phase 2 - Opportunity GSI Site 225:

Acreage Managed: 2.396 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.744 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

This Green Infrastructure design and construction project involves the installation of Green Infrastructure- runoff collection, proprietary high rate bio-filtration, subsurface stormwater management storage units with infiltration, plantings- during the resurfacing of the existing 4200 square foot municipal parking lot. The project will provide partial capture (approx. 25%) of estimated 1.15 mg runoff contributed annually by this catchment to the Etna Combined Sewer System. The screening identified a high yield inlet via the Etna GIS where GSI could be most advantageously sited. The project is funded by a combination of Borough funds and a 3Rivers Wet Weather Grant.

Full capture from the catchment under the 90/10 target would involve installation of an additional 4500 CF GSI facility in the Walnut Street ROW. The estimated cost for this additional GSI facility would be $190,000. The estimated cost is $ 0.22 per managed gallon.

Cost: $ 74,000 including engineering (Actual to date)

Etna Phase 2 - Opportunity GSI Site 209:

Acreage Managed: 1.365 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.177 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

This Green Infrastructure design and construction project involves the installation of Green Infrastructure- runoff collection, green inlet, 2200 cubic feet of subsurface stormwater management storage units with infiltration in the James Street ROW in Shaler Township. The facility would outlet to existing stormwater system.

Shaler Township cooperation would be required for this project to move forward.

Cost: $ 135,800 including engineering and contingency (Estimated)

Etna Phase 2 - GSI Site 056:

Acreage Managed: 1.481 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.735 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 056 involves the installation of Green Infrastructure- runoff collection, proprietary high rate bio- filtration, 3200 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration, plantings to manage stormwater runoff

9-8 from the street block bounded by Union Alley, Bridge and Freeport Streets. The preferred concept is to convey flow to subsurface infiltration facilities located in the existing gravel parking lot located across Bridge Street. Alternatively the GSI could be sited in the vicinity of the intersection of Freeport and Bridge Streets as shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. Bridge Street utilities may increase the project complexity and costs associated with conveyance to infiltration beds.

Cost: $ 128,700 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Etna Phase 2 - GSI Site 056a:

Acreage Managed: 0.578 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.273 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 056a project involves the installation of Green Infrastructure- runoff collection, proprietary high rate bio-filtration, 1200 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration, plantings to manage stormwater runoff from the drainage area generally described by Cherry Alley, Cherry and Freeport Streets. As in the case of GSI Site 056, the preferred concept is to convey flow to subsurface infiltration facilities located in the existing gravel parking lot located across Bridge Street. Alternatively the GSI could be sited in the vicinity of the intersection of Freeport and Bridge Streets as shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. However, this would involve siting facilities within the PADOT ROW. Bridge Street subsurface utilities may also increase the project complexity and costs associated with conveyance to infiltration beds.

Cost: $ 56,800 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Phase 3 GSI Facilities

The objective of this phase is the management of runoff from areas tributary to CSO 1A that have potential for reductions in the frequency and volume of combined sewer overflows as well urban runoff reduction. Two sites (067 and 372) are located just north of the Borough of Etna Butler Street central business district and would complement Green Streetscape projects. The GSI Site 243 and 238 projects propose GSI management facilities in the Pine Street ROW that would convey flow to nearby Pine Creek.

9-9

The following table summarizes the estimated annual capture based on a 90/10 management strategy applied to TY 2003 simulations.

A description of each Phase 3 project follows:

Etna Phase 3 - GSI Site 067:

Acreage Managed: 1.134 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.904 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 067 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, proprietary high rate bio-filtration, 3000 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from the drainage area generally described by Pine, Maplewood and Butler Streets. This project would disconnect roof drainage presently entering the sewer system and collect runoff from two municipal parking lots. There is also the potential to disconnect the Etna Borough municipal building and convey this runoff to GSI facilities. However this needs to be further explored. There are a number of locations for the GSI in the vicinity of the municipal building in addition to the ones shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. Some 9-10 of these would also involve siting facilities within the PADOT ROW. Butler Street subsurface utilities may also increase the project complexity and costs associated with conveyance to Pine Creek. With advanced planning, it may be possible to connect and share GSI facilities with the Green Streetscape Phase 5 (Site 374).

Cost: $ 124,000 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Etna Phase 3 - GSI Site 238:

Acreage Managed: 0.592 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.305 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 238 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, high rate biofiltration and/or inlet treatment inserts, 3200 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from the Etna Town Centre. This project would disconnect parking lot drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities. There are a number of locations for the GSI in the vicinity of the municipal building in addition to the ones shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. This project would also involve siting facilities and other work within the PADOT ROW. Butler Street subsurface utilities would also increase the project complexity and costs associated with proposed final conveyance to Pine Creek.

Cost: $ 325,800 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Etna Phase 3 - GSI Site 243:

Acreage Managed: 1.799 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.471 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 243 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, new inlets with treatment inserts, 3300 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from areas tributary to west side of Pine Street in the block between Maplewood and Garrick Streets. This project would intercept drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. Pine Street subsurface utilities would increase the project complexity and costs associated with proposed final conveyance to Pine Creek.

Cost: $ 319,100 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Etna Phase 3 - GSI Site 372:

Acreage Managed: 1.835 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.337 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 372 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, new inlets with treatment inserts, 3300 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from areas tributary

9-11 to the west side of Pine Street between Garrick Street and the north end of the street. This project would intercept drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. Pine Street subsurface utilities would increase the project complexity and costs associated with proposed final conveyance to Pine Creek.

Cost: $ 175,400 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Phase 4 GSI Facilities

The objective of this phase is the management of runoff from areas tributary to CSO 4 that have potential for reductions in the frequency and volume of combined sewer overflows as well urban runoff reduction. Three sites are located just north of the Borough of Etna Butler Street central business district and would complement Green Streetscape projects. The GSI Site 163 and 164 projects propose GSI management facilities that would convey flow to nearby West Little Pine Creek via the Borough’s dedicated stormwater conveyance facilities in Wendelin Street.

GSI Site 168 would manage drainage from the south side of Wilson Street via Church Alley and the adjacent parking areas for the All Saints Church complex and behind Alioto/Martin Tire. The following table summarizes the estimated annual capture based on a 90/10 management strategy applied to TY 2003 simulations:

Etna Phase 4 - GSI Site 163:

Acreage Managed: 0.885 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.704 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 163 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, new inlets with treatment inserts, 2200 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from Etna Technical Center parking lots and areas on the south side of Wilson Street. This project would intercept drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities shown in the site 9-12 graphic in Appendix F. GSI Site 163 project proposes GSI management facilities that would convey flow to nearby West Little Pine Creek via the Borough’s dedicated stormwater conveyance facilities in Wendelin Street.

Cost: $ 101,300 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Etna Phase 4 - GSI Site 164:

Acreage Managed: 0.760 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.320 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 164 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, new inlets with treatment inserts, 1500 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from residential block bounded by Martha, Sheridan, Wendelin and Dewey Streets. This project would intercept drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. GSI Site 164 project proposes GSI management facilities that would convey flow to nearby West Little Pine Creek via the Borough’s dedicated stormwater conveyance facilities in Wendelin Street.

Cost: $ 76,200 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Etna Phase 4 - GSI Site 168:

Acreage Managed: 0.960 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.706 GSI Management Strategy: DRt/FIRm

GSI Site 168 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, new inlets with treatment inserts, 2350 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from the south side of Wilson Street via Church Alley and the adjacent parking areas for All Saints and Alioto/Martin Tire. This project would intercept drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. The removal potential for this project is not clear; currently it is classified under delay and return facility (DRt). Dewey and Crescent Street subsurface utilities adversely impact the feasibility of final conveyance to Pine Creek versus continued conveyance to the combined sewer system. Further work is needed to determine whether conveyance to the Wendelin Street stormwater facilities is a feasible alternative.

Cost: $ 155,600 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Phase 5 GSI Facilities The objective of this phase is the management of runoff from areas tributary to CSO 5 that have potential for reductions in the frequency and volume of combined sewer overflows as well urban runoff reduction. There are four GSI sites and one Opportunity Project under Phase 5 as shown in the figure.

9-13

The following table summarizes the estimated annual capture based on a 90/10 management strategy applied to TY 2003 simulations:

A description of each Phase 5 project follows:

Etna Phase 5 - Opportunity GSI Site 173:

Acreage Managed: 3.082 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.403 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 173 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, inlet treatment inserts, 5550 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from the drainage area generally described by Lehr and Adele Avenues in Shaler Township and Vilsack Street in Etna. This project would intercept drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. Grant Avenue subsurface utilities may also increase the project complexity and costs associated with conveyance to Pine Creek.

Cost: $ 213,100 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

9-14

Etna Phase 5 - GSI Site 011:

Acreage Managed: 1.005 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.490 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 011 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, inlet treatment inserts, 2500 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from the drainage area generally described by Church Street and Wilson Street. This project would intercept drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities located in the Wilson Street ROW as shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. Grant Avenue subsurface utilities may also increase the project complexity and costs associated with conveyance to Pine Creek.

Cost: $ 103,500 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Etna Phase 5 - GSI Site 014:

Acreage Managed: 1.564 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.644 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 014 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, inlet treatment inserts, 3500 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from the drainage area generally described by Highland and Weible Streets and Angle Alley. This project would intercept drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities located in the Grant Street ROW as shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. Grant Street subsurface utilities may also increase the project complexity and costs associated with conveyance to Pine Creek. This project would also involve siting facilities within the PADOT ROW which would impact implementation and costs.

Cost: $ 142,400 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Etna Phase 5 - GSI Site 014a:

Acreage Managed: 0.383 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.249 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 014a project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, inlet treatment inserts, 1000 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from the drainage area generally described by Highland Street, Angle Alley and Grant Avenue. This project would intercept drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities located in the Grant Street ROW as shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. Grant Street subsurface utilities may also increase the project complexity and costs associated with conveyance to Pine Creek. This project would also involve siting facilities within the PADOT ROW which would impact implementation and costs.

9-15

Cost: $ 50,600 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Etna Phase 5 - GSI Site 099:

Acreage Managed: 4.189 Impervious Acreage Managed: 1.130 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 099 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, inlet treatment inserts, 7000 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from the drainage area generally described by the east side of Grant Avenue between Highland and Mt. Hope Streets. This project would intercept drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities located in the Grant Street ROW as shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. Grant Avenue subsurface utilities may also increase the project complexity and costs associated with conveyance to Pine Creek. This project would also involve siting facilities within the PADOT ROW which would impact implementation and costs.

Cost: $ 270,800 including engineering and contingency (Estimate)

Etna Phase 5 - GSI Site 172:

Acreage Managed: 1.850 Impervious Acreage Managed: 0.474 GSI Management Strategy: FIRm

GSI Site 172 project involves the installation of GSI- runoff collection, inlet treatment inserts, 3000 cubic feet of subsurface storage with infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from the drainage area generally described by the west side of Grant Avenue above Vilsack Streets. This project would intercept drainage presently entering the combined sewer system and convey this runoff to GSI facilities located in the Vilsack Street ROW as shown in the site graphic in Appendix F. Grant Avenue subsurface utilities may also increase the project complexity and costs associated with conveyance to Pine Creek. This project would also involve siting facilities within the PADOT ROW which would impact implementation and costs.

Cost: $ 124,000 including engineering and contingency (Estimate) Phase X GSI Facilities-Future

The remaining 27 sites identified for GSI are limited either by slope, soils, location or other factors that reduce their value as sites for the management of runoff from areas tributary to Etna combined sewer system. In most cases, these sites are limited to a delay and return strategy (DRt). Comparing DRt to GSI techniques that remove water via infiltration and evapotranspiration, storage facilities are increasingly found to have a limited potential for reducing the frequency and volume of combined sewer overflows as well as in urban runoff peak flow reduction.

The Phase X sites are of interest as target areas for the Borough’s Residential Downspout Disconnection program discussed below.

9-16

9.2 RESIDENTIAL DOWNSPOUT DISCONNECTION PROGRAM

The Borough has enacted an ordinance that incentivizes those residents who elect to disconnect their roof leaders and install rain barrels and cisterns. There is an intrinsic value of the Borough’s program in terms of fostering awareness of wet weather issues and participation in community control efforts. There is also an incremental value in any source reduction efforts. Cisterns and rain barrels can be placed at most properties located without regard to soils, slope, perviousness, etc. in contrast to other GSI that must fit the surrounding land use and depend on site specific factors to be effective. Many of Etna’s residential sections are characterized by steep slopes and small sized parcels. Combined with their low cost, it is tempting to find a role for these GSI techniques in CSO compliance planning.

However the value of the Borough’s residential downspout disconnection program is difficult to assess with respect to a CSO compliance master plan. A comparative performance analysis between cisterns, rain barrels and ROW GSI facility was performed using an example area on Maplewood Street tributary to CSO1A. Site solution options can be compared in Appendix G.

The following results of the performance analysis as summarized in the following table are instructive.

Annual

Modeled Solution Acres Projected

Capture Acres off Option Description NOT Installation Comment & Managed Groupings Managed Cost Run Projected Reduction

Removal Installation Cost per Gal Cost

(mg) Maintainability ROW interception Best Option a1 0.860 1.95 0.00 $167,038 $0.194 81% H entire catchment ROW interception no high cost p2 0.467 1.51 0.44 $136,275 $0.292 44% H roof areas no ROW interception + p2+r3 0.839 1.95 0.00 $205,275 $0.245 79% L maintenance 100% roof cisterns no ROW interception + p2+r4 0.609 1.95 0.00 $150,075 $0.246 58% L maintenance 100% roof rain barrels no ROW interception + p2+r5+r6 0.724 1.95 0.00 $177,675 $0.245 68% L maintenance 50% cistern +50% RB no ROW interception + p2+r5 0.653 1.73 0.22 $170,775 $0.262 62% L maintenance 50% cistern no ROW interception + p2+r6 0.538 1.73 0.22 $143,175 $0.266 51% L maintenance 50% rain barrel no peak r3 100% roof cisterns (24) 0.372 0.44 1.51 $69,000 $0.185 35% L control no peak 100% roof rain barrel r4 0.142 0.44 1.51 $13,800 $0.097 13% L control [RB] (24) no peak r5 50% roof cisterns (12) 0.186 0.22 1.73 $34,500 $0.185 18% L control no peak 50% roof rain barrels r6 0.071 0.22 1.73 $6,900 $0.097 7% L control (12)

From the performance analysis summary table, the following observations can be made:

9-17

 The number of participating properties is critical in the effectiveness of rain barrels and cisterns.

 Rain barrels are the least cost GSI technology on per gallon basis- $0.097/gal.

 Rain barrels require at least 50% participation for minimal reductions; however even installing rain barrels on 100% of the roofs yields the smallest runoff reductions.

 ROW interception facilities consist of inlets with treatment inserts and subsurface storage/infiltration modules. They have the best combination of performance and cost versus either rain barrels or cisterns.

 Cisterns have better capture than rain barrels but are less cost effective than the ROW GSI:

1) Cisterns alone have a significantly lower capture at approximately the same cost per gallon as ROW GSI; 2) Cisterns in tandem with ROW facilities have a significantly higher cost per gallon as ROW GSI at roughly comparable capture rates.

 Combining GSI technologies improves capture but is less cost effective than ROW GSI alone.

The performance analysis points to properly located and designed ROW GSI facilities as the preferred option in achieving source reductions needed for cost effective CSO compliance under the Master Plan. However additional benefits can be achieved by incentivizing rain barrels and cisterns in high yield areas identified as Phase X Future under the Master Plan where conditions are not suitable for removal management techniques.

9.3 STREET TREE PLANTING

Street tree planting is often included as a component of GSI Plans. The Etna Green Streetscape includes street trees as a stormwater management component. The Borough has also partnered with TreeVitalize to begin a regular program aimed at increasing the number of street trees in the Borough.

In 2012 Allegheny County published the results of a county wide survey of tree canopy coverage. Tree canopy (TC) is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above.

Establishing a tree canopy goal is crucial for communities seeking to improve their green infrastructure. For example, the City of Lancaster Green Infrastructure Plan has targeted increasing the urban tree canopy from the current 28% coverage to a goal of 40%. To put this goal in perspective, research by Goetz et al. (2003) indicates that watersheds with 37% tree canopy can be categorized as “fair” in a stream health rating; watersheds with 45% tree canopy can be categorized as “good.”

The current tree canopy coverage for the Borough was assessed using the Allegheny County Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) database. In keeping with the CSO compliance perspective of the GSI Master Plan, the TC coverage data was analyzed by CSO catchments. Appendix C presents the results of the GIS analysis of the Etna CSO contributing areas. The table below presents the existing canopy coverage for each CSO catchment. 9-18

Project Boundary Tree Canopy Basin (sq ft) (sq ft) Tree Canopy % CSO 1 3,663,391 1,262,330 34.5% CSO 1A 2,074,922 681,753 32.9% CSO 2 5,923,925 3,942,044 66.5% CSO 3 6,839,500 4,142,132 60.6% CSO 4 1,214,743 317,523 26.1% CSO 5 2,637,071 1,020,999 38.7% CSO 7 569,502 421,730 74.1% CSO 8 785,686 52,373 6.7% B24 4,185,848 2,462,404 58.8%

The compliance benefits and costs of increasing the tree canopy coverage to 40% in the five catchments falling below that coverage value were examined. Reductions were estimated in two ways. The Etna SWMM model was used to estimate reductions for the Typical Year 2003 increasing the acreage for tree canopy to 40% coverage in tandem with the following TR-55 Curve number values after Saunders, 1983:

TR-55 CN Values Soil Class Tree Canopy Herbaceous Cover Artificial Surfaces Other B 55 61 98 82 C 70 74 98 87

The analysis showed achieving a 40% TC coverage in the tributary catchments to the Etna CSO resulted in an overall reduction in runoff among the five CSO catchments on the order of 10%. As might be expected, the greater reductions were associated with catchments with the smallest existing TC coverage.

The potential reductions in runoff were also estimated using annual interception rates in gallons per year for small and medium trees (Source: McPherson et al, USDA Northeast Tree Guide PSW-GTR-202, 2007). The number of trees was estimated by dividing the required area to achieve 40% TC by the 10- year tree cover areas for small and medium trees, 125 SF and 175 SF respectively. (City of Richmond VA Planning Commission Tree Canopy Chart 2002). The resulting annual reduction volume was estimated by multiplying number of trees by the average annual interception rates. Smaller runoff reductions on the order of 5% (2.4-5.4 MG/year) were estimated using this method.

A range of costs is presented. Recent average bid prices for street trees for GSI projects for 2-1/2” caliber trees have been running at $520/tree installed. Low end cost were derived from retail installed tree prices by local landscapers. These have been approximately half the bid cost on GSI projects. These were used in preference to the installation cost per tree of $800 generally given for GSI projects.

Annual costs were estimated using a range of $9 per tree per year for small trees and $15 per tree per year for medium trees for 20 year old trees. (Source: McPherson et al, USDA Northeast Tree Guide PSW- GTR-202, 2007). Annual costs appear to increase with tree age with conflicts between trees and power lines, sidewalks, sewers, and other elements of the urban infrastructure. These are more likely to occur after trees pass 30 years of age.

9-19

The following table presents the estimated number of trees, cost and benefits for a 40% canopy cover for each Etna CSO shed:

40% Tree Cover Req TC Small Trees Shed ACRES SF No of Trees HI Cost ($) Lo Cost ($) Upkeep ($/yr) Benefits (gal/yr) CSO 1 4.66 203,026 1624 $ 877,074.05 $ 406,052.80 $ 14,617.90 581,468 CSO 1A 3.40 148,216 1186 $ 640,292.26 $ 296,431.60 $ 10,671.54 424,490 CSO 4 3.87 168,374 1347 $ 727,376.54 $ 336,748.40 $ 12,122.94 482,224 CSO 5 0.78 33,829 271 $ 146,143.01 $ 67,658.80 $ 2,435.72 96,887 CSO 8 6.01 261,901 2095 $ 1,131,414.05 $ 523,802.80 $ 18,856.90 750,086 6523 $ 3,522,299.90 $ 1,630,694.40 $ 58,705.00 2,335,154

40% Tree Cover Req TC MediumTrees Shed ACRES SF No of Trees HI Cost ($) Lo Cost ($) Upkeep ($/yr) Benefits (gal/yr) CSO 1 4.66 203,026 1160 $ 626,481.46 $ 290,037.71 $ 17,402.26 1,341,134 CSO 1A 3.40 148,216 847 $ 457,351.61 $ 211,736.86 $ 12,704.21 979,071 CSO 4 3.87 168,374 962 $ 519,554.67 $ 240,534.57 $ 14,432.07 1,112,232 CSO 5 0.78 33,829 193 $ 104,387.86 $ 48,327.71 $ 2,899.66 223,467 CSO 8 6.01 261,901 1497 $ 808,152.89 $ 374,144.86 $ 22,448.69 1,730,046 4659 $ 2,515,928.50 $ 1,164,781.71 $ 69,886.90 5,385,951

Both the number of trees needed and the cost of achieving 40% tree canopy coverage in 10 years are striking. Longer time frames for achievement of coverage need to be considered. Nevertheless, compliance time horizons for addressing wet weather issues are less than 15 years. It appears that measureable benefits will need to be realized at a faster rate than via tree canopy growth.

When the first year cost of trees are compared to the runoff reduction in gallons, then a cost per gallon in range of $0.47-$1.51 results. When significant leaf cover area is achieved and for the following 20 year time frame these costs drop to $0.04-0.10/gallon.

Although a goal of 40% tree canopy may not be achievable within wet weather compliance time frames, a longer view needs to be considered with respect to tree planting as GSI practice. It is worth keeping in mind the other benefits cited by the 2012 Allegheny County TC report:

Tree canopy provides many benefits to communities, improving water quality, saving energy, lowering the temperature, reducing air pollution, enhancing property values, providing wildlife habitat, facilitating social and educational opportunities, and providing aesthetic benefits.

Based on the results of the tree canopy coverage analysis, tree planting efforts in the Borough should be targeted at locations in the areas tributary to CSO 8 and CSO 4.

9.4 RAIN PARKS

The Borough has incorporated the concept of Rain Parks into its GSI Master Plan as potential GSI sites.

The Borough of Etna has identified several vacant properties for potential development as Rain Parks under the Allegheny County Vacant Property Recovery Program. The purpose of the Allegheny County Vacant Property Recovery Program is to take blighted and/or tax delinquent properties and resell them to an applicant to reuse as determined by their application and as approved by the municipality. The

9-20

Borough has looked to use the program and other programs to acquire land as Community Parcels, which can be used for green space as well as GSI sites.

The Borough has identified three such properties:

 0 Freeport Street (formerly 6 Freeport Street)  14 Freeport Street  327 Butler Street

Conceptual layouts were done for the two Freeport properties and cost estimates made for their development as GSI/Green Space. The layout for the two properties as Rain Parks is presented below along with a sketch for 0 Freeport Street.

Based this initial work and its location with respect to the business district, 14 Freeport Street has been incorporated into the Green Streetscape Phase 2 design as a site for mini-park with high rate bio- filtration and subsurface storage/infiltration facilities. Ownership issues have complicated the acquisition of the second Freeport property. The intention is explore funding options and design following resolution of these issues. The planning level estimated cost for this Rain Park is $44,500. It should be noted that these properties are no longer buildable because of setback restrictions.

A conceptual plan for 327 Butler Street as municipal parking lot was also developed in the early phases of Green Streetscape planning incorporating pervious pavement, bioswales and other GSI features. Evaluation under this Master Plan did not reveal a potential for significant RO volume reduction for this site.

The compliance impact of these and other locations for GSI facilities are difficult to assess at this time but would be less significant than the ROW projects described previously.

9-21

10. GSI IMPLEMENTATION COSTS

The figure below presents the cumulative cost versus the amount of runoff (RO) managed in mg for the five phases of GSI implemented under the Master Plan. This does not include decorative Green Streetscape elements not related to GSI functioning.

The figure below presents the cumulative cost per gallon versus the amount of runoff (RO) managed in mg for the five phases of GSI implemented under the Master Plan . This also excludes decorative Green Streetscape elements not related to GSI functioning.

10-1

Looking at the long term, the 35 year total cost to the Borough for the 23 GSI sites would be $8.46 million assuming annual O &M costs of $2000 per inlet structure/year for cleaning and media replacement. The estimated cost of GSI would be s $ 0.015 per gallon over the 35 year period but no capital replacement has been factored in.

10-2

11.0 POTENTIAL GSI BENEFITS WITH RESPECT TO GREY INFRASTRUCTURE

Based on the work done for this master plan it is feasible to manage a total of 39.4 mg year if all GSI sites are implemented. During the Typical Year it is estimated that a total of 676 million gallons flow through the Etna sewer system. The projected GSI Annual Reduction from Phase 1 through 5 is 5.8% of this total.

A proposed upsizing to the Etna Trunkline in Pine Creek could eliminate overflows at CSO-4 and reduce Etna overflow volumes at CSO-1 to 0.14 million gallons, at CSO-5 to 0.57 million gallons, and CSO-1A to 6.12 million gallons. These three overflows would continue to release about 6.83 million gallons (a reduction of about 70 million gallons or 91%). Because of hydraulic overloading of the Etna Trunkline, GSI cannot feasibly replace this project.

In the case of CSO1A further reductions in CSO volumes are feasible via GSI. It is possible to manage a total of 9.35 mg RO annually using GSI facilities. Of this amount, it appears feasible to remove 4.83 mg/ year to CSO1A using GSI.

Implementation of GSI will have some effect in the reduction of peak flow in the collection system. Each of the GSI facilities sited in the Etna plan intercepts runoff flows from about 156 to 1150 gallons per minute and releases a maximize controlled flow of between 2.6 to 19.0 gallons per minute.

Based our review of modelling results, the GSI will have only very limited benefits in the reduction of grey infrastructure requirements for the Borough. This is due to the limited nature of the improvements to Etna Combined sewer system that are needed to accommodate TY 2003 flows without surcharge and remove local restrictions that influence the operation of the collection system. These costs appear to be on the order of $300,000 if a level of control of 8-12 overflows is assumed.

Given the observed costs of GSI, it is unlikely that GSI can replace grey infrastructure for these improvements. However GSI may be of value in avoiding the cost of $ 1.3 million needed in Etna collection system improvements if the next Level of CSO Control is required.

GSI would also be able to reduce flow to CSO 1A and have an effect on residual CSO flow, although the situation is complicated by the large number of unknowns surrounding the factors bearing on the CSO MH 108A upstream.

However, it is less clear that GSI is an alternative approach to grey solutions in closing the unpermitted CSO at MH C108A. There is little potential to remove flow from the system at the hilltop location, therefore a DRt (storage) strategy needed to be applied. Based on a SWMM model evaluation, the grey solution for closing MH C108A required installing 40,000 CF storage plus extensive piping revisions downstream to avoid surcharging. On the other hand to attempt to by GSI would require the installation of 10,500 cf of ROW GSI at three upstream locations identified as high yield sites. However GSI alternative could only manage 1.8 mg in wet weather flow reductions from tributary areas which appears to fall short of the reductions needed. Based on our conceptual estimate this would cost approximately $410,000 which is roughly equal to the gray solution of a detention tank and downstream piping modifications.

11-1

The potential for GSI to address the overflow at MH B-23 was also examined. While it may be possible to use GSI to reduce loadings at the unpermitted CSO at the Manhole B-23, there are too many significant unknowns at this time to render an opinion either way.

There is however the potential for GSI to effect significant reductions in the ALCOSAN Treatment costs for the Borough.

Using ALCOSAN tabulated annual revenue requirements for regular operations and its proposed wet weather facilities per its draft Wet Weather Plan (Reference: ALCOSAN Draft Wet Weather Plan Table 11-7 Projected Annual Revenue Requirements ($ millions)) ALCOSAN will have 35 year total revenue requirement of $ 11,987,700,000. This only includes the 2026 Recommended Plan for $2.172 billion. During this period ALCOSAN will treat 227.6 trillion gals of wet weather flow and 2,643.2 trillion gallons of base wastewater flow. Under the current billing structure only metered water use can be used as a basis for billing. So treating wet weather flow a combined sewer community is presently a non- recoverable cost.

Dividing the 35 year total revenue requirements by the number of treated gallons yields a cost of $0.00417/gal. This cost would be conservative because it does not include the revenue requirements for the ALCOSAN Selected Plan cost of $3.77 billion which were not included in the Draft Wet Weather Plan report.

If Etna implements all 5 phases of its full GSI program it would reduce flow to ALCOSAN by 16.1 mg annually or a 35 year total of 563,936,375 gal. The 35 year savings in treatment costs to ALCOSAN from Etna GSI flow reduction would be $ 2,354,973.95.

At present, there are no avoided costs for the Borough to consider in conveying wet weather flow to ALCOSAN because they are billed on metered water use. However the basis for ALCOSAN service billing could change. The avoided cost for the Borough over a 35 year period would be approximately $3.1 mil based on the current ALCOSAN rate per gallon.

The incorporation of the SWMM model allows an estimate to be made on the benefits of the GSI reductions in Etna- both within its system and to the ALCOSAN regional conveyance system. Due to the large amount of flow originating from upstream communities that must be conveyed to the point of connection, the benefit in the Etna system comes from the reduction in CSO frequency and volumes based upon EPA SWMM models of the combined stormwater system. Any effect of reductions on the sizing of downstream grey infrastructure conveying flow to the ALCOSAN point of connection A-68 would be minimal.

From the perspective of the ALCOSAN system, there would also appear to be some downstream benefits from source reduction in Etna. Based on the Existing Conditions SWMM model for Pine Creek, about 28% of reduced flow volume from GSI would benefit ALCOSAN operations and infrastructure. This analysis is presented in Appendix H.

11-2

APPENDIX A ! !! LIBE !! KLBFE DJBDG ! ! LIBL ! DL ! ! RMSVPURN ! !! ! ! ! LIBFI ! KLBDC !! LIBFJ LIBEJ !! !! !! LG LIBFH !! RMSVPURN !! KLBI !! !! KLBDD KLBFC !! LIBH !! !! HIG RMSVPURN KLBFG LDE KLBEL LIBFK !! !! !! ! LF DJBDC ! !! !! KLBH VZSV XYMYQUT ! ! RMSVPURN ! ! DJBDF !! ! !! KLBG KLBFD !! LIBFL !! !! LIBF !! LIBGD!! LIBK LE KLBF JNC ! DJBH !! !! ! !! !! KLBDE LIBI !! LIBDC ! DJBDG !! ! !! !! LIBGE LIBJ ! ! ! !! LD !! KLBEK DK DJBF !! ! !! ! KLBE RMSVPURN LJD ! ! ! HRD DJBI ! OWBECE OWBECD ! ! DJBE ! LIBDE LIBDF ! ! ! ! ! OWBECG ! ! ! ! !! LIBGF KLBEJ OWBECF !! !! LIBDD !! ! RMSVPURN !! DJBD DJBDH ! LC !! !! ! !! ! ! LIBDG ! KLBD DJ ! ! ! OWBECC ! ! !! ! DJBJ !! ! !! LIBDI LIBDK!! !! OWBDLL DJBDI !! LIBDH DJBDJ ! HRE ! ! !! ! ! DJBDL OWBDLK ! !! LIBEF ! !! KLBC DJBDK !! DI !! KL !! DJBEC ! OWBDLH ! ! OWBDLJ OWBDLI ! ! ! ! KK !! ! OWBECH LIBDL ! ! OWBDLG ! !! ! !! ! !! LIBEC HPC DH !! !! GBEJ !! GBEI GBEK !! LIBEG ! LDC !! HKG GBEL ! LIBEI !! OWBDLF ! DJBK ! GBFC !! OWBECI ! ! ! ! ! ! LIBED RMSVPURN LIBEH GBEH KJ ! ! ! !! !! !! !! OWBDLE DG HPD !! DF ! DJBEE ! ! OWBDLC ! ! LIBEE ! ! ! !! GBEG ! !! OWBDLD DJBED !! !! GBHG OWBECJ ! !! KI OWBDKL ! GBFD !! !! RMSVPURN !! !! LDE GBEF HIG DJBL !! DJBEF !! !! KH OWBDKK !! DEM ! !! !! GBEE ! RMSVPURN HIG HRE ! !! KGBD GBED !! ! OWBDKJ OWBEGC ! GBDH !! OWBEDI !! RMSVPURN! OWBEDD ! ! GBEC GBDL !! !! ! ! !! ! OWBEDE OWBEDJ ! !! GBDK ! !! ! !! OWBEDF DE ! ! OWBDKI OWBEDC! ! OWBDHF !! OWBEDK HIG !! !! RMSVPURN OWBECK GBDG !! ! !! ! ! OWBEDH OWBEEE ! KG !! OWBEDL OWBEED! FSD GBHE ! OWBECL OWBEDG ! !! ! GBDI ! OWBDKH ! ! ! ! ! GBDJ ! RMSVPURN !! ! ! GBHD ! ! ! ! ! GBHF !! RMSVPURN! LDC ! ! RMSVPURN OWBDKG ! ! GBHC ! !! !! OWBEFL ! OWBEEC ! KEBI OWBDKF ! DD LDE ! ! ! ! OWBEEF ! !! ! ! ! GBGL !! !! GBGI DC GBGK !! !! !! L K J ! !! ! !! ! GBDE GBDF ^YD^JJ ! ! ! ^YDVILR KF ! ! ! ! GBGH ^YDVIKR! ! ! ! ! ! KDHG " ! ! ! GBDC ! !^YDVIIS ! "! ! !" ^YDVIKS ! !! !! ! GBL ! ! ! OWBDHE KE^YD^JI ! ! OWBEFJ ! ! ! ! KEBD OWBEFK GBGG ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! I HBG GBGJ!! !" ! KEBF ! ! ^YDVIJR ! ! ! ! ! ! OWBDKE ! ! ! ! KEBG ! ! ! HBH ! ! ! !! GBK ]hsvourl !! ^YDVILS ! !! RMSVPURN !! LDF ! OWBDKD ! !! OWBEFH OWBEFI ^YDVIJ ! ! OWBEEG ! !! ! !! ! FTD HBE GBJ ! " HBD! HBF ! GBI " ! H ! ! RMSVPURN! ! ! ! ! ! ! LC !! ! !! ! HRD OWBEEH OWBDJK !! GBH !! !! OWBEEI OWBEFC OWBDJJ !! !! OWBEFG !! OWBEFF !! OWBDJL ! ! ! ! ! MOC GBG !! OWBEEJ OWBEEL OWBEFD! ! ^YDVIIREH !! !! ! !"! OWBDJI ! ! !! !! HRE ! ! GBF ! ! OWBEGL !! ! KEBE OWBDKC !! GM ! !" ! ! !! GBE ! KEBH ! ! ^YDUKH OWBDJH ! ! ^YDVII ! ! !"! !" !! ^YDVIHS!! ^YDVIIR !! "! !"! !!^YDVIHR ! ^YDUJN OWBEGK G ! ! !! GBD ^YD^JH ! ! ! ! OWBDJG ! GBFE ! ! ! ^YDVIO ! ! ! OWBEGJ ! OWBDHC ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! KD ! OWBDHD !" ^YDVIOR"! OWBEHC ! ! ! ^YDUKI ^YDUKIREJ ! !! !" ! OWBEGI !! !! !! !! OWBEGD !! GBGC "! !! ^YDVIL! ! "! !! GBFL !" ^YDUKIREH GBFF !! ^YDVHL^YDVIH"! RMSVPURN!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ^YDVHLR!! ! ! !" HRD OWBEHE OWBEHF OWBEHG OWBDJF ! ! !! !! ! ! ^YDVHKR^YDVHK ]ptjurt !! ! ! ! OWBEHH " OWBDJE ! !! ! !! OWBEHD! ! !! ^YDVHJ ^YDVIN ! ! ! ! "! LDC !" ! !! F !"! OWBDJD ! !! HKG !! OWBDGL ! EBD !! ! GBFG ! ! ^YDVIM! ^YDUJO OWBDJC ! " ^b_DJK ! ! GBFK ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^YDVHKS ! !"! ! !^YDUJNR !^YDUKJR ! "! !! HPC OWBEGG ! OWBEGF OWBEGE ^YDVHI ! !! !! OWBDGI ! ^YDUKIREI !! ! E ^YDUJOR ! !! ! ! FTD !! ^YD^JG ! OWBDIL ! ! ! ! ^YDVIHRH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! GBFI ! ! !! GBGE ! ^YDVJS EQC !! EBE GBFH ! ! ^YDUKJ !! ^YDVHP" ! !! ! GBGD ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! OWBDIK !! ! !! "! !! OWBEJK OWBEJL OWBEKC ! LC ! ! OWBEGH GBFJ OWBDGJ ! ! ! ! ^YDVHO ! ! ! ! ! !! OWBDGK !! ! !! !! ^YDUJP OWBEJJ ^YDbKH ^YDVHN ! ! OWBELC ! ! !! !! "! HIG ! OWBEKJ OWBELD OWBELE OWBELF ! ^YDVHNR ! !! ! OWBDIJ OWBEKL OWBEKK ! ! ! ! !" D ! ! ! ! ! !! OWBEKE OWBEKF ! !! ^YDVHM! ! ! ^YDUJPR OWBEJI OWBEKD " ^YDVIG" ! ! HPD !! ^YDVHH "! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ^YDUHO ! ! OWBEKI ! ! ! ^YDVLP !!"! ! ! ^YDVHOR! ! ! !! ! OWBEHI ! ^YDVIGR ^YDUKG "! ! ! !! ! !"! ^YDVHG ^YDVIGS ^YDÎP OWBEJH ! ^b_DHL ! !" ! !! OWBEKH ! ! ! " ! ^YDVPR ! ! ! !" !!" ^YDUHP ! ! ! ! "! ! " ! ! ! !" ^YDUIM ^YDUIG! OWBDII ^YDVJJR ^YDVJI" "! ! !! ! ! !! OWBEJG ^YDVJK ! ! ! OWBEJF OWBEKG ^YDbKG ! ! ! ! ! ^YDVJJT ! ! ! "! ! ^YDVP ! ! ! ! ! ^YDVJJ! ! ^YDVMG ! !! ! ! ^YDVJ OWBEJE ! "! !! ! ! ! ! OWBEJD ! ^YDVJLR ! !! ^YDVK "! ^YDVJREH "! ! !"! ! ! ! ! ^YDVMGS! ! OWBDIH " ^YDVJL ! ! ^b_DHM ! ! ! ^YDVJM "! ^YDUIL ! "! ! "! ! ! ! ! HPD ! ! ! !" ! ^YDVLGS!! ! "! ! ^YDVMGR ! ! ! ! !^YDUIH" ! ^YDVJMR OWBDIG OWBEJC ! ! ^YDVO LDE !! ! !! ! ^b_DHN ! !! ^YDUIK OWBDIF ^b_DGH"! !! ^YDVMH ! ^YDVLJ ^YDVLJR ^YDVLK ^YDVLKS^YDVIR! ^YDVI ! ^YDbJP^YDVLH ^YDVLI ! ^YDVLKR " HRE !" ! "! ! ^YDVKG ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "! Tb_BNC ! ! ! ! "! ! ! ! ^YDVMN ! ! ! ! ! !!!^YDVLG ! ! !! ! ! !! ! " " " ! " " ! ! ! ! ! " ! ^YDUHM "! ! !! ^YDVMHR! !" !! ^YDVJP! ^YDVJMS! ! ! ^YDUHK! OWBEIK OWBEIL OWBELG OWBELH ! ! ! ^YDUII ! ! ! ! !! ! ^YDVN ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! UPBJF ! "! ! ^YDUHL! !! ! ! !! ! ! !" OWBELI ! ^YDUHN OWBEIJ LJC ! !" !! ^YDVH ! !! OWBEII ! ! "! ^YDVKJREH ^YDbJM ! OWBEHJ ! OWBELL OWBFCC OWBELK ! ^YDbJO ^YDbJN ! ^b_DHJ ! !! ! ! ! !^YDVM ^YDVJR ! ! ! ! ! "! !!" ! ! ! !! !"! ! !"! OWBEIH ! ! ! ^YDUIJ ]hsvourl !! OWBFCD ^YDVMLEI ! ! ! ! " OWBEHK OWBFCG! ! ! " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! OWBEHL ! ! ! ! ^YDÎO ! ^YDUIIR! !! OWBFCE Tzxylw R~E Tlkhw R~E ^YDVLGR ^YDVMLEH ! ! ! ! !]hsvourl!!!" ! LDE ^b_DIG!! ^YDUHJ OWBEIC OWBFCH ! ^YDVKPR ^YDVKOS ^YDVJHR ! ! ! ! ^YDVKPS ^YDVLLT^YDVLL! ^YDV ^YDVJH" " ^YDVL ! ! ^YDVML ^YDVKKR ^YDVKK "! "! "! " "! ! ! ! ^YDVMJ ^YDVKJ "! ! ! ! ! ! !! ^YDVIP ! ^YDVMK! ! ^YDVMI "! ! ^b_DHP! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " ! LDF ^YDVMLS " ! ! ! " ! ! "! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^YDVJG ! ! " ! ! ! ! ! ! "^YDVLLR ! " ! ! ^YDVKH ! ! ! ! ! !! "!"! !" " "! !! ! ! !! ! ^YDUJK ! ^YDVKI ! ! !! ! ! HIG ! ! ! ^YDVKHR! ! ! !!" ^b_DHO ! ! ! ^YDUIP ! ! ! !" !" ! ! ! ! ! OWBFCJ UPBJD UPBJE ^YDVMLR ^YDVLLS ! ! UPBJC !"! "! Tb_BLC! ! ! ! ! !! DHBECE ! ! Tb_BKC! OWBEIG !! !! ! ! ^YDUJLR^YDUJM ! ^YDUJH ^YDUHLR ! ! ! ^YDUJG ! "! ! OWBFCI ! ! ! " ! ^YDVKL ^YDÎN ! " ! !! OWBEID OWBEIF ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^b_DIH ! ! ! OWBEIE ! " ! ! !! ! ! ! OWBFCK ! " ! UPBKC DHBECC ^b_DGI! ^YDbJI ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^YDVLNT ^YDbJK ^YDbJJ ^YDUHI ^YDUHLS ! ! ! ^YDbJL ! ^b_DGL! "! ! ! !^YDVLNU ! ! " ! ^YDUJJR ! UPBIL " !" ! !"! "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! DHBECD ^YDVKIREH ^YDVLNV!" ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! "! ! ! ! OWBDHL ^YDÎM ! ^YDUJMR !! ^YDUJJ !" DHBDLL ! "! ! ! !! ! ! ! !"! ^YDVLNS ^YDVLN ^YDVKM "! ^YDUNR !! ^YDVKLS ^YDVLNR ! ! ! ! " " ^YDUO " ! ! ! ! ^YDÎL ! "! ! ^YDVKLREH! ^YDVKLR ! ! " "! ^YDVMMEI! !^YDVMM! !^YDVKIR ! ! !! ! !! ^YDVKMR ! ! " "!^YDVMMR" !" ! " "! !" ! ! ^b_DGM! ^YDUHH ! UPBIJ UPBIH UPBIG ! ! ! "! ! ! !! ^b_DGJ ! ! !! !^YDUN UPBII ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !" "! ! "! ! !! ! ! !! "! ! ^YDUHG! ^YDUP DHBECF ! ! "! "! ! ! "! ! ! ! ^b_DGN ^YDUJI ! "! ! ! UPBJL "! ! !!!! !! !! !! OWBDHG UPBJH ^YDVLM ! !"! ! !! "! ^YDUM ! ^YDUJMS! UPBJK UPBIK ^YDVKIS ! ! ! !! !! DHBECG ^YDVKISEH ^b_DGK !" "! "! ! ! !! HTC !! ! ! !" ! ! ! "! ! ^YDVLO "! ^b_DGP "! ! !! ! ! "! ! ! ! " ! UPBIF ! ! ! " HRD "! !" ^YDUL! ! ^YDVKLT ! ! ^YDUNS "! "! " ! ! ! ! !"! ^YDVMMEH ! !! ! ! !"! ! ! ^YDVKIT ! "! "! ^YDUJ ! ! ! "! !" ! ! "! ! DHBDJF ! !"! !!! !^YDUK ! UPBJI UPBJG UPBHJ UPBHI UPBHH ! ^YDÎK ! ^YDUH ! ! !"^YDÎJ !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ctqtu|t ! ! ! ! !"! ! "! ! ! "! ^YDUI UPBHG ! ! ! ! ! "! ! UPBID UPBHL UPBHK UPBHF "! !! ! ^YDÎI ^YDÎH !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!"! ! UPBJJ ! ! ! ^YDUHR^b_DGO Tb_BIC ! DHBDJE !! Tb_BJC !! UPBGG !! ! ^YDÎGR^YDÎG !! ^b_DHG ! UPBHD UPBGK UPBGH UPBGF UPBGE ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !" !"! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! UPBFL ! ! UPBEE UPBGC! DHBDGL !! DHBDIL !! UPBFK DHBDJC ! ! ! ! ! !" ! ! DHBDIK ! DHBDLJ !! DHBDGK ! UPBED ! !! ! DHBDHC DHBDHD ^YDTHHL _W "! ! ! "! ! ! DHBDJD ! !! ! UPBGI !! ! ! ^YDTHGO UPBIE !! ! !"! ^YDTHGN !! UPBIC UPBGL LDE!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!^YDTHGOR! ! !" ! ^YDTHGOS !" ! ^YD^HP RMSVPURN "! ! ! ! !! DHBDGJ DHBDHI !" ! !! !! ! DHBDHH UPBHE !! DHBDLE !! "! "! !! DHBDIG DHBDIJ ! ! ! ! DHBDIF UPBFF UPBFI ! ! UPBFH ! ! ! ^YDTHGPR ! ! ! DHBDHE DHBDHF DHBDHG ! !! ! HRD !! !! !! ! UPBFD ! !! UPBHC !! ! OWBFKH " "! OWBFJL OWBFKG! ! ! ! ! ^YDTPL UPBEC UPBEI ! ! ! ! ! "! ! ! OWBFKF ! ^YDTHGM ! ! ! OWBFJJ OWBFKC HPD OWBFKE ! ! ! !" ! ! !" "! UPBFG ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! "! "! !! ! ! ! ^YDTPK ^YDTHGP !" ^YDTHGKf UPBEJ OWBFJK ^YDTHGL ! ! ! ! ! " " "! " !! UPBGJ !! !" ! "! ! !! ! ! ! DHBDKL ! OWBFKI "! ! "! ! ! ^YDTHGKU "! ! !" ! ! ! ! ^YDTPJ ! ! ! ^YDTHGKT! ! "! ^YDTHHMTb_ HR UPBDL !! OWBFKD ! ! "! ! !! DHBDID DHBDII !! ^YDTPJR ! ^YDTHGKS! ! ! !! !! DHBDGI OWBGCK ! ^YDTHGKV! ! "! ^YDTHHMR ! ! ! UPBFE ! !! ! ! !! ! OWBFKJ !! "! "! !! DHBDIE DHBDIH DHBDHK OWBFKL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! OWBFJF ! ! ! ! ! DHBDHL OWBFJG ! ! ^YDTHHMS^YD^HO ! ! ! ! ! ^YDTHGKR ! !! !! ! ! ! ! OWBFJH OWBFJE ! ! byuwsg_zymhrrx ! ^YDTHHG ! !! HPC DHBDHJ OWBGCJ "! ! ! !! "! ^YDTHGK! UPBFC DHBDKK ! OWBFJI ! ! ! ! ! ! "! ! ! !! OWBFJD ! ! !! ! ^YDTPM ! ! !"! !"! DHBDFL DHBDGC OWBFJC ! DHBDKJ ! ! ! ! ! ThyjoihxptxLDF !! HPE ! DHBDGH ! !! ^YDTHHLS UPBF "! UPBDK !! UPBD OWBGDJ! ^YDTHHH UPBDJ !! DHBDGF OWBGCI !! "! ^YDTHGG !! !! UPBE RMSVPURN ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! UPBEK UPBEG ! ! ! ! UPBEL ! UPBEH ! ^YDTHHLR ! ! ! ! DHBDFJ "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! DHBDFK ! HKG ! ! !! DHBDGD OWBFKK ! bl|lwgbywzjyzwlx !! OWBFIL !! ! ! ! UPBG RMSVPURN ! OWBGCH ! ! OWBGCG ^YD^HN ! ! OWBFLC ! DHBDKF ! ! ! OWBGCF DHBDDE ! ! !! ! ! ^YDTHHHR ! ! DHBDFI !! ! ! UPBEF !! ! UPBDI ! DHBDFG OWBFIK ! ! UPBDH UPBDG !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ^YDTPN ^YDTPO ^YDTHHIR ! ! bl|lwg]ptlx DHBDGE ! "! !! !! DHBDFH OWBGDC ! "! ! ! ^YDTHHK UPBK! !! OWBGCE !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^YD^HNR ! DHBDDD ! OWBGCD !" ! ! ! OWBFIJ ! "! ^YDTHHI ! ! UPBJ ! ! ! ! ! HRE ^YDTPH ^YDTMP !" OWBFGK ! LDF ^YDTMO ! UPBI !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^YDTPP !" !" !! byuwsgbl|lwx HIG OWBGDK ! !"! !"! UPBDF ! ! ! ! UPBDD ! " ! ! UPBL ! ! ! ! ! ! DHBDDC ! ^YDTPI ! ! UPBH !! !! DHBDFD !! ^YDTHHKR !! DHBDFE !! DHBDFF OWBFGJ ! ! ^YD^HM ! DHBDCL !! OWBFII ! xuprx ! ! HRD ! ! OWBGDF ^YDTHHJ !! UPBDE FSD OWBFIH !! "! !! !! UPBDC !! OWBFGH !! ! OWBFGI! OWBGCL ! ! ! DHBDCK ! ! OWBFIG ! Zsvlw{puzx !! LDE ^YDTNKR !! OWBFGG ! !! OWBFIF ! ^YDTHHKS !! ! OWBGCC "! ! !! OWBGDE ! ! OWBFGE !! !! ^YDTPG ! ^YDTOP"! !" ^YDTNK !!! ! ! ! Tb_ISzprkW` ! ! OWBGDI ! DHBDCJ ! ! ^YDTOO!! ! ! OWBFLL OWBFLK OWBFLJ OWBFLI ^YDTHGJ ! ! ^YDTNM"! !! !! ! ! "! ! ^YDTMN ! OWBFIE ! ! ! ! ^YDTNH ! ! !"! "! "! " ! " ^YDTHGI! !" ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ^YDTNN ! ! ! HPC !"!! ^YDTLO ! ^YDTNG!" ! ! !" !" ^YD^HL HTC ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ^YDTMKS ! ^YDTHGH !!^YDTHGHR ! ^YDTLP!" !" !!"!"! !" ! ! THGOR ^YDTON ^YDTNI ! ! "! ! OWBFID OWBGDD"! ^YDTNJ ! ! ! ! OWBFGF ! ! ! HIG ! ! ! ! ! LDC !! OWBFLH !! !"! !! ^YDTNHR ^YDTKJ DHBDCI OWBFIC !! ^YDTOM "! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! OWBFHL ! ^YDTLN !"! OWBFGD OWBFHK!! OWBFLE OWBFLG ! RMOGGZ^b_ISzprkW` ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ^YDTMG DHBDCH ^YDTOG ! !! OWBFGC OWBFLF! ! !! OWBFFL !!! !! OWBFHJ ^YDTOH ^YDTKJR^YDTKK !! RMOGG_bT^GLSzprkW` ^YDTOI !!!!OWBFLD ^YDTNOR !! !! DHBDCG OWBFHI OWBFHH! ! ! ! ! ! !! ^YDTOJ ! ! ! ! ^YD^HK ! OWBFHG! ! !! "! ^YDTMH ^YDTML ! RMOGG_bT^GMSzprkW` ^YDTLMR!"! ^YDTMKR !^YDTMK ^YDTKN LDC ! "! " "! ^YDTMM! ! ! !^YDTMJ ! ! !" ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " OWBFHF ! ! !" ! !"! ! ! OWBFFJ ! !^YDTMI ! "! Tb_BHC OWBFFK ! ! ! ^YDTKM ! !! ! OWBFHE "! ! "! ! ^YDTJKS ! DHBDDJ OWBFFI !! ! ! ^YDTKH ! ! !! ! "! ! ! ! !! ! DHBDCF DHBDDI ^YDTKI ^YDTKKT^YDTKKS RMOGG_bT^GNSzprkW` !! !! ^YDTNP ! ! ! "! ! ^YDTKHR ! OWBFFG ! ^YDTLH ^YDTKL !! ! ! ! !! "! ^YDTLG ^YDTMLR "! !!^YDTKKR ! ! ! ! ! OWBFFH "!!! ! ! ! !! ^YDTNO ^YDTLM ! ! ^YDTJKR ^YD^HJR DHBDDG DHBDDH DHBDDK ! ! ! ! !! !! !! OWBFFF ! ! ! ^YDTKG ! RMOGG_bT^GPSzprkW` DHBDDF HRE !! !! DHBDDL OWBFHD ^YDTKP !! !! ^YDTJP ! OWBFFE OWBFFD ! ! ! ! OWBFFC ! ! !" ! !! LDE ^YDTHG ^YDTJL ! !! ! ^YDTJK ! ! ^YDTOK ! ! ! !" ! ! ^YDTJJR! RMOGG_bT^HHSzprkW` ! ^YDTLL "! LHC "! ! ! "! ! ! DHBDED DHBKJ DHBKI ! ! "! ! DHBDCE !! !! !! ! ! DHBDEC ^YDTLK ^YDTKO LJC ^YD^HJS ! ! OWBFEL ! !^YDTLI !! ! !" ^YDTLJ ! ! ! "! ! ^YDTJI OWBFHC !! ! ! ^YDTIN"! ! ! ! ! ^YDTIM ! !!"! ! ! ! ! !" !"! RMOGG_bT^HGSzprkW` ! "! ]hsvourl OWBFEK ^YDTIO !! ^YDTLKR! !! ^YDTJH ! "! ^YDTJG ! DHBKE DHBKG DHBKH !! ! ^YDTIL DHBKF ! ! ! ! DHBDCC DHBDCD ! ! ! ! DHBLL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !" ! Vyth Suwuzno Suztkhw~ ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !"! "! LDE ! ! ^YDTOL ^YDTKOR^YDTHH!" "! ! ! ! ^YDTO OWBFEF ! ! !! !! HRC !"! ! ! OWBFGL ! ^YDTHGR!"! ^YDTIOR !! DHBKE !! ^YDTOLR ! ! !! ^YDTKOS ! bohrlwgxywzjy OWBFEJ ! ! OWBFED !! ! DHBKD OWBFEE ! OWBFEC OWBFEI DHBKD DHBKC ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^YDTIK ! ! ! ! "! !" ! ! ^YDTHJ ! ^YDTN^YDTM " ! OWBFEH ! ! " ! ! !" ! ! ! !! ! ^YD^HJ HIG OWBFEG ^YDTP ! bohrlwgxl|lw DHBJG DHBJF !! ^b_DIJ ! !! !! !! OWBFDK OWBFDJ ! DHBJJ ! ! ! ! ! ^YDTHK ! DHBJI !! ! ! ! !"! ! ! DHBJE !! ! ! "! ^YDTIP ! !! OWBFDL !^YDTHL ! ^YDTL "! "! ! "! !! !! ! ^YDTK!! ! Y~kwurun~ OWBFDI "! !! ! DHBJC DHBJD ! !! !! ! ! ! LJC DHBIL FSD !! ! OWBFDC ^YDTIJ !! DHBII OWBFDD !! ! OWBFDE !! ^b_DHH DHBHD ! !! OWBFDH! ! DHBHC ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! OWBFCL !^YD^]HIV SzprkptnWuuyvwptyg]XgRwlh OWBFDF!! "! ^YDTHM ! ! ^YD^HIR ! ! "! !" ^YDTIHS! "! ! ! ^YDSIIS! ! ! ^YDTIJR ^YDSJJR !" ^b_DII ! ! ! ! ! ! "! ^YDSIM ^YDTJ ! ! ! FSD ! !" ! ^b_DJI ! ! ! ! ! o~kwurun~ DHBHK ^YDSIG !"!^b_DIK ^YDTI ^YDTIH LDF DHBHI DHBHJ ! ^YDSIO ! ! DHBHG DHBHH ! ! ! " ! ^YDTIG DHBHE ! ! ! ! ! ^YDSIH ! "! DHBHF ! ! ! ! ^YDSJH ! " ]hsvourl !! ! ! ! ^YDSJJ "! ! "! ! ! ! ! LJC "! ^YDSIOR ^YDSINR! ! ! ! ! "! !! ! ! ! ^YDSJG ^b_DIN"! ! ! "! " ! ! ! ! ! ^b_DIO ! ! ^YDTIPR! HIG !!! "! ^YDSJI ! ! "! ! ! !" !! " !! ! ! ! ! ! !" !! ! ^YDTHN ! ! ! ! ^YDSIP ! ^b_DIM !" ! ! ! ^YD^HI ! "! !!! ! ^YDTHMR !! ^YDSIN"! ! ! RMOGGggDZ^DbDGIgghwlh ! ^b_DJH ! !! "! ^b_DJG"! ! ! ^YDTIS ^YDSHP "! ^YDTIR ^YDTHP !! ^b_DHI ! !"! ^YDSHJ ! !!! !! ! ^YD^HHR ^b_DIP! DHBHL ! ! " ! ! ! " ^YDSHO ! ! "! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ^YD^]HIR" SIIgbYR]Va ! ^YDSHNR"! "! ! ^YD^HH M ! ! ^YDSHN !! !!TSDS ! !"! "! ^YDSIKR! ^YD^]HIS ! ! ! ! ^YDTHO ^YDTIPS ! ! ! ! "! ! ! !" DHBIE ^YDTHR !! !!^YD^HGR ^YD^]HIT!! ! ^YD^HG ! ! ! DHBIC ^YDRLR ! ! ! ! "! ! ! ! !! !" ! ^YDSHHR ! ! ! ^YDTIGR "! ^YDSHM ! ^YD^]HIU ^YDSIIghwlh ! ^YDSHJR !! ! "! JNB !" ! !! ! !! "! "! ^YDSL ^YDSM ! ! ^YDÔ ! ^YDSHH ^YDSHL ! ^YDSN ^YDRO !" LJC "! ! ! ^YD^]HIV ! !! ! " ! ! ^YD^HGghwlh ! "! ! ! " ! ! ! ^YDRN! ! ! !" ! ! ! ! ! ! ^YD^N ! "! !" ! ! DHBIF !"! ! Tb_ !! ^YDRL ! LDF ^YD^M! ^YDSHI ! "! !! !! ! !! ^YDSHG ^YDRM ^YD^HGRghwlh ^YDSHK "! ! ^b_DJJ ! ! "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !" !" ! ^YDSP ^YDSK"! "! DHBID ^YDSHIR ! ! !! ^YD^L ! ! ! ^YDÎLghwlh RMSVPURN ! ! ! ^YD^]IU ! ^YDSI^YDSJ ! ! ! !" ! ! ^YDRLS! ! !" !! !! !" DHBIG ! ! ! " ! !" !! ! !" "! ! ^YDSH "! "! ^YDÎOghwlh ^YDSO ! ! ! XaDJGP ! ! ! ^YD^K ^YD^]IT !! "! OWBFDC! "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^YDÎPghwlh OWBFDD ^YD^J LC !! ^YD^]ITEH !! !! ^YD^Kghwlh DHBIH !! OWBFDE ^YDSHR !! !! !"! ^YD^]IS OWBFDF !! ^YD^Nghwlh ! ! ! ^YDRJ^YDRK ^YDRKRH !" ! ^YDÎ ! ^YDRJR ! !!! ! ! OWBFDG ! ! ! ! ^YDRI ^YD^]IR RMOGGggD_bTD^DHGgghwlh M ! ! ^YDRKR !! !! "! RMOGGggD_bTD^DHHgghwlh JNB RMSVPURN HRE !! !"! RMSVPURN ^YDRH ^b_DHK !! ! RMOGGggD_bTD^DGPgghwlh ! !

KBJD !! "! RMOGGggD_bTD^DGOghwlh FSE

M RMOGGggD_bTD^DGNgghwlh

KBJC !! Tb_gI ! ! ^YD^H !! RMOGGggD_bTD^DGMgghwlh KBLF KBLE!! !! LC KBLD KBLG KBIK ! !! RMOGGggD_bTD^DGLgghwlh ! !! ! RMSVPURN !! ! LJC ^YDTHGOR KBKL KBII !! !! LC RMOGGggD_bTD^DJNggRwlh LME RMOGGggD_bTD^DJOgghwlh HIG KBIL KBIE !! !!

VythFbohrlw Tutywpizyptn Rwlh H ptjo Q IIL mlly

Tusiptlk bl|lw b~xyls pt `ptl Twllq ehylwxolk G IIG KKG OOG Wlly Ulrptlhylk Shxptx vlw ^hptrptl Tuttljyput Twlhylk HHFIPFHI APPENDIX B APPENDIX B ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS - SLOPE

APPENDIX B ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS - SLOPE

02 MH-B24

APPENDIX B ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS - SLOPE

02 South

APPENDIX B ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS - SLOPE

APPENDIX C APPENDIX C ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS- IMPERVIOUS SURFACE

APPENDIX C ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS- IMPERVIOUS SURFACE

02 -MH-B24

APPENDIX C ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS- IMPERVIOUS SURFACE

02 South

APPENDIX C ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS- IMPERVIOUS SURFACE

APPENDIX D APPENDIX D ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS- SOILS

APPENDIX D ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS- SOILS

02 MH-B24

APPENDIX D ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS- SOILS

02 South

APPENDIX D ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS- SOILS

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS – Tree Canopy

APPENDIX E ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS – Tree Canopy

02 MH-B24

APPENDIX E ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS – Tree Canopy

02 South

APPENDIX E ETNA GSI GIS ANALYSIS – Tree Canopy

APPENDIX F APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 1

PHASE 1 GSI SITE 047 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 1

PHASE 1 GSI SITE 057 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 1

PHASE 1 GSI SITE 196 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 1

PHASE 1 GSI SITE 234 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 1

PHASE 1 GSI SITE 060 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 1

PHASE 1 GSI SITE 374 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 2

PHASE 2 GSI SITE 209 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 2

PHASE 2 GSI SITE 225 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 2

PHASE 2 GSI SITE 056 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 2

PHASE 2 GSI SITE 056A APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 3

PHASE 3 GSI SITE 067 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 3

PHASE 3 GSI SITE 238 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 3

PHASE 3 GSI SITE 243 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 3

PHASE 3 GSI SITE 372 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 4

PHASE 4 GSI SITE 163 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 4

PHASE 4 GSI SITE 164 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 4

PHASE 4 GSI SITE 168 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 5

PHASE 5 GSI SITE 173 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 5

PHASE 5 GSI SITE 011 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 5

PHASE 5 GSI SITE 014 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 5

PHASE 5 GSI SITE 014a APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 5

PHASE 5 GSI SITE 099 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: PHASE 5

PHASE 5 GSI SITE 172 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 007 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 244 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 248a APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 248 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 304 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 305 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 384 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 219 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 221 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 229 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 231 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 256a APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 256 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 259 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 078 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 082 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 085 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 087 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 088 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 090 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 095 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 144 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 147 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 122 APPENDIX F INDIVIDUAL GSI SITE REVIEWS: FUTURE PHASE X

PHASE X GSI SITE 130 APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

Russell E. Horn Building 445 West Philadelphia Street York, PA 17401-3383 (717) 852-1400 I (717) 852-1401 FAX I www.bh-ba.com

FLORIDA I MARYLAND I MISSISSIPPI I LOUISIANA I NEW JERSEY

PENNSYLVANIA I VIRGINIA I WEST VIRGINIA I TENNESSEE I GERMANY