GIRTYS RUN

MiLLVALE. PENNSYLVANIA

iloCAL FLOOD'PROTECTION PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT. PITTSBURGH CORPS OF ENGINEERS PITTSBURGH. PA.

FEBRUARY 1975 SUMMARY

GIRTYS RUN MILLVALE, PENNSYLVANIA

( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement

Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, (Ul2)6I*U-6800

1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) legislative

2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Local protection project consisting of lower­ ing the existing channel of Girtys Run an average of four feet within the Borough of Millvale, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Concrete underpin­ ning and repair of existing channel walls would be provided where neces­ sary.

3. a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Borough of Millvale would be protected against a 25 year frequency flood, enhancing the socio-economic conditions of the community. Aesthetic quality of stream would be improved by removal of debris from stream bed. New habitats for stream communities to develop would be provided. Possibly the population out-migration trend in Millvale would be reversed.

b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Construction activity would result in temporary increases in traffic, noise, dust, exhaust emissions, erosion, stream turbidity and sedimentation, and temporary removal of all stream life. Present negligible aquatic life in Girtys Run would be eliminated during construction. k. ALTERNATIVES: Channel lowering of greater design capacity, channel widening, flood walls or dikes, combination channel lowering and walls, diversion tunnels, a multiple purpose reservoir, a headwater reservoir system, flood forecasting and warning system, flood plain management, flood insurance, flood proofing, rehabilitation, relocation or no action.

5. COMMENTS RECEIVED:

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Forest Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of the Interior Ohio River Basin Commission Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Governor's Office, Office of the Budget Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission County of Allegheny County Department of Works Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Department of Planning and Development Carnegie-Mellon University

6. DRAFT STATEMENT TO CEQ ______2 December 1971*______1 7 APR 1975 FINAL STATEMENT TO CEQ GIRTYS RUN, MILLVALE, PENNSYLVANIA LOCAL FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1.01 Authority and Problem Area 1 1.02 Recommended Plan 1 1.03 Flood Control Effectiveness 2 1.0U Project Benefits and Cost 2 1.05 Supplemental Flood Protection Measures 3 1.06 Non-Federal Cooperation 3

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT 5 2.01 Drainage Basin 5 2.01.1 Location and Extent of Basin 5 2.01.2 Topography of Basin 5 2.01.3 Geologic Characteristics of Basin 5 2.01. U Basin Soils 5 2.01.5 Stream Characteristics 7 2.01.6 Water Quality 7 2.01.7 Fish and Wildlife 9 2.01.8 Basin Population and Development Patterns 9 2.02 Girtys Run Within Millvale Borough 10 2.02.1 General Description 10 2.02.2 Aesthetics 10 2.02.3 Channel Description 11 2.02. U Description of Flash Flooding Problem 12 2.03 Millvale Borough 13 2.03.1 Socio-Economic Conditions 13 2.03.2 Transportation ll+ 2.03.3 Archaeological and HistoricalResources 1*+ 2.03.1+ Recreational Facilities lU 2.03.5 Existing and Proposed Public Utilities lU 2.03.5.1 Water lfc 2.03.5*2 Sewerage 15 2.03.5.3 Electricity 15 2.03.5.1+ Gas 15 2.03.6 Development Prospects 15

3.0 RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS l6 3.01 Millvale Borough Zoning and Land Use Plans 16 3.02 Upper Basin Land Use Plans 16

U.O PROBABLE IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT 17 U.01 Flooding 17 U.02 Socio-Economic Conditions in Millvale 17 U.03 Public Utilities 17 ? *£ <*

l+.OU Tremsportation 17 U.05 Recreation 17 1*.06 Archaeological and Historical Resources 17 1*.07 Water Quality 17 U.08 Fish and Wildlife 10 1*. 09 Aesthetics 18 L.10 Development Prospects in Millvale 18 L.ll Erosion Control 18

5.0 ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 20

5.01 Girtys Run Effects 20 5*02 Community Effects 20

6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 21 6.01 Structural Alternatives 21 6.01.1 Channel Improvement by Lowering Streambed 21 6.01.2 Channel Improvement by Widening 21 6.01.3 Flood Walls and Dikes 27 6.01. U Combined Channel Lowering and Flood Walls 27 6.01.5 Diversion Tunnel 27 6.01.6 Reservoir System 28 6.01.6.1 Small Upstream Reservoirs 28 6.01.6.2 Large MultiplePurposeR eservoir 29 6.02 Non-Structural Alternatives 29 6.02.1 Introduction to Non-Structural Considerations 29 6.02.2 Flood Plain Management 30 6.02.3 Flood Warning System 30 6.02. U Flood Insurance 31 6.02.5 Rehabilitation 31 6.02.6 Floodproofing 31 6.02.7 Relocation 32 6.02.8 No Action 32

7.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY 33 7.01 Stream Life 33 7.02 Community 33

8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 31*

9.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 35 9.01 Public Participation 35 9.02 Government Agencies 36 9.03 Citizen Groups 1*3

BIBLIOGRAPHY ^7 TABLES

Table No. Title Page

1 Allegheny Plateau Soils Frequency Distribution 6 2 Girtys Rim Sampling Station Locations 8 3 ' Girtys Run Basin Population 10 Girtys Run Culverts and Bridges in Millvale Borough 11 5 Date and Discharge of Millvale Borough Flash Floods 12 6 Extent of Flooding - Millvale, Pennsylvania 13 7 Assessment of Structural Alternatives 22 8 Assessment of Non-Structural Alternatives 25

EXHIBITS

Exhibit Ho. Title

1 Economic Data 2 Archaeological Appraisal - Carnegie Museum Letter of 12 August 197^ 3 Fish and Wildlife Appraisal - Fish and Wildlife Service Letter of U February 197^ 1* Fish and Wildlife Appraisal - Fish and Wildlife Service Letter of 28 September 1965 5 Assurances by the Borough of Millvale Dated 10 September 197^

PLATES

Plate No. Title

1 Basin Map 2 Girtys Run Local Protection Project 3 Girtys Run Watershed Sampling Stations

APPENDIX A

TABLES

Table No» Title

1 Girtys Run Watershed Chemical Analysis 2 Girtys Run Watershed Bacteriological Analyses 3 Statistical Profile, Selected Socio-Economic Data APPENDIX B

LETTERS RECEIVED BY THE PITTSBURGH DISTRICT ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Pape

U. S. Department of Agriculture, SoilConservation Service B- 1 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service B- 2 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency B- 3 U. S. Department of the Interior B- U Ohio River Basin Commission B- 6 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor's Office, Office of the Budget B- 7 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission B-12 County of Allegheny, County Department of Works B-13 County of Allegheny, Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation B-15 County of Allegheny, Department ofPlanning and Development B-17

CITIZEN GROUPS

Carnegie-Mellon University B-19 GIRTYS RUN, MILLVALE, PENNSYLVANIA LOCAL FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.01 Authority and Problem Area - A flood protection project for Girtys Run within the Borough of Millvale, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, has been considered under the authority of Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 19^0, as amended. Presently, the Allegheny River reservoir system provides a high degree of protection against Allegheny River back­ water flooding of Millvale. Flash floods, however, pose a major threat to same areas of the Girtys Run drainage basin; particularly, the Borough of Millvale. Upstream of Millvale, low-lying reaches have been flooded in the past but the resulting damage is not great enough to justify remedial measures under Corps of Engineers authorities (refer to Plate 1, Girtys Run Basin Map). Protection against flash flooding in Millvale Borough is the current problem to be alleviated by the proposed project.

1.02 Recommended Plan - The proposed flood protection project would begin approximately 200 feet downstream from the Sheridan Street Bridge and extend upstream 6,2^2 feet to the Evergreen Avenue Bridge near Franklin Street. The project would consist of lowering the existing channel bottom, including culverts, within the limits of the existing walls. The lowering would be accomplished by a 16 foot average bottom width of cut in rock or overburden averaging four feet in depth in the lower 2,750 feet of the project and 2-1/2 feet in depth for the remaining portion. Automatic drainage gates (flap gates) would be placed on outlets to prevent channel flows from backing into basements and low lying areas adjacent to the stream. Concrete underpinning of existing walls would be provided where required as well as replacement of certain sections of the walls where needed to maintain the integrity of the project. Plate 2 shows the recommended modifications in plan and section.

1.02.1 In lowering the streambed, it would be necessary to relocate ten sanitary sewer crossings. No bridge alterations are required within the proposed project, however, existing bridge abutments will be pro­ tected by gabion mattresses, concrete wall supports or whatever means is being used immediately adjacent to the bridge structures to protect adjacent walls.

1.02.2 Total acreage required for the project would involve about fourteen acres. Of this total, ten acres would be acquired under temporary easement for disposal of excavated material. The remaining four acres would be acquired permanently, within the channel, for access ramps, retaining walls and sewer relocations. 1.02.3 The material to be excavated during construction of the proj­ ect will consist exclusively of streambed materials composed of silty sands, gravelly sands, shale and sandstone bedrock. As such, it will constitute desirable material for use in compacted fills and it is anticipated that the contractor will find no difficulty in locating property owners desirous of utilizing it.

1.02.U Disposal areas capable of accepting 18,000 cubic yards of excavated material, of which 5,000 cubic yards is rock, are available in the surrounding townships within two or three miles of the project site. Three drainage areas have been selected as tentative disposal sites (including one near St. Nicholas Cemetery) and may or may not be selected by the local cooperating agency, who will be responsible for the acquisi­ tion of such sites. These tentative locations are undeveloped and covered with trees and brush. The contractor for the project will be required to submit a plan to the Corps of Engineers for approval showing the method and treatment of disposal in accordance with current regula­ tions and specifications. This plan shall include the proper compaction, drainage and erosion controls to make the site compatible with the sur­ rounding environment. The tentative disposal sites were chosen on the basis of preliminary planning. Before any final disposal sites are actually used, a more detailed investigation of each site would be made.

1.03 Flood Control Effectiveness - The recommended plan for deepening the Girtys Run channel within Millvale would protect 22 acres in Millvale Borough (0.5 square miles) and 1*02 structures from the maximum flood of record. Such a flood has a discharge of 2,500 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.), and an estimated frequency of occurrence of once every 25 years. The proposed excavations would increase the present channel capacity by 1,000 c.f.s. permitting the 2,500 c.f.s. flood of record to be contained within the channel.

1.03.1 The 100 year flood, having a discharge of 3,900 c.f.s., when considered in relation to the existing channel conditions through the Borough of Millvale, would inundate approximately 1*2 acres involving 1*90 structures and cause an estimated $2,865,000 in damages. When this flow is passed down the proposed 25 year design channel, the area inundated would be reduced to approximately 3l* acres involving 350 structures and result in damages amounting to $1,969,000.

l.OU Project Benefits and Costs - Average annual benefits from the recommended plan are estimated at $261*,700 in October 1971* values. This estimate is made on the basis of the existing, fully developed status of the Millvale flood plain. Preliminary estimates of Federal and non-Federal first costs are $2,229,000 and $3ll*,000, respectively, totalling $2,51*3,000. It is pointed out, however, that the Federal cost limitation for projects considered under Section 205 is, in this instance $2,000,000. All costs in excess of this amount must be borne by the non-Federal Local Cooperating Authority. Federal and non-Federal average annual charges are estimated at $131,100 and $3^,600, respectively, totalling $165,700. The benefit- cost ratio for the recommended plan is 1.6 based on a 50 year project life and a 5-7/8 percent interest rate. A breakdown of costs and benefits appears as Exhibit 1.

1.05 Supplemental Flood Protection Measures - Millvale's location at the mouth of Girtys Run basin causes it to suffer the consequences of haphazard development in the upper watershed. There is evidence that past development and encroachment on the natural stream in the upper basin has reduced the flash flood warning time to about one hour. It does not appear, however, that this development in the area has significantly affected flood frequency recurrence. Nevertheless, future development in the upper water­ shed should recognize the potential consequences on downstream flooding.

1.05.1 Provisions for securing local adoption of effective flood plain management regulations should be formulated in context with the degree of protection to be provided by the proposed flood protection structural measures and the residual problems that will exist after project completion. In the upstream areas with a potential for growth and where no structural solutions are feasible, selective floodproofing and land use regulations provide a viable choice.

1.05.2 Bearing the loss is not a welcome solution; however, in the case of Millvale, add in bearing losses may be a primary supplement to other recommended non-structural and structural solutions. Millvale quali­ fies for the National Flood Insurance Program and individual flood victims may qualify for income tax deductions or low interest loans.

1.06 Non-Federal Cooperation - If the recommended plan is authorized, the United States government would undertake a channel improvement project and assume responsibility for all construction costs up to $2,000,000, including engineering and design and supervision and administration. Local interests would be required, prior to construction, to furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will, without cost to the United States:

a. Provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way and borrow and spoil disposal areas including such rights as shall be required by the Government to perform work on or in the existing channel and channel walls, as necessary for the construction of the project and comply with the provisions of the Uniform Relocations Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-6U6), and make all relocations payments, provide all assistance and pay all expenses and/or litigation costs incidental to the transfer of such real property to the Borough of Millvale as required by Sections 210 and 305 of the above referred to Act;

b. Bear the cost of any and all sewer, water and other utility alterations and/or relocations required for the project; c. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction vorks;

d. Establish and enforce channel limit lines to prevent encroach­ ment on the improved channel;

e. Maintain and operate the project vorks after completion, in­ cluding maintenance and replacement of all channel walls within the limits of the project, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army;

f. At least annually notify all interests affected, in writing, that the project will not provide complete flood protection; and

g. Bear and pay to the United States of America prior to initia­ tion of construction all federal costs of the project in excess of the federal cost limitation of $2,000,000 as established by Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 19^8 (33 U.S.C. 701 (s)) as amended by Section 6l of the Water Besources Development Act of 1971* (P.L. 93-251).

The Borough of Millvale has expressed its initial willingness to assume the above mentioned local obligations by the adoption of the resolution and assurances shown as Exhibit 5« Further assurances and certification of local cooperation and financial and legal capability would be required prior to initiation of construction to comply with the provisions of Sec­ tion 221 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611). 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT

2.01 Drainage Basin

2.01.1 Location and Extent of Basin - Girtys Run rises in the Fox Ridge area in the southern portion of McCandless Township, Allegheny County, and flows southward through Ro3S Township, Shaler Township, and Millvale Borough, entering the Allegheny River from the right hank at about River Mile 3.6 upstream from the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Girtys Run basin consists of 8,576 acres. The basin is approximately seven miles long with an average width of two miles. The 17 miles of streams within the basin consist of the main channel and numerous tributaries including Thompson Run, Nelson Run, Wible Run, McKnight Run and an unnamed stream along Rochester Road. The Borough of Millvale extends up Girtys Run about 1.8 miles from the Allegheny River.

2.01.2 Topography of Basin - The terrain of the Girtys Run watershed is hilly, with relief varying from 1,300 feet above mean sea level at the headwaters, to about 710 feet above mean sea level at the Allegheny River. The slopes become steeper at the southern part of the watershed, creating a dangerous flash flood area. Most of the tributary valleys also have narrow channels and steep slopes on the hillsides. The width of the Girtys Run flood plain averages about 200 feet.

2.01.3 Geologic Characteristics of Basin - Girtys Run flows in the rocks of the Conemaugh Formation of the Pennsylvanian Age, which consists of shales, shaley sandstones, thin coals, limestones and underclays. None of these beds have any economic value in the Girtys Run drainage area. The Pittsburgh coal seam outcrops in some of the higher elevations in the Borough of Millvale, whereas the Ames limestone seam appears in the hillsides about 125 feet above the stream. Girtys Run flows down the western flank of the McMurray Syncline (the controlling geological structure of the Millvale valley) perpendicular to its axis. Most of the stream bed and flood plain contain heavy deposits of alluvium; however, shades and sandstones outcrop for short distances in the stream channel.

2.01.1* Basin Soils - In general, the soils within the watershed can be grouped into four categories: residual, colluvial, alluvial and terrace. Residual soils consist of the products of rock weathering which are still located at the place where they originated. These soils occur in the upland areas and are relatively thin, probably averaging five feet or less in thickness. For the most pairt, they can be classified as A-l* and A-6 type soils in the A.A.S.H.O. classification system and ML and CL types by the Unified method of classification. These are fine grained soils which have low permeability. They are usually found to be in a haird condition end are suitable for supporting foundations. 2.01. U.1 Colluvial deposits can be found along the bottoms of the steeper slopes, having been brought to these areas by the forces of grav­ ity. They have textural classifications similar to the residual soils. Their thickness is greater than the parent residual material and their permeability is in a range similar to that of the parent soil. Generally, these soils are less dense than the uphill soils and axe easily eroded.

2.01. U.2 Alluvial soils sure those which are found in the valley bottoms. They have been deposited by flowing water and contain soils which range in psurticle sizes from gravel to colloidal clears. Since they are located in the lowest topographic areas they are subjected to fluctu­ ations in the water table and are generally saturated. Of the soil types discussed here they are usually the softest or least dense in addition to being the thickest. This combination of characteristics makes them the most troublesome insofar as the foundations for major structures are con­ cerned.

2.01.1*.3 There are few terrace deposits in the basin between Millvale and Etna. Millvale is located within the basin and Etna is located Just outside the watershed boundary. The terrace deposits consist of sand and gravel deposited on benches and in abandoned channels. The time of deposi­ tion was during the glacial ponding of the rivers. They have the highest permeability of any of the soils in the area because of their grain size and are in a dense state.

2.01. U.1+ In addition to the naturally occurring soils, many man-made earth structures or fills can be found in the area. These consist of well engineered fills and/or end dumped, loose material. The composition of the fill varies from soil and/or rock to miscellaneous industrial waste, slag, cinders and debris.

2.01. U.5 The entire length of the proposed channel improvement is situated in a portion of the Girtys Run Valley which has been densely urbanized from valley wall to valley wall for over a period of 100 years. The only unpaved open spaces are a few small residential yards. No existing or potential agricultural value or effect can be ascribed to the project area.

2.01.5 Stream Characteristics - Girtys Run along the main stream has a relatively uniform stream slope of about 51 feet per mile. Two of the main tributaries, McKnight Run and Thompson Run have average stream slopes of about 80 to 130 feet per mile, respectively. Upstream from Millvale the channel is undeveloped except for occasional short stretches of retaining wall. A rock bottom is evident throughout much of the upper reach; however, portions of the stream bed contain heavy deposits of inor­ ganic sandy silts, silty sands and sandy gravels. Channel widths vary and in some areas the banks are less than three feet high.

2.01.5.1 Girtys Run has alternating pools and riffle areas typical of streams in the area. The water in the riffle areas flows over bedrock, while in the pools the stream bed consists of silt and sand carried from upstream areas.

2.01.6 Water Quality - In a period from February through April 197^» water quality investigations were conducted on Girtys Run by Carnegie- Mellon University. Sampling programs were initiated on streams throughout the entire watershed to determine point sources of pollution. Samples of the stream water were collected and chemically analyzed at locations of marked change in physical characteristics of the stream, such as the con­ fluence of a tributary. The following table identifies the location of the sampling stations and corresponds to the locations shown on Plate 3. Results of chemical analyses may be found in Appendix A, Table 1. TABLE 2

GIRTYS RUN SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS

No. Location

1 Girtys Run at Grant Avenue Bridge 2 Bauerlein Street Overflow . 3 Girtys Run where North Avenue crosses stream It Manhole No. 25 overflow 5 Girtys Run at Bridge No. It; near Rock Ridge Road and Babcock Boulevard 6 Girtys Run below confluence with Thompson Run 7 Thompson Run at mouth 8 McKnight Run at mouth 9 Girtys Run above confluence with McKnight Run 10 Westview Run at mouth 11 Overflow at the end of Martself Avenue 12 Girtys Run below confluence with Rochester Run 13 Rochester Run at mouth lit Rochester Run as it passes under 6th Avenue 15 Rochester Run as it passes under Country Lane 16 Girtys Run above confluence with Rochester Run 17 Girtys Run as it passes under Hillcrest Road 18 Discharge from Longvue No. 2 sewage treatment plant

2.01.6.1 The subsequent report prepared by the University analyzing the findings of these water quality investigations states that Girtys Run is suffering from the presence of raw sewage and that the stream exists in a septic condition. Bacteriological analyses of .samples taken at sev­ eral sampling stations in the Girtys Run watershed indicate that coliform counts exceed State standards (Appendix A, Table 2).

2.01.6.2 Organic carbon measurements on the main stream and its trib­ utaries show that these waters have been affected by organic pollution. Within the Girtys Run basin there are two types of sewer systems - combined and separate. Presently in the basin, high storm water flows cause waters, in excess of the hydraulic capacity of the system, to overflow from the sewer during intense rainfall periods. Sewage discharges do not occur continuously, however, and so the stream usually has a chance to recover after each high flow.

2.01.6.3 Numerous important chemical parameters which could aid in assessing the water quality of Girtys Run are not available. These include dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, nitrates, nitrites, ammonia and phosphates. Specific conductance, an alternate determination of total dissolved solids, has been measured throughout the watershed and is quite high according to Pennsylvania standards. The high chloride concentrations are a likely explanation of the elevated specific conduc­ tance values.

2.01.6.U The pH and alkalinity determinations indicate slightly alkaline water throughout the watershed, due to the presence of sewage. The high pH, and low total iron and sulphate concentrations in these waters indicate the absence of acid mine drainage from Girtys Run (refer to Appendix A, Table l).

2.01.7 Fish and Wildlife - No biological investigations, with the exception of bacteriological studies, have been conducted on Girtys Run. However, it can be assumed that life in the stream exists in an ecologi­ cally unbalanced state, because of urban-related problems such as the presence of organic pollution and runoff.

2.01.7.1 Girtys Run does not presently support any valuable fish populations due to the presence of raw.sewage pollution and the dumping of trash in and along the stream. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission does not stock Girtys Run with game fish. An official of the Fish Commission stated that there was no specific reason except that "people pressure", the generally poor water quality, urban runoff and possibly insufficient stream volume at times would negate stocking. As stated in the Common­ wealth of Pennsylvania's letter of 3 February 1975 (Appendix B), the sub­ ject local flood protection project has been studied by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and due to the present deteriorated condition of Girtys Run and the fact that the present habitat is not too desirable, they have no objections to the proposed project as long as adequate controls on siltation are required.

2.01.7.2 The types and populations of organisms present in Girtys Run are dependent upon the quality of the water. It has been determined that the stream has an organic pollution problem, but the severity of the problem has not been fully assessed. Further biological analyses of Girtys Run would be necessary to shed light on the types of organisms that are capable of existing there.

2.01.8 Basin Population and Development Patterns - Population data, based upon U.S. Census Bureau Publications for Borough and Township units lying wholly or partially in the Girtys Run drainage basin, are given in the following table: TABLE 3

GIRTYS RUN BASIN POPULATION

Area 19U0 1950 i960 1970

Millvale Borough 7,811 7,287 6,6 2l* 5,815 McCandless Tovnship 3,1*9** 6,1*88 ll* ,582 22,1*01* Reserve Tovnship 3,09U 3,533 1*,230 1*,151 Ross Tovnship 10,827 15,71*1* 25,952 32,892 Shaler Tovnship 11,185 16,1*30 2l*,939 33,369 West View Borough 7,215 7,581 8,079 8,312

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census

2.01.8.1 The pattern of development moving upstream from Millvale is in the form of a continuum from older, fully developed and densely populated communities to never, lover density and sparsely populated areas. This pattern is, of course, historically based. Early communi­ ties sprang up alongside the river vhich vas a transportation artery through Pittsburgh, a growing commercial and industrial center.

2.01.8.2 As the region grev and transportation became available, development pushed into the middle and upper reaches of the vatershed. Presently, the downstream communities, such as Millvale, tend to be populated by older individuals of a lover socio-economic group than the more recently developed and lover density upstream communities (see Appendix A, Table 3 - Statistical Profile, Selected Socio-Economic Data). Dovnstream in the older communities a thorough mix of commer­ cial and residential land use is typical. Upstream, residential areas sure separate from their commercial strip development, a typical land use pattern for lover density recently developed communities.

2.02 Girtys Run Within Millvale Borough

2.02.1 General Description - Girtys Run meanders through the most highly commercialized and densely populated part of the Borough of Millvale. Along its entire length, it is channelized by ten to tvelve foot high stone vails. Chain link fences have been installed on top of these vails in many places for safety purposes. Outside the Borough vhere channelization has not occurred, the stream bank is generally steep vith shale and sandstone outcroppings and abundant natural vegetation. In some areas, development over the stream has contained it in natural bottomed culverts.

2.02.2 Aesthetics - In Millvale, organic pollution has the most det­ rimental effect on the vater quality of Girtys Run; hcwever, another pollution problem vithin the Borough concerns the physical appearance of the stream channel. Garbage and assorted debris are scattered through­ out the stream. This negligence and abuse has had a negative effect on the aesthetic value of Girtys Run.

2.02.3 Channel Description - In the Borough of Millvale, the Girtys Run channel is roughly rectangular with a bottom width of 25 feet. The bottom of the channel is generally rock. The channel slope averages 1*1 feet per mile. During 1936 and 1937, the Works Progress Administration constructed retaining walls along the banks of Girtys Run within the Borough. There is evidence that these 30 year old walls have been under­ mined in places; however, their general condition remains good. In 1952, the Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters (now Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources) dredged Girtys Run within the Borough of Millvale. Since then no channel alterations have been under­ taken.

2.02.3.1 The present capacity of Girtys Run in Millvale is limited by restrictive culverts which can handle about 1,500 c.f.s. In the Millvale reach, Girtys Run flows through culverts and under bridges as listed in the following table.

TABLE k

GIRTYS RUN CULVERTS AND BRIDGES IN MILLVALE BOROUGH

Approximate Item Station Above Mouth Length ■ No. D.S. End U.S. End (feet) Remarks

1 0 6+30 630 Culvert: Passes under a highway interchange and two railroads 2 10+10 10+60 50 Bridge: Grant Aenue 3 15+30 15+80 50 Bridge: Sheridan Street 19+20 19+70 50 Bridge: Sherman Street 5 26+70 26+90 20 Bridge: Sedgwick Street 6 30+60 38+70 810 Culvert: Passes under the main business section in Millvale 7 39+70 1+1+90 220 Culvert: Passes under residential area 8 1+9+80 53+20 31+0 Culvert: Passes under commercial property and North Avenue 9 63+00 63+50 50 Bridge: North Avenue 10 65+10 65+50 1+0 Bridge: Evergreen Avenue 11 75+60 78+20 260 Culvert: Passes under Evergreen Avenue, North Avenue and a commercial building 12 89+70 91+50 180 Bridge: North Avenue and Evergreen Avenue The longest of these culverts passes directly under the Central Business District for approximately 800 feet. The remainder of the channel, in the natural condition (outside the culverts), will accommodate between 2,000 and 2,500 c.f.s.

2.02.1+ Description of Flash Flooding Problem - Damaging flash floods of serious magnitude occurred in Millvale on the following dates as listed below:

TABLE 5

DATE AND DISCHARGE OF MILLVALE BOROUGH FLASH FLOODS

Discharge Date c.f.s.

31 July 1916 Unknown 11 June 19^0 Unknown 9 July Unknown 5 May 1950 2,200 5 July 1950 2,500 2 h May 1973 2,150 30 June 197^ 2,350 10 July 197 U 2,250

There are no data available for the July 1916 flood other than the histor­ ical report that it was very damaging and washed out 16 bridges. Data for the two floods in 19^+0 are very limited also. The flood of 5 July 1950 (with an estimated recurrence frequency of 25 years) attained the highest stage to date; however, the extent of the flooded area for all floods has been quite similar.

2.02.U.1 The flood plain of Girtys Run through the Borough of Millvale contains primarily commercial and residential developments with almost no open space other than streets and alleys. The long culverts and building encroachments along and over the stream are contributing factors to overbank flooding from flash floods. As a consequence of the flash floods listed above, the water overflowed the banks above one or more of these culverts and returned to the channel below the 800 foot central business district culvert. The following table and Plate 2 indicate the extent of the flood problem within the Borough. TABLE 6

EXTENT OF FLOODING MILLVALE, PENNSYLVANIA

Flood Area Structures Damages Frequency Inundated Involved (October 1971* Value)

25-year 22 acres 1*02 $1 ,563,000 (flood of record)

100-year 1*2 acres 1*90 $2,865,000

2.02.1*. 2 The Allegheny River reservoir system has greatly confined the extent of threatened area resulting from backwater flooding of the Allegheny River. The probability of coincidental flooding from both sources is considered negligible. Average annual damage from flash flooding in Millvale is estimated to be $390,000 in October 1971* values.

2.02.1*.3 Storm sewer backup is a frequent occurrence in Millvale Borough. This backup results in street overflow and water flowing into the sanitary sewers. There are no separate damage estimates for the storm sewer backup unrelated to the flash flooding bank overflows identi­ fied in the preceding tables.

2.03 Millvale Borough

2.03.1 Socio-Econanic Conditions - The Borough of Millvale is a largely residential area of high density; however, it sustains only a minimum of local retail establishments (see Appendix A, Table 3 - Statistical Profile, Selected Socio-Economic Data). Commercial activity is heavily concentrated in the areas of food stores, eating and drinking establishments and personal services. The few manufacturing concerns in Millvale employ less than 1*50 people.

2.03.1.1 Millvale is one of the older communities in the Pittsburgh region commuter shed. Eighty-seven percent of the residential structures were built prior to 19^*0. The population is predominantly of eastern and central European origin and the community pride and cohesion typical of such older, relatively stable, ethnic neighborhoods is evidenced by a generally well-kept appearance.

2.03.1.2 As a fully developed community of lower socio-economic status, Millvale has a declining tax base. Inflation and increased maintenance required by aging buildings would indicate that further deterioration of Millvale's tax base is inevitable in the next quarter century. Little replacement or major renovation of Millvale's older buildings is currently being done. 2.03.1.3 In 1970, U3.7 percent of Millvale's residents were 1*5 years of age or older. This large proportion of middle-aged or elderly resi­ dents and the continuing significant outmigration of young people result in a low birth rate in the Borough. The U.S. Census figures, shown in section 2.01.8, document the consequent steady shrinkage of Millvale's population over the past 30 years. This trend in Millvale is in sharp contrast to the explosive growth which occurred in some upper basin areas.

2.03.1.1* Seven percent of Millvale familes had an income below the poverty level in 1969* The median family income in the Borough that year was $8 ,580 .

2.03.2 Transportat ion - Public transportation (exclusively buses) in Millvale is provided by the Port Authority of Allegheny County. The long-range transportation plans include two proposed highways. The Pa. Route 8 Freeway, which is a continuation of the Mid City Crosstown Expressway, will skirt the west side of Millvale Borough while an east- west highway, known as the Allegheny Beltway, will arc across the water­ shed area, passing through Evergreen and Etna. However, neither of these projects is expected to be constructed until after the year 2000. In the meantime, road development in the Girtys Run watershed area will be limited to widening and minor improvements of existing roads.

2.03.3 Archaeological and Historical Resources - The Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, reports that there are no known sites of archaeological salvage value in the-project area (Exhibit 2). Millvale Borough contains three structures listed by the Pittsburgh History and Landmark Foundation. The stone Wilkins House (Evergreen Street), the Sample-Bummer House (Lawrence Avenue) and the brick St. Nicholas Roman Catholic Church containing noteworthy frescoes (Maryland Avenue) are valuable architectural resources. There are no sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places which would be affected by the pro­ posed project.

2.03.** Recreational Facilities - Although there are no public parks within Millvale Borough, the Boys Club on Sedgwick Street offers indoor recreational facilities; outdoor recreational facilities are available at the Sample Elementary School playground.

2.03.5 Existing and Proposed Public Utilities

2.03.5.1 Water

a. Existing Facilities - The Millvale Municipal Water Works system, one of the oldest systems in Allegheny County, is supplied by a 1.72 million gallons per day water treatment plant. The raw water supply comes from a crib intake in the Allegheny River. Distribution and storage facilities consist of a 0.1* MG covered reservoir and transmission and dis­ tribution lines ranging in size from four inches to twelve inches. Approximately 5*500 of Millvale's 5*815 people are served by this system, a small portion of the Borough being served by the adjacent Shaler Township system. . The quarterly rates charged for water are $8.00 per 8,000 gallons and $1.00 for each additional 1,000 gallons.

b. Proposed Facilities - The results of 1970 analysis by the Green Engineering Company of the supply, transmission and storage facilities of the Millvale system indicate that there will be sufficient supply capabilities through the year 2000. Population growth is not expected; although sane growth or, at least, stabilization of the popula­ tion would not overtax the water supply capability. In order to meet minimum storage requirements, Millvale will need to construct an additional 0.6 MG storage tank bringing the total storage capacity to 1.0 MG. This total would provide one day's storage of the average daily demand in the year 2000. Provision should also be made for the replacement of the existing transmission and distribution mains as the need arises.

2.03.5*2 Sewerage - The entire area of the Girtys Run drainage basin lies within the Allegheny County Sanitary (Alcosan) Sewage Service Area. An existing trunk sewer, ranging in size from 15 inches to 30 inches, serves a major portion of West View Borough, Millvale Borough and the southern portions of Ross, Reserve and Shaler Townships. Residential and commercial fees for Alcosan service are $10 basic fee plus $1.00 per fixture. The Alcosan Plant is presently being utilized at 90 percent capacity. The only future needs within Millvale Borough are extensions of collection lines.

2.03.5.3 Electricity - Millvale Borough's power is supplied by Duquesne Light Company.

2.03»5>^ Gas - Millvale Borough's gas is supplied by Equitable Gas Company.

2.03.6 Development Prospects - Millvale is a fully developed urban area. According to the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County, there are currently no redevelopment plans for the Borough. The South­ western Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission projects that the current shrinking population trend in Millvale will continue to the year 2000. In 1970, 16 percent of the population was over 65 years of age. As noted in Section 2.03.1, approximately 1*1* percent of the population in 1970 were 1*5 years of age and older. Consequently, in the last quarter of this century, retirees will comprise an increasing proportion of Millvale's population (regionally, the elderly population in South­ western Pennsylvania is projected to increase 25 percent). Medical care, suitable housing and possibly recreational facilities for this growing elderly population group will be the future demands in Millvale. 3.0 RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS

3.01 Millvale Borough Zoning and Land Use Plans - Benefits are avail­ able to Millvale residents under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by the Flood Disaster Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-23*0. Several flood plain management practices can be employed to avoid increasing potential flood hazards. Since the flood plain in the Girtys Run Valley is already in the advanced stage of development, flood plain management techniques such as zoning could not provide a suitable means of damage prevention for existing facilities. While future development is expected to occur, it is considered that such development will consist mainly of improve­ ments to existing structures and other damageable properties. Participa­ tion in the National Flood Insurance Program is contingent on the Bor­ ough's preparation of zoning plans with specific flood plain restrictions. However, zoning will not help those persons already located in the proj­ ect area. The project has been Justified on the basis of protecting existing facilities and not those to be constructed in the future. Therefore, there is no reason to wait for implementation of land use con­ trols prior to expending funds for the project.

3.02 Upper Basin Land Use Plans - Where developable land is available in the upstream areas, land use regulations that are consistent with the degree of protection provided by the proposed channel improvements, and that also recognizes the free market demands for profitable land use, supported by a healthy economy, could provide supplemental flood protec­ tion. Such action would reduce potential flood threats and contribute to the effectiveness of the proposed structural measures. *4.0 PROBABLE IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

U.01 Flooding - The most obvious effect of the proposed project is the lowering of flood stages with a resulting reduction of flood damages within the Borough of MillvaLle. The proposed project would provide pro­ tection against a 25 year frequency flood. The proposed project would reduce storm sewer backup.

U.02 Socio-Economic Conditions in Millvale - Flood protection afforded by the proposed channel improvements in Girtys Run would favor­ ably affect socio-economic conditions in Millvale. Average annual bene­ fits from the recommended plan are estimated at $2614,700. Relocations would not be required as part of the recoiamended plan end the reduced hazard of flood damage with resultant reduced individual losses may be a positive force toward retaining community cohesion and reducing popula­ tion outmigration.

I4.03 Public Utilities - Ten sanitary sewer crossings will have to be relocated under the recommended plan.

I4.0I4 Transportation - The recommended lowering of the Girtys Run stream bed is not expected to affect transportation patterns with the exception of temporary disruptions as a result of construction activities. As previously mentioned, the channel excavation would not require altera­ tion of existing bridges.

I4.O5 Recreation - The Millvale Boys Club and the Sample Elementary School would be protected from a 25 year frequency flood if the proposed channel improvements are undertaken. No detrimental effects to these buildings from construction activity is anticipated.

U.06 Archaeological and Historical Resources - The three landmark buildings in Millvale would be protected frem a 25 year frequency flood if the recommended plan is implemented. No detrimental effects to these buildings from construction activity is anticipated.

14.07 Water Quality - Sedimentation washed downstream during construc­ tion could have an adverse effect on aquatic life in a limited stretch of the Allegheny River. The effect on the aquatic environment of inorganic silts is to reduce the kinds and numbers of organisms present. These sus­ pended solids can screen out light needed for photosynthesis, they can change heat radiation, and chafe the gills of fish. As the solids settle out of solution, they can smother the bottom dwelling organisms and devel­ oping eggs of fish, and they can form undesirable physical environments for organisms that would normally occupy such a habitat.

14.07.1 In accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500, all pollutant discharges will be eliminated fretn waters by 1965. Therefore, it is essential to assess the environmental effects of the proposed flood protection project oh the water quality of Girtys Run in the absence of gross pollution. 1*.07»2 If the proposed project were constructed the various pool- riffle type habitats would be replaced by a uni fora rock bottom with increased flow velocity and uniform water depth. Because of this con­ stant flow velocity and the absence of pools and riffles, dissolved oxygen concentrations, pH, and temperature should remain constant throughout the area directly affected by the project. The stream bottom substrate may change with time as inorganic silts deposit on the stream bed. However, significant changes in water quality are not anti­ cipated as a result of the proposed project.

1+ .08 Fish and Wildlife - Habitat type has an important relation­ ship to the type of aquatic organisms found in a stream. The pool- riffle complex would be replaced by a streambed of uniform velocity and water depth. The existing aquatic organisms would be eliminated during construction.

^.08,1 The Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior has stated that fish and wildlife resources in the Girtys Run watershed are negligible, and, therefore, the effects of construction and operation of the proposed project would be minimal. However, it can be expected that any life which now exists in Girtys Fun would be eliminated during construction. As construction ceases and the suspended solids either wash downstream or settle out of solution, primary and secondary stream productivity should increase.

U.08.2 When raw sewage is no longer discharged into Girtys Pun, as mandated by P.L. 92-500, the aquatic communities would be replaced by more diversified organisms which are intolerant to organic pollution. It is expected that these organisms would not be significantly affected by the previously constructed project.

U.09 Aesthetics - The proposed project, when completed, would vastly improve the aesthetic quality of Girtys Run. Garbage, debris, and accumu­ lations of sediment would be removed during construction. The deteriorated walls which line the stream channel would be stabilized and repaired presenting an improved physical appearance.

U.10 Development Prospects in Millvale - The increased flood pro­ tection afforded by the recommended channel improvements may aid in reversing Millvale's long term trend of population outmigration. In addi­ tion to flood protection, the aesthetic and psychological benefits afforded by the plan would help make Millvale a more attractive and viable residen­ tial community.

U.ll Erosion Control - Prior to any construction, the Government contractor will be required to submit a plan showing his methods for controlling erosion and disposal of wastes to the Corps of Engineers for approval. These controls will be spelled out in the "Technical Pro­ visions" portion of the construction contract and will require that all work performed by the general contractor and any subcontractors be in compliance with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations govern­ ing the protection of water resources. The "Technical Provisions" will stipulate that surface drainage from cuts and fills within the construc­ tion limits, whether or not completed, and from borrow and waste disposal areas, will, if turbidity producing materials are present, be held in suitable sedimentation ponds or will be graded to control erosion within acceptable limits. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures such as berms, dikes, drains, immediate seeding of cut and fill slopes, or sedimentation basins will be provided by the contractor and maintained until permanent drainage and erosion control facilities are completed and in operation. Areas of bare soil exposed during the construction operations will be held to a minimum. Fills and waste areas will be constructed by selective placement to eliminate silts or clays on the surface that could erode and contaminate adjacent streams. 5.0 ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED

5.01 Girtys Run Effects - Organic pollution has decreased the possi­ bility of game fish living in Girtys Run. However, it can be expected that numerous taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates, algae, and aquatic flora are present. The most significant adverse environmental effects of the proposed project involve elimination of these aquatic communities in Girtys Run. When the channel modification occurs, practically all aquatic life would be destroyed. As construction ceases, the turbidity would eventually decrease, and after a lag period, the natural aquatic communities should eventually be reestablished. The length of time required for life to return to Girtys Run and the types of aquatic commu­ nities which will develop, will depend upon previously mentioned chemical and physical parameters; i.e., sewage, turbidity.

5.02 Community Effects - The proposed project would create a tempor­ ary inconvenience for the citizens of Millvale. These adverse conditions, resulting from the construction processes, include traffic congestion, and the increased noise, dust and exhaust emissions from construction equipment. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

The effects of the structural and non-structural alternatives to the proposed project are charted in Tables 7 and 8 respectively, and are discussed in the following paragraphs.

6.01 Structural Alternatives

6.01.1 Channel Improvement by Lowering Streambed - Consideration has been given to increasing the capacity of Girtys Run by lowering the channel bottom with three possible levels of flood protection considered. These would provide protection from the maximum flood of record, which has a frequency of 25 years, and 50 year and 100 year frequency flows. The 25 year project is the "recommended plan". All the plans are similar in nature and consist principally of the excavation of a 16 foot wide notch of varying depth to suit the particular design flow. Certain portions of the existing channel walls would be rebuilt and concrete underpinning would be employed as necessary to insure stability of the walls.

6.01.1.1 The environmental effects of the protection projects against 50 year and 100 year frequency floods would be similar to those of the "recommended plan".

6.01.2 Channel Improvement by Widening - Because of the development ailong both banks of Girtys Run, vertical concrete or masonry walls were constructed by the WPA to confine the stream to a 25 foot wide rectangular channel. Widening of Girtys Run has been considered as a means of achieving flood protection. Widening of the channel would require removal of the existing walls on one or both sides of the channel, and destruction or relocation of the residential., commercieil or industrial facilities now supported by these waills. It would also require replacement of many existing highway bridges with longer span structures. The widening of the 800 foot long culvert under the business district would require removal with extensive alterations of many commercieil buildings along North Avenue. Right-of-way costs would be prohibitive.

6.01.2.1 A channel widening project would involve elimination of terrestrial life along the stream banks, displacement of many lawns, gardens, and man-made structures aind the destruction of all life within Girtys Run. Effects on the Millvale Boys Club and the Sample Elementary School would be expected, in addition to a temporary increase in air pollution during construction.

6.01.2.2 The high local cost of such a project combined with the disruption of the business district and other dislocations makes the plan unacceptable to local interests and uneconomical to construct. TA B L E 7 ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES G IR T Y S RUN MlLLVALE, PENNSYLVANIA

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT BY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT FLOOD RALLS COMBINED CHANNEL RESERVOIR SYSTEM BY WIDENING OR DIKES LORERING AN0 FL000 LORERING STREAM BED 2500 cfs 2500 cfs RALLS D1 VERS 10N TUNNEL CHAtl UCAnvriTtD Hill TIPI C DllDDflCC 3900 cfs RP* 2500 cfs 3100 cfs 3900 cfs 2500 cfs 3900 cfs 6.01.1 6.01.1 6.01.2 6.01.3 6.01.4 6.01.5 6.01.5 6.01.6 5.01.6

ECONOMIC INPUTS

Initial Construction $2,543 .000 53.940.000 $6,420,000 Considerably greater Consideradly greater $5,000,000 $6,363,716 $8,703,628 $43,000,000 Costs than RP than RP

$ 436.600 $ 580.279 $ 3.800.000 Annual Charges $ 165.700 5 262.000 $ 427,000 Greater than RP Greater than RP $ 350,000 Far in excess of benefi ts.

Regional Impact U acres of tem­ 14 to 20 acres of 14 to 20 acres of Land use change due Land use change due Land use change due Less than RP Less than RP Considerable land Considerable change in porary and per- temporary and temporary and to extensive right— to required right-of- to requi red rig h t-o f use change in basin. basin land use with approx­ permanent ease­ permanent ease­ permanent ease­ of-way requirements. way along banks. way along banks. Highway and u ti 1 i ty imately 1500 acres in d i­ ments. ments. ments. relocations required rect and related uses. Numerous highway and u t i l ­ ity relocations required.

Tax 8ase Impact No short term No short term No short term Short term decrease Short term decrease Short term decrease Same as RP Same as RP Short term decrease Substantial short term effect. effect. effect. decrease. Much greater than RP.

Property Values N egligible N egligible N egligible Greater than RP Greater than RP Greater than RP Same as RP Same as RP Greater than RP Much greater than RP

Public Faci1ities Some u t i 1i ty Some u t i l i t y Some u t i 1ity Same as RP Considerable number Same as RP except Fewer u t i 1i ty Fewer uti 1 ity Considerable u tility Considerable u ti1ity relocations. relocations. relocations. of u ti1ity reloca­ for conversion of relocations than relocations than relocations. relocations . tions due to necess­ culverts to pressure RP. RP. ary conversion of conduits. culverts to pressure conduits.

Public Services No interruption No interruption No interruption Transportation tem­ Transportation tem- Temporary disruption Same as RP Same as RP Temporary disruption Temporary disruption of services. of services. of services. porarily disrupted porarily disrupted of transportation of transportation of transportation during bridge during bridge cul­ during construction. during construction. during construction modifications. vert modifications. Permanent rerouting Permanent rerouting of basin roads. of basin roads.

Business and Indus Possible minor Same as RP Same as RP Considerable dis­ Disruption during Greater than RP with Minor disruption Minor disruption Possible considerable Considerable disruption trial Activity disruption of ruption and reloca­ the conversion of temporary disruptions during construct­ during construc­ disruption and re­ and relocation of busi­ some businesses tion of fi rms culverts into pressure and permanent relo­ ion. Partial re­ tion. Partial location of busi­ nesses in basin. due to construc­ bordering Girtys Run conduits. Temporary cations. location of in­ relocation of in­ nesses in basin. tion in culverts and permanent reloca­ dustrial plant dustrial plant at below them. tions. at entrance si te entrance site.

Employment/Labor Increase in tem­ Same as RP Same as RP Increase in tempor­ Same as RP Greater than RP Same as RP Same as RP Greater than RP Greater number of tempor­ Force porary jobs for ary construction ary jobs for a longer project con­ jobs. Existing em­ period of time Existing struction. ployment adversely employment disrupted by affected by reloca­ relocations. tions.

Displacement of None None None None None None None None None None Farms

ECONOMIC OUTPUTS

Annual Benefits $ 264.700 $ 324.000 $ 363.000 Not determined Not determined $ 340.000 $ 318.900 $ 362.933 $430,000 $ 2.000.000

Annual Net Benefits $ 94.200 5 62.300 None Not determined Not determined None None None None None

Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.6 1.2 0.8 - - 0.97 0.7 0.6 Economically 0.5 unfeasible.

Regional Impact Possible long Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Considerable greater than term increase in RP with potentially property values, substantial recreation employment oppor­ a c tiv ity . tu n itie s and bus­ iness activity.

Property Values Possible long Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP P o te n tia lly greater than term increase. RP.

. Public Facilities None None None None None None None None None Recreational facilities. TABLE 7 (CONTINUED) ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES G IR TYS RUN MILLVALE,PENNSYLVANIA

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT BY COMBINED CHANNEL CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT FLOOD WALLS LOWERING AND FLOOD LOWERING STREAM BED RESERVOIR SYSTEM BY WIDENING OR DIKES WALLS DIVERSION TUNNEL 2900 C f 5 2500 cfs 3900 cfs an ail ntAURAitH p u u i r i t ru H n m RP* 2500 cfs 3100 cfs 3900 cfs '500 cfs 3900 cfs 6 01.1 6 01.1 6.01.2 6.01.3 6 0 1 4 6 01 5 6.01.5 6 0 1 6 6 01.6 None Public Services None None None None None None None None Recreational facilities

Business and Increased poten­ Same as RP Same as RP Possible permanent Possible permanent Possible permanent Same as RP Same as RP Possible permanent Potentially greater Industrial tial for busi­ loss for relocated loss for relocated loss for relocated loss for relocated than RP A c tiv ity ness growth. businesses. Long businesses. Long businesses. Long businesses. Long term improvement term improvement term improvement term improvement potential. p o te n tia l. potenti al. po tential.

Employment/Labor Possible long Same as RP Same as RP Same as Business Same as Business Same as Business Same as RP Same as RP Same as Business ana Potentially greater Force term increased and Industrial and Industrial and Industrial Industrial Activity. than RP. employment in Acti vity. Acti vi ty. Acti vi ty. protected C80.

PHYSICAL INPUTS

Land Require­ 14 acres of tem­ 14 to 20 acres 14 to 2 0 acres Greater than RP Greater than RP Greater than RP 1 Acre t Acre Considerably more 1500 Acres ments porary and per­ of temporary and of temporary and than RP manent easements. permanent ease­ permanent ease­ ments. ments.

Improvements Repai r of some Same as RP Same as RP Extensive modifica­ Extensive modifica­ Extensive modifica­ Less than RP Less than RP Undetermined large Undetermined large number of e x is tin g channel tion of buiIdings tion of buiIdings tion of buiIdings number of structural structural improvement walls. now spanning Girtys now spanning Gi rtys now spanning Gi rtys improvements. Run. Run. Run.

PHYSICAL OUTPUTS

Lands Protected Mi 11vale Borough Mi 1 Ivale Borough Mi 1Ivale Borough Mi 11vale Borough Mi 1Ivale Borough Mi 11 vale Borough Mi 1Ivale Borough Mi 1 Ivale Borough 350 Acres in basin (22 Acres) (35 Acres) (42 Acies) (22 Acres) (22 Acres) (42 Acres) (22 Acres) (42 Acres)

Protection Pro­ 25 year 50 year 100 year 25 year 25 year 100 year 25 year 100 year 100 year vided Against Flood of Frequency

SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

Persons Displaced None None None Considerable Possible displace­ Possible displace­ None None Consideiaole Considerable ments ments displacement displacement

Transportation No disruption No disruption No disruption Considerable tem­ Some temporary dis­ Considerable tempor­ Some temporary Same temporary Considerable tem- Considerable temporary Patterns anticipated anticipated anticipated porary disruption ruption ary disruption during disruption di eruption poiary disruption. disruption Some permanent during alteration alteration of bridges. 1ikely. lik ely. Some permanent rerouting of bridges. rerouting.

Noise Temporary in­ Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Seme as RP More than RP More than RP crease during construction

Communi ty Favorable influ­ Greater than RP Greater than RP Same as RP Same as RP Greater than RP Same as R? Greater than RP le ts than RP A ffect e n tire basin. Cohesion ence of in­ Potentially greater creased flood than RP. protection.

Community Growth Possibly lessen Greater than RP Greater than RP Same as RP Same as RP Greater than RP Same as RP Greater than RP Greater than RP A ffe ct e n tire basin population de­ Potentially greater than RP. cline in Millvale

ENVIRONMENTAL INPUTS

Recreation None None None Boys Club and play­ None None None None Possible removal of Possible removal of ground may have to be f a c ilit ie s fa ci1i ties. relocated.

Ecological Temporary elim in- Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP; removal Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Considerable removal Considerable removal of ation of all of terrestrial life. of terrestrial and terrastrial and aquatic stream lif e w ith­ aquatic organisms organisms and their in M ill vale. and thei r envi ron- envi ronments ments TABLE 7 (Continued)

ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES G IRTYS RUN MILLVALE. PENNSYLVANIA

COMBINED CHANNEL CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT BY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT FLOOD RALLS LORERING STREAM BED LORERING AND FLOOD RESERVOIR SYSTEM BY RIDENING OR DIKES RALLS DIVERSION TUNNEL diALL. HtAURA 11K RP* 2500 c fs 3100 c fs 3900 c fs 2500 c fs 2500 c fs 3900 c fs PUL l i n t rU H rU S t 2500 c fs 3900 c fs 6 01 t 6 0 1 1 6 01.2 6 .0 1 .3 6 01.4 6.01 5 6 01.5 6 .0 1 .6 6 .0 1 6

HISTORICAL None None None None None None None None None None

Archeological None None None None None None None None None None

Man-Made Resources None None None Removal and/or mod­ None Removal and or modi­ None None E x te n s iv e E x te n s iv e ification of fication of structures structures.

Natural Resources No v a lu a b le n a t­ Same as RP Same as RP Removal of terrestrial Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Removal of terrestrial Removal of terrestrial and ural resource l i f e . and aquatic life aquatic life. present in stream

Air Pol lution Temporary in­ Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Greater than RP be­ Greater than RP because of creased dust and cause of extent of extent of project. exhaust emmisions p r o je c t. during construc­ tio n .

Rater Pollution Temporary in­ Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP creased turbidity and suspended s o lid s .

ENVIRONMENTAL OUTPUTS

A e s th e tic s Removal of debris Same as RP Same as RP Repair of walls Less than Rf Same as RP Less than RP Less than RP Aesthetic value would Aesthetic value would and repair of would enhance rem ain same in M i l l - remain same in M ill va le ealls would en­ aesthetic value. vale. Reservoir would Reservoir would enhance hance aesthetic enhance aesthetic aesthetic value of basin va lu e value of basin.

R e c re a tio n Protection of Same as RP Same as RP None Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP and would pro­ Boys Club and vide 1.000 acres of recrea­ Sample Elementary tional land. School playground

E c o lo g ic a l Aquatic life ei 11 Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Loss of terrestrial Loss of terrestrial and eventually rees­ and aquatic life a q u a tic l i f e would be i r r e ­ tablish itself to would be irretriev­ trievable; new ecosystem preconstruction able; new ecosystem would be e s ta b lis h e d . le v e ls . would be established.

H is t o r ic a l Protection from Protection from Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP flo o d in g f lo o d in g

Archeological None None None None None None None None None None

Health and Sanitary Less overbank Greater than RP Greater than RP Same as RP Same as RP Greater than RP Same as RP Greater than RP Same as RP Greater than RP flooding will re­ duce frequency of health and sani­ tary hazards.

Man-Made Resource They m ill be pro­ Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as FP Same as RP Greater than RP tected from flood w a te rs.

Natural Resource None None None None None None None None None None

Air Pollution R ill return to Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP preconstruction le v e ls .

Rater Pollution Rater quality Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Same as RP Quality downstream Quality downstream from w ill eventually from reservoir would reservoir would return to return to pre­ return to precon­ preconstruction levels; construction con­ struction levels; im­ impounded water would be of d it io n s . pounded water would different quality be of different q u a lit y TABLE 8 ASSESSMENT OF NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES GtRTYS RUN MILLVALE. PENNSYLVANIA

FLOOD PLAIN FLOOD PANNING FLOOO FLOOO NO MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INSURANCE REHABILITATION PROOFING RELOCATION ACTION 6 02 2 6 02 3 6 02 4 6 02 $ 6 02 S 6 02 T 6 02 0 ECONOMTC INPUTS

Initia l Constr Cost None Nominal installation None Not detormieed iipenstve for indi­ iipensivo for al 1 Nono co st v id u a l p ro p e rty omn­ concerned Dreater ers than RP

Annual Charges None Nominal Premiums upensive Not detormieed Upkeep etpensive for None None for individual pro­ individual property p e rty omners omners

Property Values None Nono None None Drastically reduced None in evacuated areas

Tai Iasi lapact None None Nono Possible short term None O iastically reduced None decrease in evacuated areas

P u b lic F a c i1i t ie s None Nona Nono None None None None

Public Services None Nono Nono None None None None

Business end None Nono Nono Possible increase None D rasticilly reduced None industrial Activity due to reneeal and in evacuated areas rehabilitation efforts Empioyment/labor None Small s ta ff to im­ Nono Temporary increase Temporary increase Drastically reduced None Force plement system in evacuated areas Displeceaent ol None None Nono None None None None Faros

ECONOMIC OUTPUTS Annuel B e n e lits Benelits to future de­ Possible minor re­ Distribution of flood Reduction in flood Reduction in flood Virtual elimination None velopment, continued duction in flood losses damages damages, value n o t of flood damages in damage to e m ittin g damages determ ined evacuated area development.

Annuel Net Benefits None Nominal Nono Not determined Same as annual benefits Same as annual b e n e fit None

Benefit Cost Retie N/A Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined Not determined N A

Property Values None None None Increased values Potentially increased Q fU ttcilly reduced Continuation ol floo values in evacuated areas hazard mith resultan lassos

Tai Base lapact None None Nono Potential increase Potential increase None Same as Property value

Public Facilities None None Nono None None None None

Public Services None None None None None None None Business and None None Nono Probable increase None Drastically reduced Set property values Industrial Activity in evacuated arte above

Eaployaent/Labor None None Nono Probable increase Nono Virtual ly el immited See p ro p e rty values Force in evacuated area above PHYSICAL INPUTS

LiRd Requirements None-future uses Nona Nona Nat tfttttm intd Nona Sacrifice land evacu­ None re s tric te d ated Land required fer relocations

Improvements None None Nona ■ Numerous improve­ Substantial number of Relocation of a l1 im­ None ments varying »ith units affectod fir provements subject to scope if rehabilita­ year flood frequency flo o d damages tion program p ro te c tio n

PHYSICAL OUTPUTS Flood Frequency None None Nono Nono Nono None None P ro te c tio n

Lands Protected None None Nono Nono Nono None None

SOCIOLOGICAL INPUTS

Persons Displaced None None None Varies mith speci­ Nono E stim ate 4 006 None fics of rehabilitation plan

Transportation None None Nono Possible temporary None Permanent rerouting None P a tte rn s disruption.

Noise None None Nono Temporary increase Temporary increase Increased durmg re­ None during implementation during implementation location activity of flood proofing moasuros

Communi ty Cohesion Possible increase Possible increase Nono Unpredictable Nono D e s tru c tio n o f an None identifiable highly viyble community

Community Growth Zoning may r e s t r ic t Possible increase None long-term favorable Nigh cost of flood Adverse None grooth in partially e ffe c ts p ro o f m g may 1 imi t developed basin artas replacement of obso­ lete bui Idmgs TABLE 8 - CONTINUED ASSESSMENT OF NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES G IR T Y S RUN MILLVALE, PENNSYLVANIA

FLOOD PLAIN FLOOD WARNING FLOOD FLOOD NO MANAGEMENT SYS TEM INSURANCE REHABILITATION PROOFING RELOCATION A CTION 6 02.2_____ 6 02 3 6 02 4 6 02 5 6 02 6 6 02 7 6 02 8 ENV IRONMENTAL INPUTS

Aesthetics None None None Varies depending on None Removal of e x is tin g None scope of project. structures Recreation None None None Varies depending on None Relocation of Boys None scope of project. Club and Sample street playground

Ecological None None None Varies depending on None None None scope of project.

H istorica l None None None Varies depending on None AI1 3 historical land­ None scope of project. marks will be affect­ ed.

Archeological None None None None None None None Man-Hade Resources None None None Varies depending on None AI 1 structures within None scope of project. flood plain will be abandoned

Natural Resources None None None Varies depending on None None None scope of project.

Ai r P ollution None None None Varies depending on Temporary increase Increase of dust and None scope of project. of dust and exhaust exhaust emissions emissions.

later Pollution None None None Varies depending on None Decrease of organic None scope of project. po llution.

ENVIRONMENTAL OUTPUTS

Aesthetics Eiisting conditions Potential improve­ Same as 6.02.2 Same as 6 02.2 Same as S 02 2 Same as 6 02 2 Same as 6 02 2 ■ ill remain. ment.

Recreation None None None Potential develop­ None None None ment of recreation facilities.

Ecological None None None None None Natural processes None w ill occur in the absence of man.

Health and Sanitary Overbank flooding » i1 1 Same as 6.02.2 Same as 6 02.2 Same as 6 02.2 Same as 6 02 2 Same as 6 0 2 2 Same as 6 02 2 •ill continue to cre­ ate environment for growth of pathogens.

Man-Made Resources Existing structures Existing structures Structures would Same as 6 02 3 Individual structures Development removed Same as 6023 remain 'susceptible remain susceptible sti 11 become damaged protected from flood­ from flood plain. to-flooding; ne« to flooding. but losses would be ing. structures will be covered. protected.

Natural Resources None None None None None None None

Air Pollution None None None None None None None

later Pollution later quality will Same as 6.02.2 Same as 6.022 Same as 6.02.2 Same as 6.02.2 Improvement Of Same as 6.02.2 remain unchanged as water quality in the long as sewage is absence of organic added to stream p o llu tio n 6.01.3 Flood Walls and Dikes - With construction of flood-protective walls and dikes on Girtys Run, it is expected that the cost of site acquisition would be prohibitive because of the intensive residential, commercial and industrial developments along Girtys Run. Furthermore, it would be necessary to convert the long culverts and the highway bridges into pressure conduits. The use of temporary closure structures at the highway bridges would be impractical because the rapid rise in Girtys Run floods would not allow time for the erection or positioning of the closure structure elements. The conversion of the long culverts int pressure conduits would be very costly, as it would require extensive modification of sane of the buildings now spanning the Run. In one reach, the top of a culvert is the wooden floor structure of the building spanning the Run.

6.01.3.1 Since these expensive modifications would entail high non- Federal costs, local opposition would be expected. Providing for internal drainage would further increase both Federal and non-Federal costs. The high cost of site acquisition and of building modifications, added to the high cost of wall construction would make the use of walls and dikes economically infeasible. In the reaches upstream from Millvale a similar infeasible situation exists, but to a lesser extent.

6.01.3.2 Adverse environmental effects resulting from construction of this project would be similar to those from the "recommended plan." Increased turbidity and suspended solids would occur, with the possibility of varied types of aquatic communities becoming established after con­ struction has ceased. There would be some displacement of structures and residents. A temporary increase in air pollutants would also occur during construction.

6.01.U Combined Channel Lowering and Flood Walls - Consideration has been given to increasing the capacity of Girtys Run by a combination of lowering the streambed and constructing walls. These types of projects were discussed individually in 6.01.2 and 6.01.3 This type of project would provide protection against a 25-year frequency flood. The adverse environmental effects caused by this alternative would be similar to those of the channel lowering and flood walls and dikes alternatives.

6.01.5 Diversion Tunnel - Several investigations have been made of an eleven foot diameter, concrete lined, diversion tunnel to protect the Millvale central business district. Such a tunnel would be constructed from Girtys Run near Walnut Street (about 7,000 feet above the mouth of the Run) to the Allegheny River about 1,800 feet upstream from the mouth of Girtys Run. A spillway-type drop structure at the tunnel entrance would be required to permit the tunnel discharge to enter without excessive pondage elevation requirements. At the discharge end of the proposed tunnel it would be necessary to pass under a four lane highway (East Ohio Street), the two-track Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and four-track Penn Central Railroad. About 1,000 feet of channel improvements above the entrance to the proposed tunnel and lowering of a 30 inch sanitary sewer crossing and a four inch water line would be required. An industrial plant near the proposed tunnel entrance would require partial relocation.

6.01.5.1 The maximum flood of record with a discharge of 2,500 c.f.s. was adopted as the project design flood. With a properly designed entrance structure the diversion tunnel considered could accept 1,500 c.f.s. and the remaining 1,000 c.f.s. of record flow would move without problem in the unimproved Girtys Run channel. If desired, the tunnel entrance structure could be designed for a different division of flow between the downstream channel and the diversion tunnel such as 1,500 c.f.s. and 1,000 c.f.s. respectively. A tunnel design discharge of 1,000 c.f.s. would require a smaller tunnel but the inherent difficulty of constructing a smaller tunnel would preclude any appreciable reduction in costs. Therefore, the plan investigated considered 1 ne use of the larger tunnel with 1,000 c.f.s. flowing in the unimproved downstream reach of the channel under design flood conditions.

6.01.5.2 The preliminary estimated annual costs and benefits for this alternative are $1+23,500 and $310,000 respectively, based on July 1 9 7 ^ price levels indicating this alternative to be economically infeasible. Consideration was also given to a larger tunnel of approx­ imately 17-foot diameter, the capacity of which, when combined with the existing channel capacity, would provide protection from a flood of 100-year frequency. However, as with the smaller tunnel, this plan does not provide for economic feasibility because of excessively high costs and low achievable benefits.

6.01.5.3 The construction of this alternative would create a temporary turbidity and suspended solids problem in portions of Girtys Run along with an increase of noise and air pollution during construc­ tion. In addition, it would be necessary to acquire suitable disposal areas for the excavated rock.

6.01.6 Reservoir System

6.01.6.1 Small Upstream Reservoirs - Flood control by a system of small reservoirs on the headwaters and tributaries of Girtys Run has been considered. However, the intensive highway and building development within the basin impose severe restrictions on available sites. Investi­ gation has been made of single purpose flood control dams on Wible Rian, Nelson Run, Thompson Run and on Girtys Run upstream of the Babcock Boule­ vard - McKnight Road intersection. Such a system would provide control over about 30 percent of the basin. The average annual flood damages now experienced in the Girtys Run Valley amount to about $1+00,000. Assuming a total elimination of all of these flood damages, the maximum expendi­ ture that could be Justified would be approximately $6 million. This would be the approximate cost of one of the single purpose flood control dams. Even with the construction of all four mentioned above, there would remain residual flood damages. 6.01.6.2 Large Multiple Purpose Reservoir - A preliminary study was made of a multiple purpose reservoir alternative involving a regional development plan providing a greater degree of flood protection combined with providing needed recreational opportunities close to a major popu­ lation center in the form of water related activities, conservation and open space preservation. Such a dam site would be located across Girtys Run approximately 1,500 feet downstream from the intersection of Evergreen Road and Babcock Boulevard. The dam would consist of an earth filled structure approximately 115 feet in height and 1,000 feet in length. The summer or recreation pool level would be at elevation 895 m.s.l. creating a lake of approximately 100 acres. The full pool elevation would be 917 m.s.l. providing 3,1^0 acre-feet of storage from a drainage area of 9*8 square miles for flood control (6 inches of runoff). This would inundate a total area of 260 acres. About 1,200 acres of land surrounding the lake would be developed for general recreational use. The original con­ cept of this reservoir alternative contemplated a coordinated basin development effort and relied heavily on timely implementation of planned highway relocations and sanitary and storm drainage system improvements being made prior to implementation of the project. With the avoidance of these major relocation costs, the multiple-purpose reservoir was a viable plan. However, public and congressional reaction at a public meeting held in conjunction with the reservoir study indicated that the required coordinative efforts would be extremely difficult to accomplish in an acceptable time frame and the overwhelming desire was that a reasonable degree of flood protection be provided for the Borough of Millvale in the shortest possible time.

6.01.6.3 The sites chosen for construction of the reservoirs would involve various types of developed and undeveloped land. Residences and commercial structures would need to be relocated and the displacement of residents would be considerable. It can be anticipated that many acres of wooded land and open fields would be inundated for construction of the reservoir systems. The impoundments would change the quality of water by creating lake-type habitats. This standing water would serve as the medium for lake-type organisms as well. A temporary increase in air pollution would also occur during construction. These adverse effects, the economic infeasibility of the alternative reservoir systems, and the lack of public support, indicate that neither reservoir system is an acceptable solution to the flooding problem.

6.02 Non-Structural Alternatives

6.02.1 Introduction to Non-Structural Considerations - Non-structural protection measures can be evaluated either as additional alternatives or as supplemental action in support of a structural protection program. To be considered as a viable alternative, non-structural measures should provide reasonable and rational protection, be economically feasible and publicly acceptable. In a densely populated and maturely developed commu­ nity such as Millvale, non-structural alternatives are generally not suitable, as will be discussed under each of the alternative non-structural measures. 6.02.1.1 Conversely, as a supplemental action to the proposed struc­ tural protection project, non-structural approaches to the Girtys Run Valley flood problem can be of significant benefit. The appropriate measures supporting the flood protection benefits of the recommended structural project are essentially the responsibility of the individual property owners and the municipalities in the Girtys Run Valley.

6.02.2 Flood Plain Management - This alternative entails the adoption and enforcement of flood plain regulations to ensure the wise use of potential flood areas. An approach of this type is generally feasible for preventing or reducing flood damages with respect to future development, but is prohibitively expensive to implement in a highly developed area such an Millvale. The extensive relocations and permanent flood-proofing measures required in using this alternative as a solution to the flood problem in the immediate Millvale area would be far more costly than the flood damages prevented.

6.02.2.1 As a supplemental action, however, appropriate land use measures, particularly in the upstream areas with potential for growth, could provide a viable choice. The approximately 1-1/2 mile section of Girtys Run in Millvale is the major center of recurring flash flood damage. Basin-wide planning, regulation and a general public awareness of the potential flood hazard is essential to Millvale's safety.

6.02.2.2 Effective flood plain management requires adequate knowledge of the potential flood hazard and a will on the part of the flood plain users to face the hazard. The public's attitude toward local planning is probably the most significant aspect of successful flood plain manage­ ment. It is essential that the public understand the flood problem, the degree of risk involved and the methods of minimizing flood damage. Therefore, locally initiated flood plain management is necessary to supplement the proposed structural improvements.

6.02.3 Flood Warning System - A most basic measure which might be taken to protect life and movable property is temporary evacuation. In order for this method to be effective, it would be necessary for local officials to familiarize themselves with the flood warning system operated by the Environmental Science Service Administration (formerly U.S. Weather Bureau) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This type of service is available to communities in the Girtys Run Basin wherein some community or basin initiated flood warning system could be put into operation to temporarily evacuate persons and personal property from the path of floodwaters. A consideration of particular importance in implementing such an evacuation program is the possibility of occurrence of a major storm centered directly over the watershed. For such a storm, quite likely to occur in the summer months, it is estimated that a maximum of only one hour warning could be given. In addition, temporary evacuation would only be an applicable and effective means of protection if the bulk of the damages sustained during a flood were to occur to objects which can be moved quickly and efficiently out of the danger zone. Since much of the damage occurs to immovable structures, such protective measures would be inadequate. Therefore, although a temporary evacuation plan could avoid injury or loss of life and prevent damage to certain movable property items, it will not eliminate major damages. Moreover, with the extremely short warning time associated with summer storms (flash flooding), it is doubtful if most movable property could be successfully displaced or all persons notified of the impending hazard.

6.02.1+ Flood Insurance - Some risk associated with the occupation of a flood plain remains, regardless of the preventive measures taken. The objective of flood insurance is to assure economic recovery and stability to existing enterprises and residential users of flood hazard areas. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 as amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, makes structure and contents flood insurance available at subsidized and unsubsidized rates for residential and nonresidential properties, provided the community assures the adoption of local land use and control measures. As of 21 December 1973, the Borough of Millvale qualifies for the National Flood Insurance Program. Since damage would still occur with the insurance program in effect, flood insurance is not a rational alternative to flood protection, but is a viable extension to provide additional coverage for flooding beyond the project design.

6.02.5 Rehabilitation - Rehabilitation of communities through code enforcement and redevelopment programs can not only enhance the area, but coupled with wise flood plain management, can also be instrumental in reducing flood losses. Community initiated rehabilitation programs can make use of funds available through the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs and HUD assistance programs. Basin communities, such as Millvale, having generally well or overdeveloped areas in varying degrees of obsolescence and yet still having development potential, may want to investigate undertaking renewal programs which could eventually be the incentive for new development and a workable flood damage reduction program. However, new developments in an area that has been designated a flood hazard area in connection with the flood insurance program, as is the case with Millvale, would not be eligible for disaster relief or other aid, unless it first conformed with the requirements of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-23*+).

6.02.6 Floodproofing - Floodproofing measures could be employed by all interests affected by flooding. This would be accomplished to the extent that all openings below the predicted 100 year frequency flood elevation are sealed and made watertight, either permanently or temporarily during floods and involve structural treatment of most of the houses, churches and commercial buildings in the flood zone. The treat­ ment would consist of individual floodproofing of the involved buildings or the construction of separate dikes or walls to provide for their pro­ tection. This approach is considered to be an uneconomical, as well as on unrealistic, solution to the problem in the Girtys Run Valley. Not all structures could be flood proofed because of their foundation or structural condition. Other structures, such as roads and public utili­ ties, would still be vulnerable. Implementation of this alternative would require a considerable investment of funds and resources because of the large number of structures in the flood zone. While this alterna­ tive would result in a reduction in most of the tangible and intangible flood related losses, it would not affect the frequency and areal extent of flooding. Also, other benefits usually provided by flood protection works, such as the elimination of losses resulting from the interruption of commerce, production and traffic, and the danger of loss of life, would also be foregone.

6.02.7 Relocation - Permanent evacuation of residents and commerce and industry from the Millvale area would be socially disruptive. Such involuntary relocation of inhabitants from a dwelling and environment to which they are accustomed would have an adverse sociological and psycho­ logical impact. Experience has also shown that many people refuse evacuation, although desiring flood protection. This alternative would be economically infeasible and is not considered publicly acceptable.

6.02.8 No Action - If no action is undertaken, current conditions as described in "Environmental Setting Without the Project" would be perpetu­ ated. This would forego the tangible and intangible benefits of the proposed channel improvements and would not be responsive to the needs and expressed desires of local residents and their elected officials. Consider­ ing the existing conditions in Millvale and development trends in the Girtys Run drainage basin, a course of no action would probably have greater adverse effects than the proposed plan. 7.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY

7.01 Stream Life - The organic pollution present in Girtys Run has left it in a deteriorated and ecologically unbalanced condition. How­ ever, the stream does support life. If the proposed project were ini­ tiated, the present life would be destroyed, but new aquatic communi­ ties would eventually be reestablished. The long term benefits afforded by the proposed project would be traded for the temporary loss of aquatic life.

7.02 Cnnmiunity - The socio-economic benefits of the proposed project would be significant, particularly as a result of reduced social disrup­ tion and economic losses associated with flooding in Millvale. The long term impact of reduced social and economic flood damage would be the enhancement of the growth potentiality of Millvale Borough as a whole. 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AMD IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

No terrestrial life is expected to be affected by the proposed project, as the recommended plan will limit construction to the channel. The aquatic life and the habitats of these organisms would be eliminated in the project area during construction. It can be expected, however, that the elimination process would be reversed, as the substrate and the life which it supports, eventually return after construction has ceased. Hence, the only irreversible and irretrievable commitments would involve manpower and materials expended during construction. 9.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHERS

9.01 Public Participation - Local interests have long expressed the desire for flood protection for Millvale Borough. In 1936, local citizens, through the Borough Council, requested a diversion tunnel to be constructed by the Federal government. Since that time two public hearings have been held on Corps’ assistance for alternative flood protection projects in Cirtys Run. Additional formal and informal meetings have been held periodically with elected officials and resi­ dents of basin communities during the progression of Corps' studies and on the occasion of flash flooding. The two public hearings are summar­ ized as follows (minutes of the public hearings are on file in the District Office):

9.01.1 A public hearing was held on 20 September 1965 on "Whether Improvements for Flood Protection on Girtys Run, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, are Advisable at the Present Time". In attendance were 37 persons, including Federal and municipal officials. It was stated that an amendment to the Flood Control Act of 1936 placed Girtys Run on the list of localities to be surveyed. An adverse report on Girtys Run was originally filed in "Review of Reports in Allegheny - Monongahela Rivers and Tributaries” (1950) . Damaging floods on 5 May 1950 and 5 July 1950 caused the adverse report to be withdrawn. Funds were made available for the survey study in May 1965. Persons parti­ cipating at the hearing noted the accumulation of debris from dumping and development in the upper basin. The frequency and associated damages from flooding were documented by residents, business repre­ sentatives and elected officials. Many people spoke in favor of a flood control study and eventual project, with none opposing.

9.01.2 On 30 August 1973, a public hearing was held to consider a reservoir alternative for flood protection and other water resource- related purposes in the Girtys Run Basin. Most of those participating were against the reservoir alternative because of its upper basin location and the amount of land required for the impoundment area; the length of time for project completion; the disruption of transportation and sewage systems: and the cost. A few felt that the water-related recreation facilities were worthwhile supplemental attractions. Cor­ respondence from state and county agencies was read into the record and, in general, supported the preliminary plans for the reservoir. As with the first hearing, there was general agreement that flood protection action was necessary and that channel modification was the most feasible and immediate solution.

9.01.3 - Exhibits 3, A and 5 indicate the initial participation of government agencies. As noted in the previous section other govern­ ment agencies have responded to the various alternatives proposed to solve the flooding problem. Agencies expressing preliminary views on the reservoir alternative included: the Department of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Fish Com- mision (Minutes of Public Hearing 30 August 1973). 9.02 Government Agencies - Copies of the Draft Environmental Statement for this project were sent to numerous governmental agencies requesting their views and comments. The resultant comments received from the governmental agencies which responded are attached as "Appendix B" to this statement and are addressed in the ensuing paragraphs.

9.02.1 U. S, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (Letter of 17 January 1975)

a. Comment: The environmental impact statement and report should indicate how a sediment and erosion control plan to minimize environmental damage from construction will be developed and imple­ mented to comply with applicable state laws. The plan should apply to both the project and disposal areas.

Response: Detailed instructions and requirements relating to oediment and erosion control will be and are more properly a part of the "Technical Provisions" portion of the construction contract. How­ ever, paragraph A.11 has been added to the statement to generally address the subject of the comment.

b. Comment: The impact or significance of land use change on the disposal areas has not been addressed. The disposal site near St. Nicholas Cemetery appears to be in a drainageway. Will the disposal area be compatible with its drainage function? Will the area be erosionally stable upon completion of its use? Will a disposal area at this location be an environmentally compatible land use? What is the present land use of the areas?

Response: Paragraph 1.02.4 has been added to the statement to address these comments and discuss the handling of disposal sites in more detail.

c. Comment: Table 1, page 5 of the draft environmental impact statement is a graph. Its meaning appears to have minimal relation to the project. The agricultural value of soil in the project area and disposal sites should be identified in the project impacts. If there is agricultural value, this fact should be stated.

Response: The graph shown on Table 1 on page 5 of the Draft Environmental Statement has been retained as it is representative of the classification of residual soils in the upland areas of the Cirtys Run basin. Paragraph 2.01.4.5 has been added to the statement to Indicate that the soil in the project area does not have any existing or potential agricultural value. 9.02.2 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Letter of 15 January 1975)

a. Comment: Complete dependence on channel capacity for flood control does not appear to us to be a good long-term solution of the problem of periodic flood damage. With the proposed plan, won't individuals be encouraged to build on the flood plain where flooding may be anticipated every 25 years?

Response: The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, P. L. 93-234, requires that local communities adopt adequate flood plain ordinances to reduce future flood losses and participate in the flood insurance program in order to be eligible for future Federal financial assistance. The Borough of Millvale understands the implications of this Act and the consequences of non-compliance. It is anticipated that appropriate local ordinances will be enacted to insure the Bor­ ough's eligibility for Federal funds.

b. Comment: A more lasting solution could include flood plain zoning and a combination of structural and non-structural measures. No combinations are discussed as alternatives in the statement. The implementation of land use plans such as those mentioned on page 15 should precede the expenditure of federal funds for improvement.

Response: Paragraph 3.01 of the statement has been revised to incorporate the above comments .

9.02.3 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (Letter of 23 January 1975)

Comment: We have placed the project in EPA Reporting Category LO-1. This classification means that we have no objection to the proposal as presented in the document. We also believe this document adequately describes the essential features of the project. The Detailed Project Report accompanying the impact statement was very helpful in evaluating this proposal. It clearly presented many of the details of the work to be performed. The EPA classification and the date of our comments will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility to inform the public of our review on proposed actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

No response required.

9.02.4 U. S. Department of the Interior (Letter of 30 January 1975)

a. Comment: The nature of the proposed channel bottom should be clarified. Plate 2 shows the channel floored with gabions, but no mention of these was found in the text. Reference to the use of con­ crete channel lining was also noted in the Detailed Project Report, but it is not certain whether this is still proposed. Response: Paragraph 1.02.1 of the statement has been re­ written to incorporate this comment. It is not planned to use concrete lining in the proposed project.

b. Comment: The draft statement (Page 1, Paragraph 1.02.2) advises that the project would generate "about 18,000 cubic yards of excavated material, mostly rock". However, the Detailed Project Re­ port (Page 30, Paragraph 1) states that the project would generate "about 18,000 cubic yards of excavated material, of which approximately 5,000 cubic yards is rock".

Response: Paragraph 1.02.4 of the statement has been added to incorporate the comment.

c. Comment: Paragraph 2.03.3, Page 13, states that there are no known archeological sites of salvage value in the area, exhibit 2 states that any which might have been present would have been destroyed by roads, housing, etc. Therefore, it is not clear whether or not a survey was actually carried out. If not, it should be stated; if Carnegie did conduct a survey, this should be made clear.

Response: An archeological survey of the project area was conducted by the Carnegie Museum (see Exhibit 2) prior to furnishing their final report to the Pittsburgh Engineer District.

d. Comment: A description of procedures taken to identify and protect any natural and cultural values in potential disposal areas should be furnished in the final impact statement, especially as re­ quired by the National Historic Preservation Act of lq66, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and Executive Order 11593. In this regard, special consideration should be given to completing, disposal procedures in a manner that will result in appearances aesthetically in accord with the surrounding natural and, if applicable, historic environment.

Response: All disposal sites will be located away from the project area. In all cases of this type, the Corps of Engineers requires that the contractor furnish assurances that approval has been received from the property owner. Assurances must also be fur­ nished that the natural and cultural values of the potential disposal areas will be protected.

9.02.5 Ohio River Basin Commission (Letter of 24 January 1975)

Comment: The Ohio River Basin Commission's Priorities Report recommends that this project be implemented within the next five years. This is the Commission's highest priority classification.

No response required. 9.02.6 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor's Office, Office of the Budget (Letter of 3 February 1975)

a. Comment: The subject local flood protection project has been studied by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and due to the present deteriorated condition of Girty's Run and the fact that the present habitat is not too desirable, we have no objections to the proposed project as long as adequate controls on slltation are required.

Response: Siltation controls will be implemented in accord­ ance with the requirements cited in the ''Technical Provisions" portion of the construction contract. See paragraph 9.02.1, response to Comment a.

b. Comment: Paragraph 1.03. The effectiveness of the proposed project implies that backflooding from the Allegheny River will not be a problem in the future.

Response: See paragraph 9.02.9, response to Comment a.

c. Comment: Paragraph 2.01.3. A map showing the extent and location of unconsolidated deposits and a lithological map would be helpful as would accompanying cross-sections.

Response: This information is important to the engineering aspects of project planning and design, and is available in the District Office. Inasmuch as this information is of doubtful real value in evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed project, it has not been included in the Environmental Statement.

d. Comment: Paragraph 4.02.‘ Borough is already suffering from a declining tax base due to aging of buildings and inflation. There is no indication that implementation of the project will reverse this trend.

Response: It is anticipated that the present declining tax base could be reversed because of an increase in property values that may result with reduced flood hazards.

e. Comment: Paragraph 4.07.2. Effects of pools and riffles on water quality is probably beneficial in that pools permit settling of suspended material and riffles enhance oxidation and tend to increase the dissolved oxygen content.

Response: We concur that generally the effects of pools and riffles on water quality are probably beneficial. However, considering the character of Girtys Run and its watershed, and the variety of factors affecting the stream in addition to point sources of pollution, the pool-riffle development in the proposed project reach appears to be of negligible value to water quality. f. Comment: The plan to lower the channel bottom of Girtys Run will greatly increase the water flow from an existing channel capacity of 1500 c.f.s. to a design discharge of 2500 c.f.s. How will this in­ creased capacity affect the drainage structure that carries Girtys Run under East Ohio Street (L. R. 70), which is located not too far down­ stream from the channel proposed for improvement?

Response: In the past, the drainage structure which carries Girtys Run under East Ohio Street has effectively contained a discharge of 2500 c.f.s. The proposed project will not affect the downstream discharges of Girtys Run at this drainage structure.

9.02.7 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (Letter of 11 December 1974)

Comment: The Corps of Engineers has conducted a sufficient sur­ vey to Indicate that the project will not have an adverse effect on any site on or eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. We concur with this finding.

No response required.

9.02.8 County ofAllegheny, County Department of Works (Letter of 16 December 1974)

a. Comment: Paragraph 2.01.6.1. The last sentence refers to samples taken at overflows from storm sewers which Indicate that coliform counts exceed state standards. The Appendix A, Table 2 refer­ ence does not appear to describe overflow analysis but stream analysis.

Response: Paragraph 2.01.6.1 of the statement has been revised to Indicate that the coliform count samples were taken in the stream downstream of the identified sewer overflow outlets.

b. Comment: Paragraph 2.01.6.2. The first sentence seems to be ambiguous because the second sentence describes the main stream as affected by organic pollution.

Response: Paragraph 2.01.6.2 of the statement has been revised by omitting the first sentence.

c. Comment: Paragraph 2.01.7. Problem of ecological unbalance may result as much from excessive runoff and subsequent high velocities as from organic pollution.

Response: We concur in this Comment. Paragraph 2.01.7 of the statement has been revised accordingly. d. Comment: Paragraph 2.01.7.1. There is no proof that the Pennsylvania Fish Commission does not stock Girty's Run because of raw sewage toxicity.

Response: Paragraph 2.01.7.1 of the statement has been re­ vised to indicate why the Fish Commission does not stock Girtys Run.

e. Comment: Paragraph A.07.2. This paragraph gives the impres­ sion that elimination of sewage discharges will significantly affect the chemical character of the stream. Without data on the effects on various parameters now it would be difficult to assess that change. Combined sewer overflows will continue to be discharged to the stream in the future.

Response: We concur in this Comment. Paragraph 4.07.2 of the statement has been revised accordingly.

f. Comment: Paragraph 4.08.1. What would be the type of the aquatic communities which should be reestablished in the stream?

Response: Paragraph 4.08.1 of the statement has been revised. The reduction of physical diversity of the streambed resulting from project construction would reduce biological diversity in the aquatic community; i.e., there will be less kinds of aquatic organisms. The species of organisms that would be present would largely be determined by water quality. Under present conditions, only those organisms tolerant of poor water quality would be expected.

g. Comment: TABLE 3. The population figures for West View Borough for the years 1950, 1960 and 1970 are obviously incorrect. The 1970 figure for the Borough should be 8,312.

Response: TABLE 3 of the statement has been revised to show the correct figures.

9.02.9 County of Allegheny, Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation (Letter of 10 December 1974)

a. Comment: We note no specific reference in the text to annual maintenance work required. Exhibit 1 shows an annual maintenance cost of $15,000. Does your office anticipate a heavy accumulation of silt, sediment and miscellaneous debris in that area of the Run where the River may produce a ponding effect?

Response: Local interests will be required to maintain the geometric shape and grade of the improved Girtys Run channel by keeping it free of debris, sediment deposits, undesirable vegetation and other materials which would tend to decrease its efficiency through the project area. Local interests will also be responsible for the main­ tenance of the integrity of all channel walls within the limits of the project. The average annual cost of this maintenance is estimated at $15,000. At the normal pool elevation for the Allegheny River in the vicinity of Millvale (710 feet above mean sea level) there would be no backwater from the river in Girtys Run. Therefore, we do not antici­ pate a heavy accumulation of silt, sediment and miscellaneous debris within the Girtys Run channel near the mouth that would cause a serious maintenance problem. However, in the past a bar of sediment and debris has formed in the Allegheny River at the mouth of Girtys Run. This bar must periodically be removed in connection with Corps of l'ngineers maintenance dredging program for the Allegheny River and is done at Federal expense. It is expected that the bar will continue to form in the river at the mouth of Girtys Run even after the proposed project has been constructed.

b. Comment: Paragraph 2.04.A.2. Although we have no statis­ tical base upon which to question the accuracy of the statement in 2.02.4.2, "The probability of coincidental flooding from both sources is considered negligible," we suspect that such is an oversimplifica­ tion of a potentially disastrous possibility.

Response: Coincidental flooding from both Girtys Run and the Allegheny River could only happen under an unusual weather pattern that has an extremely remote chance of occurring. Since flood peaks on Girtys Run follow the end of rainfall by 1/2 to 1 hour and flood peaks on the Allegheny River at Girtys Run follow the end of rainfall by approximately 24 hours (flood damages could begin as early as 6 hours), it would require two separate storms for coincidental flooding to occur. Also, high flood flows on the Allegheny River are associated with large, widespread storms resulting from the passage of weather fronts, and, rarely, with large tropical depressions, such as the "Agnes" storm of June 1972. The frontal type storms which cause flood­ ing on the river usually occur in winter and early spring, and are not a significant cause of flooding in small watersheds, such as Girtys Run. Flood flows in Girtys Run are associated with intense, localized convectional storms which usually occur in the summer. Additionally, convectional storms do not closely follow the passage of weather fronts. Therefore, coincidental flooding would occur with a large frontal storm over the Allegheny River basin followed in 6 to 24 hours by a convectional storm over the Girtys Run basin. It is very unlikely that this combination of two different types of storms would occur.

9.02.10 County of Allegheny, Department of Planning and Development (Letter of 5 February 1975)

a. Comment: In your Paragraph 2.01.4.4 and accompanying map delineating the landfill sites for the disposal of the waste material, we have been informed through communication with the Pennsylvania Geologic and Topographic Survey that these three respective sites delineated by you are under-lain by the Conemaugh formation and the inherent susceptibility to landslides relative to this specific forma­ tion is a distinct possibility. It has been indicated that your staff will check into this. Response: The disposal sites delineated in the Detailed Project Report are potential sites which indicate that adequate space is available locally for disposal. It is the responsibility of the contractor to dispose of excavated materials, including obtaining necessary permission of landowners and complying with applicable State and local regulations. In addition, the contractor must submit a plan for approval to the Pittsburgh Engineer District showing the disposal sites to be used, method of disposal and treatment after disposal. At that time the specific sites, methods and treatments are evaluated for engineering and environmental suitability, including susceptibility to landslides.

b. Comment: Paragraph 2.02.3.1 states that the channel will be modified to accommodate flows up to 2,500 cfs. In your report, you specify the culvert capacities (existing) to accommodate 1,500 cfs. If this is so, under storm conditions there is a potential of an im­ poundment condition being developed at the entrance end of the cul­ verts. We have been advised this has been "fixed by the Corps."

Response: The proposed project consists of increasing the capacity of not only the channel but also the culverts. Paragraph 1.02 of the statement has been modified to more clearly reflect this condition.

9.03 Citizen Croups - Copies of the Draft Environmental State­ ment were also sent to numerous interested citizen organizations requesting their views and comments. The comments received from one of these groups are attached as "Appendix B" to this statement and are addressed in the ensuing paragraphs.

9.03.1 Carnegie-Mellon University (Letter of 27 January 1975)

a. Comment: Table 5, p. 11, of your draft statement lists the magnitude and dates of occurrence of Millvale flash floods. Of the seven floods reported, only discharge data are given for four floods occurring since 1950. Each of these estimates may be assumed to be well within the confidence limits (say + 10 percent) for estimating a flood flow at 2500 cfs. The likelihood that A or more floods, each having a A percent probability of occurring in any single year, occur in a 2A-year period is about 2 percent. This appears to be a rather rare event. On the other hand, if the probability of the flow occur­ rence is increased to 10 percent in a single year, i.e., 10 year recurrence interval, the likelihood of A or more floods of such a magnitude in 2A years is about 21 percent. We emphasize that the re­ currence interval for a flood flow of 2500 cfs cannot be well estimated from the historical record for the Girtys Run area. You would be better served by pointing out the degree of uncertainty of the assign­ ment of a 25-year recurrence interval for the 2500 cfs flow in Millvale. Statements about the magnitude of a 100 year flood are even less reliable. We do not believe that you have evidence that uncouples the effect of upstream land development on the frequency of flooding in Millvale (Sec. 105, p. 2). This is simply an extension of our doubts about the reliability of your estimate that 2500 cfs is the 25-vear flood. There is a substantial margin for error in estimating flood frequency parameters from short periods of record. Similarly, an estimation of a change in the overall distribution of the flooding patterns cannot be expected to be found in still shorter fragments of this same short record.

Response: It was not the Corps' intent to stress or empha­ size any given frequency. The computed frequency referred to in the statement is for the design flow. The Detailed Project Report spells out how such frequencies are developed. The flows and outflows devel­ oped by the Corps and those developed by Carnegie-Mellon University agree very closely even though they were obtained through two inde­ pendent studies using, different methods in obtaining data. The fre­ quencies developed by the Corps are based on the analysis of avail­ able information. Although the Corps has no evidence that uncouples the effect of upstream land development from the frequency of flooding in Millvale, there is no real evidence that the urban development alone has markedly increased flooding. Newspaper accounts of the flood of 11 June 1940 give the time of beginning of rise as 5:30 P.M. and the time of receding by 7:00 P.M. This is comparable to the most recent floods.

b. Comment: Coupling of Sewer System and Stream Channel. There is ample evidence that construction practices such as channel encroachment and paving of large areas in the upper and lower basin have altered the rate of wet weather runoff. Hydrological effects of urbanization studied by Luna Leopold of the U. S. Geological Survey (1971) point out consequences related to paving and the installation of storm sewers. For example with the conversion of an area from rural to urban, say at 50 percent storm sewered and 50 percent impervious, the expected number of overbank floods increases four-fold. For com­ plete urbanization, say 100 percent storm sewered and 60 percent impervious, the overflow flows increase five-fold. Hence the local impact of urban development can be substantial if development procedes [sic] proceeds without watershed planning. During dry weather, the principal channel flow in some places in Millvale is wholly overflow from combined sewers. It is very important to emphasize the coupling of the sewer system and the stream that now exists. It is overly sim­ plistic to state that the proposed project impacts public utilities (Sec. 1.02.1, p. 1 and Sec. 4.03, p. 16) through the need only to re­ locate 10 sanitary sewer crossings. Much more than relocation must be examined. You do give further recognition of the links between the sewer system and stream improvement (Sec. 1.02, p. 1), with the statement concerning need for flap gates to prevent channel flow from backing up into basements and low-lying adjacent channel areas. While the project provides for lessening the changes of overbank flood­ ing into the streets and intersections in Millvale, there is no defini­ tive statement on the impact of the project on the combined sewer system in Millvale. Is it likely that surface runoff into street drains within Millvale is still going to cause a large number of flooded basements? The residents of Millvale cannot easily separate flooding problems fully controlled by channel deepening from related flooding problems that are not alleviated by the proposed project. Hence, it is impera­ tive that other local, state, and federal agencies cooperate with the Corps of Engineers in a joint venture for minimizing additional mecha­ nisms for flood damage in Millvale. An evaluation of requirements for upgrading the existing Millvale combined sewer system should be com­ pleted now, while it is still possible to bring about needed changes concurrent with the channel deepening.

Response: Channel encroachment will affect the stream flow but will not affect runoff rates. It is agreed that paved areas tend to increase runoff rates but the efficiency of the system used to con­ vey this runoff to the stream plays a large part in how this runoff contributes to a flood. Also, the features of the basin such as stream slope, side slopes, tributary slopes and length, type of soil, ground cover, etc. have a great influence on how urban development will affect runoff rates. The statement that the conversion of an area from rural to urban increases overbank floods four-fold is only for certain select cases. This could be true on annual flows but not necessarily bankfull flows. It certainly does not hold true for Girtys Run which has a present bankfull capacity estimated at about 1,500 c.f.s. A graph presented in the Carnegie-Mellon Girtys Run Report shows the expected increase in the 20-year peak flood due to projected land use. This graph shows an increase of only 220 c.f.s. between the years 1967 and 2000. This projection indicates that future urbanization will not alter the future flows to any great degree since the increase shown represents only an 8 percent increase. We concur that local and/or State authorities should investigate the possibility of improving Millvale's combined sewer system. This could have best been done in conjunction with the planning for the channel improvement project had these authorities chosen to do so. However, it is conceivable that the sewer system can also be improved after construction of the project.

c. Comment: The central focus of our comments rests on the impact of the proposed project on Millvale. However, the spirit of environmental impact analysis requires recognition of upstream problems as well. The Corps of Engineers believes that historical records of damage upstream from Millvale (Sec. 1.01, p. 1) do not justify remedial control measures beyond the current project. The correctness (or shortsightedness) of this evaluation for a federal flood control proj­ ect should not relieve upstream communities from critically evaluating current land use practices. In this spirit, a preliminary alternative flood project (Sec. 6.01.6.2, p. 27) suggested the "timely implementa­ tion of planned highway relocations and sanitary and storm drainape system improvements....made prior to implementation of the project.” Evidence of this spirit of joint planning in Millvale, as well as in other parts of the watershed, would add substantially to the value of the proposed project. The Draft Statement for the current project, however, does not recognize or enable such planning. In particular, the future role of coupled land use regulations in the watershed is treated in a somewhat cavalier fashion with the statements that "future development in the upper watershed should recognize the potential con­ sequences on downstream flooding" and that "where no structural solu­ tions are feasible, selective floodproofing and land use regulations provide a viable choice" (Sec. 1.05, p. 2). These statements are un­ fortunate; they emphasize the Corps' role as the provider of post-facto structural solutions. We believe the role of the Corps must embrace urban watershed planning and management, with proper regard for plan­ ning before the fact as well as construction after the fact. Without proper recognition of the importance of basin planning for the entire watershed in this Draft Statement, we cannot firmly endorse the pro­ posed project. However superior its immediate technical merit, by philosophy the project threatens to repeat the pattern of disjointed action all too typical of past urban projects.

Response: We concur in the value and need for total water­ shed management, especially in urban areas such as Girtys Run. The Pittsburgh Engineer District recognizes this need in the Cirtys Run watershed and would actively participate in such an effort. The Girtys Run basin was examined in planning studies for the proposed project with respect to water resource problems within or related to Federal jurisdiction. The land use controls and regulations which are a prerequisite to total watershed management is a State and/or local decision. The Corps of Engineers endorses wise land use management and strongly encourages implementation of land use regulations to sup­ plement Federal water resource projects. While there are many advan­ tages to total watershed management, it must be recognized that the practical realities of the institutional and political framework in which it must be accomplished is not always conducive to providing timely solutions to problems. This becomes very critical when there is an urgent existing problem, such as the flooding in Millvale. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ackenheil, A. E.. Mining and Physiography Study of Allegheny County. Pittsburgh, Pa. 1968.

2. Carnegie-Mellon University. An Analysis of Urban Watershed Waste Water Control in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, 1973.

3. Carnegie-Mellon University. Girtys Run: A Study in Urban Watershed Management. Pittsburgh, 197^•

U. Green Engineering Company. Comprehensive Sewage Needs Plan 1970 - 2000, Allegheny County, Pa. Sewickley, Pa.

5. Green Engineering Company. Comprehensive Water Systems Needs Plan for Allegheny County, 1970 - 2000. Sewickley, Pa., 1972.

6. Hynes, H. B. N. The Biology of Polluted Waters. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, 1971*

7. Johnson, Meredith E. Pennsylvania Geological Survey. Topographic and Geologic Atlas of Pennsylvania, No. 27, Pittsburgh Quadrangle. Geology and Mineral Resources. Harrisburg, Pa. 1929.

8. Pennsylvania Department of Commerce, Bureau of Statistics. 1972 Pennsylvania Industrial Census Series, Release No. M-5-72, Allegheny County. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1972.

9. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. Dimensions of Year 2000, A Basis for Plan Preparation in Southwestern Pennsyl­ vania. Pittsburgh, 1973.

10. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. Cooperative Planning Process. Pittsburgh, 197^.

11. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. A Computer Model for Alternative Sewer System Cost Evaluation. Pittsburgh, December, 1972.

12. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Girtys Run Reconnaissance Report. Pittsburgh, Pa. 1970.

13. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey Interpretations for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 1973. Vol. 2. lU. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey Maps for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 1973. Vol. 1.

15- United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1967 Census of Business. Washington, D.C. May, 1969.

16. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1967 Census of Manufacturers. Washington, D.C. May, 1969.

17. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of Population and Housing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Washing­ ton, D.C., May, 1972. ECONOMIC DATA

Extracted from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Detailed Project Report, Girtys Run, Millvale, Pennsylvania Complete Document is available at U.S. Army Engineer District, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (October 1974 Values)

FIRST COSTS

Federal $ 2,229,000 Non-Federal 33.4 ,000 Total First Cost $ 2,543,000

AVERAGE ANNUAL CHARGES'

Federal: Interest at 5-7/82 $ 123,551 Amortization at 0.3592 _____ 7,550 Sub Total (rounded) 1 131,100

Non-Federal: Interest at 5-7/82 $ 18,448 Amortization at 0.3592 1,127 Maintenance 15,000 Sub Total (rounded) Ip 34,600

Total. Average Annual Charges (rounded) $ 165,700

AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS

Flood Control: Total average annual damages $ 390,000 Average annual, benefits attributable 264,700 to project

BENEFIT-COST RATIO 1.6

The above economic data do not include those intangible benefits and costs which have been considered in project formulation, but which can­ not be quantified. These unquantified benefits and costs are improving social well-being and community cohesion, effects on fish and wildlife which are not expected to be significant, and temporary increases in traffic, noise, exhaust emissions, stream turbidity and sedimentation during project construction. CARNEGIE MUSEUM DEPARTMENT OF THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTE 4400 FORBES AVE., PITTSBURGH. PA. 1ST 13. U.S.A. (412) 422-3243

• IN V E I K IIA T t IO S III1 • VE ItEM A T E POSSIU • PIANTS ^INSECTS A SPIDERS • AMPHISIANS A C P T IL E I • IIEDS • MAMMAIS • MAN • EXHIIITS

D»«cto>-M. GRAHAM HITTING AtHxioM Dir.—JAMES l. SWAUGER

August 12, 1974

Mr. J. S. Minnotte Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Dear Mr. Minnotte:

Attached to this letter are our reports on the

Girty's Run, Punxsutawney, and Johnstown local flood protec­

tion projects. As you will note, all three areas are nega­

tive as to the presence of archaeological sites. There may

have been sites at one time in the past but these areas

have been greatly modified and disturbed by construction of

roads, houses, and phanges in the stream channels.

Sincerely,

Don W. Dragoo Curator, Section of Man Archaeological Appraisal Girty's Run Local Protection Project Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

No archaeological sites have been recorded in the

immediate area of the Girty's Run flood protection project. This area has been subjected to modification for many years

and any sites that would have been present have been destroyed. The proposed work by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers would not destroy any significant archaeological remains.

Dr. Don W. Dragoo Curator, Section of Man Carnegie Museum of Natural History Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

August 12, 1974 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE John W. McCormack Post Office end Courthouse BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02109

FtB 4 1974

D istrict Engineer Pittsburgh D is tric t, Corps of Engineers New Federal Building 1000 W. Liberty Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Dear Sir:

This confirms a telephone discussion between Mr. Taylor of this Bureau's Upper Darby, Pennsylvania Area o ffice and your Mr. DeMario regarding pre­ liminary assessments of tentative plans for the Girtys Run Local Flood Protection Project at Millvale, Pennsylvania. Mr. DeMario had previously telephoned Mr. Taylor and mailed project plans to the Upper Darby, Pennsyl­ vania o ffice as requested. Mr. Taylor pointed out to Mr. DeMario that his views on effects of the project are strictly preliminary and should not be interpreted in any way as representing any official position of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.. Mr. DeMario stated that the Bureau w ill have the opportunity to review the fin a l plan upon its completion under the normal review process.

Mr. Taylor's cursory appraisal of this project as related to Mr. DeMario pointed out that fish and w ildlife resources are negligible within the project area and therefore project effects as envisioned would be minimal. This position is consistent with a previous position taken by the Bureau on earlier plans for local protection in the Millvale area on Girtys Run presented to you in the Bureau's report dated September 23, 1955. Mr. Taylor stated that there are two conditions, however, which the Bureau would want to reserve at this time. These are:

(1) The Bureau w ill desire to review sites for spoil deposition which we understand have not been selected to date. Mr. DeMario stated that he w ill present us with the sites for disposal as early as possible.

(2) Mr. Taylor also expressed concern over the concrete lining as a possible project measure in certain sections of the channelized stream. He said that the Bureau would prefer a natural bottom if possible.

Sincerely yours,

Regional Director UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE U. S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02109

September 28, 1965

District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Federal Building 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Dear Sir: This letter is our report on the fish and wildlife resources related to the flood protection developments on Girtys Run, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Your study was authorized by the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937. This report was prepared under authority, of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-666 inc.), in co­ operation with the Pennsylvania Fish and Game Commissions. This report has the concurrence of these agencies ^as indicated by letters dated Septemberv23, 1965 and Septcmber'16, 1965, re­ spectively.

It is our understanding that the project is basically one of channel improvement in the vicinity of Millvale. Your study will consider both local flood protection structures in this area as well as small dry-bed reservoirs in the headwaters of Girtys Run.

Fish and wildlife resources will not be significantly affected by construction and operation of this project. Therefore, we do not propose to report further on this project.

Sincerely yours,

Aoti-ng • Regions 1 rDi rector ^SOLUTION NO. 1332______

RESOLUTION OF THE BOROUGH OF MILLVALE, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, AUTHORIZING THE PROPER BOROUGH OFFICERS TO EXECUTE ASSURANCES TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AEMY OF THE UNITED STATES IN CONNECTION WITH FLOOD PROTECTION OF GIRTYS RUN IN MILLVALE, PENNSYLVANIA.

BE IT RESOLVED by Che Council of Che BOROUGH OF MILLVALE,

Allegheny CounCy, Pennsylvania, In regular neeClng assembled, and

1C Is hereby resolved by Che auChorlCy of Che sane:

ThaC Che proper officers of Che Borough of Mlllvale be and are hereby authorised and dlrecCed Co execuCe Assurances Co

Che SecreCary of Che Array of Che United States, for and on behalf of Che Borough of Mlllvale, In connecClon with flood protection of Glrtys Run In Mlllvale, Pennsylvania, in the form of Assurances attached hereto and made part of this Resolution.

ADOPTED this t day of ______. 1974.

ATTEST: BOROUGH OF MILLVALE

By Secretary PresideiK of Council J

EXAMINED AND APPROVED this ip-1-^ day of ______,

1974.

Mayor 9/ioM

ASSURANCES BY THE BOROUGH OF MILLVALE, PENNSYLVANIA IN CONNECTION WITH FLOOD PROTECTION OF GIRTYS RUN AT MILLVALE, PENNSYLVANIA

WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Army is authorised to allot money for

the construction of small projects for flood control and related purposes, vhich come within the provisions of Section 1 of the Flood Control Act of

22 June 1936 (under authority of Section 205 of the 19**8 Flood Control Act,

as amended):

WHEREAS, in the event the Secretary of the Army has available and allots

funds for the construction of said project, such construction is subject to

fulfillment of the requirements of local cooperation stipulated below; and

WHEREAS, the Borough of Millvale, Pennsylvania, is desirous of meeting

the requirements of local cooperation and has the necessary financial resources

and the legal ability to fulfill the obligations contained in these assurances.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Borough of Millvale, Pennsylvania, a municipal corpora­

tion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, hereby assures the Secretary of the

Army that it will, without cost to the United States:

a. Provide all lands, easements, rights of way and borrow and

spoil-disposal areas including such rights as shall be required by the Govern­

ment to perform work on or in the existing channel and channel walls, as

necessary for the construction of the Project and comply with the provisions

of the Uniform Relocations Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies

Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-6U6), and make all relocations payments, provide all

assistance and pay all expenses and/or litigation costs incidental to the

transfer of such real property to the Borough of Millvale as required by

Sections 210 and 305 of the above referred to Act;

b. Provide for all necessary relocations, removals, alterations

and adjustments of buildings, highway and highway bridges, and water, sanitary

sewer, and other utilities and related or special facilities;

c. Subject to the provisions of the Water Resources Development Act

of 197*** Section 9 (P.L. 93-251)> hold and save the United States free from

damages due to the construction works; d. Establish and enforce channel limit lines to prevent encroach­ ment on the Improved channel;

e. Maintain and operate the project works after completion,

Including maintenance and replacement of all channel walls within the limits of the project, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army;

f . At least annually notify interests affected that the project will not provide complete flood protection;

g. Bear and pay to the United States of America prior to initiation of construction all federal costs of the project in excess of the federal cost limitation of $2,000,000 as established by Section 205 of the Flood Control

Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701 (s)) as amended by Section 6l of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-251); and

h. That it, acting through its Chief Legal Officers, has considered the effects of Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611;

84 Stat. l8l9).

THESE ASSURANCES are executed pursuant to a Resolution duly passed by the Borough Council of the Borough of Millvale, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, at a regular meeting held on the 10 t h d a y of S e p t e m b e r ______197 4 as the same appears in the minutes of said meeting.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borough of Millvale, Pennsylvania, has caused these Assurances to be executed and its corporate seal to be hereto affixed this -10 th day of September ______1974

Attest: BOROllpH OF MILLVALE

Secretary Mayor

Approved as to form and legality

Borough Soliqj^fqj/ CERTIFICATE

I, PAUL J. LADISH, Secretary of the BOROUGH OF FILLVALE, do hereby certify the foregoing and attached to be a true and correct copy of Resolution No. /S/'A, duly adopted at a regular meeting of Council of the Borough of Millvale held the 10th day of September, 1974, a full quorum being present.

Secretary^Borough of Millvale

TABLES

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES

Table No.

1 Girtys Run Watershed Chemical Analysis

2 Girtys Run Watershed Bacteriological Analyses

3 Statistical Profile, Selected Socio-Economic Data APPENDIX A

TABLE 1

GIRTYS RUN WATERSHED CHEMICAL ANALYSES

Total Specific Total Inorganic Organic Sampling Alkalinity Iron SO 4 Cl" Conductance Carbon Carbon Carbon Date Station pH (ng/1) (ng/1) (ng/1) (ng/1) (umho/cm) (ng/1) (mg/1) (ng/1) 2-13-74 3 8.10 1136 31 23 8 4 8.30 1182 30 23 7 7 7.75 920 19 10 9 8 7.92 1489 28 23 5 9 8.20 1013 26 23 2 12 8.00 1273 28 18 10 15 7.42 1430 30 18 12 16 8.40 1207 28 18 10 17 7.95 1156 26 21 5 2-17-74 1 7.75 996 40 19 21 4 8.10 935 26 23 3 6 8.10 1013 26 23 2 8 8.15 1085 28 24 4 13 8.50 921 28 22 6 16 8.50 921 23 23 0 4-3-74 1 7.24 120 0.2 110 125 820 25 21 4 5 8.02 100 0.1 90 115 865 18 18 0 12 8.21 100 0.1 80 105 920 17 17 0 4-4-74 1 7.71 1099 13 13 0 10 8.04 880 16 15 1 12 7.91 1130 14 14 0 14 7.92 910 15 12 2 4-11-74 1 7.42 130 0.1 150 105 764 23 23 0 5 8.30 120 0.1 100 125 809 22 22 0 10 8.34 854 19 17 2 12 8.60 120 0.1 90 125 793 20 17 3

SOURCE: Carnegie-Mellon University APPENDIX A TABLE 2*

GIRTYS RUN WATERSHED BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSES

Sample Fecal Coliform Total Coliform No. Date (colonies/100 ml) (colonies/100 nl)

2 3-2-74 8.0 x 105 2.4 x 106 2 3-4-74 7.9 x 105 n.d. 4 3-3-74 8.2 x 105 > 2.4 x 106 4 3-4-74 3.2 x 10s n.d. 11 3-21-74 1.6 x 106 n.d. 15 3-4-74 8.7 x 103 n.d. 18 3-6-74 7.0 x 10* 8.8 x 10* 18 3-7-74 1.4 x 10 8.8 x 10*

*The Pennsylvania standard for fecal coliform density in the Oirtvs Pun watershed states that the number of colonies should not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml in five consecutive samples. No specific standard exists for total coliform density in the Oirtys Run watershed.

n.d. - not determined

Source: Carnepie-Mellon University APPENDIX A TABLE 3

STATISTICAL PROFILE SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA MILLVALE BOROUGH, UPPER GIRTYS RUN DRAINAGE BASIN AND U.S.

Upper Girtys Run Drainage Basin Millvale Municipalities U.S.

Population, 1970 All persons 5,815 98,656 203,235,000 White 99.9% 99.5% 87.5% Negro - .4% 11.1% Other .1% .1% 1.4% Density, 1970 Persons per square mile 11,630 - 56.2 Age Distribution of Resident Population, 1970 Up through 19 years 29.8% 38.8% 36.7% 20 - 44 years 26.6% 29.9% 33.0% 45 - 64 years 27.8% 23.1% 20.5% 65 and over 15.9% 8.2% 9.8% Employment Status, 1970 Males over 16 in labor force 74.0% 81.5% 79.2% Females over 16 in labor force 35.2% 33.1% 42.8% Unemployment Rate, 1970 Males in labor force 5.2% 2.2% 4.4% Females in labor force 4.2% 3.1% 5.9% Income, 1970 Median family income $8,580 $11,697 $9,867 Percent of families with income below poverty level 6.7% 3.7 % 10.7% Characteristics of Housing 1970 Built 1939 or prior 87.0% 26.9% 40.0% Built 1940 - 1949 5.0% 14.7% 12.8% Built 1950 - 1959 4.3% 29.6% 21.1% Built 1960 - 1970 3.7% 28.9% 24.7% Commercial Activity, 1967 Number of wholesale establishments 12 n.a. n.a. Per capita and value of sales $1,053 n.a. n.a. Number of retail establishments 65 n.a. n.a. Per capita and value of sales $1,092 n.a. n.a. Number of selected service establishments 42 n.a. n.a. Per capita and value of receipts $ 239 n.a. n.a.

n.a. - not available APPENDIX A

TABLE 3 CONTINUED

MANUFACTURING CENSUS 1972

Standard Industrial Number of Employees All Code Establishments Total Production Others

MILLVALE Meat Packing Plant 2011 1 8 4 4 Bakery 2051 2 36 22 14 Nailed and Lock Corner Wooden Boxes 2441 1 4 4 Nespapers: Publishing and Printing 2711 1 43 8 35 Commercial Printing: Lithographic 2752 1 22 16 6 Cut Stone and Stone Products 3281 1 7 4 3 Hand Saws and Saw Blades 3425 1 63 56 7 Fabricated Structural Metal 3441 1 16 12 4 Bolts, Nuts, Screws, Rivets and Washers 3452 1 44 37 7 Metal Stampings N.E.C. 3469 1 41 34 7 Special Dies and Tools, Die Sets, Jigs and Fix­ tures and industrial molds 3544 1 12 12

Total 12 296 209 87

SOURCES: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Pennsylvania Department of Commerce, Bureau of Statistics LETTERS RECEIVED BY THE

PITTSBURGH DISTRICT ON THE

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

APPENDIX B APPENDIX B

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTERS RECEIVED BY THE PITTSBURGH DISTRICT ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

£5££ U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service B- 1

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service B- 2

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency B- 3

U. S. Department of the Interior B- U

Ohio River Basin Commission B- 6

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor's Office, Office of the Budget B- 7

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission B-12

County of Allegheny, County Department of Works B-13

County of Allegheny, Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation B-15

County of Allegheny, Department of Planning and Development B-17

CITIZEN GROUPS

Carnegie-Mellon University B-19 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Box 985, Federal Square Station, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108

January 17, 1975

Mr. J. S. Minnotte Chief, Engineering Division Pittsburgh D istrict, Corps of Engineers Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Dear Mr. Minnotte:

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and draft detailed project report prepared by your office have been reviewed by both the state office and Allegheny County fie ld office of the Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. We have the following comments:

1. The environmental impact statement and report should Indicate how a sediment and erosion control plan to minimize environmental damage from construction w ill be developed and implemented to comply with applicable state laws. The plan should apply to both the project and disposal areas.

2. The impact or significance of land use change on the disposal areas has not been addressed. The disposal site near St. Nicholas Cemetery appears to be in a drainageway. Will the disposal area be compatible with its drainage function? Will the area be erosionally stable upon completion of its use? Will a disposal area at this location be an environmentally compatible land use? What is the present land use of the areas?

3. Table l.page 5 of the draft environmental impact statement is a graph. Its meaning appears to have minimal relation to the project. The agricultural value of soil in the project area and disposal sites should be identified in the project impacts. If there is agricultural value, this fact should be stated.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project.

Sincerely,

Benny Martiq State Conservationist

cc: Mr. Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator, SCS, Washington, D. C. Dr. Fred Tschirley, Coordinator of Environmental Quality A ctivities, USDA Office of the Secretary, Washington, D. C. 20250 Council of Environmental Quality, Attention: General Counsel, 1722 Jackson Place, Washington, b.c. 20006 (5 copies) U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o p A g r ic u l t u r e FOREST SERVICE

NORTHEASTERN AREA. STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

6BI6 M a r k e t s t r e e t . U p p e r D a r b y . P a . 190B2

215-597-3772 8400 January 15, 1975

J. S. Minnotte, Chief Engineering Division Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers Federal Bldg., 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Re: ORPED-PE, Draft Environmental Statement, Girtys Run, Millvale, Pa.

Dear Mr. Minnottee:

We have reviewed the above statement covering a local flood protection project in Allegheny County.

Complete dependence on channel capacity for flood control does not appear to us to be a good long term solution of the problem of periodic flood damage. With the proposed plan, won't individuals be encouraged to build on the flood plain where flooding may be anticipated every 25 years?

A more lasting solution could include flood plain zoning and a combination of structural and non-structural measures. No combinations are discussed as alternatives in the statement. The implementation of land use plans such as those mentioned on page 15 should precede the expenditure of federal funds for improvement.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this statement.

Sincerely,

ALFRED H. TROUTT ' Assistant Director Environmental Protection & Improvement UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY R EG IO N III

6 t h AND WALNUT STREETS PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106 January 23, 1975

Mr. J. S. Minnotte Chief, Engineering Division Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers Federal Building 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Dear Mr. Minnotte:

We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning the flood protection project on Girtys Run, M illvale, Pennsylvania.

We have placed the project in EPA Reporting Category LO-I. This classifica tion means that we have no objection to the proposal as presented in the document. We also believe this document adequately describes the essential features of the project.

The Detailed Project Report accompanying the impact statement was very helpful in evaluating this proposal. It clearly presented many of the details of the work to be performed.

The EPA classifica tio n and the date of our consents w ill be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility to inform the public of our review on proposed actions under Section 309 of the Clean A ir Act.

Sincerely yours,

• \ Nicholas M. Ruha Chief EIS and Wetlands Review Section United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY NORTHEAST REGION JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING R O O M 2003 J & K BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203 AIR MAIL January 30, 1975

D istrict Engineer Buffalo D istrict, Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207

Dear Sir:

We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement (November 1974) and the draft Detailed Project Report (October 1974) for G irty's Run Local Flood Protection Project at M illvale, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and have the following comments:

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The statement adequately describes the poor water quality and impover­ ished aquatic communities presently existing in Girty's Run. Implemen­ tation of the recommended plan w ill not significantly affect fish and w ild life resources within the immediate boundaries of the project. We encourage implementation of a comprehensive flood plain management program, in order to prevent future problems along Girty's Run.

The nature of the proposed channel bottom should be cla rifie d . Plate 2 shows the channel floored with gabions, but no mention of these was found in the text. Reference to the use of concrete channel lining was also noted in the Detailed Project Report, but i t is not certain whether this is s t i ll proposed.

The draft statement (Page 1, Paragraph 1.02.2) advises that the project would generate "about 18,000 cubic yards of excavated material, mostly rock." However, the Detailed Project Report (Page 30, Paragraph 1) states that the project would generate "about 18,000 cubic yards of excavated material, of which approximately 5,000 cubic yards is rock."

Paragraph 2.03.3, Page 13, states that there are no known archeolo­ gical sites of salvage value in the area. Exhibit 2 states that any which might have been present would have been destroyed by roads, housing, etc. Therefore, i t is not clear whether or not a survey was actually carried out. If not, i t should be stated; i f Carnegie did conduct a survey, this should be made clear.

A description of procedures taken to identify and protect any natural and cultural values in potential disposal areas should be furnished in the fin al impact statement, especially as required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and Executive Order 11593. In this regard, special consideration should be given to completing disposal procedures in a manner that w ill result in appearances aesthetically in accord with the surrounding natural and, i f applicable, h istoric environment.

The statement is adequate concerning water resources, geology, mineral resources, and outdoor recreation.

Draft Detailed Project Report

We have reviewed the project report and find that project construction and operation, as described, w ill not significantly affect fish and w ild life resources within the project boundaries.

It is noted that tentative spoil disposal areas have been delineated on Plate 15 in the Detailed Project Report. In view of the situations of the three sites that have been shown, the following reference to disposal sites in the draft environmental statement (Page 1, Paragraph 1.02.2) appears to be in need of cla rifica tio n : "A half acre would be required outside the channel with the remaining easements located within the channel it s e lf." That statement gives the impression that disposal is contemplated within the channel of Allegheny River or some other channel, whereas Plate 15 appears to show only land disposal sites.

Page 30 and Plate 15 provide an incomplete description of proposed disposal techniques that may be used to minimize any adverse effects on the environment; also, the areas defined on the plate are specified as being "tentative" disposal sites. The number and locations of definitely specified alternative sites, as well as proposed methods for disposal, should be described in detail.

The project appears to be adequate in its coverage of outdoor recrea­ tion resources, geology, and mineral resources.

Sincerely yoursy

--Roger S u m n e v Babb— Special Assistant to the Secretary OHIO RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Suite 208-20 36 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 513/684-3831 (FTS)

January 24, 1975

Mr. J.S. Minotte Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Dear Mr. Minotte:

Thank you for your letter of 22 November 1974 inviting comments of the Ohio River Basin Commission on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Girtv's Run Local Flood Protection Project, Millvale, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In my opinion, the EIS has been properly coordinated with the Commission members.

The Ohio River Basin Commission's Priorities Report recommends that this project be implemented within the next five years. This is the Commission's highest priority classification.

The Commission looks forward to a continuing cooperative effort with your Department and appreciates your action in keeping us well informed.

Sincerely,

Fred E. Morr Chairman cc: BG Wayne S. Nichols 5 to Council on Environmental Quality COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OFFICE OF THE BUDGET HARRISBURG, PA. 17120 P.O. Box 1323 February 3, 1975

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PENNSYLVANIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Phones 717-787-8046

Titles Draft EIS Girtys Run Millvale Project

J. s. Minnotte Locations Allegheny County Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers Applicants U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222 PSCH project numbers 74 12 3 001 Dear Sir:

The Governor's Budget Office, as the State Clearinghouse for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has received and transmitted to various State agencies, including the Department of Environmental Resources, copies of the environmental statement mentioned above.

Attached to this letter please find the comments of the Department of Environmental Resources and the following State agenciess

Pennsylvania Fish Commission and Department of Transportation.

Please consider these the official response of the Commonwealth in this matter.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Heiss, Coordinator Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O . M X I « « T

January 16, 1975

SUBJECT: Department of Environmental Resources Review and Evaluation of PSCH No.: 74-12-3-001

TITLE: DEIS and Detailed Project Report (Draft) for Girtys Run Millvale Local Flood Protection Project

LOCATION: Millvale, Alleghany County

TO: R. A. Heiss, Coordinator Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse

FROM: MAURICE K. GODDARD Secretary of Environmental Resources

No significant or adverse impact is anticipated by the implementation of this project. However, the Department of Environmental Resources offers these comments.

This project has been evaluated on the basis of the actions proposed in the applicant’s submission. Any approval, granted or implied, does not extend to any changes made by the applicant subsequent to and not in keeping with our recommendations. Any such changes will require a new submission through the Pennsyl­ vania State Clearinghouse. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES SUMMARY OF REVIEW AND EVALUATION PART ONE

PSCH No.: 74-12-3-001 TITLE: DEIS Girtys Run Millvale Local Flood Protection Project

DATE: January 16, 1975 LOCATION: Millvale, Allegheny County

The subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been re­ viewed and our comments are as follows:

1. Available information at this office and at the Ebensburg District Office indicates no evidence of abandoned mines in the area. Review of the DEIS indicates that sewage is a problem in the area. Page 8 of the DEIS states that there is an absence of acid mine drainage from Girtys Run. If additional information concerning AMD becomes evident, we should be informed.

2. Page 2, 1.03 - The effectiveness of the proposed project implies that backflooding from the Allegheny River will not be a problem in the future.

3. Page 4, 2.01.3 - A map showing the extent and location of unconsolidated deposits and a lithological map would be helpful as would accompanying cross-sections.

4. Page 16, 4.02 - Borough is already suffering from a declining tax base due to aging of buildings and inflation. There is no indication that implementation of the project will reverse this trend.

5. Page 17, 4.07.2 - Effects of pools and riffles on water quality is probably beneficial in that pools permit settling of suspended material and riffles inhance oxidation and tend to increase the dissolved oxygen content.

6. Water supplies will not be affected by this project.

7. The Department of Environmental Resources retains an interest in this project and environmental effects encountered or anti­ cipated in the further developement of this project. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA January 20, 1975 suMjro.T. Draft Environmental Statement Girty's Run, Millvale, Pa. 74-12-3-001

TO Richard Heiss State Coordinator Pa. State Clearinghouse from Jack G. Miller, Chief Fisheries Environmental' Services Pennsylvania Fish Commission

The subject local flood protection project has been studied by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and due to the present deteriated condition of Girty's Run and the fact that the present habitat is not too desirable, we have no objections to the proposed project as long as adequate controls on siltation are required. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Department of Transportation January 29» 1975

Local Flood Protection Project subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Millvale, Allegheny County PSCH Project No. 7^12-3-001 TO: Mr. Bichard A. Heiss State Coordinator, FNBS State Clearinghouse Budget Office fro.*: Eoom 62^, Main Capitol Louis E. Keefer, Director', Bureau of Advance Plannings

We have reviewed the work plan and draft environmental impact statement for the local flood protection project in Millvale Borough, Allegheny County. We submit the following: 1. The project will not affect proposed highways in the area.

2. The plan to lower the channel bottom of Girtys Bun will greatly increase the water flow from an existing channel capacity of 150 0 c.f.s. to a design discharge of 2 5 0 0 c.f.s. How will this increased capacity affect the drainage structure that carries Girtys Bun under East Ohio Street (L.B. 7 0 ) , which is located not too far downstream from the channel proposed for improvement? 3. If alternative plans, other than channel improvement, are adopted, we would like to see such plans when they are developed, especially if they will affect highway facilities in the area. C ommonwealth o f P ennsylvania Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission P. O. Box 1026, H a r r i s b u r g , P ennsylvania 17120

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

December 11, 1974

Mr. J. S. Minnotte Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Dear Mr. Minnotte:

Reference is made to your letter of November 22, 1974 and the Draft Environmental Statement for the Girtys Run local flood protection project in Millvale, Pennsylvania.

The Corps of Engineer has conducted a sufficient survey to in­ dicate that the project will not have an adverse effect on any site on or eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. We concur with this finding.

Very truly yours,

WILlilAM J. WEWER THOMAS J FOERSTER LEONARD C STAISEY W ILLIAM R. H U N T. M. D. COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER of ^lleglieii

50! COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING. FORBES AVE. & ROSS ST. PITTSBURGH. PA. 15219 PHONE. (4121 355-5900

C o u n ty D epartm en t o f W orks DONALD BERMAN OIRECTOR December 16, 1974

Department of the Army Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers Federal Building 1000 Liberty Ave. Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222

SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT: GIRTY'S RUN, MILLVALE, PA.

Gentlemen:

The Allegheny County Department of Works submits their comments regarding the subject statement as per your request of November 22, 1974.

PARA 2.01.6.1

The last sentence refers to samples taken at overflows from storm sewers which indicate that coliform counts exceed state standards. The Appendix Table 2 reference does not appear to describe overflow analysis but stream analysis.

PARA 2.01.6.2

The first sentence seems to be ambiquous because the second sen­ tence describes the main stream as affected by organic pollution.

PARA 2.01.7

Problem of ecological unbalance may result as much from excessive runoff and subsequent high velocities as from organic pollution.

PARA 2.01.7.1

There is no proof that the Pennsylvania Fish Commission does not stock Girty's Run because of raw sewage toxicity. PARA 4.07.2

This paragraph gives the impression that elimination of sewage discharges will significantly affect the chemical character of the stream. Without data on the effects on various parameters now it would be difficult to assess that change. Combined sewer overflows will continue to be dis­ charged to the stream in the future.

PARA 4.08.1

What would be the type of the aquatic communities which should be reestablished in the stream?

TABLE 3 (PAGE 9) - GIRTY'S RUN BASIN POPULATION

The population figures for West View Borough for the years 1950, 1960 and 1970 are obviously incorrect. The 1970 figure for the Borough should be 8312.

Our comments are not intended to be critical but to clarify mis­ conceptions, raise a question and point out an error in information reporting.

Very truly yours,

Richard M. Cosentino, P.E. Deputy Director C o u n t y C ommissioners LEONARD C. STAISEY CHAIRMAN THOMAS 1. FOERSTER WILLIAM R. H U N T. M. D. Ifiwtsts} iJlegltof PITTSBURGH. PA. 15219

DEPARTMENT OP PARKS, RECREATION

AND CONSERVATION >48 COUNTV OFFICE BUILDING

GEORGE E. KELLY, DIRECTOR 358*4251 -4252.4253 Bureau of Planning & Development 327-0338 December 10, 1974

Mr. J. S. Minnotte Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Draft - Environmental Statement Girtys Run, Millvale, Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. Minnotte:

This refers to your letter of November 22, 1974, with which you transmitted subject Environmental Statement and in which you requested the comments of this office thereon.

We have reviwed the Girtys Run Statement in some detail and wish to offer the following comments:

1. We note no specific reference in the text to annual maintenance work required. Exhibit 1 shows an annual maintenance cost of $15,000. Does your office anticipate a heavy accumulation of silt, sediment and miscellaneous debris in that area of the Run where the River may produce a ponding effect?

2. Although we have no statistical base upon which to question the accuracy of the statement in 2.02.4.2, "The probability of coincidental flooding from both sources is considered negligible," we suspect that such is an over­ simplification of a potentially disastrous possibility. In general, notwithstanding the foregoing, we believe that subject statement is a reasonably accurate evaluation of the situation and that the project proposed is probably the most appropriate under present circumstances.

Very truly yours,

George E. Kelly Director Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation C o u n t y C ommissioners D e p a r t m e n t o f P l a n n i n g a n d LEONARD C. STAISEY D e v e l o p m e n t CHAIRMAN John N. Mil berger, THOMAS J. FOERSTER Acting Director W ILLIAM R. H U N T. M. D.

ffsMsf§ pf Jilkglteif

ALLEGHENY BUILDING. 429 FORBES AVENUE, (412) 388-8960 PITTSBURGH. PA. 15219

February 5, 1975

Mr. J.S. Minnotte, Chief Engineering Division Department of the Army Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers Federal Building 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Dear Mr. Minnotte:

The members of the Department of Planning and Development had a meeting with the Director of the Works Department of Allegheny County and his associates relative to the response made by our Department to your Draft Environmental State­ ment, Girty's Run.

In this meeting, it was concluded the vast majority of itemized points raised in question relative to your Draft Statement were answered in sufficient detail in the "Detail Report." There are only two points to be satisfied by this Depart­ ment that could be responded to in letter form from you or your staff.

In your Paragraph 2.01.4.4 and accompanying map delineating the lan dfill sites for the disposal of the waste material, we have been informed through communication with the Pennsylvania Geologic and Topographic Survey that these three respective sites delineated by you are under-lain by the conomough formation and the inherent susceptibility to landslides relative to this specific formation is a distinct possibility. It has been indicated that your staff will check into this.

The other point, which we would request an answer to also via letter, is your Paragraph 2.02.3.1 relative to the potential impounding condition where the stream- bed would be modified to accommodate 2,500 cfs. In your report, you specify the culvert capacities (existing) to accommodate 1,500 cfs. If this is so, under storm conditions there is the potential of an impoundment condition being developed at the entrance end of the culverts. We have been advised this has been "fixed by the Corps."

If this condition has been remedied, could you.so advise us. We hope this w ill relieve any concern by your Agency regarding the additional work load and would expedite matters as far as answers and finalizing your impact statement.

If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact this office.

Very truly yours,

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Alexander J. Eliorj/ Associate Director - Physical Planning

cc: D. Berman, Works Department R. Cosentino, Works Department F. Bunda G. Cincala Carnegie-Mel Ion University Environmental Studies Institute Schenley Park

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 [412] 621-2600 January 27, 1975

District Engineer Department of the Arm y Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Re: Dvaft Environmental Statement; Girtys Run, Millvale, Pennsylvania

D e a r S i r :

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for the Girtys Run Local Flood Protection Project, Millvale (Allegheny County), Pennsylvania, which is dated 22 November 1974.

The statement reflects a high degree of professionalism and care in preparation. The Corps is to be generally commended for its plan to reduce the threat of overbank flooding in Millvale. We have attempted in the comments which are appended not to dwell on aspects of the Statement with which we agree, but rather to critique sections of the Statement for which we believe further considerations a re in order.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Draft State­ ment, and would be happy to discuss our comments more completely with you at a future time.

Sincerely yours,

Francis Clay McMichael Associate Professor Civil Engineering & Public Affairs

Robert W. Dunlap Director, Environmental Studies Institute

William P. Darby Assistant Professor Northeastern University Comments on

Draft Environmental Statement

Local Flood Protection Project

Girtys Run, Millvale, Pennsylvania

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

by

Francis Clay McMichael R o b e r t W. D u n la p William P. Darby

Environmental Studies Institute Carnegie-Me l Ion University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

January 27, 1975 Our substantive comments on the Draft Environmental Statement dated 22

November 1974 pertain to the following areas of urban watershed management

and flood protection on Girtys Run:

- channel modifications to increase the hydraulic capacity of nearly

7000 feet of the stream in the Borough of Millvale and to provide increased over­

bank flood protection;

- coupling of the trunk sewer system in Millvale to the Girtys Run

stream channel;

- upstream land development and its relationship to the proposed

channel modifications.

Degree of Flood Protection via Channel Modification

The draft statement states that the deepening of the Girtys Run channel

within Millvale will provide protection against a flood flow of 2500 cubic ft per sec

(cfs) or less. Such a flood is estimated to have a recurrence interval of 25 years.

The expectation that such a flood flow will be equalled or exceeded in any single

year is simply 1/25 or 4 percent. We believe that the amount of information that

you currently have available does not justify the emphasis you have given to this

expected level of protection.

Table 5, p. 11, of your draft statement lists the magnitude and dates of oc­

currence of Millvale flash floods. Of the seven floods reported, only discharge

data are given for four floods occurring since 1950. Each of these estimates may

be assumed to be well within the confidence limits (say + 10 percent) for estimating

a flood flow at 2500 cfs. The likelihood that 4 or more floods, each having a 4 per­

cent probability of occurring in any single year, occur in a 24-year period is about 2 percent. This appears to be a rather rare event. On the other hand, if the probability of the flow occurrence is increased to 10 percent in a single year, i.e., 10 year recurrence interval, the likelihood of 4 or more floods of such a magnitude in 24 years is about 21 percent. We emphasize that the recurrence in­ terval for a flood flow of 2500 cfs cannot be well estimated from the historical record for the Girtys Run area. You would be better served by pointing out the degree of uncertainty of the assignment of a 25-year recurrence interval for the

2500 cfs flow in Millvale. Statements about the magnitude of a 100 year flood are even less reliable.

We do not believe that you have evidence that uncouples the effect of up­ stream land development on the frequency of flooding in Millvale (Sec. 105, p.2).

This is simply an extension of our doubts about the reliability of your estimate that 2500 cfs is the 25-year flood. There is a substantial margin for error in esti­ mating flood frequency parameters from short periods of record. Similarly, an estimation of a change in the overall distribution of the flooding patterns cannot be expected to be found in still shorter fragments of this same short record.

Coupling of Sewer System and Stream Channel

There is ample evidence that construction practices such as channel en­ croachment and paving of large areas in the upper and lower basin have altered the rate of wet weather runoff. Hydrological effects of urbanization studied by

Luna Leopold of the U.S. Geological Survey (1971) point out consequences related to paving and the installation of storm sewers. For example with the conversion of an area from rural to urban, say at 50 percent storm sewered and 50 percent impervious, the expected number of overbank floods increases four-fold. For complete urbanization, say 100 percent storm sewered and 60 percent impervious, the overflow flows increase five-fold. Hence the local impact of urban development can be substantial if development procedes without watershed planning. During dry weather, the principal channel flow in some places in Millvale is wholly overflow from combined sewers. It is very important to emphasize the coupling of the sewer system and the stream that now exists. It is overly simplistic to state that the proposed project impacts public utilities (Sec. 1.02.1, p.l and Sec. 4.03, p.16) through the need only to relocate 10 sanitary sewer crossings. Much more than relocation must be examined. You do give further recognition of the links be­ tween the sewer system and stream improvement (Sec. 1.02, p.l), with the

statement concerning need for flap gates to prevent channel flow from backing up into basements and low-lying adjacent channel areas. While the project provides for lessening the chances of overbank flooding into the streets and intersections in Millvale, there is no definitive statement on the impact of the project on the com­ bined sewer system in Millvale. Is it likely that surface runoff into street drains within Millvale is still going to cause a large number of flooded basements?

The residents of Millvale cannot easily separate flooding problems fully controlled by channel deepening from related flooding problems that are not alleviated by the proposed project. Hence, it is imperative that other local, state, and federal agencies cooperate with the Corps of Engineers in a joint venture for minimizing additional mechanisms for flood damage in Millvale. An evaluation of requirements for upgrading the existing Millvale combined sewer system should be completed now , while it is still possible to bring about needed changes concur­ rent with the channel deepening.

Upstream Problems & Relationship to Project

The central focus of our comments rests on the impact of the proposed pro­ ject on Millvale. However, the spirit of environmental impact analysis requires recognition of upstream problems as well. The Corps of Engineers believes that historical records of damage upstream from Millvale (Sec. 1.01, p.l) do not justify remedial control measures beyond the current project. The correctness (or short­ sightedness) of this evaluation for a federal flood control project should not relieve upstream communities from critically evaluating current land use practices. In this spirit, a preliminary alternative flood project (Sec. 6.01.6.2, p.27) sug­ gested the "timely implementation of planned highway relocations and sanitary and storm drainage system improvements... .made prior to implementation of the project." Evidence of this spirit of joint planning in Millvale, as well as in other parts of the watershed, would add substantially to the value of the proposed pro­ ject. The Draft Statement for the current project, however, does not recognize or enable such planning.

In particular, the future role of coupled land use regulations in the water­ shed is treated in a somewhat cavalier fashion with the statements that "future de­ velopment in the upper watershed should recognize the potential consequences on downstream flooding" and that "where no structural solutions are feasible, selec­ tive floodproofing and land use regulations provide a viable choice" (Sec. 1.05, p.2).

These statements are unfortunate; they emphasize the Corps' role as the provider of post-facto structural solutions. We believe the role of the Corps must embrace urban watershed planning and management, with proper regard for planning be­ fore the fact as well as construction after the fact. Without proper recognition of the importance of basin planning for the entire watershed in this Draft Statement, we cannot firmly endorse the proposed project. However superior its immediate technical merit, by philosophy the project threatens to repeat the pattern of dis­ jointed action all too typical of past urban projects.