DOCSLIB.ORG

Girtys Run, Millvale, Pennsylvania: Local Flood Protection Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Girtys Run, Millvale, Pennsylvania: Local Flood Protection Project 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 Historical Resources 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 Multiple PurposeR 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, 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 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan FINAL - October 2009
    Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan FINAL - October 2009 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Environmental Council 22 Terminal Way Pittsburgh, PA 15219 www.pecpa.org Funding was provided by the PA Department of Environmental Protection through Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act Administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Table of Contents Executive Summary …………………………………………………1 Chapter 1: Watershed Background ………………………………….3 Chapter 2: Water Quality Characteristics …………………………...8 Chapter 3: Modeling Nonpoint Source Pollution Using AVGWLF and RUNQUAL ……………………………………..…19 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Pollution Load Reductions …….34 Chapter 5: Public Participation …………………………………….64 Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implementation Schedule …………….67 Appendices …………………………………………………………69 y Appendix 1 - Modeling Results: Natural Conditions, Entire Basin y Appendix 2 - Modeling Results: Existing Conditions, Entire Basin y Appendix 3 - Modeling Results: Existing Conditions, Sub-basins y Appendix 4 - Center for Watershed Protection’s 2007 Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices, Appendix B: Defining Retrofit Pollutant Load Reductions y Appendix 5 - Center for Watershed Protection’s 2007 Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices, Appendix D: Retrofit Pollutant Removal Rates y Appendix 6 - Center for Watershed Protection’s 2007 Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices, Appendix E: Derivation of Unit Costs for Stormwater Retrofits and New Stormwater Treatment Construction y Appendix 7 – Stormwater Management Pond Evaluation Data Dictionary Executive Summary Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan The goal of this plan is to determine how best to reduce the nonpoint source pollutant loads in the Pine Creek Watershed (Allegheny County, Pennsylvania). Pine Creek is a 22.8 mile long tributary to the Allegheny River. Its watershed is 67.3 square miles in area and contains approximately 128 stream miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of Small Tributaries to the Ohio River in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
    Fishes of Small Tributaries to the Ohio River in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Koryak Environmental and Health Consultants for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pittsburgh District October 2003 3 Rivers 2nd Nature STUDIO for Creative Inquiry Press in association with Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh Introduction Fishes of Small Tributaries to the Ohio River in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Abstract The fish communities of fifty-three small urban/suburban streams with little or no available baseline fish data were sampled by backpack electrofishing in 2002 and 2003. All are tribu- taries of the Ohio, Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. A total of 3,026 fish of 37 species, weighing 95.3 pounds, were collected at stations located near the mouths of these 53 urban/suburban streams (electrofishing effort-547 minutes). Fish were present in 12 of 18 Ohio River tributaries. Of the 18 streams sampled within the Allegheny River drainage, only four did not support some fish. Fish were present in 15 of 17 of the Monongahela River tributaries. A total of 28 species of fish were collected in the tributaries of the Ohio River, 29 species in the Allegheny River tributaries, and16 species in the tributaries of the Monongahela River. Blacknose dace were the numerically dominant species collected in these small streams, and showed the widest distribution of any fish. Blacknose dace were present in 34 of the study streams, creek chub in 30, and white suckers in 16. Generally sensitive sculpin and darter species were present in 18 of the streams, and a Pennsylvania Endangered species (river shiner) was found in Bailey Run.
    [Show full text]
  • Allegheny River Towns Enterprise Zone Housing Study TABLE of CONTENTS
    October 10, 2014 allegheny river towns enterprise zone housing study TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. I A. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... i B. Key Issues: Demographic Profile .................................................................................................................................. i C. Key Issues: Residential Market Analysis ..................................................................................................................... ii D. Key Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................iv II. DEMOGRAPHIC & ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 1 A. Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Population Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Population History ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Recreation, Park, & Open Space Plan
    BRC-TAG-13.6-605 September 2012 This project was fi nanced in part by a grant from the Community Conservation Partnerships Program, Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund under administration of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation. ROSS TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Grant Montgomery, President David J. Mikec, Vice President Daniel L. DeMarco Chris Rand Eyster John Sponcer Lana Mazur Grace Stanko Gerald R. O’Brian Peter A. Ferraro PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF Pete Geis, Parks and Recreation Director Vickey Trader, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director COMPREHENSIVE RECREATION, PARKS, AND OPEN SPACE PLAN STUDY GROUP Betty Ardery, Volunteer representing the senior population Tim Burnett, North Hills School District board Dan Cardone, North Hills School District Athletic Director Chris R. Eystrer, Ross Township Commissioner Sally Hergenroeder, Volunteer representing the senior population Karla Maruca, Representing civic association and forest sustainability Lana Mazur, Ross Township Commissioner Dave Mikec, Ross Township Commissioner and outdoor recreationalist cknowledgements Scott Schomaker, Active in community activities Barb Traynor, North hills Soccer Association Beth Wisnewski, Volunteer with parks and recreation A PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES Monica Hoffman, Recreation and Parks Advisor, Partnerships Division Kathy Frankel, Natural Resource Program Supervisor EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence and Trends in the Concentrations of Fecal-Indicator Centration, and Turbidity
    Prepared in cooperation with the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority and Allegheny County Health Department Occurrence and Trends in the Concentrations of Fecal- Indicator Bacteria and the Relation to Field Water-Quality Parameters in the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers and Selected Tributaries, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 2001–09 Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5136 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Occurrence and Trends in the Concen- trations of Fecal-Indicator Bacteria and the Relation to Field Water-Quality Parameters in the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers and Selected Tributaries, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 2001–09 By John W. Fulton, Edward H. Koerkle, Jamie L. McCoy, and Linda F. Zarr Prepared in cooperation with the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority and Allegheny County Health Department Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5136 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • 8B.6 Advantages of Adding “Basin Upstream Rainfall” (Bur) to the Flash Flood Monitoring and Prediction (Ffmp) Program
    8B.6 ADVANTAGES OF ADDING “BASIN UPSTREAM RAINFALL” (BUR) TO THE FLASH FLOOD MONITORING AND PREDICTION (FFMP) PROGRAM Robert S. Davis, T. A. Green, and C. S. Strager NOAA/NWSFO, Pittsburgh, PA 1. INTRODUCTION easily inundated with heavy rainfall, in short time periods of two hours or less, from a The National Basin Delineation (NBD) single slow-moving thunderstorm. Larger (http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/projects/basins/) watersheds have slower hydrologic Project by the National Severe Storms response times, and are much more difficult Laboratory (NSSL) created the small stream to flood. These larger watersheds require database used by FFMP at all National numerous showers to train over their larger Weather Service (NWS) offices in the basin areas, for longer time periods of 3 to 6 continental United States. While the basin hours or more. Because of these differences boundaries of the NBD small stream in hydrologic response and mesoscale database are routinely used by FFMP, mechanisms needed to create the required several other parameters created by the rainfall, watershed area has a direct impact NBD have not been operationally on the forecaster’s situational awareness of implemented for use in FFMP. Two of these any stream flood threat. unused parameters include the area and the The FFMP program was based on the flow accumulation for each FFMP basin Areal Mean Basin Estimated Rainfall segment. (AMBER) program started at the Pittsburgh The NBD also created hydrologic National Weather Service Forecast Office connectivity between each of the defined (NWSFO) in 1985. AMBER was designed to stream basins. FFMP does use this answer two questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Millvale, PA and the Case for Universal Flood Insurance in the United States
    School of Geography and the Environment MSc Elective Essay Millvale, PA and the Case for Universal Flood Insurance in the United States Andrew Tabas ______________________________________________________________ Abstract: The National Flood Insurance Program in the United States is in billions of dollars of debt and does not provide adequate flood insurance. The case of Millvale, Pennsylvania shows gaps in the program and community efforts to fill them. The National Flood Insurance Program should be replaced with a universal flood insurance program to solve these problems. Introduction The U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is drowning. The program reached $30.4 billion in debt in September 2017 (Lehmann 2018). The NFIP’s debt decreased after Congress forgave $16 billion, but climbed again to $20.5 billion in July 2018 (Lehmann 2018). The debt increases with each major catastrophe. Meanwhile, there is uncertainty about the future of the program, demonstrated by Congress’s passage of multiple short-term NFIP extensions in 2018 (FEMA 2018a). Why is this problem occurring? Well-developed insurance programs balance risk and solidarity (Lehtonen and Liukko 2012). Risk is “the possibility of loss” (OED 2018a). Likelihood and consequences determine risk (Perseus 2012). Solidarity is “the fact...of being perfectly united...in interests” (OED 2018b). Insurance programs bring people together as a community to share the burden of flooding. The NFIP is not financially sound because it has not struck the correct balance between risk and solidarity. Because of this imbalance, the NFIP fails to fulfill Arnell’s three “roles” of insurance: reimbursement, cost-sharing, and mitigation (Arnell 2000). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) argues that it is time “for Congress to take bold steps to reduce the complexity of the program and strengthen the NFIP’s financial framework” (FEMA 2018a).
    [Show full text]