Ecology and Recovery Allegheny County

Timothy Collins Jonathan Kline Kostoula Vallianos Cyril Fox

3 Rivers 2nd Nature : STUDIO for Creative Inquiry : Carnegie Mellon University : Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Ecology and Recovery Allegheny County

Timothy Collins Jonathan Kline Kostoula Vallianos Cyril Fox

3 Rivers 2nd Nature : STUDIO for Creative Inquiry : Carnegie Mellon University : Pittsburgh Pennsylvania

Ecology and Recovery Allegheny County

Timothy Collins Jonathan Kline Kostoula Vallianos Cyril Fox

STUDIO for Creative Inquiry Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh Pennsylvania GIS Design: Jonathan Kline, Lena Andrews, Priya Krishna, John Oduroe and Kostoula Vallianos Editors: Noel Hefele, Jennifer Brodt and Tim Collins Layout design: Jonathan Kline and Noel Hefele

For more information on work done by the 3 Rivers 2nd Nature Project, call 412.268.3454 or visit http://3r2n.cfa.cmu.edu

ISBN 0-9772053-9-8

STUDIO for Creative Inquiry College of Fine Arts, Rm 111 Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 www.cmu.edu/studio

Cover Photo: Evidence of Acid Mine Drainage on the Monongahela River (3R2N) Map: Ecological opportunity areas in Allegheny County (3R2N) Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Table of Contents

Forward vii

Executive Summary ix

I. The Landscape of Allegheny County 1

II. The Demographic Context of Allegheny County 9

III. Woodland Watershed Analysis 19

IV. Other Measures of Watershed Health 29

V. Defining the River Corridor 37

VI. Measuring the Woodlands 47

VII. Measuring the Riverbank Data 63

VIII. Identifying Areas of Opportunity 69

IX. Regulation and Conservation 81

Appedicies 109

Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Ecology and Recovery - Allegheny County vationist goal is planned and rational use of natural systems for human benefit. Partly in reaction to the conservationist’s focus on management for human use and benefit, the preservation movement developed a phi- Ecology and Recovery - Allegheny County is the culmination of the 3 Rivers losophy of protecting natural areas for their own benefit, not necessarily 2nd Nature Project, a five year inquiry directed by artists Tim Collins and Reiko for human use. Indeed, active human intervention was believed neither Goto. Using full page maps, photographs and charts, the report reveals extraordinary necessary nor advisable. The struggle to create national wilderness areas, ecological opportunities in Allegheny County, providing a solid foundation for greening which were to be pristine lands untouched (or nearly untouched) by hu- our collective future. The STUDIO for Creative Inquiry is grateful to the interdisci- man hands, is one illustration of the philosophy of this movement. plinary team of artists, geologists, botanists, architects, planners, historians, regulatory experts, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) specialists that participated in Restoration refers to the process of deliberately managing a site to es- gathering the material for this report and to the Heinz Endowments for their support. tablish an identified, native and historic ecosystem. The Society for Eco- logical Restoration (SER) defines restoration as “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or de- Forward stroyed.” SER’s description is informative: “Ecological restoration is an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosys- The idea that nature has value in an urban setting is just starting to take tem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability.” The restoration hold in Western Pennsylvania. Where nature needs sunlight and nutrients process contemplates active management of a damaged ecosystem until Chartiers Creek to thrive, new ideas need public discussion and a means of comparing it has recovered its historical development path. While it may not be pos- what we know from the past to what is occurring in the present. It has sible to restore land to its exact historical condition, it should be possible been both our assignment and our great pleasure to consider the meaning, in many cases to reestablish the direction and boundaries of historical form and function of nature in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Principal development. Figure i.1 The 130 separate municipalities of Allegheny County overlaid with the sub-watersheds. funding for this effort was provided by the Heinz Endowments through a research grant paid to 3 Rivers Wet Weather Inc., and then redirected Allegheny County was once a gorgeous place to live. The hills were cov- of historic land use, ownership and political interest. Typically, munici- to the STUDIO for Creative Inquiry at Carnegie Mellon University. The ered in rich, deep forests that framed good healthy rivers. In the last pal boundaries are informed but not in any way constrained by landscape STUDIO is a recognized leader in interdisciplinary research in the arts thirty years, with the downturn of industry, nature has started to reassert ecology, topography or hydrology. The fact that the City of Pittsburgh and sciences. STUDIO projects demand the social application of creative its beauty, its sense of health and well-being and its service to our com- now encompasses land on the north side of the Allegheny River, the south knowledge. munity. In December 2005, the Pittsburgh City Council passed a steep side of the Monongahela and the pie-slice between the rivers is a very slope zoning ordinance that reflects the work that you are about to read. good example. None of this is a problem until society and its political In this report, we examine, value and rank the remnant and recovering 3 Rivers 2nd Nature project team members worked closely with Allegh- interests begin to think about the zoning and regulation of riparian land ecosystems that support the natural health of the rivers and streams of eny Land Trust and Perkins Eastman Architects on the Pittsburgh Steep (land along a river or stream). The management and oversight of natural Allegheny County. To activate that knowledge, we analyze techniques for Hillside Zoning study. Things really are changing; our leaders are awaken- ecosystems can be instigated by environmental benefits or environmental preserving, conserving and restoring these systems. While these terms are ing to the value and import of our natural living infrastructure. They are threats, the latter being particularly actionable on the basis of public safety. often used interchangeably, they also describe different stages and philoso- starting to pay attention to the environmental issues that are essential to The former, primarily an aesthetic and emergent economic value, is more phies of ecosystem protection. Traditionally, the conservation movement our youth. They are beginning to understand the relationship between the diffcult to pursue due to the bias of the Pennsylvania courts. (See Cyril put forth the ability and need for humans to manage the natural environ- environment and the economy, and its role as a keystone to our future. Fox on legal strategies for preserving and conserving land, P. 91-102) ment through scientifc means. It believes in the importance of human management of the environment for human benefit and is predicated on In Figure i.1, municipal boundaries are overlaid on the watershed boundar- In the Figure i.2, there are three layers of information: municipal bound- a firm faith in human capacity to manage nature effectively. The conser- ies in Allegheny County. Municipal boundaries are a legal-cultural product aries, watersheds and population concentrations in the year 2000. It is

vii 3 rivers 2nd nature

It is effective to look at the center of these maps, and particularly the large for developers and conservationists alike. There is a better way and we watershed of Chartiers Creek, which drains to the Ohio. Chartiers Creek must fnd it together. is both a multi-state and multi-municipal watershed where upstream development adversely effects downstream communities that are close to the We return this report to the citizens, the activists, the visionaries and lead- floodplain. The issue is not flood water—water is the effect. The issue ers of Allegheny County who are prepared to do the real work of change. is unrestrained development and its impact on hydrology and ecosystems, Once ideas have taken hold and the thinking has shifted, there are decades as well as the constraints of the political boundaries that we rely upon to of work ahead of us. With one hand to the earth and its waters, we must manage development, public safety and the public good. Allegheny Coun- reach out with the other to all who can help. Organizations like the Allegh- ty sprawls outward from the City of Pittsburgh, with population density eny Land Trust, Friends of the Riverfront, Pennsylvania Environmental decreasing the further you get away from the city. It is in the north and the Council, Penn Future and the Sierra Club have been staunch allies on this west that the region is seeing the most signifcant growth and development project. Our friends and colleagues have attended countless meetings and that is radically altering the forest cover and hydrological characteristics of participated in on-the-water “river dialogues” with the explicit intent to the land, adding signifcant infrastructure costs and creating downstream support public discussion about change. Our future is green, our future is flooding problems for the riverfront communities that are not beneﬁting wet and our future is forecast by the choices we make every day. Chartiers Creek from development in the hills.

According to the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (1994), the natural Tim Collins communities of the county are now in a state of growth and recovery. But January 2006 what are the conditions of present growth and the scope of recovery? Are Figure i.2 Allegheny County population density in 2000 shown by census block group. remnant natural forests and recovering ecosystems of Allegheny County of any value? According to the text The Terrestrial Ecoregions of North important to consider the relationship between population growth, steep America, Allegheny County is located in Appalachian Mixed Mesophytic hills and once wooded valleys, and urban stream flow. Development Forest ecoregion which harbors “the most diverse temperate forests in impacts both water quality and quantity. If you lived in the valleys and North America.” The Appalachian Mixed Mesophytic Forest Ecoregion flood plains of Streets Run, Chartiers Creek, Girty’s Run or Pine Run, has been identiﬁed as globally outstanding and requires immediate protec- you would notice signifcant changes to stream flow in the last ten years tion and restoration. It is clear that we have amazing potential for recov- as development patterns changed and growth occurred in the hills above ery and stabilization of the natural ecosystems of Allegheny County. The these valleys. With each major flooding event, instead of offering money question is how do we begin to quantify their value and understand their to people so they can move away from the floodplains, the politicians re- relative health? quest support from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to defend homes from floodwaters. Uncontrolled development, coupled with the blatant As this report demonstrates, there are many strategies available to con- (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection approved) intent serve, preserve and restore riverfront and supporting lands. These strate- to ignore downstream impact of upstream development decisions, means gies consist of a mix of public and private actions. No one strategy nor we will have a century or more of flooding ahead of us. We typically react one single institution may be appropriate for all of the land along the four to the flooding with expensive, concrete infrastructure instead of sensible rivers, but combinations of strategies can greatly improve the ecological low cost proactive planning and land use controls, based on what we all health of Allegheny County’s river oriented location. The next step is to now know about upstream development and downstream flooding. Our ﬁnd public agencies, interested private citizens and private organizations current controls do not work. willing to pursue them with vigor. This report is intended to provide tools

viii Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Executive Summary are ffty-two (second order) tributary streams and sub-watersheds in the county. In fact, for every mile of riverfront (90 miles), there are more than twenty miles of accessible stream edge (2024 miles).

The Demographic Context of Allegheny County The Landscape of Allegheny County To clarify the relationships between people, nature and economies, we The landscape ecology of Allegheny County has developed in relation have reorganized social, economic and housing census data for display at to a complex drainage pattern of streams and rivers. This pattern is the the stream-watershed scale in Allegheny County. Typically census-based result of millions of years of erosion and is the major characteristic of social and economic data are displayed in terms of “block groups” which our local landscape. We have four rivers and 52 second-order and higher are subdivisions of a U.S. census tract. Mapping census data to the scale sub-watersheds in the county. In 2006, we have to ask ourselves, what is of regional stream-watersheds is intended as a general tool to enable the this place we live in? What do we want it to become? After thirty years readers of this report to correlate watershed specific ecological opportu- of economic hardship, the natural aesthetic condition of our hillsides and nities and impacts with relative income, ownership and population density. riverfront forests has begun to return. Our forests, rivers and streams are If a stream is heavily impacted by urban sewage for instance, a high level vital living elements—testaments to the relief that has been provided after of home ownership and median income would indicate a context in which a century of industrial impacts. In thirty years time, we have seen our the problem has good potential for resolution. In turn, a stream-water- Figure i.3 The Monongahela River Corridor from the surrounding hilltops. The community of Hazel- forests explode with new growth, and our fsheries have returned to the shed with significant impacts and low income and low home-ownership wood sits on the far side of the river. (Photo 3R2N) point where we can host a Bassmasters tournament! Thirty years ago, we may very well necessitate state and federal support mechanisms that the had only three species of fsh in the rivers. previous example would not. In the case of a stream with a healthy ecology and the land-use characteristics that support sustained health, it makes It is not all good news. In the last ten years, that we have seen new propos- good economic sense for the rich and poor alike to protect natural green als to re-mine urban coal and harvest the maturing forests. There are new infrastructure systems. Natural green infrastructure exists without costly and powerful advocates for steep slope housing development, real plans human investment in the infrastructure and treatment systems that protect for riverfront highways, and new housing developments downwind from the environment from human impact. Forested lands, natural streams the nation’s largest coke plant. We have a choice to make. We will either and floodplains that are protected from development insure long term support the recovery of nature in Pittsburgh, or accept another generation water quality and manage water quantity in a manner that is economi- of poorly planned, usurious land uses. If we want another generation of cally effcient, culturally sustainable and aesthetically pleasing. Natural out-migration, it is ours by historic default. infrastructure buffers human impact on the landscape, up until the point of significant failure. It is at that point that municipalities need to make Allegheny County covers an area of approximately 745 square miles. Its costly investments in engineered infrastructure systems to support dense topography consists of rolling hills that are framed by four principal river human populations. Understanding the social, economic and ecological valleys. Drainage flows from the north (Allegheny River), the east (Yough characteristics of each of the stream-watersheds of Allegheny County iogheny River), and the south (Monongahela River). These rivers join helps us understand where ecosystems services actually occur—who has and become the Ohio, which flows northwest before turning southwards the best environmental quality in the region, which in turn translates into towards the Mississippi. Allegheny County contains 130 separate mu- the potential for public involvement to seek environmental equity in ac- nicipalities. Exactly one-half of that number, or 65 municipalities, border cess, health and ecosystem services. one or more of the four rivers. In addition to the four major rivers, there

Figure i.4 The major sub-watersheds of Allegheny County.

ix 3 rivers 2nd nature

Figure i.5 Watershed Woodland Evaluation. Figure i.6 Watershed Imperviousness. Figure i.7 Stream Condition - Invertebrate Health. Figure i.8 Stream Condition - Index of Biotic Integrity.

Woodland Watershed Analysis and Other Measures of Watershed Health Fig i.8 Index of biotic integrity: Based on the results from the invertebrate study, ffty-three streams were identifed as likely candidates for fsh sam- This section of the study looks at the entire hydrological network of Al- pling. Electro fshing was conducted between 2001 and 2003; an index of legheny County at a watershed scale. On average, 86% of the woodland biotic integrity score was developed from that data for these streams. The areas in Allegheny County are within 100 meters of streams, and 46% of study showed that 17% of streams in Allegheny County rate as good, 17% the 100 meter stream buffer contains woodlands. As expected, the major as fair, 22% as poor and 43% as very poor. Figure i.9 Average Ecological Watershed Rating summarizes the four earlier measures. rivers all had low scores for this analysis. The industrial development of the region was focused near the rivers. Fig i.9 Ecological Watershed Rating: An average rating was calculated for each watershed by using the scores from the woodland watershed analy- Defining the River Corridor Fig i.6 Impervious surface: The more developed an area is, the more im- sis, impervious surfaces and macro invertebrate stream condition data. pervious surfaces there are. Impervious surfaces increase the amount The average ecological score provides an initial evaluation of the county’s While the watershed section of the study looks at the entire hydrological of runoff that enters streams and waterways and ultimately increase the watersheds and should serve as guidance for future ﬁeld studies and data network of the county, the river corridor analysis zooms in to examine amount of pollutants and sediments that enter those systems. In addi- collection. Arrayed on a point scale from 5 (best) to 1 (worst), only 4% only the sections of the county with a direct spatial relationship with the tion, the increased runoff can cause flooding and increase erosion. The of our regional watersheds had a good (5) rating, 34% were rated 4, 30% major rivers. The analysis attempts to measure the ecological functional- percentage of impervious surface found in each watershed was calculated were rated 3, 30% were rated 2 and 2% rated in the worst group. ity of the major river corridors using a combination of ﬁeld data and GIS and mapped. analysis of existing mapping. Despite changing land use characteristics, the watersheds on the north Fig i.7 Invertebrate health: Seventy-two regional streams draining into the shore of the Allegheny and the eastern shore of the Ohio still look quite Our study adopts the landscape ecology model of river corridors put forth main stem rivers of Allegheny County were evaluated through bio-assess- good; forest cover and structurally complex larger watersheds are ideal by Richard Forman in Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and ment for the relative health of the macro-invertebrate community. This sites for attention. The other areas that show promise are found along Regions. The river corridor concept focuses on the entire landscape cor- is a study of small insects in streams that display a range of tolerance the Monongahela River valley, with the best opportunities on the eastern ridor through which the river flows. It is about the landscape in relation and intolerance for urban pollutants. All but one stream displayed some shores of that river. It is forest cover and the lack of impervious surfaces to the river. In a river corridor study, the “emphasis is on the vegetation degree of impairment. At the time the streams were sampled, 19% were that make these opportunities stand out. corridor, its components, functioning and dynamics.” slightly impaired, 42% were moderately impaired and 38% were severely impaired.

Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The basic spatial characteristics of the optimum river corridor are:

1. Continuous bands of vegetation along river banks. 2. Presence of woodlands on hill slopes. 3. Continuous bands of upland interior woodlands above hill slopes. 4. Patches of interior native floodplain vegetation extending from river edge to hill slope base alternating with patches of ecologically compatible land uses.

The river valleys of twenty-first century Allegheny County are a long way from Forman’s optimal river corridor model as shown in Figure i.10. Tak- ing a restoration ecology approach, our study argues for the measurement of remnant value, looking for areas of opportunity for preservation, conservation and potential restoration. To do these analyses, we identifed aspects of ecological value that relate to the model. Two major data sets for the county were used to identify areas of value in the river corridors. Figure i.10 A three-dimensional interpretation of the Forman river corridor model used as a theoretical The first is the woodland patch GIS mapping for Allegheny County. The basis for studying the river corridors of Allegheny County. (Jonathan Kline-3R2N, after Forman) second is riverbank botany and geology point data sets collected by the 3 Rivers 2nd Nature project between 2000 and 2004. Analysis of the woodland patch data rates groups of patches for ecological value relative to one another. Analysis of the riverbank data rates riverbank edges for preserva- Figure i.12 The river corridor study area in gold was used to identify river corridor woodlands for further tion and restoration potential. These two ratings give us a partial picture study. of ecological value within the river corridors and allow us to identify areas for further analysis and field study. fragmented post-industrial urban/suburban setting.

Measuring the Woodlands Measuring the Riverbank Data

As stated earlier, the primary focus of a landscape ecology corridor analy The 3 Rivers 2nd Nature botany and geology team collected data from sis is on the vegetated areas in relation to the river itself. The first step in boats, working their way up and down the three rivers, from the year 2000 the analysis was to capture all of the woodland patches in the county that to 2004. The geologists were interested in the bank - berm relationship. touch the river corridor zone defined in section five. The majority of the The berm is the gentle slope which first occurs at the transition edge large intact woodland patches tend to be on the hillsides, related stream between water and land. The more obvious slope indicates the riverbank valleys or upland edges. The study attempts to identify areas of remnant itself, as well as the material composition of that bank. The slope and value in a highly urbanized area. Strategies for grouping patches within type of “soil” dictates the potential for natural recovery. Botany data close proximity were developed to help identify areas of value. Some included identification of wetland species wherever possible, although the fragmentation in the corridor is characterized by highly isolated patches primary interest of the botany team was in forest areas with no breaks in Figure i.11 The developed reality of Allegheny County’s river corridors showing the measured aspects of such as steep hillsides in otherwise completely developed areas or wood- the tree canopy and the presence of a vegetated under-story. This was the river corridor including bank data and woodland patches used to find remnant value. lands within large city parks. By measuring and rating the patch groups, the best condition possible. It was examined against 6 diminishing condi- (Jonathan Kline-3R2N, after Forman) we were able to identify larger areas and systems of value within a highly tions, beginning with the lapse of under-story species and culminating in

xi 3 rivers 2nd nature

Figure i.13 In order to identify and study areas of remnant woodlands in the river corridor, proximate Figure i.14 Woodland patchgroups which touch the 500 year floodplain are shown in dark green, indicat- Figure i.15 The river corridor study concluded with a summary map rating the woodlands and indicating woodland patches uninterrupted by roads were grouped together and tested for a variety of ecological char- ing remnant connections between riparian areas and woodland patches. areas of riverbank restoration and preservation potential overlaid on the watershed ratings. This map was acteristics. Each green indicates a distinct group of proximate woodland patches. Paved surface roads are used to identify a series of river corridor opportunity areas, indicated with red boxes. shown in dark red. the absence of any vegetation whatsoever. More generally, the botanists that foundation of forest, it is possible to devise a restoration plan that as the data set, and time and scope of the project did not allow for any field analyzed for dominant and subordinate species in each 1/10 of a mile sec- sures natural amenities and services for generations to come. In function, data collection in the actual woodland patches. In Figure i.14 you can see tion, as well as the total percentage of vegetation, the continuity of forest the region could establish a series of protected natural stream valley and the signifcant patches of forest cover that still connect our regions sub- cover vegetation as well as the relative impacts of invasive species such as steep slope forest corridors. watersheds to the historic floodplains of our main stem rivers. In Figure Japanese knotweed, Purple loosestrife and Garlic mustard. i.15 you can see the areas that were deemed to be the most signifcant in Identifying Areas of Opportunity our study; these are our river corridor opportunities, and they include: We have ranked specific woodland areas along the mainstem river cor ridors for overall ecological significance. We used the relative size of the As stated earlier, the primary focus of our landscape ecology corridor The Emerald Arc forest, its contiguity with other forested areas, as well as its proximity to analysis is on the vegetated areas in relation to the river itself. The unit of Named by architect Rob Pfaffman at one of our public space design char- rivers and streams. In addition, we used interior forest as a point of refer measure for the analysis is the woodland patch. Forman defines a patch rettes, this is a multi-watershed site, defned by the forested hillside on the ence, in that it is the best indicator that is known for potential biodiver- as “a wide relatively homogeneous area that differs from its surroundings” east side of the Monongahela. The watersheds in this area fall within/ sity. Given the relatively fragmented reality of any urban forest, Allegheny (Forman 43). The majority of the analysis that follows is based upon spa- cross the boundaries of Port Vue Borough, Liberty Borough, McKees- County and its cohort of municipal governments should first attempt to tial and geometric analysis of woodland coverage mapping, based upon port, Versailles Borough, South Versailles Township, Elizabeth Township protect lands that seem both ecologically valuable and accessible. From planimetric aerial photography done in 1996. No field data is included in and Lincoln Borough. Approaching this site from downriver in a boat, the

xii Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

lower end includes lands held for conservation purposes by the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. The opportunity area watersheds fall within/ cross the boundaries of Franklin Park Borough, McCandless Township, Ross Township, Ohio Township, Kilbuck Township, Emsworth Borough, Glenfeld Borough, Aleppo Township, Sewickley Heights Borough and Sewickley Hills Borough. This watershed is characterized by low density development at the top of the watershed along one leg of the stream and contiguous forests on the other leg, from the top right down to the lower end of the valley. There is also a signifcant development planned, which would bury the stream and fll the lower valley. The connection to the Ohio River floodplain is dominated by infrastructure, roadway and railway beds.

Thorn Run Thorn Run is a small watershed on the south bank of the Ohio River with signifcant forest cover worth protecting. The connection to the Monon- gahela river is minimal. The opportunity area watersheds fall within/cross the boundaries of Moon Township and Coraopolis Borough. The watershed is characterized by good forest from the top through the midsection, with urban development at the bottom of the stream valley before it drains to the Ohio where a vegetated edge returns. This is one of many small Figure i.16 One opportunity area examined in greater detail has been dubbed “the emerald arc.” This Figure i.17 The Hays and Streets Run watershed includes the most significant forested property within the forested watersheds in this part of the county that are under development largely undeveloped area between the Monongahela and Youghiogheny Rivers contains very large woodland City of Pittsburgh. This watershed has an amazing amount of contiguous steep slope forests and wooded pressure. Development is being exacerbated by recent changes to zoning patches and numerous small first-order streams. stream corridor that run up the Streets Run Valley. The Hays and Streets Run Watershed is likely the laws that allow the development of housing on steep slope properties. most complicated intermunicipal watershed system in the county. sheer scope and expanse of this forest is a breathtaking counter point to patch system in close proximity to the most heavily urbanized areas of Plum Creek the industrial systems across from it. More importantly, it is a signifcant the county. The watershed areas falls within/crosses the boundaries of Plum Creek is a watershed with signifcant woodlands and some parkland green link between the Monongahela River and the Youghiogeheny River. Baldwin Borough, Brentwood Borough, West Mifflin Borough, Whitehall in the upper slopes. The watershed falls within/crosses the boundaries This site can be characterized by signifcant forest or agricultural cover Borough, Mount Oliver Borough and the City of Pittsburgh. Very little of Plum Borough, Penn Hills Township, Verona Borough, and Oakmont from the tops of the watersheds (the site drains multiple small streams of this land is managed open space or park and the system has no direct Borough. At the mouth of the river, lie an abandoned steel mill and to both rivers) down to the historic floodplains just before they open out connection to the Monongahela at this time. This watershed can be char- acres and acres of flood plain which wasf lled only recently. The connec- at the mouths of the streams. There are important hillside connections acterized as developed at the upper end with extensive forest and some tion between the mouth and the forested upper watershed is complicated to the riverbanks on the Youghiougheny and a site that could be restored suburban development at the mid to lower ends. The south shore of the by light-industrial development. The watershed can be characterized in along the Monongahela. The river edge studies indicate excellent restora- river has signifcation areas of riverbank that have a high preservation terms of an upper watershed with a mix of forest and increasing urban tion/preservation potential on both riverbanks as well. priority. development. Signifcant flooding occurred on the stream recently and will continue to get worse if land use controls are not introduced in the The Hays and Streets Run Watershed Toms Run upper watershed section. The woodlands on either side of Streets Run and the top of Hays hilltop Toms Run is a small watershed on the north shore of the Ohio River that between Glass Run and Becks Run form an extremely large woodland is in excellent shape despite some development at the upper end. The

xiii 3 rivers 2nd nature

Figure i.18 A generalization of the individual municipal zoning codes to show general zoning in Allegheny Figure i.19 The Emerald Arc crosses a number of separate municipalities, each with distinct local zoning. Figure i.20 The Hays area is part of four separate municipalities with the majority of the wooded hill top County. As a test, the zoning of this area was analyzed for its conservation characteristics. Areas in green indicate contained within the City of Pittsburgh. Recently 380 acres of the 635 acre Hays site was rezoned by the some form of conservation or public space zoning. city from parks and open space to a specially planned district intended for a large development including a horse racing track, casino and mixed-use development.

Deer Creek cant forest cover from the top to the midpoint of the watersheds. Days current land use planning and zoning controls. These include the Hays The Deer Creek watershed is located on the north shore of the Allegheny Run has good forest continuity right through the lower part of the valley and Streets Run Watershed, the Toms Run and Thorn Run Watersheds and River. The watershed falls within/crosses the boundaries of West Deer as well. The watersheds fall within/cross the boundaries of East Deer the Emerald Arc area. Toms Run and Thorn Run are sites of value with Township, Richland Township, Indiana Township, Harmar Township and Township, Frazer Township, Tarentum Borough, Harrison Township, normal development pressures. Thorn Run is impacted by housing devel- Hampton Township. This is an important complex stream system. The Fawn Township and West Deer Township. opment and Toms Run is impacted by a single commercial interest that is watershed can be characterized by its suburban development and some prepared to fll the valley and destroy the stream to meet its development parkland at the top of the watershed, with signifcant mid-level forest and Upper Allegheny goal. The Hays site includes a portion of the left bank of the Monon- remnant wetlands. Important areas of this watershed are currently under At the top of the county along the north shore of the Allegheny lies a frst gahela River as it flows toward Pittsburgh. Much of the land along and fnal planning for a new shopping mall. order drainage which exhibits some of the best river edge forest cover near the river bank is undeveloped. As one moves away from the bank, with existing park space in the county. This area is characterized by well- the land remains relatively flat for some distance and then begins to slope Days Run and Bulls Run forested frst order streams that empty right into the Allegheny. The area upward, culminating in steep upward slopes. Scattered residential and Days Run and Bulls Run are watersheds on the north shore of the Al- falls within the boundaries of Harrison Township. commercial development currently characterizes the land more removed legheny River. These watersheds are both signifcant in size and in terms from the bank. Becks Run flows into the river about halfway through the of inter-connectivity. Both watersheds can be characterized by signif- Of the sites identifed, there are four that are signifcant indicators of our site. This watershed is governed by four different municipalities, three of

xiv Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

which front on the river. The ecological assessment for this site indicates districts, and other land held in public ownership. Private conservation Municipalities possess a wide range of regulatory powers under the po- substantial woodlands in the highest or “most signifcant” category, both organizations may also own land that is maintained for conservation, lice power that, used properly, can greatly advance the preservation and near the riverside and along Becks Run. Several sections of both banks of preservation and restoration purposes. The organization may own the conservation of the river shores and riverside lands. Police power regula- the river contain riverbank botany with the highest preservation priority. property outright, or it may own a more limited interest, usually known tions are intended to guide and control private land use and development The Emerald Arc site is located between two rivers. It is governed by ten as a conservation easement. A conservation easement serves to restrict to protect the public health, safety or welfare. These regulatory powers different municipalities, all of which front on one or both rivers. These the development options of the property’s owner. Other types of private include subdivision controls, which govern the initial development of land municipalities have 16 different zoning classifcations. Only three munici- ownership options include fee ownership by conservation organization, into individual lots and zoning controls, which regulate the use of land, palities have zoning classifcations titled “Conservation.” The land at and less than fee ownership, public ownership of less than fee interests, private watercourses and other bodies of water, the size and bulk of buildings near the confluence is developed for industrial, commercial and residen- ownership of less than fee interests. and other structures, the amount of open space that must be left between tial uses. As one moves down the near banks of each river (left for the structures, and the density of population and type of development in the Youghiogheny and right for the Monongahela), the land slopes upward, Regulatory Options different areas, or zoning districts, of the municipality. often rather steeply. Here are successfully regenerating forests, often of Regulatory options for land preservation or conservation exist where out- considerable beauty. Scattered residential and commercial development right ownership strategies might not be appropriate. Private property is A substantial amount of land abutting the banks of our rivers is steeply characterizes the slopes along the Youghiogheny. Our other three sites, subject to public regulation if it serves a legitimate public purpose, such as sloped and contains recovering forest growth. These steeper slopes are Deer Creek, Plum Creek and the Upper Allegheny flood plain area, have promoting public health, safety, morals or the general welfare. often prone to landslides, particularly following development that affects good forest cover and the normal range of conflicting interests. the existing slope or vegetative cover. Pennsylvania courts have recog- The federal government has several regulatory regimes that can affect the nized that a zoning ordinance may restrict forestry and vegetation clearing Regulation and Conservation quality of the riverside environment. These include limits on development activities to preserve woodlands, steep slopes, landslide-prone areas and This section identifes two basic legal strategies for preserving, conserv- in flood plains under the National Flood Insurance Program Act, activities wetlands. All of these land characteristics are present in many areas along ing or restoring land along the riverbanks of the four rivers in Allegheny that adversely affect protected animal and plant species under the Endan- the riverbanks and abutting land. County. One of these strategies is dependent on public or private owner- gered Species Act, historic sites and historic districts under the National ship and the other on public regulation. Ownership controls require an Historic Preservation Act, and reductions in wetlands areas protected by This section closes by examining the Emerald Arc and the Hays and Streets owner with the desire to devote land to preservation or conservation uses. the Clean Water Act. Most federal and state environmental programs are Run areas along the Monongahela River to illustrate how a combination Regulatory controls require a governmental agency with appropriate au- essentially single-purpose programs, designed to protect one element of of strategies can be employed to further development, conservation, pres- thority to adopt the particular measures described. the ecology, rather than the ecology of a region or area. For example, ervation and restoration of the lands along the rivers. This section looks endangered species receive protection where members of that species at the full range of ownership options, regulatory options and municipal Each of the 130 individual municipalities in the county has its own author- are present and wetlands are protected where wetlands exist. Otherwise, police power tools that are available to those among you in municipal, pri- ity to adopt land use controls. A generalized map of zoning classifca- these programs offer little of value to an overall plan for the protection of vate and non-proft sectors that might consider taking action. They are of- tion throughout the county shows 12 basic zoning district classifcations. riverbanks and adjacent lands. However, where these protected features fered as suggestions to encourage further discussion, experimentation and Within these generalized classifcations, the details of zoning districts can are present, these regimes can be quite important. The burden of pro- implementation of new strategies for urban ecological restoration and the vary widely from municipality to municipality, depending on the degree of tection is shifted from the county or local municipalities to the federal or promotion of public space on the four rivers within Allegheny County. control and the sophistication of the agency charged with administration. state government, along with the demand on government resources that The many smaller municipalities, coupled with Pittsburgh, pose diffculties protection requires. In evaluating riverside lands for protection, one must The acquisition and maintenance of land or conservation easements by for regulation of the river corridors. be ever alert to the possibility of federal or state protected characteristics. public or private entities involves a commitment of resources, both fnan- cial and personal. It may be too much to expect any single entity to acquire Ownership Options The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection enforces a and maintain all of the land necessary or appropriate for the preservation Publicly owned land includes parks, state and municipal forests, preserves, program regulating structures and activities in wetlands under the author- of the river banks and related areas within Allegheny County. However, open space reserve lands, natural areas, boating and fshing access areas, ity of the Dam Safety & Encroachment Act. Unlike the federal govern- a partnership between the county, local municipalities and various conser- tax delinquent properties owned by the county, municipalities or school ment, Pennsylvania’s regulations are based on its inherent police power. vation organizations, working from a long range, coordinated plan, could

xv 3 rivers 2nd nature

make it possible to acquire a variety of ownership interests along the rivers that would provide protection and public benefts. The Allegheny County Parks Department could serve as coordinator of land and conservation easement acquisition and maintenance, with contributions from local municipalities of services, funds and land for areas within their boundaries. Trail groups are already responsible for acquiring and maintaining rights-of-way. Land trusts provide a vehicle for acquiring both fee title and conservation easements on private land along the riverbanks and on adjacent wetlands, hillsides and hilltops appropriate for preservation and restoration in connection with river preservation.

xvi Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

I. The Landscape of Allegheny County the Ohio has dropped about 200 feet since the third ice advance; this may give an idea of how slow erosional processes are on a major waterway. Figure I.2 is a map of the present drainage patterns in Western Pennsylva- nia, showing also the furthest advance of glacial ice.

A Landscape Formed by Water (After Prellwitz and Kyshakevych) Hydrological Overview (After Moxely)

The present-day Ohio River flows southward from Pittsburgh, Pennsyl- Pittsburgh’s three rivers have endured significant structural changes to en- vania, to its confluence with the Mississippi River at Cairo, Illinois. The hance their navigability in the nearly three centuries since European mi- Ohio River is formed by the confluence of the Monongahela and Al- gration. Early efforts concentrated on channel improvements. Snag, rock, legheny Rivers, and shares characteristics of both. It is slowly eroding and wreck removal, plus bar and shoal remediation decreased the eco- and downcutting the flat-lying sedimentary beds of shale, sandstone, lime- nomic and physical risks of river travel, making it somewhat speedier and stone, claystone and coal that were originally deposited during the Penn- hence cheaper. Wing dams concentrated river flow into narrow chutes, sylvanian Period of geological time (about 310 million years ago). The deepening channels over bars and ripples and lengthening the navigation history of the Ohio River as we know it today probably began about 60 season by alleviating some of the impact of low water. Despite these million years ago (Wagner 1970). During this time, Western Pennsylvania slight structural additions to the rivers, the flow was still natural. was a broad, flat plain similar to those now seen in the mid-western United States. There was little elevation difference between the tops of any hills The trend toward massive, deep-draft towboat-barge combinations near and the water levels of the Ohio. The topographic relief in Pittsburgh the end of the nineteenth century proved even the thirty-inch open chan- Figure I.1 The pre-glacial river drainage of Western Pennsylvania. is now nearly 700 feet, as the level of the water in the Ohio at the Point nel to be inadequate to accommodate the burdens of river commerce. (where the Monongahela and Allegheny Rivers meet) is 710 feet above Modifying the slackwater system of the Monongahela Navigation Com- sea level, and the tops of the highest hills are almost 1400 feet above sea pany, the Army Corps of Engineers pursued the complete canalization of level. the Ohio and other rivers. The first phase of the radical Ohio River project afforded six- then nine-foot slackwater from Pittsburgh to Cairo by 1929. The Ohio River has not always flowed south, emptying into the Missis- When commercial waterborne tonnage continued to grow in the twentieth sippi River. The Ohio River originally flowed north into Lake Erie, in the century, Army engineers updated the slackwater systems on Pittsburgh’s valley of the present-day Beaver River. An ice sheet advance dammed the most commercial rivers, the Ohio and the Monongahela. They replaced north-flowing Ohio River, and water impounded behind it forming “Lake earlier generation lowlift navigable dams with a lesser number of high-lift Monongahela.” Sometime during this high water event, the southern por- non-navigable dams to modernize these rivers into interstate expressways. tion of the Ohio River eroded through its divide in West Virginia, and Over the course of nearly three centuries, the Allegheny, Monongahela, started to flow southward. Figure I.1 is a pre-glacial river drainage pattern and Ohio have been progressively transformed from free flowing rivers map of Western Pennsylvania. As the glacial ice finally retreated, the old into a stairstepped chains of deepwater river-lakes. The work continues Ohio River divide was eroded through, and all the water from the Allegh- today with the replacement of the dam at Braddock. eny and Monongahela (forming the Ohio River) flowed southward to the Mississippi River, at Cairo, Illinois, as it does presently. Pittsburgh’s three rivers, once completely unrestrained natural hydrologic systems, today function as both ecology and infrastructure within Downcutting remains the major erosional style of the Ohio River, even the landscape of the modern built environment. They continue to defy though there is still some meandering and sidecutting. The water level of complete control and provide a nuturing habitat for an increasing mix of plants and organisms. Figure I.2 The present drainage patterns and the furthest advance of glacial ice.

3 rivers 2nd nature

The landscape of Allegheny County is defined by a complex drainage pattern of streams and rivers. This hydrological pattern is the result of millions of years of erosion. The hydrological pattern is the major characteristic of the local landscape matrix. In addition to the four major (10th order or above) rivers there , are 52 major sub-watersheds in the county. Because of urban development, many of these streams have been culverted or filled over time. Lost streams, based upon topographical analysis, are shown in red.

Author: John Oduroe

Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The drainage pattern of streams and river defines the major sub-watersheds in the county. The 52s sub-watersheds each consist of a second order or greater stream draining into one of the major rivers. Less ,complex, small first order streams draining directly into the major rivers are not considered as sub- , watersheds and are included in the area of the river itself. For the purpose of this study, the major rivers have been broken into series of dams, which create fixed elevation pools. This division of sub-watersheds and river pools has been used throughout this study as a basic unit of measurement.

3 rivers 2nd nature

The Urban Context street in between (typical of historic industrial development). The latter two methods are mostly seen on the waterfront. In addition, typically Allegheny County covers an area of approximately 745 square miles. Its within a quarter mile or less of the rivers edge will be found at least one, topography consists of rolling hills that are framed by four principal river and in some cases three to six, railway lines which were established to ser- valleys. Drainage flows from the north (Allegheny River), the east (Yough- vice the industrial economy. Even today, new highways are being planned iogheny River), and the south (Monongahela River). These rivers join that will dominate the Monongahela river edge. and become the Ohio which flows north west before turning southwards towards the Mississippi. In addition to the four major rivers, there are sev- There are four cities in Allegheny County, all situated along the Mononga- enty-six tributary streams and sub-watersheds flowing into the main stem hela River. They are Clairton, Duquesne and McKeesport, and Pittsburgh rivers in the County. In fact, for every mile of riverfront (90 miles), there at the confluence of the Monongahela and the Allegheny where the Ohio are more than twenty miles of accessible stream edge (2024 miles). is formed. Much of land along the three rivers would be considered urban with a mix of residential, commercial and industrial interests, except in the With the exception of the Youghiogheny, each of the major rivers were cases where a post-industrial site is vacant and classified as a brownfield the site of extensive industrial development over the past 150 years. The property. Brownfield sites provide significant potential for redevelopment banks of the Monongahela Valley, with its connection to the coal fields in and the recapture of the range of diverse social, economic and environ- the south, became the predominant site of industrial development within mental uses which would have been typical of the past centuries. the county. None the less, steel mills, glass factories, coke plants and even- Figure I.3 The Monongahela River Corridor from the surrounding hilltops. The community of Hazel- tually the chemical industries developed on the Allegheny and Ohio Rivers wood sits on the far side of the river. (Photo 3R2N) Recently one of the largest brownfield properties, the former US Steel as well. works in the Borough of Homestead, has been redeveloped as a mix of waterfront apartments and large box commercial development. This site The regional street pattern is influenced by the rolling topography as well is notable for its lack of relationship to the river, the recovering natural as the broad flat floodplains of the major rivers on the inside banks and environment or the structurally significant (for the town) historic main the shallow flood plains abutted by steep slopes typical of the outside street. At the same time the property is an economic success. A more bends of a larger river. All floodplains, with few exceptions, have been integrated urban model of brownfield redevelopment has been recently filledand raised over the last two hundred years. Historically, many streets completed on the South Side of Pittsburgh where there is some attempt led directly to the rivers, but over the last 150 years, these streets and to extend the existing plan of streets to the rivers edge and reflect the 2-3 their attendant mixed-use of residence, commerce and small industry have story densities that are typical of that older main street environment. A been replaced by large industrial estates that in most cases are no longer in waterfront park, developed there previously, provides a glimpse of what production. As a result, there is very little direct access to the rivers from the rivers edge might have looked like two hundred years ago. It can be neighborhoods and riverfront communities. Where there is the potential accessed via a trail that links to and through the development. for access, the most urbanized or industrial sections of river bank are more often than not defined by an interesting mix of recovering vegeta- Map 1.3 Hydrological Overview: Watersheds & Municipalities tion and near vertical walls of fill, structural masonry, cement or steel. (See fig I.3) Municipal boundaries are a legal-cultural product of historic land use, ownership and political interest. Typically municipal boundaries are in- Regional land ownership and subdivision basically followed three pat- formed but not in any way constrained by landscape ecology, topography terns: tracts divided after being surveyed by the owner, individual large or hydrology. The fact that the City of Pittsburgh now encompasses land city blocks bringing streets in between, and consolidation by joining two on the North Side of the Allegheny River, the South Side of the Monon- or more plots together to form a larger plot in most cases removing the gahela and the interstitial pie-slice between the rivers is a very good ex- Figure I.4 The same area as I.3 viewed from a small plane flying over the Hazelwood community. (Photo 3R2N)

Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The hydrological pattern of river pools and sub-watersheds is very different from the complex political pattern of the 130 distinct municipalities that make up Allegheny County. Each of these separate municipalities has its own local government regulating land-use and development decisions. In some cases, rivers and streams act as the political boundary between municipalities. However, only a few small sub-watersheds are entirely within a single municipality.

3 rivers 2nd nature

Chartiers Creek Watershed

Figure I.5 The hydrology of Allegheny County, including lost streams in red. Figure I.6 The major sub-watersheds of Allegheny County. Figure I.7 The 130 separate municipalities of Allegheny County overlaid with the sub-watersheds.

ample. None of this is a problem until society and its municipal political become a primary component of our wet weather problem.) It is effective interests begin to think about the zoning and regulation of riparian land to look at the center map, and particularly the large watershed of Chartiers (land along a river or stream). The management and oversight of natural creek, bottom left which drains to the Ohio. Chartiers Creek is both a multi- ecosystems can be instigated by environmental benefits or environmental state and multi-municipal watershed where upstream development adversely threats, the latter being particularly actionable on the basis of public safety. effects downstream communities that are close to the floodplain. The issue The former, primarily an aesthetic and emergent economic value, is more is not flood water, water is the effect. The issue is unrestrained development difficult to pursue due to the bias of the Pennsylvania courts. (See Cy Fox, and its impact on hydrology and ecosystems, and the constraints of the politi- on legal strategies for preserving and conserving land, p. 91-102) cal boundaries that we rely upon to manage development, public safety and the public good. In the small maps above, you can see the relationship between the natural watershed-based hydrologic boundaries of our regional streams and water Map 1.4 Hydrological Overview: Watersheds & the Built Environment ways and the boundaries of municipal government. In the first map, take notice of the streams marked in red—these are “lost streams” of Allegheny On the following page, the map illustrates the concentrations of develop- County. These are natural surface drainages that have been overwhelmed by ment in Allegheny County on a watershed basis. In the recently flooded the development of impervious surfaces typical of older urban development (2004) watersheds of Chartiers Creek, Girtys Run, Pine creek and Streets (modern construction methods retain stormwater on the development site) Run, there is a high level of development in the municipalities located in and, through a mixture of flooding and pollution, become enough of a pub- the upper watersheds of these streams. Figure I.8 A wooded stream valley in close proximity to the urban environment. The neighborhood of lic nuisance that they are placed underground in sewers. (And in turn, they Oakland is visible in the distance identifiable by the University of Pittsburgh’s Cathedral of Learning tower. (Photo 3R2N)

ECOLOGY AND RECOVERY - ALLEGHENY COUNTY

Allegheny County is an extremely urbanized setting. The city of Pittsburgh is centered at the conﬂuence of the three rivers. Early patterns of development followed the lowlands of the river and stream valleys. Much of the early development of the region was led by industrial uses sited along the river valley ﬂoodplains. Early major roads and railroads followed these valleys connecting towns and industrial sites. Early and mid twentieth century development expanded the neighborhoods of the city to the east and south. New highway infrastructure enabled recent major development to the west and north of the county in the last thirty years.

7 3 rivers 2nd nature

Conclusions on the Urban Landscape

Human history is defined by the extraction of value from natural resources to support and promote the development of culture and its infrastruc- River Image ture—cities. Pittsburgh, more than most cities, and Allegheny County as a region have benefited enormously from the extraction of wealth from our natural resources and the use of the commons (air, water, soil) as sinks (end section) for industrial waste.

Water and air are ubiquitous public goods or commons that are not noticed until they are either missing or so significantly damaged that we see the immediate need to take action. This has been the case in the past with air quality. It is the case today as we awaken to the enormous economic opportunity of recreational use of the rivers and streams. Rivers and streams that, more often than not, continue to be the sink, or, to unequivocally clarify the metaphor, the toilet of the human wastes of the region. Black skies in the daytime were an overt indication of air pollution in our recent past. Flooding is another obvious indication of development problems, particularly flooding on streams that have a history of settlement in the floodplain or a history of hydraulic improvements that seem to work for a while, but not in perpetuity. Girty’s Run is our best local example with improvement that began in the 1930’s.

Like everything in life, there are limits. Yet our regional mind-set is one of aggressive development, without any sense of constraint. Growth is good, and environmental regulation is bad. The authors of this report agree that as a rule, growth is good, however we would add some golden rules to that obviously one-sided economic ideology.

I. Infrastructure is the cultural response to ecosystem failure.

II. Infrastructure designed to replace natural hydrological systems is expensive to construct, expensive to maintain and almost impossible to replace at the end of its natural life-cycle.

III. Nature is the best no cost / low cost system that we have. Green infrastructure has evolved over centuries and it sustains water quality and maintains historic flow patterns.

Figure I.9 Children playing in the river water on the Allegheny (Photo 3R2N)

Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

II. The Demographic Context of Allegheny County green infrastructure exists without costly human investment in the infrastructure and treatment systems that protect the environment from human impact. Forested lands, natural streams and floodplains that are protected from development insure long term water quality and manage water People Photo quantity in a manner that is economically efficient, culturally sustainable and aesthetically pleasing. Natural infrastructure buffers human impact on the landscape, up until the point of significant failure. It is at that point that municipalities need to make costly investments in engineered infra- Looking at the 2000 Census Data structure systems to support dense human populations. Understanding the social, economic and ecological characteristics of each of the stream- Allegheny County 2000 Census information was obtained from the Penn- watersheds of Allegheny County helps us understand where ecosystems sylvania Spatial Data Clearinghouse, known as Pennsylvania Spatial Data services actually occur, who has the best environmental quality in the re- Access, (or PASDA, www.pasda.psu.org.) According to their website, gion, which in turn translates into the potential for public involvement to “PASDA is the official public access geospatial data clearinghouse for the seek environmental equity in access, health and ecosystem services. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” For the purpose of this report, social, economic and housing census data have been reorganized to fit the water- Map 2.1 Population Density: Watershed and Block Group shed scale in Allegheny County. Population density in a watershed can indicate two things. First, the likeli- A Hydrology-Based Measurement hood of human impact on natural ecosystems, particularly water quality in areas where surfaces drain to open streams. Secondly, the potential for hu- Typically census-based social and economic data are displayed in terms man investment in water quality, especially where it provides recreational, of “block groups” which is a subdivision of a U.S. census tract. A block and aesthetic benefits which are proven drivers of housing value and eco- group is the smallest geographic unit for which the Census Bureau tabu- nomic regeneration when such benefits are available in an urban setting. lates sample data. Block groups generally contain between 250 and 550 housing units, with 600 to 3,000 people (see http://www.library.wisc.edu/ Map 2.2 Median Income: Watershed and Block Group guides/govdocs/census/geoalpha.htm). Is it any surprise that the two communities (Fox Chapel and Sewickley) Mapping census data to the scale of regional stream-watersheds is in- with the highest income are also the areas with the highest environmental tended as a general tool to enable the readers of this report to correlate and ecological quality? Does it come as any surprise that the communities watershed specific ecological opportunities and impacts with relative in- with the most environmental challenges along the Monongahela River are come, ownership and population density. If a stream is heavily impacted also the lowest income communities? An important ecological opportuni- by urban sewage for instance, a high level of home ownership and median ty exists in the Streets Run Watershed, a site that is currently being targeted income would indicate a context in which the problem has good potential for intensive U.S. Army Corps of Engineers investment in stormwater for resolution. In turn, a stream-watershed with significant impacts and infrastructure to replace a failing ecosystem overwhelmed by improper low income and low home-ownership may very well necessitate state and upstream development. The differences between the have and the have- federal support mechanisms that the previous example would not. In the nots would appear to be the ability to sustain low cost green infrastructure case of a stream with a healthy ecology and the land-use characteristics in the face of housing needs and development interests. that support sustained health, it makes good economic sense for the rich and poor alike to protect natural “green infrastructure” systems. Natural Figure II.1 Onboard a 3 Rivers 2nd Nature River Dialogue (Photo 3R2N)

3 rivers 2nd nature

Authors: John Oduroe & Jonathan Kline 10 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

$25,859 - $32,647 $32,647 - $39,878 $39,878 - $47,505 $47,505 - $63,687 $63,687 - $115,314

11 3 rivers 2nd nature

Housing Conditions in the County Map 2.5 Owned Housing Units: Watershed and Block Group

Allegheny County sprawls outward from the city of Pittsburgh. Map 2.1 This map shows two variations: mapping by watershed and mapping by shows population density decreasing the further you get away from the block group. The latter shows the true distribution of owned proper- city. Map 2.2 shows significant economic strength to the north and west, ties in the county. The former gives us a sense of the watersheds which with significant weakness in the south along the Monongahela River. It have strong communities of home owners. The patterns are familiar with is in the north and the west that the region is seeing the most signifi- home ownership strengths to the north and west, and weaknesses to the cant growth and development; development that is radically altering the south and east, and along all three rivers. hydrological characteristics of the land, adding significant infrastructure costs and creating downstream flooding problems for the riverfront com- Meanwhile, housing prices on the southside of Pittsburgh have begun munities that are not benefiting from development in the hills. To the to soar. The South Side Riverfront Park provides the best public access south, new housing is relatively nonexistent and an array of nonprofit to the river that the city has, and nonprofit waterfront groups assure the and municipal interests continue to pursue the ideals of a neo-industrial development of trails and other access amenities through some of the economy. most difficult historic land use areas. There are obvious models along the Allegheny River as well; from Washington’s Landing to new development Map 2.3 Vacant Housing Units: Watershed and Block Group and land fill along the mouth of Squaw run, which drains Fox Chapel. The former provides environmental benefit to the region by cleaning up Roads, railways and highway infrastructure, as a result of the historic in- a brownfield site and providing housing and recreational access amenities. dustrial mindset, have been developed along the historic floodplains of The latter fills a remnant wetland to create new housing in proximity to Figure II.2 Occupied houses in the Nine Mile Run Watershed. (Photo 3R2N) Allegheny County. The river towns which might, under a different scenar- the Fox Chapel Yacht Club. io, provide a significant opportunity for pleasant, yet dense urban development are the sites of the most significant vacancies in the region. The Monongahela and Allegheny River corridors continue to be the sites of dilapidated industrial infrastructure, up to six railways lines per river bank with roadways being planned, extended or widened through these regions daily. Riverfront housing, or housing that is proximate to the rivers, is not, nor has it been, a valuable commodity during the last century. As a result, there are many vacant properties along our rivers.

Map 2.4 Rented Housing Units: Watershed and Block Group

Rental housing is most significant in the city, then it moves along the rivers and into the south hills and east hills. The north hills, with significant housing, shows the least amount of rental stock. Homeowners have been moving away from the rivers and the city. It is the low priced wooded hills that are the primary target of development and development support.

Figure II.3 A vacant building on Braddock Ave. in Braddock, PA being torn down due to wind damage sustained hours before. (Photo 3R2N)

12 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

13 3 rivers 2nd nature

Author: John Oduroe & Jonathan Kline 14 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

15 3 rivers 2nd nature

Parks and Managed Open Space in the County Map 2.7 Parks & Managed Open Space Per Capita

Parks and open spaces are an important element of any urban setting. We begin to get a picture of human access to nature throughout the county New York, Washington and San Francisco are just a few of the major cit- by dividing the open space in each watershed by number of people living ies in the United States that have organized themselves around their public there. The river corridors have always been used for industrial develop- space and open space amenities. Our greatest public space amenity is our ment, and in this period of recovery not a single one of the long vacant rivers. Yet parks and open space in the region have primarily developed properties has been turned into a dedicated public space. Would a new on the plateaus and hills high above the river. significant riverfront park in the Monongahela River Valley support the economic rebirth of that region? Good question, with no one working Map 2.6 Parks, Trails & Managed Open Space on the answer.

Here we see the official map of managed open spaces provided by munici- In places like Oakmont, along the Allegheny River, industrial development pal, county and state government. interests have seen fit to bury a significant remnant Plum Creek floodplain under six feet of rubble. One can only assume that the adjacent—empty —brownfield property simply did not supply enough available land to at- tract redevelopment.

Managing open spaces, in many cases, is not an issue of limiting development, but instead an issue of land planning, of land use regulation and enforcement systems, and extremely powerful neo-industrial interests that are committed to complete autonomy in their development interests.

Following these maps, it is easy to see both the desire and amazing opportunities for regional waterfront parks on all three rivers. The following section will discuss the ecological potential of the region.

Figure II.4 Allegheny County population density in 2000 shown by census block group. Figure II.5 A silver maple in Frick Park. (Photo 3R2N)

16 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Allegheny County contains a variety of parks large and small, across the county. Parks are owned and managed at municipal, county and state levels. The county also has a growing network of trails, most of which are conversions of rail beds along the rivers. In addition to public parks, the county has a variety of other managed open spaces such as athletic fields, cemeteries, golf courses, etc.

17 3 rivers 2nd nature

For each watershed the total area of open space was calculated and divided by the total population of the watershed yielding acres of open space per capita for each watershed.

Author: Lena Andres and Jonathan Kline

18 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

III. Woodland Watershed Analysis Characterization of Forest in Allegheny County Source Mixed Mesophytic Forest Region Braun 1950* White Oak Association - upland areas Jennings 1927* Sugar Maple-Beech Climax Associations – floodplains & lower slopes Oak – Tulip Tree Forest Region Lull 1968* Woodland Watershed Analysis in Allegheny County Mesic Central Forest Smith 1983* Northern – Hardwood Conifer Forest Allegheny County is rich in natural resources. Settlement of the region Dry – Mesic Acid Forest Floodplain Forest was founded on the intensive extraction and use of the many resources found here. As the population of Pittsburgh and the surrounding area Appalachian Oak Forest Utech 1989 grew, land was cleared for industrial, commercial and residential development. The human use and abuse over the last several centuries of the *Summarized from Allegheny County Natural Heritage Inventory county’s ecosystems and resources have altered them forever; but the natural communities of the county are now in a state of growth and recovery Table 3.1 Characterization of Forest in Allegheny County Figure III.1 Sycamore Island on the Allegheny River (Photo 3R2N) (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 1994).

According to the Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America, Allegheny Four forest communities were identified in the county using Smith’s clas- not possible. The Woodland Watershed Analysis presented here is a wa- 1 County is located in Appalachian Mixed Mesophytic Forest, which “har- sification. The Mesic Central Forest community is generally found on tershed level analysis . The watershed level allows us to evaluate woodland bor the most diverse temperate forests in North America.” The Appala- slopes and uplands. Dominant species in this community include sugar patches and potential associations among woodland patches and streams chian Mixed Mesophytic Forest Ecoregions has been identified as globally maple, white oak, red oak, hickories, American beech, American basswood at a scale relative to the county’s complex local drainage patterns. outstanding and requires immediate protection and restoration (Ricketts and white ash. Northern-Hardwood Conifer Forest is commonly located et al. 1999). Southwestern Pennsylvania is also considered a “hot spot” or on cool, moist slopes dominated with species of hemlock, maple and The data used is this analysis is from Allegheny County. In 1992 Allegh- area of immediate conservation or concern for a number of neotropical birch. Dry - Mesic Acidic Forest is on uplands and south facing slopes, in eny County mapped the woodland areas in their jurisdiction to the detailed migratory bird species (Rosenberg and Wells 2004). the presence of dry acidic soils with oaks and hickories dominating. The scale of 1:2400. This data does not provide information related to species last forest community identified was Floodplain Forest. This community composition or potential habitat quality. It does provide an opportunity The vegetation found in county is quite diverse because of the region’s is located at the bottomlands along rivers and streams where species such to take a comprehensive look at the size, shape and location of woodland topography and varied geology. While the county contains many natural as eastern sycamore, silver maple, cottonwood, box elder and black willow patches in Allegheny County. Given the limitations of the available data, communities, this analysis is focused on the forested or woodland areas of are commonly found (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 1994). the purpose of the Woodland Watershed Rating Analysis is to characterize the county. The forests of Allegheny County have been characterized by and rate the county’s woodland areas by watersheds based on landscape a number of sources (See Table 3.1). Methodology metrics and proximity of these woodland patches to streams and to each other. An overview of some of the above mentioned these classifications and The hydrology of the area has defined the county’s current landscape of their respective descriptions of the county are discussed in the Allegheny valleys and steep hillsides. The complex drainage pattern of the county A Total Woodland Watershed rating for each watershed was calculated County Natural Heritage Inventory. The Natural Heritage Inventory uses has driven development and settlement patterns. Many of the woodland based on the cumulative score of three values: a woodland area score, a the classification of natural communities defined by Smith (1983) and is areas that exist in the county are located in areas where development is stream analysis score, and a landscape metric score. These scores attempt summarized here. to quantify the following:

1 It should be noted that the data used in this analysis are limited to the extent of county boundary. Therefore in some cases the analysis does not provide a full evaluation of the entire watershed.

19 3 rivers 2nd nature

• Size and amount of total woodland and interior woodland areas into two size classes: 250 acres and larger, and less than 250 acres. These • Mean shape of the patches in the watershed and isolation based on categories were based on avian studies and serve to define a category of their mean patch proximity large woodland patches. Studies have shown that the number of indi- • Contiguousness of woodlands along the streams and percentage viduals and diversity of neotropical migrants dramatically drops in forest of woodland areas near streams patches smaller than 250 acres or approximately 100 hectares. (Robbins et al. 1989 and Askins 2000). Woodland and Interior Patches Map 3.1 Woodland & Interior Patches Interior forest habitat is critical in maintaining populations of many organisms by providing stable, valuable sources of food and cover. The Map 3.1 displays woodland, interior patches and their respective water- forest edge differs from the forest interior in its microclimate, vegetation sheds. The percentages of woodland area per watershed, interior for- and species present. The more edge a forest patch has the less likely an est and woodland areas that are 250 acres and above were calculated for interior species will be found within it and more likely wildlife generalist each watershed. Each of these three calculations was multiplied by 100 will be present. Wildlife generalists have broader niche requirements than to standardize them to whole numbers. These three values were summed specialist species. Edge is increased as patches become more fragmented. for each watershed for a Total Woodland Area value. See Appendix A for Increasing edge habitat may alter community dynamics in several ways each watershed’s scores. Watersheds with patches 250 acres and above, including: interior forest and large amount of wooded areas relative to the size of • Altering species movement patterns (facilitating movement or the watershed were valued higher than watershed with little interior forest, limiting it) small woodland patches and fragmented or little woodland areas. • Increasing edge related mortality (e.g. change in microclimate from interior to edge may affect the survival of seedlings) The watersheds on the edge of the county contain woodland patches that • Changing competition interactions (e.g. edge generalist out are larger and appear to be less fragmented than those watersheds in the competing interior specialist in high quality habitat that is located near center of the county. The center of the county is the most urban area the edge; as edge area increases the amount of competition between of the county, and includes the City of Pittsburgh. Few watersheds con- these species increases) (Fagan, Cantrell and Cosner 1999) tained patches 250 acres and above. Along the first order drainages of the Ohio, Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers the scores were low, which In general, as habitat area increases so does species richness. While the again is not surprising considering the urban and industrial development reasons for this are likely caused by many factors, a simple explanation is patterns for the region and the location of the City of Pittsburgh. The that as habitat area increases so does the diversity of resources and micro- Youghiogheny scored higher than the three major rivers in the county. habitats (Meffe et al. 1997). The largest woodland patches in the county generally contain more interior habitat and less edge proportionally, and On average watersheds within Allegheny County contain 39% woodland are more likely to support a more diverse range of species than smaller areas, 6% woodland patches of 250 acres or more and 13% interior forest. patches. Whitaker Run scored the lowest for this section of the analysis, while the following watersheds scored as the top 10 watersheds: Days Run, Thorn For this analysis, interior or core forest was defined as the forest area Run, Toms Run, Perry Mill Run, Pucketa Creek, Big Sewickley Creek, Lit- approximately 100 meters from the edge of forest patch (Moyer 2003). tle Sewickley Creek, Boston Hollow, Crawford Run, Flaugherty Run and Based on this definition of interior forest, less than half the forests of Bulls Run. Pennsylvania are considered interior forest; most are privately owned and occur in small blocks (Moyer 2003). Woodland patches were classified Figure III.2 Inside a woodland patch near the Monongahela River (Photo 3R2N)

20 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

All county woodlands rated by size shown with areas of interior forest.

21 3 rivers 2nd nature

and Stream Improvement 2000, Gregory et al. 1991). Riparian vegetation also provides habitat for a large variety of plant and animal species, and contributes organic matter for a number of species. These communities have also been documented to be habitat components that promote fau- nal movement, gene flow, and serve as habitats for animals either outright or during disturbance in adjacent habitats (Fischer and Fischenich 2000; Gregory et al. 1991). Not surprisingly, continuous riparian buffers and corridors are more effective for water quality improvements, moderating stream temperatures and wild life movement than fragmented wider ones (Weller, Jordan and Correll 1989).

Map 3.2 Riparian Woodland Patches and Map 3.3 Riparian Woodland Contiguity

Maps 3.2 and 3.3 illustrate woodland patches that are near riparian areas and woodland contained within 100 meters of the streams. The purpose of these maps is to begin to quantify how spatially connected woodland areas are to streams in the county. These specific questions were examined:

• Are the woodland patches located near the rivers and streams? Figure III.3 A Beaver dam along Fallen Timber Run (Photo 3R2N) • Are the woodland areas contiguous along the rivers and streams? Figure III.4 A woodland patch in the Monongahela Valley. • How much woodland of each watershed is located near the rivers and Stream Analysis streams? Along the edges of the county, and in watersheds north of the Allegheny Stream function and structure is directly affected by the land use and For both maps, the woodland and interior patches were defined in the same and Ohio Rivers, the stream areas are much more wooded than in and condition of the surrounding watershed (Snyder et al. 2003). Sediment, manner as described in for Map 3.1. In addition, each existing stream was around the City of Pittsburgh or south of the Monongahela River (south- bacteria, nutrients and metals are the leading pollutants identified by the buffered by 100 meters, a minimum width recommended for neotropical ern suburbs). The original drainage pattern has been altered dramatically USEPA (2000) as threatening our waterways. One of the major sources migrants and area sensitive avian species (Fischer and Fischenich 2000). in and around the City of Pittsburgh. Most streams in the city limits are of these pollutants is urban runoff via storm sewers. Snyder et al. (2003) The 100 meters buffer is sufficient to cover the 100-year FEMA floodplain underground or contained with culverts (Pinkham 2002). On average found that urban land uses were more disruptive to biological integrity of and some upland area. This buffer is not recommended for streams in 86% of the woodland areas in Allegheny County are within 100 meters streams than other land uses, with the effect being even more significant in Allegheny County, but merely serves as a way to evaluate the amount and of streams and 46% of the 100 meter stream buffer contains woodlands. catchments with steeper slopes than catchments with less of a gradient. contiguousness of woodland near the streams. Within Shades Run watershed, 93% of the stream buffer contained woodlands and 89% of the woodlands in this watershed were near streams. Riparian areas are an interface between terrestrial and aquatic systems. For each watershed, the percentage of woodland that occurs within 100 West Run scored the lowest for woodlands near the streams and also had The plant communities found in the riparian zone have been shown to meters of a stream and the percentage of riparian buffer that contained a low score for woodlands within 100 meters of streams. As expected, provide many ecological functions including improving water quality. woodland was calculated. The percentages were each multiplied by 100 the major rivers all had low scores for this analysis. The industrial devel- Specifically, riparian plant communities improve stream bank stabiliza- to normalize them to whole numbers. Scores for each watershed can be opment of the region was focused near the rivers. In addition, the river tion, reduce sedimentation, remove chemicals, moderate the temperature found in Appendix B. The scores were then summed together to provide valleys of the county are some of the flattest areas of the region and were of the waterway and reduce particulate matter (National Council for Air a total Stream Analysis Score. likely developed first.

22 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

A 330 foot (100 meter) buffer was created around all streams and rivers in the county. Shown are all woodland patches which touch these riparian buffers.

23 3 rivers 2nd nature

All woodlands within the 330 foot (100 meter) stream buffer corridors.

Author: Kostoula Valianos

24 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Landscape Metrics Mean Nearest Neighbor (MNN) analysis was used to measure patch isolation in each watershed. This metric is calculated by measuring the shortest “Landscape metrics are algorithms that quantify specific spatial charac- nearest neighbor distance of each individual patches to similar patches (in teristics of patches, classes of patches, or entire landscape mosaics” (Mc- this case woodland) and taking an average of these distances. Woodland Garigal et al. 2004). These metrics can either evaluate the composition patches in watersheds with low MNN distances are less isolated relative to or spatial configuration of the data. While there are a great number or woodland patches with large distances. landscape metrics that can be calculated, this analysis used two metrics that evaluate the spatial configuration of woodland patches: Mean Shape Calculations Index and Mean Nearest Neighbor. Patch Analyst, an ArcView program extension, was used to calculate both As a landscape becomes more fragmented and patches are sliced into these metrics (Rempel, R.S. and A. P. Carr. 2003). The values for these smaller patches, many times, the shape of the individual habitat patches metrics were scores slightly different than the others already presented. become more complex. Complex and linear shapes tend to consist of Because the value calculated by these metrics do not take into account the more edge and less interior habitat. Simple shapes, such as circles and size or number of the patches in each watershed, the scores from this sec- squares contain the least amount of edge proportionally and the most in- tion of the analysis were reduced so they would not skew the final score. terior habitat (Turner et al. 2003, Meffe et al. 1997). As described earlier, All the previous calculations were based on a high value of 100. The the forest edge differs from forest interior in its microclimate, vegetation, high value possible for each of these two metrics is 25. The MNN score and species present. As the amount of edge increases, specialized interior was calculated by comparing the MNN for each watershed to the shortest species decrease in numbers while the populations of wildlife generalist MNN distance calculated in the county and multiplying by 25. The scores increases. for MSI were defined as the following: score of 1-1.5 = 25; 1.5 –2.0 = 13; 2.0 or > = 0. The scores for MSI and MNN were then summed for a Isolation of habitats patches is also a detrimental effect of habitat frag- Total Landscape Metric score. A map was not generated for this section mentation. As patches become smaller, species may be required to use of the analysis. Refer to Map 3.1, which shows the shape and location of adjacent patches or patches in close proximity to acquire all the resources the county’s woodland patches. needed to survive. If a habitat patch is isolated from other similar habitat, the species that depend on that habitat may not be able to acquire the re- All the watersheds scored MSI values greater than 1.5, which indicates that sources they need. Furthermore, if a catastrophic event occurs destroying the patch shapes are quite complex. Twelve watersheds had MSI values that “habitat island,” the species might not be able to disperse to other greater than 2.0. The shortest MNN distance was 45 meters (Wylie Run) suitable habitat, ultimately leading to the death or decline of that popula- and the longest was 136 meters (Shouse Run). On average the MNN tion (Meffe et al. 1997). distance was 83 meters. Scores for each watershed can be found in Ap- pendix C. Mean Shape Index (MSI) is a measure of patch complexity. This metric is calculated by finding the sum of each patch perimeter divided by the square root of the patch area and divided by the number of patches in a given landscape or region (in this case watershed). A value of 1 or near one indicates a simple shape such a square or circle. This type of shape contains less edge than a complex shape. The higher the value, the more complex the average patch shape is.

Figure III.5 A city staircase through a forest patch in the Hill District (Photo 3R2N)

25 3 rivers 2nd nature

Map 3.4 Watershed Woodland Evaluation Summary of Woodland Watershed Rating Analysis

The scores from the Total Woodland Area, Stream and Landscape Met- Watershed Values ric analysis were summed to provide a Total Woodland Watershed Rat- ing Score. Each watershed was rated on a scale of 1-5 (1 being low or Question GIS Analysis Process Value the worst score and 5 being high or the best score). These scores are only relative to watersheds found in the county and only provide an initial comparison of woodlands in the county. Map 3.4 shows the scores each 1. Woodland Analysis watershed received. Table 3.2 at right, summarizes all the calculations • How much woodland is in each watershed? • Area of forest over 250 acres/total area of watershed %*100 used in the Total Watershed Woodland Rating Score. Final values for all • Total forest in watershed/total area of watershed %*100 watersheds can be found in Appendix D. • Total interior forest/total area of watershed %*100

Final value for forest analysis • Total value for forest Sum of the above

2. Landscape Metrics • Mean Nearest Neighbor (MNN) • Measure of isolation-average of nearest neighbor (Smallest MNN/X )*25 distance of individual patch (edge to edge) • Mean Shape Index (MSI) • Measure of patch shape complexity-MSI = 1 when 1-1.5 = 25; 1.5-2 = 13; 2 < X = 0 patches are circular - sum of each patch perimeter divided by the square root of patch area

Final value • Total for patch metrics

3. Stream Analysis • How much of the riparian buffer contains woodlands? • Vegetated forest within stream buffer/ area total stream %*100 buffer • How much of the total woodland in a given watershed • Woodland areas within stream corridor/total woodland %*100 are part of the stream corridor? for watershed

Final value for stream analysis • Total for stream analysis

Figure III.6 Woodland in the Squaw Run Watershed Table 3.2 Summary of Woodland Watershed Rating Analysis.

26 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Total Watershed value is based upon total woodlands within the watershed, classified by size and tested in relation to the riparian corridor. A higher value indicates a healthier watershed.

5 - Good 4 3 2 1 - Bad

27 3 rivers 2nd nature

Conclusions on Watershed and Woodlands

As we have said earlier, intact healthy ecosytems provide a range of important services that are valuable and highly desirable for urban and suburban communities. The highly intact watersheds, Little Sewickley Creek, Toms Run and Thorn Run on the Ohio River; Pucketa Creek on the Allegheny River; and Boston Hollow and Perry Mill Run on the Monongahela are important areas to be considered for preservation and conservation. These are important pockets of post-industrial nature, successful ecosystems if you will, that deserve some ground study and analysis. The process of land use change demands monitoring for value, regulation analysis and finally realistic enforcement strategies that protect these natural systems. The fundamental question is, what land use management controls exist in these multi-municipal watersheds and are they doing the job of protecting ecosystems services?

The other areas worth some signification consideration would be the watersheds marked in yellow. There are some very large watersheds, such as Montour Run, Pine Run, Plum Creek and Streets Run that are relatively isolated, but somewhat intact. There are land use decisions going on in these watersheds today that will either decimate or retain ecosystem services. These are, in many ways, the key indicator watersheds of our region. Water quality and quantity changes here indicate shifts in urban land use characteristics that we need to pay attention to. Monitoring provides us with an understanding of the values that might drive our restoration goals. But the final decision to restore remains challenging and with little public funding, programming or policy in place to support such an agenda.

We can also see bands of yellow along the upper Allegheny, and Monon- gahlea Rivers that look like significant restoration opportunities. With a little effort and planing, the Monongahela River Corridor has what is likely to be the best potential for large scale restoration projects. With U.S. Army Corps of Engineers work on the dams and the planned Mon Fayette Highway, it would seem to be very, very likely that some significant ecological restoration money could be found along with some land banking support, shifting the Monongahela River Valley from a post-industrial liability to an urban ecological opportunity. All it takes is a shift in policy and investment strategies, changes that can often be initiated on the ground in local communities amongst activist networks of interested citizens working with non profit entities. Figure III.7 Pine Creek Watershed (Photo 3R2N)

28 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

IV. Other Measures of Watershed Health

Impervious Surfaces

The more developed an area is the more impervious surfaces there are. Impervious surfaces increase the amount of runoff that enters streams and waterways and ultimately increase the amount of pollutants and sediments that enter those systems. In addition, the increased runoff can cause flooding and increase erosion.

Map 4.1 Watershed Imperviousness

The percentage of impervious surface found in each watershed was cal- Figure IV.1 Impervious surfaces near the Ohio River (Photo 3R2N) culated and mapped in Map 4.1. This calculation is valuable because it is a reflection on how urban or developed a particular watershed is. The county land use data was used to calculate this information. Total area of imperviousness was compared to the total area of the watershed.

The highest percentages of impervious surfaces are concentrated around the City of Pittsburgh, which again is the most urban area found in the county. The lowest levels of impervious surfaces were found in southern portion of the county, in watersheds between the Monongahela and Youghiogheny Rivers, and also in Little Sewickley Creek, Big Sewickley Creek, Toms Run, Days Run and Pucketa Creek. The average percentage of impervious surfaces found in the county was 7%. The highest percentages of imperviousness in the county were calculated to be between 23- 25%. Scores for each watershed can be found in Appendix A.

Figure IV.2 Stream Valley of the old Four Mile Run (culverted) in Panther Hollow (Photo 3R2N)

29 3 rivers 2nd nature

Imperviousness is based upon county wide land-use data. Each land-use is assigned a value and the land-uses within a watershed are averaged. Watershed Imperviousness represents the average percent imperviousness for the entire watershed.

Author: Lena Andrews & Jonathan Kline

30 ECOLOGY AND RECOVERY - ALLEGHENY COUNTY

Stream Condition Field Studies: Macroinvertebrate and Fish Calculations and Maps

Between 2001 and 2003, 3 Rivers 2nd Nature commissioned a 3-phased Condition scores were developed from the invertebrate data to evaluate the study evaluating the condition of streams in the county. One measure water quality and biological condition of each of the 72 streams sampled. used in this study was a sampling of macroinvertebrates. All samples Condition scores greater than 80% indicate that a stream is nonimpaired, were collected near the mouths of streams of tributary to the Allegheny, 60-79 % slightly impaired, 40-59 % moderately impaired, and less than Monongahela and Ohio Rivers. The analyses were conducted following 39 % severely impaired. All except one of the Allegheny County stream protocol developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as re- stations examined were impaired to various degrees; 19.4 % slightly im- Spotted Bass fined by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), for stream paired, 41.7 % moderately impaired, and 37.5 % severely impaired. Map quality Rapid Biological Assessments (RBAs), with appropriate modifica- 4.2 illustrates the findings of the macroinvertebrate study (Koryak and tions and adjustments to local conditions (Koryak and Stafford 2004). Stafford 2004). This study also prioritized streams for preservation/pro- Bluegill tection and restoration. Pine Creek, Riddle Run, Toms Run and Tawney Benthic macroinvertebrate communities are highly responsive indices of Run were identified respectively in order of highest priority for preserva- water quality, in addition to having an intrinsic value and importance as tion/protection. Sixteen streams were identified for restoration. Lowries food for fish and other forms of aquatic life and often non-aquatic life. Run, Montours Run, Streets Run, Becketts Run, and Bunola Run were Streams that are non-degraded are highly diverse in the types of inverte- identified as the top five priorities for restoration. Gizzard Shad brate communities they support and would include many different organisms, including pollutant intolerant species. Degraded streams in contrast The IBI scoring found nine streams had good scores, seven had fair Common Carp would contain only a small number of pollutant tolerant species (Koryak scores, and eight had poor scores, and 23 had very poor scores. While this and Stafford 2004). information indicates that numerous small streams in Allegheny County are still experiencing severe stresses, nonetheless, the results generally ex- Forty-seven streams were also evaluated for stream condition based ceeded expectations of the researchers (Koryak and Stafford 2004). Map on fish sampling. An Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) score was devel- 4.3 shows the IBI scores calculated in the county. Shorthead Redhorse oped for these streams. The IBI score was calculated from data col- Channel Catfish lected by electrofishing. Twelve metrics were applied to this score.

They include: • Total number of species • Number of Darter/Sculpin Species • Number of Sunﬁsh species Flathead Catﬁsh • Number of Sucker species Sauger Pumpkin seed • Number of Minnow species • Number of Intolerant species • Number of tolerant species • Percent omnivores/generalists • Percent insectivorous species • Percent top carnivores/piscivores Freshwater Drum • Number of individuals/300 meters River Redhorse • Percent abundance of Blacknose Dace Smallmouth Bass Figure IV.3 Fish Species Composition of the Ohio River (The Point to Emsworth Dam) Images Courtesy of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

31 3 rivers 2nd nature

Seventy-two streams were evaluated for stream condition based on benthic macroinvertebrate community sampling conducted by 3R2N between 2001 and 2003. Condition scores were developed from the invertebrate data to evaluate the water quality and biological condition of each of the 72 streams sampled. Condition scores greater than 80% indicate that a stream is nonimpaired, 60-79% slightly impaired, 40-59% moderately impaired, and less than 39% severely impaired. All except one of the Allegheny County Stream stations examined were impaired to various degrees; 19.4% slightly impaired, 41.7% moderately impaired, and 37.5% severely impaired.

Author: Jonathan Kline, Lena Andrews & John Oduroe

32 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Forty-seven streams were evaluated for stream condition based on fish sampling conducted by 3R2N between 2001 and 2003. An Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) score was developed for these streams. The IBI score was calculated from data collected by electrofishing. Twelve metrics were applied to this score. They include: Total number of species, Number of Darter/Sculpin species, Number of Sunfish species, Number of Sucker species, Number of Minnow species, Number of intolerant species, Num- ber of tolerant species, Percent omnivores/generalists, Percent insectivorous species, Percent top carnivores/piscivores, Number of individuals/300 meters, and Percent abundance of Blacknose Dace.

33 3 rivers 2nd nature

Figure IV.4 Watershed Woodland Evaluation. Figure IV.5 Watershed Imperviousness. Figure IV.6 Stream Condition - Invertebrate Health.

Average Ecological Watershed Rating Generally, the watershed ratings in each data set was fairly consistent An average rating was calculated for each watershed by using the scores across the three data sets. Watersheds with low Woodland Watershed rat- from the Woodland Watershed Analysis, Impervious Surfaces and Mac- ings tended to have low Macroinvertebrate Stream Condition Scores and roinvertebrate Stream Condition data. Because the IBI data set is sig- high percentage of impervious surfaces. In contrast, watersheds that had nificantly less complete than the Watershed Woodland Rating, Impervious high Woodland Watershed Scores also tended to have low percentage of Surfaces and Macroinvertebrate data, it was not included in the calculation impervious surface and high Macroinvertebrate scores. of Average Ecological Watershed Rating. Though it does provide greater insight to the condition of the streams in county for the watersheds that The Average Ecological Score provides an initial evaluation of the county’s were included. watersheds and should serve as guidance for future field studies and data collecting. Interested parties and municipalities can also use the informa- Each data set was broken into four or five categories (on a 1 to 5 scale tion provided in this document as a starting point or tool in prioritizing with 5 being best) and was averaged for each watershed. From the Wood- and in evaluating: land Watershed rating, the Total Value was used. The scores from this • Conservation projects data set were already broken into five categories as illustrated on Map 3.4. • Restoration projects The impervious surface scores were reversed so that a watershed with low • The acquisition of open space, conservation easements or parks percentage of impervious surfaces is considered best.(i.e. 0 –2.3% = 5; 2.4-6.7% = 4; 6.8-11.8% = 3; 11.9-19.4% =2; >19.4 =1). The Macroin- Because this analysis is largely based on spatial data, critical next steps vertebrate analysis was broken into 4 categories: Non-impaired, Slightly should include collecting specific data related to woodland composition, impaired, Moderately Impaired and Severely Impaired. detailed flora and fauna surveys, and ground-truthing areas of interest. Figure IV.7 Stream Condition - Index of Biotic Integrity.

34 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The Invertebrate Health rating was broken into four categories: Very Poor, Poor, Fair and Good. These were ranked on a 5 point scale.

Very Poor = 1.25, Poor = 2.5, Fair = 3.75, Good = 5

The Woodland Health rating was also broken into four categories, based on the Total_Val field:

0-136 = 1, 137-201 = 2, 202-242 = 3, 243-289 = 4, >289 = 5 Because lower Impervious ratings are positive, the rating scale was reversed. The data was again broken into five categories, based on the percentage of land that is impervious. 0% - 2.3% = 5 2.4% - 6.7% = 4 6.8% - 11.8% = 3 11.9% - 19.4% = 2 >19.4% = 1

Ratings were then averaged for each watershed. For the watersheds that were missing Invertebrate Health data, only Woodland Health and Impervious surface calculations were averaged

35 3 rivers 2nd nature

Conclusions on Watershed Health

Looking at Map 4.4, we see a synthesis based on a mix of terrestrial and aquatic conditions. From the terrestrial point of view, we have forest cover and impervious surfaces; two structural conditions that can indicate whether or not the hydrology of the region is intact, diminished or destroyed. From the aquatic point of view, invertebrate health (bottom dwelling insects) and the index of biotic integrity (diversity of fish species) tell us about the actual life that occurs in the streams. If the structure is good, the life should follow unless there are extenuating circumstances as we will see below.

Much of this report is designed to set up a tension in the reader’s mind between green natural infrastructure and the significant expenditures required when the decision is made to go to grey engineered infrastructure systems. In the first case, we can think about rain and the health it brings to the landscape, in the second case, we think about stormwater. One is opportunity, the other constraint. One is to be enjoyed, the other to be managed for minimum impact to daily life. From an ecological perspective, the steep forested hillsides and stream valleys that make Allegheny County a challenging place to build on allow us to retain a fairly intact forest cover. Forest cover, when coupled with low impervious surfaces, makes for fairly intact hydrological regimes and healthy stream characteristics. These are the forms that support life. If you are living in a watershed with a healthy diversity of natural organisms, you can assume that you also have a very good chance of a long term healthy life, living in that place.

Despite changing land use characteristics, the drainages to the north shore of the Allegheny and the eastern shore of the Ohio still look quite good; forest cover and structurally complex larger watersheds allow for more niches for organisms to survive. The other areas that show promise are found along the Monongahela River valley, with the best opportunities on the eastern shores of that river. It is forest cover and the lack of impervious surfaces that make these opportunities stand out. The biological organisms are not as successful in this region partially because of the steep first and second order stream conditions. This geometry is typical of smaller watersheds and in the Monongahela valley they are often coupled with acid mine drainage discharges that limit the life in these streams. But the terrestrial indicators tell us there is strong potential for a significant recovery along the Monongahela River valley. Figure IV.8 The Monongahela River (Photo 3R2N)

36 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

V. Defining the River Corridor These include the river channel, riparian banks, valley floodplain, valley hillslopes and forested uplands. Forman’s diagram from Land Mosaics is reproduced at right (Figure V.2.) It represents the river corridor from small seep at the top to large river at the bottom. The area of the corridor grows larger and more complex with the size of the river. Seen in three dimensions, the model corresponds to the entire valley form of the river (Figure V.3). River & Stream The River Corridor Model River Corridor Functionality MB = Meander Band A major part of this study focuses on the corridors of the major rivers The zones included in the river corridor are based upon their individual (Riparian Bank) of Allegheny County. This includes the Allegheny, Monongahela, Yough- and integrated ecological functions. The importance and functions of the F = Floodplain Vegetation iogheny and Ohio rivers. These four rivers, all part of the greater Ohio different zones are shown in Figure V.2 & V.3. These aspect of river corri- (F, PI & PE) river watershed, are the major hydrological elements of the county’s ge- dor functionality defined by Forman inLand Mosaics are the basis for our H = Wooded Hillslope ography. While the watershed section of the study looks at the entire river corridor analysis. We have taken the optimum model and compared hydrological network of the county, the river corridor analysis zooms in it to the available Allegheny County river corridor data. For large 5th to U = Wooded Upland to examine only the sections of the county with a direct spatial relation- 10th order rivers, Forman proposes four major components for optimum (U & UE) ship with the major rivers. The analysis attempts to measure the ecologi- ecological functionality: (Forman 241-252) O = Ecologically Compatible cal functionality of the major river corridors using a combination of field Land-Use data and GIS analysis of existing mapping. A. Continuous bands of vegetation along river banks. B. Presence of woodlands on hill slopes. UE = Upland Interior in Corridor PI = Interior Floodplain Vegetation Our study adopts the landscape ecology model of river corridors put C. Continuous bands of upland interior woodlands above hill slopes. PE = Edge of Floodplain Vegetation forth by Richard Forman in Land Mosaics. The river corridor concept D. Patches of interior native floodplain vegetation extending from M = Matrix focuses on the entire landscape corridor through which the river flows. It river edge to hillslope base alternating with patches of ecologically is about the landscape in relation to the river. In a river corridor study, the compatible land uses. “emphasis is on the vegetation corridor, its components, functioning and dynamics” (Forman 208). For a major 5th – 10th order river, the corridor River bank vegetation provides habitat and movement corridors for semi- includes the entire river valley as shown in Figure V.1. The section shows aquatic vertebrates, and shade and logs for river fish species. Wooded five types of habitat which form linear bands following the river. hillslopes act as habitat and reduce erosion and sedimentation of the river. Continuous upland interior woodland bands provide habitat and move- River Corridor ment corridors for upland animal communities. Most significantly for Upland Hillslope Hillslope Upland the river, the floodplain vegetation minimizes flooding through friction Valley Floodplain and sponge effects, traps sediment during seasonal flooding, provides or-

Riparian Banks ganic material for fish and other river organisms, and provides habitat for Channel riparian species. The optimum condition is a continuous valley of native floodplain vegetation. An ecologically functional compromise is to divide floodplain vegetation into a “ladder” of large patches alternating with Figure V.2 “The minimum width of stream and river corridors based on ecological criteria. Five basic situations in a river system are identified, progressing from seepage to river. The key variables determining other land uses (Forman 249, 250). minimum corridor width ate listed under each.” (Reproduced from Richard Forman - Land Mosaics Color Coding by 3R2N) Figure V.1 The river corridor concept shown in section with the major landscape zones indicated. (Jona- than Kline-3R2N)

37 3 rivers 2nd nature

Defining the River Corridors of Allegheny County

For our GIS mapping study, we used the river corridor model to define a study area for the river corridors of Allegheny County. Two different analyses were combined to create this area. The first method attempted to capture the physical river valley form based upon topography; the second method adds streams small enough that they were not considered as individual sub-watersheds.

Map 5.1 River Valley Viewshed

A three-dimensional digital elevation model of the landscape was used to perform a GIS viewshed analysis from a series of points along the rivers. The map shows all areas of the landscape visible from a series of quarter mile points situated twenty-five feet above the pool elevation. To create a first draft of the river corridor, a line was drawn following the outlying visible points on the landscape, which tend to be beyond the edge of the C. hillslopes of the valley.

A. Map 5.2 First Order Drainage to the Rivers

The second component used to define the river corridor is the area of first D. B. order drainage to the river from the sub-watershed map. Along the major rivers there are numerous small first order streams which flow directly into the river. There are also large areas where streams have been lost to urban development. D. Map 5.3 River Corridor Study Area

The final river corridor study area added these two analyses together for the area shown in yellow. The study area captures the major landscape zones identified in the river corridor model, including the river and natural River & Stream Zones of a Functional River Corridor floodplain valley, the valley hillsides and the uplands along the river cor- Riparian Bank A. Continuous bands of vegetation along river banks. ridor. At major streams, it also captures the beginning of the stream val- Floodplain Vegetation B. Presence of woodlands on hillslopes. C. Continuous bands of upland interior woodlands above hillslopes. ley and riparian floodplain where stream meets river. Because the valley Wooded Hillslope D. Patches of interior native floodplain vegetation extending from viewshed analysis was not performed for the Youghiogheney an approxi- Wooded Upland river edge to hillslope base alternating with patches of ecologically mation based upon the topography was made for this area. compatible land uses. Ecologically Compatible Land-Use Urban Settlement Figure V.3 A three-dimensional interpretation of the Forman river corridor model. (Jonathan Kline-3R2N, after Forman)

38 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The river valley viewshed was determined by a series of quarter mile points along the centerline of the river at 25 feet above the pool elevation. The color ramp indicates the number of points from which an area is visible. The bright red areas were visible from up to 45 points and the dark green from only a single point.

Based upon this point analysis a viewshed area was created shown in yellow. The outer edge of the viewshed area follows the furthest visible points from the river, which in turn reflects the top of the hills of the river valley corridor. At major sub-watershed creek mouths, flood plain areas are also included.

Author: Jonathan Kline

39 3 rivers 2nd nature

The sub-watershed map of the county shows all of the drainage areas of more complex higher order streams as separate watersheds. However, along the rivers, small 1st order streams draining directly into the rivers are included in the immediate watershed area of the major rivers. This area also includes large areas of the City of Pittsburgh where streams have been culverted or integrated into the storm sewer system. This zone is shown in turquoise.

The river valley viewshed and the first order drainage area of the river cover slightly different areas. For our river corridor study, we have summed these two areas to define a single river corridor zone.

Author: Jonathan Kline

40 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The combination of the valley viewshed and the first order drainage to the rivers yields our river corridor study area. This area was then used for further analysis. It captures the physical river valley floor, the hillsides and tops of the hills and some upland areas. It also captures the mouths and initial stream valleys of all streams draining into the rivers.

Methodological Note: Because the construction of the first order drainage pattern polygon along the Youghiogheny river differed from that of the other rivers and did not accurately reflect the Forman river corridor, a new Youghiogheny river corridor was drawn to match the model.

Author: Jonathan Kline

41 3 rivers 2nd nature

Author: Jonathan Kline

42 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Map 5.4 River Corridor Landscape Zones

The major landscape zones of the river corridor can be seen in Map 5.4. The river meanders through the natural valley floor which historically acted as the riparian floodplain. Throughout the county, the major rivers have created an alternating pattern of wide floodplains on inside curves and narrow floodplains on outside curves. Hillsides also tend to follow this alternating pattern between extremely steep slopes and gentle slopes, corresponding to the outside curve and inside curve of the river respectively. Throughout the county, the continuous valley form is punctuated by major and minor smaller perpendicular stream valleys linking to the sub-watersheds of the county. At times, these valleys cut deep into the landscape, such as at Chartiers, Peters and Turtle Creeks, creating large areas of riparian floodplain adjacent to the river. C. The Post Industrial Reality of the Rivers of Allegheny County F. D. As shown in Figure V.4, the river valleys of twenty-first century Allegh- A. I. eny County are a long way from Forman’s optimal river corridor model. Two centuries of human settlement and industrial development have transformed the natural state of the river corridors. Parts of the corridors do have major areas of remnant ecological value. Large upland H. B. interior woodland patches do exist, although they are dissected by roads and fragmented by other land-uses, particularly around the confluence of J. the rivers. Large patches of hillslope woodland remain but they are also dissected by numerous small road corridors and fragmented by other land uses. River bank vegetation is fragmented into patches of native vegeta- G. E. tion, introduced vegetation and built infrastructure. However, the natural floodplains of the valley floor are a different story. First of all, the original hydrological pattern of the river has been fundamentally altered by a series A. Fragment patches of wooded upland with small interior woodland of locks and dams creating relatively fixed level river pools. Over time B. Fragment patches of wooded hillslope floodplains have been filled and raised to create plateaus above the artifi- C. Fragment patches of native riverbank vegetation band D. Fragment patches of native floodplain vegetation cially controlled flood levels. Continuous roads and railroads line almost The River Corridors of Allegheny County E. Lock and Dam system controlling river elevation and flow every river edge in the county. Patches of floodplain vegetation do exist, River & Stream Urban Settlement F. Partially culverted sub-watershed streams but they are far and few between and almost always are bisected by a road Riparian Bank Industrial Brown Field and/or railroad. In large part, the original floodplain has been given over G. Continuous roads and railroads parallel to river Floodplain Vegetation H. Patches of contaminated industrial brownfield to human settlement and industrial activity. Along the floodplains, human Wooded Hillslope uses tend to alternate between dense compact towns with large industrial I. Patches of dense urban human settlement Wooded Upland or former industrial river edges and transportation corridors consisting of J. Man-made embankments & walls multiple roads and railroads. Figure V.4 The river corridor of Allegheny County in its post-industrial state today. (Jonathan Kline-3R2N)

43 3 rivers 2nd nature

Finding Remnant Value in a Post-Industrial Setting

A casual comparison of the physical reality with the ecologically optimum model might lead to the conclusion that the river corridors of the county are degraded to the point of having no value. The aerial photograph in Aerial Valley Image Figure V.5 is drastically different from our model in Figure V.6. However, taking a restoration ecology approach, our study argues for the measurement of remnant value, looking for areas of opportunity for preservation, conservation and potential restoration. To do this, a variety of analyses are performed to identify aspects of ecological value that relate to the model.

Two major data sets for the county were used to identify areas of value in the river corridors. The first is the woodland patch GIS mapping for Al- legheny County created from orthophotometric satellite imagery in 1996. The second is riverbank botany and geology point data sets collected by Figure V.6 A three-dimensional interpretation of the Forman river corridor model. (Jonathan Kline- Figure V.5 The Monongahela River Corridor from the air (Photo 3R2N) 3 Rivers 2nd Nature between 1999 and 2004. Analysis of the woodland 3R2N, After Forman) patch data rates groups of patches for ecological value relative to one another. Analysis of the riverbank point data rates riverbank edges for of the corridor. Thus the patch grouping, size, interior woodlands and de- The reality of Allegheny County is radically different from the optimum preservation and restoration potential. These two ratings give us a partial gree of fragmentation are methods of testing for conditions B (presence model. Very few ideal conditions exist in the county. Transformation of picture of ecological value within the river corridors and allow us to iden- of woodlands on hillslopes) and C (continuous bands of upland interior land-use over time has dramatically reduced the presence of woodlands tify areas for further analysis and field study. woodlands above hillslopes) of the Forman model. Because of the rela- and native riparian vegetation in the river corridors. Forman defines five tive absence of floodplain woodlands on the valley floor and the human spatial processes of land transformation for landscape ecology. These in- Figure V.7 shows an overview of the strategies used to measure aspects intervention in the hydrological flow of the rivers, woodland groups are clude perforation, dissection, shrinkage, attrition and fragmentation (For- of ecological value. The first set of strategies was based upon spatial tested for remnant connections to the altered hydrological floodplain pat- man 407). Each of these processes changes the ecological functionality of analysis of the woodland patches. The scale of this analysis starts with terns. Patch groups that have a relationship to the 100 year floodplain are an area in a variety of ways over time. All of these processes have affected the individual patch. Our first step was to look for spatially proximate taken as having remnant value in meeting criteria D (patches of interior the woodlands of the river corridors. Over time, woodland patches have groups of patches that could be considered as groups. Woodland patches native floodplain vegetation extending from river edge to hill slope base been dissected by roads and other narrow corridors, perforated by clear- which are dissected by narrow non-road corridors but are otherwise in alternating with patches of ecologically compatible land uses.) The Sec- ings and house lots, shrunk by the introduction of other land uses, frag- close proximity to one another (within 100 ft.) were grouped. These patch tion IV maps document the methods and results of the woodland patch mented through human settlement patterns, and have disappeared alto- groups were then considered together and were measured relative to one study. gether through attrition. The result of two hundred years of rapid human another in order to identify the areas of greatest significance. The groups settlement and land transformation has resulted in the highly fragmented were tested for overall size and for presence and size of valuable interior The second set of strategies utilized botany and geology field data col- woodlands found today. The largest patch in the corridor is only 1130 woodlands. Each group was then measured for internal fragmentation be- lected by 3 Rivers 2nd Nature to measure riverbank vegetation. This data acres while some patches are only a fraction of an acre. Human land uses tween the patches of the group. A test was also performed which looked allowed for a much more in-depth measurement of perennial floodplains, such as houses, roads or industry border a great many of the individual at restoring group fragmentation and dissection to get a spatial sense of riparian species presence, botany continuity, and preservation and resto- forest patches in the corridor. Visual analysis of Map 6.1 reveals that no the restoration potential of a patch group. All of these tests attempted to ration potential. Thus criteria A (Continuous bands of vegetation along parts of the corridors have the desired bank and upland continuity for establish the size and continuity of the river corridor woodlands. In most river banks) is tested for in Section VII using the field data for river bank more than a few miles along the corridor. cases, the large groups are found primarily on the hillslopes and uplands botany and geology.

44 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Ultimately the different analyses of the data related to the Forman model as follows:

A. Continuous bands of vegetation along river banks Test riverbank field data for: 1. Preservation potential 2. Restoration potential

B. Presence of woodlands on hillslopes and C. Continuous bands of upland interior woodlands above hillslopes Test woodland mapping for: 1. Patch group size 2. Patch group interior presence & size 3. Patch group percent fragmentation

D. Patches of interior native floodplain vegetation extending from river edge to hill slope base alternating with patches of ecologically compatible land uses. Test woodland mapping for: 1. Patch group connection to the 100 year floodplain

For the woodland patch data, the group values under B, C and D were combined to rate the woodland patch groups relative to one another. Thus, while the measurements taken are based upon an ideal conditions presented in the Forman model, the actual rating is based upon existing fragmented woodlands measured relative to one another. This approach was taken because we are trying to measure areas of remnant value in a post-industrial setting. In addition, a series of other tests were performed on the woodland patch groups to look at restoration potential and to establish comparison values for the 100 year floodplain. Measured Aspects of the river corridor For the river banks, a series of measures were combined to create two rat- Riverbank Field Data Woodland Mapping Data ings measuring riverbank vegetation. The first establishes a relative rating 1/10 Mile Riverbank Field Limit of 100 Year Floodplain for preservation areas. The second establishes a relative rating for restora- Data Points Grouped Woodland Patch tion potential. Bank Preservation Area Interior Woodland Patch Bank Restoration Area Fragmentation Corridor Connection Between Woodlands & Floodplain Figure V.7 Measured aspects of the river corridor including bank data and woodland patches used to find remnant value.

45 3 rivers 2nd nature

The river corridor woodlands include any forest patches which touch the river corridor study area. This captures river bank, valley flood plain, stream mouth, river valley hillside, and hill top upland forest patches.

River Streams River Corridor Woodlands River Corridor Study Area

Author: Jonathan Kline

46 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

VI. Measuring the Woodlands of stream valleys perpendicular to the main river corridor. As seen in Map 6.1, the river corridor has a great diversity of patch sizes and shapes. There is also a great deal of patch fragmentation given the urban characteristics of the county.

Parts of the corridor, particularly around the confluence of the major rivers, are completely devoid of large woodland patches. Notable is the near total absence of large woodland patches on the valley floors. While some Woodland Patch Mapping small linear patches line the immediate banks of the rivers, the natural valley floodplains have been given over to primarily human settlement and As stated earlier, the primary focus of a landscape ecology corridor analy- industrial use over time. This pattern of human communities following sis is on the vegetated areas in relation to the river itself. This section the river is visible in Map 1.4 and is tied to historical use of the river as a focuses on the woodlands found primarily on the hillsides and uplands of transportation corridor. The majority of the large intact woodland patch- the corridor since these areas contain the largest patches, although river es tend to be on the hillsides, related stream valleys or upland edges. This bank and floodplain woodlands are included in all analyses as well. The again is tied to historical patterns of human use and settlement. Given the unit of measurement for this analysis is the woodland patch. Forman steepness of many of the valley hillsides, settlement patterns were limited defines a patch as “a wide relatively homogeneous area that differs from Figure VI.1 Despite its history of ecological degradation and intense urban development, Allegheny to easily build-able areas except in areas of very high density where a com- its surroundings” (Forman 43). The analysis that follows is based upon County does contain amazingly intact patches of native woodlands. (Photo 3R2N) bination of factors led to steep hillside development. spatial and geometric analysis of woodland coverage mapping. The data used in this analysis is from Allegheny County. In 1992, Allegheny County It must be emphasized that the patch analysis is based strictly on aerial Grouping the Woodland Patches mapped the woodland areas in their jurisdiction to the detailed scale of photometric mapping. No field data is included in the data set and the 1:2400, based upon planimetric aerial photography. This data does not time and scope of the project did not allow for any field data collection in One of the major characteristics of the river corridor woodlands is their provide information related to species composition or potential habitat the actual woodland patches. Therefore, no information is available about severe fragmentation and dissection—dissection being a specific case quality. It does provide an opportunity to take a comprehensive look at the botany characteristics, presence and diversity of species or general of fragmentation by narrow corridors. Because this study attempts to the size, shape and location of woodland patches in Allegheny County. habitat quality of the woodland patches in the river corridor. The patch identify areas of remnant value in a highly urbanized area, strategies for evaluation is strictly a landscape-scale spatial analysis using measurements grouping patches within close proximity were developed to help identify The GIS shapefile of individual woodland patches is a very detailed and of patch size, shape, number and proximity. areas of value. Some fragmentation in the corridor is characterized by highly fragmented representation of the tree coverage in the county. Vi- highly isolated patches such as steep hillsides in otherwise completely de- sual comparison between the coverage and the source photography re- Map 6.1 Woodlands Touching The River Corridor Study Area veloped areas or woodlands within large city parks. However, much of vealed that areas of contiguous tree coverage were massed into woodland the woodland fragmentation takes the form of dissection by narrow cor- patch polygons while scattered tree coverage, street trees, and other highly The first step in the analysis is to capture all of the woodland patches in ridors. These corridors are created by paved roads, railroads, trails, power fragmented vegetation were eliminated. It is also apparent that road, trail, the county that touch the river corridor zone defined in section five. Any line cuts and in some cases streams. Our strategy was to create groups of power line and, occasionally, stream corridors were carefully represented patch that is contained within or touches the boundary of the zone is patches which were spatially proximate but not separated by paved roads. as breaks in the woodland patches even though at times the tree canopy included in Map 6.1. This methodology is designed to capture any wood- This allowed large hillside areas fragmented by trails and small breaks but appeared to span the corridor. Visual spot checks between the aerial pho- land patches that fall into the zones defined in Forman’s river corridor: unbroken by roads to be considered together as a single woodland patch tography and the woodland patch shapefile generally confirmed the accu- bank, floodplain, hillside and upland edge. It is also designed to capture system. By measuring and rating the patch groups, we were able to iden- racy of the mapping although some patches representing open fields were any woodland patch that has a direct relationship with the river corridor tify larger areas and systems of value within a highly fragmented post-in- found to be miscoded as woodlands. In all apparent cases these coding zone, while the majority of the patch itself may lie on the periphery of dustrial setting. errors were corrected by 3R2N. the zone. In many cases these outlying patches are found on the hillsides

47 3 rivers 2nd nature

Map 6.2 Woodland Patch Grouping Methodology

Visual analysis of the dissection patterns of the corridor woodlands reveals that many of these corridors are between 20 and 100 feet wide, with a typical corridor being around 60 feet wide. This is not surprising since a A 100 foot buffer was created for the river corridor typical legal road right of way in an urbanized area ranges from around 50 woodland patches. Any woodland patches which were within 100 feet from one another were then to 100 feet. In addition to roads, the woodlands as mapped are dissected grouped. These groups were then analyzed for by narrow 20 - 60 foot corridors created by unpaved roads, trails, utility fragmentation by paved roads. If a paved road easements and at times even small streams. Our goal in grouping the passed through the 100 foot buffer, the group was patches was to account for dissection created by these narrow corridors so broken into two. While these groups display some that larger systems of patches could be measured as a single unit. Given level of fragmentation, they are not fragmented the urban setting and severe degree of fragmentation, we chose a distance by roads. Dirt roads, trails and bridges were discounted from the analysis of 100 feet as the maximum corridor width between patches that could be considered as a group. Our empirically derived 100 foot maximum distance was tested by creating a joined 100 foot buffer around all woodland patches and then grouping all patches contained within the larger buffered area. This grouping was then tested against the mapping of paved surface roads, excluding aerial bridge structures. If a paved surface road crossed a group, it was divided into two groups by the road corridor. Only paved roads have been removed because roads can act as a filter limiting the movement of certain species or a sink killing animals which try to cross them (Forman 164, 165). The woodland patch grouping method is illustrated in Map 6.2.

Map 6.3 Woodland Patch Groups by Area

The resulting woodland patch grouping identifies systems of patches which have a close proximity and greater remnant value than small patches isolated by man made land-uses. In Map 6.3 these groups are coded by total group acreage. Also shown are areas of interior woodlands defined as the woodland area approximately 100 meters from the edge of the patch (Moyer 2003). The importance and value of interior woodlands is discussed fully in Section III of this report. Map 6.3 shows that all four rivers have major remnant woodland systems of over 500 acres. Some of the large groups are situated on steep hillslopes and adjacent uplands facing the river. Others are found on the hillslopes of major perpendicular stream valleys. Both total group acreage and total group interior woodland acreage are components of the final patch group rating shown in Map 6.13.

48 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The river corridor woodlands are shown as groups. A group includes any patches within 100’ from each other which do not have road separating the patches. Individual groups are shown in different hues.

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

49 3 rivers 2nd nature

Woodland Fragmentation

As we have already observed, fragmentation and dissection is one of the major problems present in the river corridors. In order to give some measure of the relative degree of fragmentation of the grouping we had created, a percent fragmentation index was created for the patch groups.

Map 6.4 Woodland Group Internal Fragmentation

The first step of this analysis was to return to the original 100 foot buffer used to group the woodlands and capture only the parts of the buffer that were internal to the group. These two areas are shown in tan and grey in Map 6.4. This methodology includes both internal fragmentation corridors between patches of the group and small indentations found along the edge of highly convoluted patches.

Map 6.5 Woodland Group Percent Fragmentation

The second step takes the area of the internal fragmentation corridors as a percentage of the total area of the patch group, including the fragmenta- Original 100’ Buffer of Woodland Patches tion corridors to give a percent fragmentation. This methodology tends to work well for large groupings of patches dissected by multiple corridors. However, it does not work well for small convoluted patches. These cases tend to register as highly fragmented due to their complex shape.

Map 6.6 Woodland Group Percent Fragmentation (County)

Seen at the county scale, the fragmentation index shows that all of major groups have less than 20% fragmentation. This includes a number of major groups with less then 10% fragmentation. The group fragmentation index is a component of the final patch group rating shown in Map 6.13.

50 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

In order to create a measure of fragmentation for each woodland patch group, the area of the internal corridors was compared to the overall area of the group. This method gave a fragmentation percentage. Note: this methodology tends to generate misrep- resentations for very small groups of patches, particularly single patch groups. This is a result of the buffering geometry for small patches of irregular shape.

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

51 3 rivers 2nd nature

The percent fragmentation for woodland patch groups based upon 100 foot internal fragmentation corridors. The percent represents area in the missing corridor relative to the total area of the group including the fragmentation corridor.

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

52 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Potential for Restoring Fragmentation

Because fragmentation is one of the largest ecological issues facing the county woodlands, we performed a speculative test to gauge restoration potential of our woodland patch groups. This test is purely spatial in that it does not account for regulatory, land ownership or political factors. It does, however, tell us that, given the existing woodlands, much more substantial areas of interior forest could be created through relatively minor restoration efforts to relink major patches.

Map 6.7 Woodland Group Potential Interior Woodland

The methodology for this test uses the patch group area including the fragmentation corridors. Speculatively assuming that the fragmentation corridors could be reforested, the same test for interior woodlands using an internal 330 foot buffer was performed to yield a potential interior woodland patch for the group. These are shown in orange in both Map 6.7 and 6.8. This can then be graphically compared to the existing interior woodland area which is hatched in dark green. In some areas, this method shows that little or no increase in interior woodlands is possible due to (Potential Interior area created if internal fragmentation is roads and development. However, some patch groups reveal that minor eliminated) reforestation would yield sizable areas that would have the spatial characteristics of interior woodlands.

Map 6.8 Woodland Group Potential Interior Woodland (County)

Seen at the county scale, this test reveals the potential for restoration efforts to dramatically increase the area of valuable interior forest found in the county river corridors.

53 3 rivers 2nd nature

If the internal fragmentation areas were restored to a forested state this would result in an increase in the area of interior woodland. The potential interior woodland of a group was determined using a 330’ (100 m) buffer on the woodland patch groups with the internal fragmentation corridors included.

River Corridor Woodlands

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

54 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Woodlands in Relation to the Floodplain in any connections between the modified floodplain areas and the river corridor woodlands. This was done by testing the patch groups in relation As we have previously observed, very little of the ecologically valuable to the floodplain in a variety of ways. The first two tests look for patch native floodplain vegetation remains in the river corridors of Allegheny groups which touch the extents of the floodplain as it is defined by the River & Dam County. Two hundred years of urban and industrial development and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA defines dif- hydrological manipulation have transformed the native floodplain valley ferent zones for the one hundred year storm and the five hundred year floors into urban settlements and industrial brownfields laced with various storm based upon the ability of the lock and dam system to control flow transportation corridors. Vast sections of low-lying riparian floodplain in a storm event. We took the entire area that is inundated by flood waters have been filled and raised to bring industrial and railroad uses above the and tested to see if a group touched this area at any point. In addition level of perennial flooding. Perpendicular streams and their floodplains to testing the artificiality defined FEMA floodplain, we defined an area have been channelized and often culverted in the areas where they meet defining the natural valley floor based upon the digital elevation model. the river, usually in attempt to control flooding in adjacent urban areas. Patch groups were also tested for connection to this approximation of the Over time, the native floodplain vegetation which would have covered the historic natural floodplain as a point of comparison. valley floor of the river corridors has all but disappeared. Map 6.9 Woodland Groups Touching the 100 Year Floodplain In addition to the loss of native floodplain vegetation, the natural hydrological flow of the river has been fundamentally altered by the intro- Map 6.9 shows only the patch groups which touch or are within the one Figure VI.2 The Monongahela River with its lock and dam system. duction of a lock and dam system beginning in 1874 (Moxley, 2001, ii). hundred year floodplain area. This test shows that there are a number This system, created, maintained and run by the Army Core of Engineers, of substantial patch groups which still have a direct relationship with the divides the rivers into a series of relatively fixed elevation pools using a se- floodplains of the river, particularly on the outlying edges of the county. a slightly larger area, only captures a few additional groups, and most of ries of locks and dams. The lock system is intended to facilitate industrial However close inspection of the map reveals that the majority of patch them are small insubstantial patches along perpendicular stream valleys. and recreational use of the river and to minimize impacts from perennial groups highlighted have a relationship not with the river itself but with flooding. The creation of the lock and dam system, combined with de- a sub-watershed floodplain zone. While some patch groups do connect Map 6.11 Woodland Groups Touching the Natural River Valley Floor cades of filling to bring railroad and industrial sites above flood level has directly to the river floodplain zone, in most cases, filling for railroads and resulted in a dramatic decrease in the area of land which has the perennial roads has separated the wooded hillslopes from the floodplain. For the As a second point of comparison, we mapped patch groups which touch an flooding characteristics necessary to support native riparian plants. purposes of this analysis, no distinction was made between river flood- approximation of the floor of the river valley itself, based upon the digital plain and adjacent stream floodplain because all connections to floodplain elevation model. This area is intended to model the approximate natural Thus, the original natural floodplain system of the river corridors has areas were seen as having value. Section VIII explores in detail some of floodplain of the river in a pre-development state. This test revealed that been fundamentally altered, with the net result being a severe loss of na- the areas along the major rivers where direct connections exist between some existent wooded hillslopes have lost their connection to the flood- tive riparian floodplain vegetation. The introduction of urban land uses the river floodplain and major woodland patch groups. The test for con- plain, which is not surprising. However, when compared to Map 6.9, it has resulted in a severe loss of land area which has the characteristics nection to the one hundred year floodplain is a component of the final also reveals that a large number of the major woodland patch groups have needed to support riparian vegetation. It is in natural floodplain valleys patch group rating shown in Map 6.13. maintained some connection to the floodplain in its current controlled state. that the county river corridors are furthest from the ideal ecological system. Almost no areas of the county have the ideal condition of an unin- Map 6.10 Woodland Groups Touching the 500 Year Floodplain terrupted natural vegetation transect running from riverbank to upland. While our rivebank field data documents the existing conditions of the As a point of comparison, we also mapped patch groups which touch immediate river banks in detail, we performed a series of tests to look for the five hundred year floodplain. Comparing the two reveals almost no links which connect the hillslopes to remnant areas of valley floodplain difference between the set of groups touching the one hundred and five vegetation. Our assumption was that there was remnant ecological value hundred year floodplains. The five hundred year floodplain, which covers

55 3 rivers 2nd nature

The relationship between woodland patch groups and the 100 year FEMA floodplain mapping. Darker woodland patch groups touch the floodplain area in one or more places.

Flooding contained in channel banks Area inundated by 100 year flooding

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

56 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The relationship between woodland patch groups and the 500 year FEMA floodplain mapping. Darker woodland patch groups touch the floodplain area in one or more places.

Flooding contained in channel banks Area inundated by 100 year flooding

Area inundated by 500 year flooding 500 yr contained in channel banks

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

57 3 rivers 2nd nature

The relationship between woodland patch groups and the natural river valley floor. The valley floor area is based upon topography. It was determined using a digital elevation model.

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

58 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Rating the Woodland Groups the least. Ecological significance is determined by the relative size of the lated to its rivers. Measured against ideal ecological conditions, these areas forest, its contiguity with other forested areas, as well as its proximity to of woodland are far from optimal, but they do have remnant value when For the final analysis, various measurements were combined to rate the rivers and streams. In addition, interior forest was used as a point of refer- examined relative to one another using landscape ecology principles. In woodland patch groups relative to one another. This relative rating allows ence, in that it is the best indicator that is known for potential biodiversity. the overall ecology of greater Southwestern Pennsylvania, these patches us to identify: The map indicates that the most significant groups tend towards the edges of woodlands are small, highly degraded and relatively insignificant. How- of the county away from the confluence of the rivers and the center city. ever in relation to their surrounding dense human settlement, these wood- B. Presence of woodlands on hillslopes and However, a few notable groups do exist in surprisingly close proximity to lands have enormous value, adding aesthetic, economic and environmental C. Continuous bands of upland interior woodlands above hillslopes highly developed urban areas including the areas along Nine Mile Run in value to the surrounding urban region. They also do contribute in a small Test woodland mapping for: Frick Park and the major woodland system between Becks Run and Glass way to the overall ecological health of the greater Ohio River Watershed 1. Patch group size Run. These areas will be examined in further detail in section VIII. by creating habitat, adding organic material and slowing runoff. In the 2. Patch group interior presence and size ecology of a large river, all parts of the river corridor affect the system. 3. Patch group percent fragmentation Map 6.13 Woodland Groups Touching Managed Open Space In recent years, Allegheny County has been transformed through the re- D. Patches of interior native floodplain vegetation extending from river The last map examining woodland patch groups tests the overall ranking markable reemergence of forested river valley hillsides after one hundred edge to hill slope base alternating with patches of ecologically compatible in relation to managed open spaces in the county. For the purposes of the years of industrial pollution. The incredible visual proximity of green land uses. analysis, managed open spaces were considered to be any dedicated open hillsides to dense urban neighborhoods is now the defining characteristic Test woodland mapping for: space with some level of management. This includes parks, athletic fields, of life in Pittsburgh and its surrounding towns and cities. While pollution 1. Patch group connection to the 100 year floodplain cemeteries and other types of management. These were typically, but not regulation has allowed much of this resurgence, regulatory controls on exclusively, public open spaces and the analysis was limited to areas in the land-use and development have not moved in step to protect the reemerg- For the woodland patch data, the group values under B, C and D were Allegheny County GIS database of open spaces. Major trail systems were ing woodlands. Allegheny County and its cohort of municipal govern- combined to rate the woodland patch groups relative to one another. also included. While the relationship to open space was not included in ments should first attempt to protect lands that seem both ecologically Thus, while the measurements taken are based upon an ideal conditions the rating of the patch groups, it does begin to reveal patterns of use and valuable and accessible. While the analysis showed uplands and hillsides presented in the Forman model, the actual rating is based upon existing ownership in relation to the woodland patch groups. In terms of wood- to have significant areas of woodland, the ecologically essential areas of fragmented woodlands measured relative to one another. This approach land management and preservation, Map 6.13 shows that very few of the floodplain woodland are revealed to be small-disconnected fragments. To was taken because we are trying to measure areas of remnant value in a most ecologically significant groups fall within or even touch a managed ensure the future preservation of existing woodlands, the region could post-industrial setting. In addition, a series of other tests were performed open space. While some may be publicly owned land, few are actually establish a series of protected natural stream valley and steep slope forest on the woodland patch groups to look at restoration potential and to es- designated as parks; more typically they are privately owned. The map also corridors. From that foundation of protected forest, it would be possible tablish comparison values for the 100 year floodplain. shows that the existing park and trail system, a primary interface between to devise a restoration plan to assure natural amenities and services for the human inhabitants and natural amenities, has very little relationship generations to come. with the largest and most contiguous woodland groups along the rivers. Map 6.12 Woodland Groups - Overall Ranking of Ecological Section IX discusses the woodlands in relation to systems of human use Significance and regulation in much greater detail.

The Overall Ranking of Ecological Significance map identifies the woodland groups in Allegheny County with the highest relative value in relation Woodland Groups - Conclusion to the major river corridors. Measured against each other, these are the most significant woodland groupings in Allegheny County. The colors Given the fragmented reality of any urban forest and the history of in- indicate the relative ecological vale of the patch groups in relation to one dustrial pollution and environmental degradation in this region, Allegheny another, with dark green indicating the most significant and pale orange County has a number of surprisingly large areas of urban forest still re- Figure VI.3 A forest patch on the Allegheny River (Photo 3R2N)

59 3 rivers 2nd nature

SIGNIFICANCE

. I

Least Significant

Most Significant

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

60 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The relationship between woodland patch groups and managed open space. Managed open space is taken to include any dedicated open space with some level of management. This includes public parks, athletic fields and cemeteries. Patch groups touching any such space are shown according to their overall ecological rank.

Least Significant

Most Significant

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

VII. Measuring the Riverbank Data etated under-story. This was the best condition possible. It was examined against six diminishing conditions, beginning with the lapse of under-story species and culminating in the absence of any vegetation whatsoever. Riverbank More generally, the botanists analyzed for dominant and subordinate species in each 1/10 of a mile section, as well as the total percentage of vegetation, the continuity of forest cover vegetation as well as the relative Photo impacts of invasive species such as Japanese knotweed, Purple loosestrife Riverbank Field Data and Garlic mustard.

The 3 Rivers 2nd Nature botany and geology team collected data from boats, working their way up and down the three rivers from the year 2000 to 2004. The teams used global positioning systems to identify and record 1/10 of a mile sections in field notes that were then transcribed into data- bases that could be analyzed by geographical information system software. The geologists were interested in the bank - berm relationship—in other words, the gentle slope which first occurs at the transition edge between water and land (berm) and the more obvious slope that indicates the river bank itself, as well as the material composition of that bank. Our goal with the geology was to think about human access to and from the river. Our goal was also to understand those places where vertical walls or hand placed stone had replaced natural slopes as well as those places where natural soils had been replaced by fill dumped at its angle of repose, rubble that is typical of urban and industrial excess. The slope and type of “soil” dictates the potential for natural recovery.

Map 7.1 Riverbank Obligate Wetland & Potential Perennial Floodplains

Botany data included identification of wetland species wherever possible which, through the Clean Water Act, could provide a standard for river edge land protection. Whether small or large, functioning wetlands are an indicator of remnant river edge ecosystems and floodplains that deserve attention and protection if we are to invest in nature and its services for generations to come.

Map 7.2 Riverbank Botany Continuity Figure VII.1 Riverbank sections of the Allegheny River (top) and the Monongahela River (bottom) We also reviewed all main-stem river banks for value that would indicate (Photos 3R2N) increasingly intact forests. The botany team was primarily interested in forest areas with no breaks in the tree canopy and the presence of a veg-

63 3 rivers 2nd nature RIVERBANK

Areas of occurrence of two or more vegetative obligate wetland species. The presence of obligate wetland species indicates the possibility of a wetland habitat that is protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

64 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County RIVERBANK

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

65 3 rivers 2nd nature

Map 7.3 Riverbank Botany Preservation Priority

The riverbank botany preservation map identifies those waterfront parcels that have either continuous forested areas, indications of obligate wetland species or presence of floodplain hardwood trees. Continuous forested areas have value unto themselves. Properties with obligate wetland species fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and can provide a potent argument for the preservation of land. Hardwood trees on river floodplains are considered to be imperiled by the Pennsylvania Depart- ment of Conservation and Natural Resources, which may or may not be a source of support for preservation, conservation or restoration of the identified parcels and land that adjoins them.

Map 7.4 Riverbank Botany Restoration Potential

Areas recommended for restoration were chosen based on geological data and vegetative data, specifically natural substrate conditions and low forest continuity values. The natural substrate conditions provide the opportunity to replant native trees and shrubs, thereby reforesting a fragmented area or area impacted by vegetative invasive species.

Riverbank Conclusion

The riverbanks of Allegheny County have been much abused through the years. First, the level of the rivers is five to six feet higher than it would have been one hundred years ago. Second, the riverbanks themselves have become the repository for a range of urban and industrial detritus (Figure VII.2). And while these kinds of practices may feel odd and ancient to many of us today, you only have to find your way to the mouth of Plum Creek or Squaw Run on the Allegheny River to find mounds of fill that have been placed on these floodplains inthe years since 2000. That is the bad news. The good news is the riverbanks of Allegheny County are sprouting sizable and continuous forest growth for the first time in one hundred years. Thirty years of industrial downturn and an accumulation of natural soils upon building debris that lines some of our riverbanks, has given nature a foothold. We all must make a decision. Do we work to make things better using the methods, means and programs of restoration ecology, land conservation and preservation? Or do we pursue growth at any cost as our forefathers Figure VII.2 An eyesore or recovering riverbank? once did? Once again we are deciding upon the future for our children.

66 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County RIVERBANK

River edge areas recommended for

Priority Level Requirements: 1 - Forest continuity of at least 5 (see Map 7.2), presence of a hardwood floodplain community, AND presence of at least two obligate wetland species little or no impact of invasive species.

2 - Forest continuity of at least 5, presence of a hardword floodplain community OR presence of at least two obligate wetland species, and little or no impact of invasive species.

3 - Forest continuity of at least 5, presence of a hardwood floodplain community AND/OR obligate wetland species, and some impact by invasive species.

Riverbank Botany Preservation Rank

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

67 3 rivers 2nd nature RIVERBANK

Areas recommended for restoration were chosen based on geological data and vegetative data, specifically natural substrate conditions and low forest continuity values. The natural substrate conditions provide the opportunity to replant native trees and shrubs, thereby reforesting a fragmented area or area impacted by vegetative invasive species.

substrate

Riverbank

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

68 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

VIII. Identifying Areas of Opportunity

Overlaying the Different Measurements

Thus far, our landscape ecology analysis has examined three different measures of ecological health in Allegheny County. The study began at the scale of the sub-watershed, moved to the scale of the river-corridor woodland patch-group and finally examined tenth-of-a-mile points along the riverbanks of the four major rivers. At each scale, different kinds of data were combined to create a ranking of ecological health for a different unit of measurement, the sub-watershed, the woodland patch-group and Figure VIII.1 A three-dimensional interpretation of the Forman river corridor model. (Jonathan Kline- Figure VIII.2 Measured aspects of the river corridor including bank data and woodland patches used to the riverbank point. Because of the varying scales, measurement units, 3R2N, after Forman) find remnant value. (Jonathan Kline-3R2N, after Forman) data types and ranking schema, it is not feasible or useful to attempt combining them into a single quantitative measure. As individual quantitative VIII.1, and our interpretation of it used to find remnant ecological value The River Corridor Summary shows highly ranked areas increasing as the rankings, they illustrate different aspects of the hydrological ecology of in a post-industrial urban setting shown in Figure VIII.2. One group of rivers move away from the confluence at the Point towards the edges of the county and have different uses for planning. measurements look for value in woodland patch-groups, examining size, the county. It also shows a greater presence of highly ranked sub-water- interior size, proximity, percent fragmentation and relationship to flood- sheds in the north of the county than in the south. These patterns are not However, all being spatial measurements, it is possible to graphically over- plains. Another set look for continuity and quality of the riverbank edg- surprising given the historical urban development of Allegheny County lay the various rankings to create a general qualitative picture of the health es based upon field observation and measurement. Seen together these moving primarily east and south of the confluence at the Point where of the hydrological system in the county. A spatial overlay allows the measurements reveal systems of remnant ecological value woven into a downtown Pittsburgh is located. However, the mapping does reveal some rankings of different measurements to be related to one another. It also developed urban setting. The overlay also allows these convergences of major areas of value along the Monongahela River, historically the most reveals spatial convergences and connections between areas of ecologi- healthy systems to be seen in the context of their sub-watershed and its industrialized area in the county. The area in the south of the county be- cal significance. For future development planning, advocacy efforts and relative health. tween the Monongahela and Youghiogheny rivers contains a surprisingly regulatory changes, understanding the spatial relationships between eco- large number of significant woodland-patch groups as well as a number of logically valuable areas and existing urban development is essential. The Map 8.1 River Corridor Summary - Areas of Greatest Significance very healthy small sub-watersheds. This and other spatial convergences of overlay of the different rankings creates a single picture that summarizes remnant value will be further examined as opportunity areas. the findings for these purposes. The River Corridor Summary map brings together the ecological measures of watershed health, woodland group significance, and riverbank botany The data layering is particularly useful for understanding the zone of the preservation and restoration ranking. Different measures are overlaid to Map 8.2 River Corridor Summary – Opportunity Areas for Study river corridor, revealing spatial relationships between significant hillside create a picture of the landscape ecology of the county from a hydrologi- woodland patch-groups and stretches of riverbank with high preservation cal perspective. The map is not a single quantitative measure of overall The map of Opportunity Areas for Study calls out eight overlapping areas and restoration potential. In this way, it relates the different measures significance, but a spatial layering of interrelated measures of ecologically in the county where there are significant spatial convergences of ecologi- back to the Forman model of a healthy river corridor shown in Figure significant systems in the river corridor. cal value in the river corridors. In most cases these areas contain a signifi-

69 3 rivers 2nd nature

Combining the various ecological measures of watershed, woodland groups and riverbank botany creates a landscape ecology summary of the county from a hydrological perspective.

Riverbank

Most Significant

Riverbank

Least Significant

Overall Rating

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

70 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

cant grouping of highly ranked woodlands combined with a stretch of the south of the county. The Emerald Arc (Map 8.4) was chosen for the riverbank with numerous points of preservation or restoration potential. presence of relatively contiguous forest cover spanning the hills between They also typically are connected to a highly ranked watershed. It must be the Monongahela and Youghiogheny Rivers in addition to a number of emphasized that the River Corridor Summary is a spatial overlay of related small healthy sub-watersheds and stretches of healthy riverbank. This Opportunity Area quantitative measures, not a single ranking. The selection on the oppor- area is particularly striking for its proximity to both active and brown- tunity areas is based on observation of the spatial convergence of related field industrial sites that dominate the lower Monongahela. The second rankings. It identifies areas of the county that appear to have high pres- Monongahela site, Hays and Streets Run (Map 8.3) was chosen because of Photo ervation or restoration potential based upon the related measurements. the presence of large groups of woodland patches in close proximity to Areas were also selected with some consideration of their relationship and the central city. While the sub-watersheds of Streets Run and Nine Mile proximity to urban systems of human use with the assumption that these Run both have a watershed health ranking of only two, they also con- remnant ecological systems are particularly valuable to human health, en- tain major interconnected patches of woodlands. The presence of highly vironmental aesthetics and urban sustainability. These are intended to ranked woodland patch groups in relation to the compromised streams be areas for further investigation including field studies of environmental combined with proximity to dense urban areas, parks and trail systems system quality, analysis of relationships to urban infrastructure, human creates a unique opportunity for restoration. use and regulation and feasibility of preservation and restoration. Figure VIII.3 Hays and Streets Run Opportunity Area Map 8.3 – 8.10 Opportunity Areas cal value. Stretches of riverbank are returning to health and reestablishing The largest cluster of opportunity areas is found in the upper north-west after over a hundred years of industrial abuses. Large patches of river corner of the county along the Allegheny River. This area contains a Maps 8.3 through 8.10 show the opportunity areas identified in greater valley forest have returned after dying off during the intense industrial number of large relatively healthy watersheds with large intact woodland detail. The opportunity area maps reproduce the landscape ecology data pollution of the early twentieth century. Nature is returning to the river patches, some of which have relatively uninterrupted connectivity with from the summary map at a larger scale allowing spatial relationships to valleys of Allegheny County as historical photographs attest. floodplain vegetation. The Upper Allegheny also has large stretches of be analyzed in greater detail. The woodland groups, riverbank data and riverbank with high preservation and restoration potential including a watershed rankings are shown in relation to human infrastructure of And yet, despite a static regional population and a general population de- number of small islands. Deer Creek (Map 8.8), Days and Bulls Run streets railroads and managed open space. Networks of road and railroad cline in the center city, land continues to be developed in ways that are (Map 8.9) and The Upper Allegheny (Map 8.10) all have large intact areas infrastructure create enormous challenges for reconnecting fragmented highly destructive to these remnant and returning ecologies. Hillsides are of value with very high preservation potential. Plum Creek (Map 8.7) was woodland stream and floodplain systems. Managed open spaces indicate striped of woodlands, streams are filled, culverted and channelized, riv- chosen despite its low ranking as a sub-watershed because of the presence existing areas with some level of regulatory control and indicate systems erbanks are aggressively managed with grey infrastructure, and proposals of a large system of woodland patches along the creek and the southern of relatively compatible human recreational use. These maps begin to that add even more layers of highway infrastructure to our river valleys slopes of the Allegheny River valley in close proximity to a group of dense show the complexity of preservation and restoration of natural systems continue. Public officials have even supported proposals for mountain urban settlements. Plum Creek looks to be an ideal area for coordinated in a dense urban environment. Section IX of this report will examine the top removal mining as an appropriate practice in the Hays and Streets Run riverbank, floodplain and stream restoration combined with hillside wood- urban fabric and land-use regulation of the Hays and Streets Run area Opportunity Area. land preservation. (Map 8.3) and the Emerald Arc area (Map 8.4) to understand the general challenges and strategies for preservation and restoration in the county. Nature is returning to our river valleys. We can choose to aid, ignore or Another cluster is located along the north and south shores of the Ohio fight this process. This study advocates for a restoration ecology approach River around Neville Island. Both Thorn Run (Map 8.6) and Tom’s Run Areas of Opportunity – Conclusion that actively aids the process through restoration projects, land conserva- (Map 8.5) contain small, relatively healthy sub-watersheds dominated by tion and preservation for future generations. To do this, much more work large intact woodland patches. These two areas were chosen for their high The River Corridor Summary and the selected Areas of Opportunity is needed to understand, protect and restore the river valley ecological sys- preservation potential. should be seen as tools for further analysis and action. Although Allegh- tems that dominate our region. The opportunity areas of this study point eny County is a highly urbanized post-industrial landscape, our landscape to a few key locations to start, but they are only a beginning. The last two areas are found along the Monongahela River corridor to ecology analysis reveals that it contains major remnant systems of ecologi-

71 3 rivers 2nd nature

Based upon the overlaid ranking of watersheds, woodland patch groups and bank condition, eight areas were identified as major opportunity areas in the county. The boxes indicate the areas shown in detail in Maps 8.3 - 8.10. The major watersheds connected to these areas are cross hatched in orange.

Riverbank

Most Significant

Riverbank

Least Significant

Overall Rating

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

72 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The woodlands on either side of Streets Run and the top of Hays hilltop between Glass Run and Becks Run form a very large woodland patch system in close proximity to the most heavily urbanized areas of the county. Very little of this system is part of a managed open space or park, and the system has no direct connectivity with the river itself. The south shore of the river below the Hays hilltop has significant areas of riverbank of a high preservation priority.

Most Significant

Riverbank Botany

Least Significant

Overall Rating Riverbank Botany

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

73 3 rivers 2nd nature

The steep hillsides of the Monongahela River valley in the area across from the Municipality of Clairton form an almost continuous band of woodlands which we have named the ‘Emerald Arc.’ In this same area there are also substantial woodland patch groups that touch the Youghiogheny River. This wooded area between the two rivers is only dissected by a few minor roads and it contains four small first order streams as well as the highly rated watersheds of Boston Hollow and Wylie Run. In this section of Monongahela there are substantial sections of preservation priority one and two riverbank. Unfortunately the wooded hillsides are separated from these banks by a major road.

Most Significant

Riverbank Botany

Least Significant

Overall Rating Riverbank Botany

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

74 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The small highly rated watershed of Toms Run is the center piece of this opportunity area. The woodlands of Toms Run cover both sides of the stream valley and connect to the wooded hillsides of the Ohio River valley. These woodland systems also connect to woodlands in the adjacent Lowries Run and Kilbuck Run watersheds. Although a major road separates Toms Run from the Ohio River, the creek remains open to the river and the banks to either side of the creek mouth have some restoration potential.

Most Significant

Riverbank Botany

Least Significant

Overall Rating Riverbank Botany

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

75 3 rivers 2nd nature

The small highly rated watershed of Thorn Run is the center piece of this opportunity area. The hillsides and uplands around Thorn Run form an almost completely contiguous woodland patch around the steam. However, as Thorn Run approaches the Ohio River, it passes through the town of Coraopolis, where it is partially culverted just before it reaches the river. There is some restoration and preservation potential on either side of the outlet of Thorn Run.

Most Significant

Riverbank Botany

Least Significant

Overall Rating Riverbank Botany

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

76 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Plum Creek is a significant higher order stream which flows into the Allegheny River between Oakmont and Verona. It is identified as an opportunity area because of the presence of a large system of woodland patches surrounding multiple branches of the creek as well as the presence of a significant patch of remnant floodplain vegetation where the stream meets the river. Parts of the Plum Creek valley are already managed as public parks. Also found in this opportunity area is a major system of woodlands on the hillsides of the Allegheny River valley above Oakmont and a series of small islands found in the Allegheny River. This section of the Allegheny River also has large stretches of highly rated preservation and restoration riverbank.

Most Significant

Riverbank Botany

Least Significant

Overall Rating Riverbank Botany

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

77 3 rivers 2nd nature

Deer Creek is a significant higher order stream which flows into the Allegheny River at Twelve Mile Island. It is a highly ranked watershed covering a very large northern section of the county. The sections of Deer Creek in the river corridor contain a series of very large woodland patches connected to various sub branches of the stream. Unfortunately the valley of the main branch of Deer Creek also contains a major interstate highway.

Most Significant

Riverbank Botany

Least Significant

Overall Rating Riverbank Botany

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

78 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Days Run and Bulls Run are two highly rated watersheds in the northern corner of the county. Both have very large woodland patch systems following the stream valleys. Bulls Run flows through the center of the single largest large woodland patch in the county with 553 acres of highly valuable interior woodlands. Like the majority of major woodland areas in the county, these systems are separated from the river itself by urban development, railroad lines and major road infrastructure. However, the point at which Days Run meets the river is a public open space and the riverbank date shows restoration potential around the mouth of the creek and preservation potential further up the river.

Most Significant

Riverbank Botany

Least Significant

Overall Rating Riverbank Botany

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

79 3 rivers 2nd nature

The northern shore of the Allegheny River in the northeastern corner of the county contains a very substantial area of wooded hillside with a direct relationship with the river. This area contains four small first order streams and has long stretches of riverbank with high preservation potential. This stretch is particularly significant because the only infrastructure barrier present between the wooded hillside and the river is a set of railroad tracks. A large section of this woodland area is also part of a major public open space called Harrison Hills Park.

Most Significant

Riverbank Botany

Least Significant

Overall Rating Riverbank Botany

Author: Jonathan Kline & Lena Andrews

80 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

IX. Regulation and Conservation protecting natural areas for their own benefit, not necessarily for human use. Indeed, active human intervention is believed neither necessary nor advisable. The struggle to create national wilderness areas, which were to be pristine lands untouched (or nearly untouched) by human hands, is one illustration of the philosophy of this movement.2 The preservation movement, as used here, may also be referred to as the environmental movement,3 although the concerns of the environmental movement I. Introduction range far beyond those of either the conservation or the preservation of natural resources. This report examines the principal legal regimes for preserving or conserving land along the banks and sides of the four principal rivers in Allegheny Restoration refers to the process of deliberately managing a site to es- County, Pennsylvania. These rivers are (listed from north to south) the Al- tablish an identified, native and historic ecosystem. The Society for Eco- legheny River, Ohio River, Monongahela River and Youghiogheny River. logical Restoration (SER) defines restoration as “the process of assisting Various tools are available, although not all will be available at any par- the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or de- ticular site. Two basic strategies exist, one dependent on public or private stroyed.”4 SER’s description is informative: “Ecological restoration is an ownership and the other on public regulation. These strategies and tools intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosys- are summarized in the Appendix. Private ownership controls require an tem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability.” The restoration owner, whether a public or private entity, with the desire to devote land to process contemplates active management of a damaged ecosystem until preservation or conservation uses. Regulatory controls require a govern- it has recovered its historical development path. While it may not be pos- mental agency with appropriate authority to adopt the particular measures sible to restore land to its exact historical condition, it should be possible described. At present, no federal, state or local agency has the authority to in many cases to reestablish the direction and boundaries of historical adopt all of these measures for any area in Pennsylvania. development.

A. Terms and Philosophy Development is based on a scale of desirable land use as developed by This report is directed toward identifying some of the better known tech- STUDIO for Creative Inquiry’s 3 Rivers 2nd Nature project (“3R2N”) in niques for preserving, conserving and restoring the riverine ecosystem its Ecological Report5 prepared for “An Ecological and Physical Investiga- in Allegheny County. While these terms are often used interchangeably, tion of Pittsburgh’s Hillsides.”6 This scale is informed by public safety in they also describe different stages and philosophies of ecosystem protec- relationship to soil studies conducted by the United State Department of tion. Traditionally, the conservation movement put forth the ability and Agriculture in Allegheny County. The following land use classifications need for humans to manage the natural environment through scientific are used when discussing development of the study sites examined later: means. It believes in the importance of human management of the environment for human benefit and is predicated on a firm faith in human Development: Land with environmental characteristics for safe capacity to manage nature effectively.1 The conservationist philosophy’s building practices. goal is planned and rational use of natural systems for human benefit. Conservation: Land with sensitive but not exclusionary environmental characteristics; land that can Partly in reaction to the conservationist’s focus on management for human be developed if sensitive to the limiting use and benefit, the preservation movement developed a philosophy of environmental characteristics Figure IX.1 An old barge reinterpreted as a fishing spot (Photo 3R2N)

81 3 rivers 2nd nature

This map shows generalized zoning and land-use of the county. The generalized zoning categories are based upon local municipal zoning. This simplified form does not represent legal zoning classes. Instead it groups multiple local zoning categories with different names and regulations into general types which provide a generalized picture of zoning and land-use regulation in the county.

Author: Jonathan Kline

82 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

This map shows the county woodlands and areas of severe soil erosion hazard. Severe erosion area is derived from the Soil Survey of Allegheny County Pennsylvania by the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture published in 1981. The hatched red areas indicate soils that are highly susceptible to the hazard of erosion, unless protective cover is maintained.

Author: Jonathan Kline

83 3 rivers 2nd nature

It is the purpose of this report to examine some of the public and private 2. Political Constraints opportunities for conserving, preserving and restoring this valuable and important space. It begins by examining ownership options, where public The county consists of a countywide home rule government and 130 in- and private owners participate directly in these activities. Next, it looks at dividual municipalities. Each municipality has its own authority to adopt some of the public regulatory measures that are available. Finally, it will land use controls—subdivision and land development and zoning con- suggest various approaches for two particular areas along the Mononga- trols. A generalized map of zoning classifications throughout the county hela River in an effort to see what strategies might prove successful and shows 12 basic zoning district classifications. Within these generalized what some of the constraints on those strategies may be. In sum, the pur- classifications, the details of zoning districts can vary widely from munici- pose of this report is to describe the legal frameworks and tools available pality to municipality, depending on the degree of control desired and the to preserve, conserve and restore these public assets. sophistication of the agency charged with administration (see Map 9.1).

B. Allegheny County One hundred and twenty nine municipalities find their land use control 1. Physical Conditions authority in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.7 One municipality, the City of Pittsburgh, a home rule municipality, derives its land subdivision and zoning authority from separate legislation. The county Allegheny County covers an area of approximately 745 square miles. Its government also has development regulation authority under the Munici- topography can be described as rolling hills punctuated by the four princi- palities Planning Code, to the extent that any municipality has not exer- pal river valleys and by several major tributary stream valleys. Most of the cised its independent authority under that act. Each municipality and the valleys were the site of significant industrial development from the early county also have the authority to adopt and enforce general police power settlement of the county through the 1970s. Beginning in the 1970s, and measures designed to promote the public health, safety and general wel- Figure IX.2 The Hays and Streets Run opportunity area ecological summary. continuing ever since, heavy industry has declined and, in many cases, dis- fare. appeared from these valleys. In some cases, it has been replaced by com- Preservation: Land deemed unfit for development due to one mercial and residential development. In others, the land remains undevel- or more environmental characteristics. oped and is gradually or rapidly returning to its pre-industrial condition. The many smaller municipalities, coupled with the major city, Pittsburgh, Whether the desired activity is conservation, preservation or restoration, The rivers, their banks and riparian areas, have begun a process of natural and three cities with less population, Clairton, Duquesne and McKees- protection of the rivers and related land areas will be best served by low regeneration in many locations, creating valuable natural communities (see port, pose difficulties for coordinated regulation of the river corridors. impact and low intensity uses. Most low density uses also promote public Maps 8.1 and 9.2). The Municipalities Planning Code provides for joint or inter-municipal values of enhancing views of and from the rivers. Low intensity uses planning and zoning. However, it requires joint zoning of the entire com- along the rivers, their banks and flood plains include public parks, forests, bined municipal area. It neither permits nor encourages joint planning Within the county, there are many areas of regenerating or undisturbed hiking/biking trails, marinas and public boat or fishing access areas. Pro- only of specific areas within two or more municipalities. tection of the rivers and their banks and flood plains also requires pro- land along the rivers and streams that are worthy of protection through tection of many adjacent parcels, particularly the hillsides that define the preservation, conservation and restoration. One can envision a linear riv- rivers. Public parks and forests can provide that protection. However, it is erside park and trails that stretch from the northeastern county limit of C. General Discussion of the Strategies as Related to unrealistic to expect that public agencies will acquire all of the land along the Ohio River, along the banks of the Ohio, Allegheny and Monongahela Preservation, Conservation and Restoration. and adjacent to the four rivers. Private landowners must also be brought Rivers, picking up the banks of the Youghiogheny River, where it joins There are two basic options for the preservation, conservation and res- into the effort, through incentives and regulatory actions that encourage with the Monongahela. Almost every municipality in the county could toration of riverine ecosystems. One invokes principles of private prop- compatible private development in these areas. be linked to the riverfront by trails that wind along the streams that flow between the hills. erty ownership; the other, public regulation of private property for pub-

84 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Local zoning classes and mapping for municipalities in the Hays & Streets Run area.

other managed open space

Institutional Medical District

Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residential

Author : Jonathan Kline

85 3 rivers 2nd nature

II. Ownership Options or restoration of the land. Other active recreation uses, ball fields, play- grounds and picnic areas, for example, may also be appropriate in particu- Perhaps the most certain means for assuring that river banks, shores, and lar locations. related wetlands and hillsides will remain forever free of development is to place them in public ownership dedicated to particular public uses. Pub- licly owned land includes parks, state and municipal forests, preserves, Parks may be owned and managed by the Commonwealth, the county or open space reserve lands, natural areas, boating and fishing access areas, a local municipality, if the county or municipality has the authority to ac- tax delinquent properties owned by county, municipalities or school dis- quire land for that purpose.12 “Park use” can involves a number of uses, tricts, and other land held in public ownership. Private conservation or- some for passive recreation and some for active recreation. In addition, ganizations may also own land that is maintained for conservation, pres- portions of a park maybe set aside as a preserve for wildlife habitat, as ervation and restoration purposes. The organization may own the prop- natural areas or for other limited protective purposes. Parkland along the erty outright, or it may own a more limited interest, usually known as a river banks and river corridors will provide the greatest degree of protec- 8 conservation easement. A conservation easement serves to restrict the tion from disturbance and commercial development. development options of the property’s owner. Public agencies and units of government may also own conservation easements on private property as well. Parkland does involve public costs as well as public benefits. In addition to the initial acquisition cost, parks must be maintained by em- ployees, sometimes using costly equipment. Someone must do the A. Public Ownership Options long term and day to day planning for the park, evaluate the appro- 1. Parks priate uses of its land, and monitor the activities taking place there. It is generally thought that the most difficult land use to alter is a land in Figure IX.3 The Emerald Arc opportunity area ecological summary. public ownership dedicated to public park use. Parkland in Pennsylvania, 2. Forests whether owned by the Commonwealth, a county or a municipality has The Commonwealth owns a number of state forests, which are managed lic purposes. These are not mutually exclusive. They may operate in a 9 been pretty much inviolate. This land is held in trust for the public. As a by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, complementary fashion. In many cases, the preferred strategy will be a 10 combination of private ownership options and public regulatory options. result, any sale or transfer from park to other use requires court approval. Bureau of Forestry. These forests exist to provide clean water, public rec- Within each basic option, there are a variety of particular strategies that Further, the court proceeding requires notice to the Attorney General as reation, wildlife habitat and commercial forest products. No state forest can be employed to accomplish this result. The choice of strategy and representative of the interests of the public. The proceeds derived from touches on the four rivers within Allegheny County. any transfer must be devoted to the same uses as the property sold.11 line of attack will depend on a number of factors. These include, but are by no means limited to, the degree of active management of the land required or desired, the willingness of landowners—public and private—to Forest use of riparian land and land supporting riparian land is also a For this reason, public ownership for park use presents an excellent op- participate voluntarily in a program, the choice of persons or entities who good use to promote conservation and preservation. Forested riparian portunity for preservation and restoration of land along the river banks should make decisions regarding what lands will be protected and what buffers enhance the water quality of adjacent water bodies by filtering and and land, providing important ecological support for river front land eco- the future use of protected lands will be, and the degree of cooperation reducing the pollutants that would otherwise flow over the land in both logically. This land is usually removed from active development. Used possible between appropriate local governments. surface and underground waters. Tree cover captures rainfall, thereby al- primarily for passive recreation, it will have the opportunity to regain its lowing for the recharge of underground aquifers and reducing the chance pre-industrial era characteristics over time. Some more active recreation of flooding.13 Forests also provide excellent wildlife habitat, particularly uses, such as public boat launching ramps and marinas will capitalize on for various species of birds. the riverfront location without significantly interfering with preservation

86 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Local zoning classes and mapping for municipalities in the Emerald Arc area.

Author : Jonathan Kline 87 3 rivers 2nd nature

The built environment in the Hays & Streets Run area. The map shows buildings, property lines, streets, railroads, trails and parks.

Note: Some property parcel lines are missing or incomplete

Author: Jonathan Kline

88 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The built environment in the Emerald Arc area. The map shows buildings, property lines, streets, railroads, trails and parks.

Note: Some property parcel lines are missing or incomplete

Author: Jonathan Kline

89 3 rivers 2nd nature

The topography and areas of severe soil erosion hazard in the Hays & Streets Run area. Severe erosion area is derived from Soil Survey of Allegheny County by the USDA (1981). It indicates soils that are highly susceptible to the hazard of erosion unless protective cover is maintained.

Author: Jonathan Kline

90 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

The topography and areas of severe soil erosion hazard in the Emerald Arc area. Severe erosion area is derived from the Soil Survey of Allegheny County by the USDA (1981). It indicates soils that are highly susceptible to the hazard of erosion unless protective cover is maintained.

Author: Jonathan Kline

91 3 rivers 2nd nature

The legislature has provided authority for most municipalities (cities, bor- Although most access areas occupy only relatively small portions of the ty’s value for private development, the taxing bodies should explore the oughs and townships of the first class) to acquire land for municipal for- riverfront, they do provide important public access points to the navigable options for converting them to public use properties. The same is true ests and to administer them under the direction of the Commissioner of or public rivers. This can be particularly important where large areas of where public values for preservation or restoration outweigh the benefits Forestry of the Commonwealth (now the Bureau of Forests in the De- riverfront land are in private ownership and those private owners are re- from private development. partment of Conservation and Natural Resources14 ). Municipal forests luctant or unwilling to allow the public access to the river over their private are usually smaller in size than state forests, but serve no less important lands. ecological functions. B. Private Ownership Options Private conservation organizations may own land for conservation, pres- 5. Tax Delinquent Properties ervation and restoration purposes. The organization may own the prop- 3. Open Space Reserve Tax delinquent properties acquired by the taxing body (county, municipal- erty outright, or it may own a more limited interest, usually known as a A third technique is the maintenance of publicly owned land as opens ity or school district) often provide a particular opportunity for preserving conservation easement.18 Public agencies and units of government may space reserve lands. These lands may not be public parks or forests, but open space in flood plains, steep slopes and landslide prone areas. Because also own conservation easements on private property. In Pennsylvania, land owned by the county or municipality that is not otherwise dedicated of the geologic factors pertaining to these properties, it may be in the pub- a private owner may enter into a contract or covenant with the county to a particular public use. For example, tax delinquent properties acquired lic interest that they be retained as open space rather than developed for to maintain the property for certain low intensity uses in exchange for a by the county, municipality or school district (or by all three) at a sheriff ’s private use. Private development can bring additional public service costs reduction in real estate taxes reflecting the promised use of the property sale under the Municipal Claims and Tax Lien Act15 or similar authority and be hazardous to the private occupants. The taxing body acquired rather than its full development value.19 All of these mechanisms serve may be appropriate for inclusion in an open space reserve because of their them initially when no private party was willing to bid the amount of the to preserve land in a relatively undeveloped state and are candidates for location or unique characteristics. tax delinquency or “upset price.” This is an indication of the economic protection of river related properties. value (or lack of value) of these properties for private development.

Land owned by water supply authorities often includes areas around res- 1. Fee Ownership by Conservation Organization ervoirs held to protect the water supply. The water authority frequently While normally, tax delinquent land should be returned to the tax rolls as Conservation organizations dedicated to preserving and restoring land restricts or prohibits public access to these areas, as public uses would be soon as possible to maintain the taxing bodies’ tax base, there are situa- sometimes own the land outright, or in fee simple. Fee simple ownership inconsistent with protection of the water supply. Development of this tions where the best public use of that land may not be a return to private is the highest ownership interest in our system of landownership. Where land is also prohibited for the same reason. These areas, owned by a pub- ownership and development. Tax delinquent land having characteristics this is the case, the organization is generally free to determine how the lic agency, provide one example of existing open space reserves. that suggest development could be hazardous to other private property or land will be used in the first instance. Sometimes the prior owner has im- public facilities—e.g., landslide-prone slopes or flood areas—should not posed restrictions on how the property may be used. If properly imposed, be returned to private development. In addition, where tax delinquent the organization is bound by those restrictions. For example, where the 4. Boat and Fishing Access Areas properties would serve to provide open space or parkland that otherwise prior owner gave the land to the organization on condition that it be used would have to be acquired by the municipality at public expense, return to The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is authorized to acquire land as a nature preserve, the organization cannot use the land as a shopping private ownership is not warranted. For example, the Pennsylvania Fish or rights of way to provide access to public waters for boating and fish- center or a park for active recreation. Nor can the organization allow and Boat Commission and Pennsylvania Game Commission are autho- ing, including the power to purchase tax delinquent properties from the public access where the donor specifies that the land is not to be used by rized to purchase tax delinquent lands for their respective projects from county.16 At the present, the commission owns one access area on the the public. the taxing bodies.17 Ohio River within Allegheny County, three on the Allegheny, two on the Monongahela, and one on the Youghiogheny. Each of the four rivers also contains several other access areas, some privately owned and some Where certain requirements of the Internal Revenue Code are satisfied, a Taxing bodies should conduct periodic inventories of these properties owned and maintained by the local municipality. private owner can obtain federal income tax or estate tax benefits by do- and evaluate them for preservation or restoration use as public properties. nating, or partially donating, land or a conservation easement to a qualified Where public costs, or geologic or other dangers outweigh the proper-

92 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

charitable organization.20 Most qualified conservation organizations are Conservation easements transfer the right to make certain uses of the registered with the Bureau of Charitable Organizations of the Pennsylva- charities. This enables landowners to obtain tax benefits when giving land land—usually specified developmental activities—from the landowner to nia Department of State and qualified for federal income tax exemption or interests in land to the organization and the organization’s supporters another party. The holder is usually a municipality, a county, a govern- under the Internal Revenue Code24 to hold perpetual conservation ease- to make tax-deductible contributions to the organization’s activities. At mental agency or a private qualified conservation organization. At one ments on public lands. Thus, municipalities may hold conservation ease- the same time, property held by the organization and used for its chari- time, there were concerns over the enforceability of this transfer of some ments on private lands and qualified charitable organizations may hold table purposes is impressed with a trust for the benefit of the public. The ownership rights to a third party, at least after the land itself has been conservation easements on public land to assure its continued use for con- organization’s use of that property is limited by its charitable purpose and transferred to someone other than the original landowner. Most of these servation purposes. any restrictions created by the donor. Thus, land held for a nature reserve concerns have been resolved with the adoption of the Pennsylvania Con- usually cannot be diverted to another use without court approval. The servation Easement Act of 2001.22 court examines the proposed change to determine if it is in the interest A municipality may wish to protect against undue development on the of the public. edges of its public parks by acquiring a conservation easement on adjacent Once in place, the landowner and successor owners may no longer use the private land. It may use a conservation easement to acquire open space land in ways prohibited by the conservation easement. The holder has the or “green space” within its borders without necessarily giving the public Unless the land was acquired for public recreation purposes, the organiza- legal right to prevent unauthorized uses of the land. Conservation ease- access to the protected land. The same may be true for land within a tion can determine the degree of public access to be permitted. Where ments usually must be permanent restrictions on the owner’s rights if the flood plain where intensive development is to be discouraged, but limited the site is environmentally vulnerable and restoration activities are planned landowner is to gain the benefit of favorable income or estate tax provi- private uses may be allowed. All of these examples would fit in the pres- or being performed, the public may be denied access to the site, yet the sions under the Internal Revenue Code. However, conservation easements ervation and conservation of land along our rivers. site will still serve its charitable purpose by providing visible open space, may have limited durations where federal tax benefits are not the primary protecting water quality and reducing surface runoff and flooding. At the benefits sought by the landowner. These limited duration easements are other end of the spectrum, the conservation organization may allow full often used to obtained reduction in local real estate tax assessments. A Pennsylvania statute authorizes county governments to acquire the ben- public access where that is compatible with the conservation purposes of efit of environmental covenants on private land that will limit the uses of 25 the particular property.21 that private land in a manner similar to a conservation easement. The Conservation easements may be created to serve a wide range of pur- land subject to the covenant may be designated as farm, forest, water sup- poses. The Pennsylvania Conservation Easements Act lists the follow- ply or open space land “in a plan adopted following a public hearing by 2. Less Than Fee Ownership ing purposes of conservation easements: “retaining or protecting the the planning commission of the municipality, county or region in which natural, scenic, agricultural or open space values of real property; assur- the land is located.” The covenant has an initial term of ten years begin- Often a desirable alternative to fee ownership is the acquisi- ing the availability of real property for agricultural, forest, recreational or ning on the date it is recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds. tion by a municipality, government agency or private conservation open space use; protecting, conserving or managing the use of natural It is automatically extended each year for an additional year on the date it organization of limited rights in another’s land. Because the landowner resources; protecting wildlife; maintaining or enhancing land, air or water was recorded unless either party gives notice that it wants to terminate the continues to own the land, but has reduced rights in that land, and the oth- quality or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural covenant before that date.26 The county may only terminate the covenant er party now holds some property rights, this mechanism is often called aspects of real property.”23 if the land is no longer designated as an appropriate land use on the plan. “less-than-fee ownership.” The landowner continues to own the land and The landowner is under no similar limitation. Once a party has given no- to exercise all rights of ownership, except as those rights that have been tice of termination, the covenant remains in effect for ten years from the transferred to the other party. The party who owns the conservation ease- a) Public Ownership of Less than Fee Interests appropriate anniversary date of its recording. Thus, the covenant has a ment is usually referred to as the “holder” while the landowner is still minimum duration of ten years and may last forever if neither party acts called the landowner or owner. to terminate it and the use is designated an appropriate land use on the The Pennsylvania Conservation Easement Act allows county and munici- plan. pal governments and the Commonwealth to hold perpetual conservation easements on private land. It also allows charitable organizations that are

93 3 rivers 2nd nature

In exchange for the landowner’s covenant or promise to limit the use of is abiding by the terms of the conservation easement. In the second ex- 5. historically important land and buildings (If for the land as described in the covenant, the county promises that the tax as- ample, the members of the charity or of the public have the right to make buildings, the buildings must be listed, or in a Historic sessment of that property for real estate tax purposes will reflect the fair affirmative use of the land for recreational trials and river access, but no District listed, in the National Register of Historic market value of the land as restricted by the covenant. A landowner who right to use the balance of the land. Places.). violates the covenant by changing the use of the land to an unauthorized The conservation easement must specifically prohibit other uses that use is liable to the county for damages. The statute requires damages would be inconsistent with the purpose or purposes for which the ease- equal to the difference between the real estate taxes actually paid and the The landowner can obtain a federal income tax deduction (or estate tax ment was created. taxes that would have been due had the changed use been made up to five deduction) for the value of the rights transferred to the charity if (1) the years earlier, plus compound interest.27 Certain uses by an entity with rights meet the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code,28 (2) are transferred as a gift, (3) are transferred in perpetuity, and (4) the charity is the power of eminent domain–rights-of-way, certain telecommunications This is by no means an exhaustive discussion of conservation easements. a “qualified conservation organization.” Favorable tax treatment is also towers –do not amount to a violation of the covenant. There are a number of other requirements for an easement to satisfy the available where the rights are sold to the qualified conservation organiza- requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, some of which relate to ex- tion for less than their fair market value, often called a “bargain sale.” isting or future mortgages on the property or the presence of surface min- b) Private Ownership of Less than Fee Interests ing rights. Where the requirements can be met, and they are met every day with properties of all sizes, the advantages to the owner can be significant Private charitable organizations may hold Conservation Easements under Qualified conservation organizations include local, state and federal agen- and the advantages to the public incalculable. the Pennsylvania Conservation Easement Act. These easements restrict cies, and private charitable organizations that have met the requirements the uses that the private landowner may make of its land, creating op- of § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. These organizations must portunities for protection of riverside and related lands without removing “have a commitment to protect the conservation purposes of the dona- them entirely from private ownership. Essentially, the landowner grants C. Acquisition Options tion, and have the resources to enforce the restrictions.”29 Land trusts the charity the right to make certain uses of the land, so that those rights and private land conservation organizations generally meet these require- Public ownership of land for preservation and conservation can be ac- are now held by the charity. The charity is bound by its charter to exercise ments. complished in several ways. The public agency may purchase the land in or not to exercise those rights. the open market when it becomes available. Sometimes the agency can exchange other surplus land for the land it wishes to acquire. Where the land The conservation easement must advance a “qualified conservation pur- is needed for a public use and the present owner is not willing to sell at a For example, the landowner may grant the charity the right to use the land pose.”30 These include the preservation of land for reasonable price, the agency may invoke the power of eminent domain to for residential, commercial or industrial development, while retaining the force a sale of the property at its fair market value. Finally, a private owner right to maintain a single family home on the property and to use it for ag- 1. Regular and substantial public recreation; may be willing to donate the land, or a conservation easement on the land, ricultural or timber purposes. As another example, the landowner might 2. Significant, relatively natural animal or plant habitat, to the public agency. Donation of full title will usually provide the owner grant the charity the right to maintain and operate public recreational trails including habitat of endangered and threatened species, with a charitable deduction measured by the current market value of the over a portion of its land and access to the river from the part of its land natural high quality examples of land or water based land. It will end the owner’s responsibilities as owner, including future real along the river bank, while retaining the right to use the remaining portion animal or plant communities; estate taxes and potential liability to persons who come on the land. of its land for more intensive uses. 3. Natural areas contributing to the ecological viability of public parks or preserves; Private land that has been acquired by the county, municipality or school In both examples, the charity, not the landowner, now has the right to use 4. Open space for scenic enjoyment by the public district as a result of the owner’s failure to pay the real estate taxes provides the land for the stated purposes. In the first example, neither members (including farm and forest land) where public entry is a significant opportunity for low cost land acquisition for preservation and of the charity nor of the public have a right to make affirmative uses of not required but the area can be viewed from a publicly restoration purposes. Most tax delinquent land that is acquired by taxing the land subject to the conservation easement. The charity will have the accessible viewing point (road, park, trail, waterway); bodies is acquired because no private party was willing to bid the amount right to inspect or monitor the landowner’s activities to make sure that it

94 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

of the delinquent taxes for which the property was offered for sale. This ous conservation organizations, working from a long range, coordinated Private property is subject to public regulation where that regulation serves suggests that the land’s market value was less than the delinquent taxes. plan, could make it possible to acquire a variety of ownership interests a legitimate public purpose, as by promoting the public health, safety, mor- Land of this value may be more appropriately used by the public for parks, along the rivers that would provide protection and public benefits. als or the general welfare. The regulation must be reasonably related to preserves or open space than returned to private development. the accomplishment of that public purpose. It must not be “unduly op- pressive on individuals.” This means, among other things, that the regula- Now the vision of that linear riverside park and trails stretching from the tion in question must not be so restrictive that it does not allow the private Private owners, primarily qualified conservation organizations, do not northeastern county limit of the Ohio River along the banks of the four owner to make a reasonable use of its property.31 It is often said that a have the power of eminent domain and do not conduct delinquent tax rivers to the county borders becomes clearer. A hiking/biking trail con- property owner is entitled to make an economically reasonable use of his sales. However, they do have the options of purchase or donation. One nects county and municipal riverfront parks with conservation easements. or her land, not the highest and best use of that land.32 of the difficulties with the purchase option lies in the funding of these The trail and parks are supported by conservation easements on public organizations. Most do not have funds available for intensive acquisition and private property, particularly hillsides, facing the river. campaigns. They rely on private donations, foundations, and local, state Appropriate regulation is a proper end of government. Pennsylvania and and federal funding sources for most purchase acquisitions. One mecha- federal courts usually will presume that a regulation is valid and impose nism for reducing, but not eliminating, their need for acquisition funding, The Allegheny County Parks Department could serve as coordinator of a heavy burden on the challenger to show that it is not.33 However, the is the “bargain sale.” The private owner may be willing to sell the land (or land and conservation easement acquisition and maintenance, with con- government does not have a blank check to enact whatever regulations it conservation easement) for less than market value, essentially donating tributions from local municipalities of services, funds and land for areas chooses. Any regulation must relate to a proper governmental purpose the difference to the purchaser. Where the purchaser is a qualified con- within their boundaries. Trail groups already are responsible for acquiring and must allow the private property owner a reasonable use of the prop- servation organization, the private owner may be able to obtain a federal and maintaining rights-of-way. Trails located within the park area can link erty. In determining the validity of the regulation, the court will balance income tax deduction for this amount. Because “qualified conservation different park areas through private lands along or near the riverbanks. the public interest to be served against the rights of a landowner.34 donations” must be made in perpetuity, the opportunity to exchange land Land trusts provide a vehicle for acquiring both fee title and conservation or rights already held by the organization is far less useful for land trusts easements on private land along the riverbanks and on adjacent wetlands, that for governmental organizations that may have surplus land available hillsides and hilltops appropriate for preservation and restoration in con- Regulation of private land, or of the activities that may take place on the for exchange. nection with river preservation. land, may come from the federal, state, county or municipal government. The broader powers are exercised at the municipal level in the form of zoning ordinances, building codes, forestry ordinances and similar con- Conservation organizations should review public sales of tax delinquent Pieces of this vision are already in place, particularly within the City of trols. They will be discussed last. The federal and state programs some- properties in their areas of interest. Useful properties may be acquired Pittsburgh and along parts of the Monongahela and Youghiogheny Rivers. times complement each other and will be discussed first. in fee at a reasonable price from time to time. While tax sale titles are What should follow is a coordinated effort to link as much riverside land sometimes infirm, many title problems can be avoided by careful review as possible, using whatever ownership options best fit a particular parcel of the tax file. of land to its neighbors and the overall project. A. Federal and State Programs The federal government has several regulatory regimes that can affect the quality of the riverside environment. These include limits on develop- D. Conclusion III. Regulatory Options ment in flood plains under the National Flood Insurance Program Act;35 The acquisition and maintenance of land or conservation easements by It is not likely that all land desired for the preservation and conservation activities that adversely affect protected animal and plant species under public or private entities involves a commitment of resources, both fi- of our four rivers can be acquired by public agencies or conservation or- the Endangered Species Act;36 historic sites and historic districts under nancial and personnel. It may be too much to expect any single entity ganizations. Indeed, it may not be appropriate to subject all of this land the National Historic Preservation Act;37 and reductions in wetlands areas to acquire and maintain all of the land necessary or appropriate for the to public fee ownership. Federal, state and local government regulatory protected by the Clean Water Act.38 preservation of the river banks and related areas within Allegheny County. programs also play an important role in this effort. However, a partnership between the county, local municipalities and vari-

95 3 rivers 2nd nature

At the outset, it should be noted that these federal statutes are aimed at In addition, the state requires that all highways and public utility structures will not endanger the survival of the species. It also requires the prepara- particular environmental problems. They do not, singly or as a whole, built in flood plains meet flood minimization requirements of the De- tion and implementation of a “habitat preservation plan” to promote the provide a comprehensive strategy for restoration, preservation or conser- partment of Environmental Protection.42 The DEP’s regulations cover continued viability of the species. vation of any land. Nevertheless, they can play an important role in any design, construction and maintenance. For example, the design of a high- strategy aimed at river land protection and restoration. They should not way in a flood plain must be such that the highway will not significantly be overlooked in any development, conservation or preservation strategy. alter the flood plain or increase the velocity or direct flow in a way that will The federal ESA prohibits the taking of members of a protected spe- 48 result in erosion of the flood plain.43 cies of animals without an incidental take permit. Protected species of plants are not protected (except on federal land) unless they are also pro- 1. Flood Plains tected under the state’s comparable statute.49 Thus, it becomes important to discuss briefly Pennsylvania’s protection of endangered species. Canalization of our rivers and industrial development of the riverside land 2. Endangered and Threatened Species in Allegheny County has eliminated many of the historical flood plains The federal Endangered Species Act44 (ESA) is administered by the Fish that lay within and along the riverbanks. Present day flooding occurs dur- and Wildlife Service within the Department of Interior. The act is de- Pennsylvania divides the responsibility for listing and protecting state en- ing and after heavy rainfall events. Major flooding, once a normal part of signed to protect certain species of animals and plants. A species is “endangered and threatened species among three agencies: the Pennsylvania riverine ecology, has been substantially reduced by distant flood control dangered” when in “danger of extinction throughout all or a significant Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (plants),50 the Penn- dams, filling, raising and revetting the river banks, and other human activi- 45 portion of its range.” A species is “threatened” when it is “likely to be- sylvania Fish and Boat Commission (fish and mollusks),51 and the Penn- ties. 46 come an endangered species within the foreseeable future.” These spe- sylvania Game Commission (animals).52 The lists of plants, fishes and cies will be referred to collectively as “protected species.” The Secretary animals protected under Pennsylvania law are not as extensive as those of the Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service, designates The National Flood Insurance Program of the National Flood Insur- protected under the federal ESA. As a result, one must consult the Penn- species as endangered or threatened based on a review of information on sylvania list of protected plants,53 not the federal list, to determine what ance Act is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency the health of the particular species.47 If qualified for protection, a spe- (FEMA). FEMA has established criteria for the regulation of land man- activites may invoke the “take” prohibitions of the federal statute where cies is listed as either endangered or threatened on a list maintained by the protected species of plants are concerned. A developer or municipal or agement and use by local municipalities if property owners are to be eli- Service. gible to participate in the program.39 Before properties in a flood plain state agency must comply with both the applicable federal and state re- are eligible for flood insurance, the municipality must adopt regulations quirements before beginning an activity that may “take” a protected species. for the construction and maintenance of these structures. The Pennsyl- The ESA speaks to the federal government and to private property own- vania Municipalities Planning Code contains specific provisions authoriz- ers. Federal agencies must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service being municipalities to adopt qualifying flood plain zoning provisions.40 In fore undertaking actions that may jeopardize the continued existence of The term “take” under the ESA is defined as: “to harass, harm, pursue, addition, Pennsylvania municipalities that do not choose to adopt zoning a protected species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to en- ordinances and that are not subject to a county zoning ordinance are re- of a protected species. The purpose of the consultation is to determine gage in any such conduct.”54 The Fish and Wildlife Service has further quired to adopt qualifying flood plain regulations without having to zone how the agency may modify its action, or modify a federal, state, local or defined the term “harm” to mean “an act which actually kills or injures the entire municipality.41 These regulations provide some control over riv- private project funded in whole or in part by the agency, to protect the wildlife.” Such act may include significant habitat modification or degra- erfront development, but do not prevent development entirely. Many seg- species in question. dation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing ments of riverbank in Allegheny County have been filled to such a height essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”55 and are protected by revetments that flooding is unusual. The abutting The United States Supreme Court, in a significant decision, held that this land has been effectively removed from the river’s historical flood plain. Private developers and state and local governments whose activities may definition protects the habitat of listed species as well as members of the In segments still part of the flood plain, flood plain regulations can serve “take” or adversely affect a member of a protected species must obtain an species itself.56 To be protected, it must be foreseeable that disturbance of to reduce pressure for intensive riverfront development. “incidental take permit” from the Fish and Wildlife Service before pro- essential habitat will actually harm a member of the species. ceeding with the activity. This permit should only issue where the “take”

96 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

For example, the removal of earth in which state protected plants are the site itself for the presence of marker plants using methodology devel- for the reasons the Corps claimed. growing, or the compaction of that earth by heavy equipment, would be oped by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).60 a “taking” of those plants and would require an incidental take permit and habitat conservation plan from the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection enforces a as permission from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, better program regulating structures and activities in wetlands under the author- Natural Resources. Removal of forest cover used by a federally listed spe- known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), vests regulatory authority over “the ity of the Dam Safety & Encroachment Act.64 The DEP employs a gen- cies of birds for nesting (shelter) would require an incidental take permit discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at speci- eral permit and individual permit system similar to the Corps. Unlike and habitat conservation plan from the Fish and Wildlife Service and, if fied disposal sites” in the Corps of Engineers,61 subject to “oversight” the federal government, whose power to regulate rests on the Commerce the bird were listed by the state, from the Pennsylvania Game Commis- or a veto of specific permits by the Environmental Protection Agency. Clause, Pennsylvania’s regulations are based on its inherent police power. sion. The modification of habitat suitable for a listed species, by itself, will Section 404, as implemented by the Corps and the EPA, has become the The police power imposes no obstacle to regulating isolated wetlands. not require a permit if no members of the species actually use that habitat primary federal tool for preserving and protecting wetlands. The state program requires replacement of wetlands adversely affected by for “essential behavioral patterns.” development activities.65

Alteration of most wetlands requires a permit from the Corps under Sec- 3. Wetlands Protection tion 404. Many projects having what the Corps regards as minimal impact Riverbanks and neighboring lands are natural places to find wetlands. Un- on wetlands can proceed under what is known as a “general permit.” In fortunately, the extensive industrial developments of the previous centu- The history of governmental treatment of wetlands has turned half circle most cases the applicant for a general permit need only notify the Corps ries have eliminated many of the riverine wetlands that previously existed in the past fifty years, from regarding them as undesirable parts of the that it intends to undertake a particular type of activity in the manner along the Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio Rivers and their tributaries landscape that should be eliminated wherever possible to important eco- specified in the general permit at a particular location. No actual permit in Allegheny County. Some remain, with more, perhaps, along the Yough- logical features to protected and preserved.57 Today both federal and state issues from the Corps and there may be no government inspections to as- iogheny. Where wetlands exist, they should be given protection. programs exist to protect significant wetlands and to protect them from sure that the project is being carried out in the manner specified. General drainage and development. permits can allow the complete elimination of small wetlands or parts of a larger wetland. Larger scale projects, which may eliminate or significantly 4. Other Federal and State Regulations modify a wetland, require a specific permit. The applicant must submit an For regulatory purposes, wetlands are defined by the types of plants found There are a number of other federal and state statutes that can play a role application detailing the project, its impact on an existing wetland, and the on the ground, rather than the presence or absence of water at a particular in preservation and conservation of riverside land. These include the means, if any, chosen to reduce or mitigate the impact of the development 66 time of the year.58 This is because many plants that are dependent on wet- National Historic Preservation Act and its state counterpart, the History on the wetland. Mitigation measures may include constructing “replace- land soils can live during periods when the soil is not saturated with water. Code.67 These two statutes provide limited protection to structures and ment wetlands,” which may or may not be in the same location as, and may If saturated soil at the time of observation were the test, many wetlands districts placed on the National Register of Historic Places or the state or may not serve the same functions as, the altered wetland site. could be destroyed during dry periods of the year, even though they serve counterpart. Neither statute prevents alteration or destruction of listed the functions of wetlands during most of the year. Determining the ex- properties by private owners, but does require federal or state agencies undertaking activities that may affect these properties to consult with the istence of wetlands on a site, and the extent of those wetlands if present, While most wetlands, regardless of size or function, are subject to this federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation or the Pennsylvania has become a matter for experts trained in wetland delineation. program, the United States Supreme Court has held that some wetlands Historical and Museum Commission before undertaking an activity that are not.62 Congress’ (and thus the Corps’) authority to regulate activities will adversely affect a listed property’s historic character. These are infor- affecting wetlands is founded on the power to regulate interstate com- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a National Wetlands In- mational statutes, informing the agency of the possible consequences of merce under the United States Constitution.63 Where the wetland is an ventory,59 consisting of maps created from photo-interpretation of high its actions, not prohibitory statutes guaranteeing protection for protected “isolated wetland,” not connected hydrologically to a navigable waterway, altitude photographs. Unfortunately, this method locates large wetland structures or sites. or a waterway that feeds a navigable waterway, the wetland is not a part of areas, but misses the finer picture. To determine if wetlands subject to interstate commerce and not subject to the Corps’ authority, at least not regulation—“jurisdictional wetlands”—exist on a site, one must survey

97 3 rivers 2nd nature

The Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act68 requires each county to aggrieved person. Because an “affected municipality” may be one in the Stormwater management plans do provide an important element in any prepare a stormwater management program for each watershed within its watershed that will be adversely impacted by the activity, not just the mu- riverside land protection. These plans are prepared under the auspices boundaries in accordance with regulations from the Department of En- nicipality in which the activity is taking place, this is a powerful provision of the county. They must recognize and control development over the vironmental Protection.69 These plans are to be prepared in consultation for enforcement of ordinances and regulations implementing the storm- range of municipalities with the watershed. (Actually, the municipalities with the municipalities in the watershed. Among the many items to be water management plan. are primarily responsible for this regulation, but the plan provides a means included in the watershed stormwater management plan are: of coordinating their efforts in a manner not necessarily possible under other forms of local regulation.) In addition, since stormwater manage- • “a survey of existing runoff characteristics in small as well as As of March 7, 2003, five watershed stormwater management plans had ment plans must take into account wetlands present in the watershed, one large storms, including the impact of soils, slopes, vegetation been completed in Allegheny County and approved by the Department should expect that they will provide a finer scale determination of wet- and existing development;” of Environmental Protection.74 These five watersheds encompass 78 mu- lands than the National Wetlands Inventory. • “an assessment of projected and alternative land development nicipalities. One of the major rivers, the Monongahela, is included in this patterns in the watershed, and the potential impact of runoff group; its plan includes 33 municipalities. Municipalities are supposed to quantity, velocity and quality;” complete amendment or adoption of implementing ordinances within six B. Municipal Police Power months of the approval of the plan. The first plans were approved in • “an analysis of present and projected development in flood haz- 1. Police Power in General 1986; the most recent, in 1998. Yet, not all included municipalities have ard areas, and its sensitivity to damages from future flooding or complied with the act.75 Municipalities possess a wide range of regulatory powers under the po- increased runoff; and lice power that, used properly, can greatly advance the preservation and • “an identification of flood plains within the watershed.”70 conservation of the river shores and riverside lands. Police power regula- Stormwater management plans can help to identify wetlands associated tions are intended to guide and control private land use and development with the watershed that are not identified in other sources. They also to protect the public health, safety or welfare. These regulations must Once the plan is approved, the location of various activities and improve- provide controls on development that otherwise could contribute to ero- be substantially related to identified public purposes, not be arbitrary or ments, including subdivisions and major land developments, highways and sion and sedimentation in the associated water body. Because they require capricious, and allow private owners some economically reasonable use of transportation facilities, public utility service facilities and facilities owned coordinated activities among separate municipalities, these plans can also their property. or financed, entirely or in part, by funds from the Commonwealth must provide consistent development controls that otherwise might not exist. be conducted in a manner consistent with the plan.71 Any municipality within the watershed that fails to adopt or amend and implement ordi- As a home rule county, Allegheny County can adopt police power mea- nances (zoning, subdivision and development, building code, and erosion 5. Conclusion sures. However, a municipality within the county that is exercising the and sedimentation, and other ordinances) necessary to the implementa- same power at the time the county ordinance is adopted may opt out of Most federal and state environmental programs are essentially single-pur- tion of the plan can lose all future payments due it from the state’s General the county measure. The citizens of that municipality determine by refer- pose programs, designed to protect one element of the ecology, rather 72 endum if the county ordinance should govern the municipality.76 Fund. that the ecology of a region or area. For example, endangered species receive protection where members of that species are present and wetlands are protected where wetlands exist. Otherwise, these programs offer little Persons engaged in land development activities that can affect existing Pennsylvania courts strive to maintain a sensitive balance between the of value to an overall plan for the protection of riverbanks and adjacent surface water runoff characteristics are also required to implement mea- needs of the public when adopting regulations for public benefit and the lands. However, where these protected features are present, these regimes sures reasonably necessary to prevent injury to health, safety or property, rights of private property owners to make reasonable use of their prop- can be quite important. The burden of protection is shifted from the including control of the quantity, velocity and direction of runoff.73 Im- erty.77 Regulations are presumed valid. This presumption is a very strong county or local municipalities to the federal or state government, along plementation must be done in a manner consistent with the plan. Activi- one and difficult to overcome. The municipality must act in a manner with the demand on government resources that protection requires. In ties in violation of the act or plan are declared to be a public nuisance, that does not sacrifice the constitutionally protected rights of its citizens. evaluating riverside lands for protection, one must be ever alert to the pos- subject to a suit for injunction by the affected county, municipality or any Courts will balance the public interest to be served and the rights of the sibility of federal or state protected characteristics. landowner to make reasonable use of his or her property.78

98 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Where the regulation treats one property differently from other, similarly from a recent Commonwealth Court decision illustrates the Pennsylva- authority to enact and enforce zoning regulations from the MPC.86 The situated, properties, it will be found to be arbitrary and, thus, invalid. Ac- nia attitude: “We have stated many times that a ‘municipality may include City of Pittsburgh’s authority comes from a much older and more general tivities on property within a flood plain, for example, may be restricted in aesthetic factors in the exercise of its zoning powers, but aesthetics alone statute.87 Although the city’s zoning enabling legislation lacks the detail ways that protect public health and safety from the threat of flooding, as cannot justify zoning decisions.’”81 Yet, Pennsylvania courts do recognize of the MPC, it is broad enough to authorize most, if not all, of the tech- by requiring construction in a manner that will minimize interference with that property values are affected by the aesthetic qualities of the neighbor- niques set forth in the MPC. The county may adopt a countywide zoning the flow of floodwaters over the surface. Similar restrictions on property hood.82 A regulation that relates aesthetic values to private property values ordinance, but it will be superseded by the zoning ordinance of each local not located in a flood plain lacks this justification and could be found to or other legitimate police power objectives should withstand judicial chal- municipality that chooses to adopt its own zoning ordinance. be invalid. lenge.

County and municipal zoning ordinances, other than that of the city, must It is important to emphasize that a landowner is entitled to make rea- 2. Subdivision Controls be “generally consistent” with any existing county comprehensive plan.88 sonable use of his or her property, although not necessarily the highest The city also has adopted a comprehensive plan, but its enabling statute Subdivision controls regulations govern the initial development of land and best use of that property. Where the regulation does not permit a doe not require the same degree of consistency as the MPC. into individual lots. They also usually determine the type of infrastruc- reasonable use of a particular parcel of property, the regulation will be ture that will accompany development within the subdivision—e.g., street regarded as “regulatory taking” and declared invalid, or the municipality size and quality and the location of utility services. Subdivision controls will be required to compensate the owner in money for the loss he or she The MPC requires that a municipality must adopt a zoning ordinance cov- tend to be a one time affair in that they control the initial development has suffered. ering the entire municipality.89 Unfortunately, this prevents a municipality of undeveloped land or the redevelopment of existing built environment. from adopting zoning regulations to protect only sensitive areas of that Most municipalities in Allegheny County, and the county itself, obtain municipality, such as riverside areas, steep slopes, landslide prone areas or their authority to control subdivisions from the Municipalities Planning Successful regulatory taking challenges are rare. They usually involve a 90 83 flood plains. situation where the landowner is able to demonstrate that the regulation Code (MPC). The City of Pittsburgh’s authority comes from another 84 in question, as applied to that owner’s property, is so restrictive that the statute. landowner is left with no reasonable use of the property. Pennsylvania A number of zoning techniques are available to promote the conservation courts follow the analysis of the United States Supreme Court in evaluat- and development of riverside areas and related lands. These include: When adopting or revising subdivision controls in relation to riverside ing regulatory takings challenges.79 The regulation must bear a substantial development, conservation or preservation, the municipality should con- • large lot sizes along the river bank to reduce density in relationship to the purposes of the police power—protection of the pub- sider the need for public access to and along the river, as well as the desir- environmentally sensitive areas to discourage overly intensive lic health, safety or welfare. It must not deny the owner all reasonable use ability of larger lot sizes for riverside activities so as to reduce the intensity development; of the land.80 Indeed, it must allow the owner some degree of reasonable of activities that will occur along sensitive riverside land and nearby land economic use to withstand a regulatory taking challenge. So long as the • large open space or yard requirements with native vegetation that supports the riverside ecology. ordinance or regulation does serve to protect a legitimate public interest for lots abutting a river; and allows the owner some economically reasonable use of the land, it • Riparian buffer zones or riparian corridor conservation zones should be upheld. 3. Zoning Controls limiting the clearing of vegetation within the zone to protect water quality, reduce erosion and provide for conservation and Zoning ordinances regulate the use of land, watercourses and other bodies preservation of riverside areas;91 While many states recognize the protection of aesthetic values alone as of water, the size and bulk of buildings and other structures, the amount of legitimate interests for police power protection, Pennsylvania courts have opens space (yards) that must be left between a structure and the lot lines • Cluster building development on riverside, flood plain, and taken a more conservative approach. A valid police power measure must of the lot on which the structure is located, and the density of population adjacent upland properties to promote vegetated open space be “reasonable.” To the Pennsylvania courts, aesthetics alone seem too and intensity of development in the different areas, or zoning districts, of for conservation and preservation purposes; 85 subjective to allow for an objective evaluation of reasonableness. A quote the municipality. Again, most municipalities and the county obtain the • land clearance restrictions on riverside properties or hillsides

99 3 rivers 2nd nature

along the river to protect water quality, prevent erosion or tent” with the county’s comprehensive plan.96 The MPC encourages the A third strategy would be to seek voluntary cooperation among all 65 landslides, as well as to promote the natural recovery of development and implementation of countywide comprehensive plans. It municipalities to adopt consistent riverside regulations. The question then riverside areas; and specifically authorizes municipalities and the county to enter in intergov- arises: Who would do this? A citizen organization dedicated to protection 97 of the important values of our river valleys is a possibility and one not to • use of voluntary transferable development rights to ernmental cooperation agreements for this purpose. be dismissed out of hand. However, it does seem as if the county, with its encourage minimal or low density development in countywide jurisdiction and professional Planning Department, as well as environmentally sensitive areas or areas found deserving The county or municipality’s comprehensive plan must contain, among its most professional Department of Parks and Parks Commission, is the of preservation, with transfer districts elsewhere in the other elements, “[a] plan for the protection of natural and historic re- more logical actor, particularly because of the “consistency” provisions municipality allowing greater density development on those sources to the extent not preempted by Federal or State law.”98 Natural of the MPC. lots that acquire transfer development rights.92 and historic resources include, but are not limited to “wetlands and aquifer recharge zones, woodlands, steep slopes, prime agricultural land, flood 4. Police Power Measures to Protect Environmentally There is a difficulty with the use of zoning techniques to protect riverfront plains, unique natural areas and historic sites.” and adjacent lands throughout Allegheny County. Allegheny County con- Sensitive Lands tains 130 separate municipalities. Exactly one-half of that number, or 65 Police power measures, other than subdivision and zoning controls, are This consistency requirement suggests that the county, through its com- municipalities, border one or more of the four rivers. Ideally, adequate available to municipalities to protect riverside and sensitive abutting lands. prehensive planning process, can identify riverside and adjacent areas to zoning protection would involve coordination among all of these munici- This report has already discussed a few of these, including flood plain be conserved or preserved, as well areas appropriate for development. palities. Pennsylvania law provides at least two mechanisms for coordina- regulations where the municipality chooses not to engage in zoning100 and Comprehensive plans are to be reviewed at least every ten years by the mu- tion of zoning among different municipalities. One of these is unlikely to the implementation of storm water management plans and erosion and nicipality and county. Municipal review includes submitting the local plan work well in this particular endeavor; the other holds greater promise. sedimentation controls.101 Two other examples will be discussed. These to the county or regional planning commission for its review.99 Although are intended to illustrative of available police power measures and not an potentially a long-term strategy, the ‘consistency” provisions of the MPC exhaustive catalogue. The MPC authorizes joint zoning by two or more municipalities.93 The provides a means of coordinating riverside protection among the 65 in- cooperating municipalities must create a single zoning ordinance to regu- dependent municipalities. This strategy could encourage less intensive late all land with the combining municipalities, with a joint planning com- uses of lands entitled to special protection, more uniform setbacks from A substantial amount of land abutting the banks of our rivers is steeply mission having representatives from each of the cooperating municipali- the riverfronts and the creation of public spaces and river access points, sloped and contains recovering forest growth. These steeper slopes are ties.94 The number of municipalities with land bordering the four rivers among other matters. often prone to landslides, particularly following development that affects suggests the problems with this approach. It is difficult to expect munici- the existing slope or vegetative cover. Pennsylvania courts have recog- palities with such diverse interests to cede their individual zoning authority nized that a properly based ordinance, whether enacted as a separate exer- It should be noted, once again, that the City of Pittsburgh is not governed to a joint ordinance. The sheer size of the joint planning commission for cise of the police power or as part of the zoning ordinance, may restrict by the MPC and not subject to its “consistency” requirements. However, this undertaking also appears to make this approach unworkable. Finally, forestry and vegetation clearing activities to preserve woodlands, steep the city has evidenced significant sensitivity and concern about the future the City of Pittsburgh is not governed by the MPC. Substantial portions slopes, landslide-prone areas and wetlands. All of these land characteris- of its riverfront lands. The citizens of the city are also citizens of Al- of three rivers, the Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio, lie within its bor- tics are present in many areas along the river banks and abutting land. legheny County and they should expect the city and county to cooperate ders. Without the city’s participation, a joint zoning ordinance would not in the development of consistent policies toward riverside development, effectively protect all important segments of the riverside. conservation and preservation, regardless of the source of their respective One ordinance that has been upheld against various challenges prohibited legal authorities. timber harvesting “in areas determined by the [township] Engineer, with A second strategy is to employ the “consistency” provisions of the MPC. reference to published or commonly accepted guidelines, to be landslide- A zoning ordinance must be “generally consistent” with the municipality’s prone or flood-prone.”102 The ordinance allowed the board of commis- comprehensive plan.95 The municipality’s plan must be “generally consis-

100 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

sioners to grant variances to allow harvesting under certain conditions. A In another ordinance, upheld by the Allegheny County Court of Common of rebutting the presumption of validity that attached to the ordinance. landowner was denied a permit to harvest timber because the township Pleas, a township regulated timber harvesting on parcels larger than one engineer determined that his land was “landslide-prone.” The commis- acre.104 This court also rejected a “regulatory taking” challenge, finding sioners denied the request after a public hearing. They found that the area that the landowner had failed to produce evidence sufficient to overcome A second Commonwealth Court decision upheld a township ordinance was prone to slide and timber harvesting would increase the risk of slides. the presumption of validity. The ordinance prohibited timber harvesting against a challenge that it unreasonably restricts forestry activities as pro- The commissioners based their findings on published geological reports on slopes of 25% or greater or in landslide-prone or flood-prone areas. It hibited by the MPC.108 The ordinance restricted clear cutting on steep and other evidence submitted at the hearing. also prohibited clear-cutting of forest or secondary growth. Mulching or slopes and the 100-year flood plain. Where harvesting is permitted, at removal of logging debris, reforestation of harvested areas, and a bond to least of 30% of the forest canopy must be retained. Among the purposes assure restoration of logged land were required where timber harvesting of the ordinance was preventing erosion. This ordinance was also based On appeal, the landowner (1) challenged the township’s authority to adopt was permitted.105 on the results of an engineering study and was found not to be arbitrary or ordinances regulating timber activities and asserted that (2) the MPC did unreasonable, but substantially related to protection of the public health, not permit this type or regulation and (3) the denial of the permit resulted safety and welfare. in a regulatory “taking” of his land. The Commonwealth Court rejected Although the MPC currently prohibits zoning ordinances that “unrea- all three challenges. sonably restrict forestry activities” and requires that “forestry activities, including, but not limited to, timber harvesting, shall be a permitted use These ordinances were discussed at some length to illustrate two prin-

by right in all zoning districts in every municipality,” municipalities are ciples. First, the strong presumption of validity that attaches to police The township’s enabling legislation authorized it to enact ordinances for not powerless to regulate forestry activities by zoning.106 In one case, the power regulations. Second, the importance of adequate studies to sup- the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.103 This ordinance Town of McCandless created a special development district in its zoning port regulation of land clearing practices and their objectives of prevent- was adopted to prevent landslides and uncontrolled stormwater runoff. ordinance. Standards were established in this district for the preservation ing landslides, erosion, danger to other private property or public facilities, The court concluded that it was a valid exercise of the township’s police of steep slopes, forests and woodlands and streams. On sloped land, in- or other hazards to public health and safety and protecting waterbodies power because “it seeks to prevent damage to roads, damage to drains, creasingly smaller lot areas could be developed or stripped of vegetation as and other environmentally sensitive land features. In each case, the stud- damage to public utilities, damage to watercourses, fire hazards, and re- the lot’s slope increased from 12% to 15% to 25% and above 25%. The ies and other scientific evidence evaluating the harms to be prevented by duction in property value; and it seeks to enhance the natural beauty and ordinance also limited the area of woodlands that could be cleared and unregulated land clearing demonstrated to the court that the regulations environment within the … Township.” developed and required the remaining area be maintained as permanent were not arbitrary, but served a legitimate police power purpose. open space. The required amount of open space varied depending on whether the lot contained “young woodlands,” “woodlands” or “mature The limitations in the MPC restricting the regulation of timber (silvicul- woodlands,” each of which is defined in the ordinance. The district was 5. Conclusion ture) activities under zoning ordinances did not apply to this ordinance created following a study of the area by a local architectural firm, which Properly drafted police power measures, whether through a subdivision because it was not a zoning ordinance and was not enacted under the made detailed scientific and engineering recommendations for protecting or zoning ordinance or in a stand-alone ordinance, can do much to fur- authority of the MPC. It lacked what the court called the “exclusive hall- the sensitive land within the district. ther the legitimate objectives of developing, conserving and preserving marks of zoning.” It did not deal with subdivision or development of the riverside land and the abutting areas. These measures include limiting the land; its purpose was to regulate timber harvesting that “may jeopardize intensity of development on riverfront parcels, providing appropriate set- the integrity of the land in flood-prone or landslide-prone areas.” A landowner challenged the ordinance as arbitrary and capricious and as a backs from the riverbank, protecting flood plains and wetland areas from “regulatory taking” of his land. The Commonwealth Court rejected both development harmful to the objectives of the ordinance, including other challenges.107 It found that the ordinance was substantially related to the Finally, the landowner did not introduce any evidence of the economic private properties and public facilities, and protecting vegetation, includ- protection of public health, safety and welfare and, therefore, not arbi- ing trees and shrubbery, on the hillsides adjacent to the riverbank and in impact of the ordinance on the value of his land. He had failed to carry trary or capricious. As to the “regulatory taking” challenge, the landowner his very heavy burden of showing a “regulatory taking” of his land. Or- the river valley floors. It is important to identify the public health, safety failed to show that his land lacked value because of the restrictions on tim- and welfare objectives of these regulations and to relate the particular dinances are presumed to be valid and it is the challenger’s burden to ber harvesting. In short, the landowner failed to carry the heavy burden overcome that presumption. regulations to those objectives.

101 3 rivers 2nd nature

IV. Two Study Sites The site is governed by ten different municipalities,109 all of which front Regional Trail Corporation and is maintained by volunteers from various on one or both rivers. These municipalities have 16 different zoning clas- organizations under the guidance of the Allegheny Trails Alliance. The report now examines two areas along the Monongahela River to il- sifications. Only three municipalities have zoning classifications titled lustrate how a combination of strategies can be employed to further de- “Conservation.”110 Without examining the text of each ordinance, the velopment, conservation and preservation of the land along the river. precise details of these conservation districts can not be ascertained. The The North Yough Trail provides an anchor for strategies to protect the These are illustrations only. Other strategies could be combined to reach number of municipalities and the disparity of zoning districts within each left bank of the Youghiogheny. Conservation easements on the woodland similar results. Some of the suggested strategies may prove unworkable suggest that a joint municipal zoning ordinance is not a likely strategy to areas to limit, but not necessarily prohibit, forestry activities would be a in practice for economic, ecological or political reasons. They are offered provide coordinated zoning controls. The consistency provisions of the welcome support for the trail. Municipalities that include these highly as suggestions to encourage further discussion and implementation of all MPC, particularly consistency with the county comprehensive plan, does desirable woodlands should also consider adopting ordinances regulating strategies on the four rivers within Allegheny County. offer more hope for coordination, while leaving each municipality free to timber activities. Many of the high quality woodlands are located on steep determine the details of implementation (Map 9.4). hillsides rising directly from the riverbank. Uncontrolled logging of these areas would almost certainly result in degradation of the water quality “Left bank” and “right bank” are conventions used here to describe the in the river and may have the potential for enabling landslides and other bank of the river where a study site is located. The “left bank” is the river The land at and near the confluence is developed for industrial, commer- hazardous conditions. A public park at the trailhead in Boston provides bank on one’s left hand if one were on the river in a boat traveling down- cial and residential uses. As one moves down the near banks of each river limited river access. The county and the several municipalities should ex- stream toward the river’s mouth; the “right bank” is, of course, the other (left for the Youghiogheny and right for the Monongahela), the land slopes amine other land along the riverbanks, particularly those identified as pri- bank. On the Monongahela and Youghiogheny Rivers, the “left bank” is upward, often rather steeply. Here are successfully regenerating forests, orities for preservation and restoration, as candidates for acquisition and generally the southerly or westerly bank; the “right bank” is generally the often of considerable beauty. Scattered residential and commercial de- incorporation into a linear park along both banks of the Youghiogheny easterly or northerly bank. velopment characterizes the slopes along the Youghiogheny. The lower River. slopes along the Monongahela are more densely developed, but density The STUDIO for Creative Inquiry’s 3 Rivers 2nd Nature project (3R2N) decreases as one moves upslope. At the top of both slopes is a gently rounded plateau with somewhat more intensive development. The right Creation of a similar trail along the right bank of the Monongahela with has prepared an ecological assessment of both areas. The assessment the acquisition of land for parks and river access is in order. Conservation ranks the ecological health of watersheds (5 categories from best to worst), bank of the Youghiogheny and the left bank of the Monongahela are far more intensely developed for industrial, commercial and residential uses. easements on, or public ownership of, the supporting hillsides would en- woodlands (5 categories from most significant to least significant), river hance the riverside experience and protect those hillsides for their impor- bank botany in terms of preservation potential (3 categories) and conser- tant functions of supporting that experience and of preventing pollution vation potential (3 categories from excellent to fair). These assessments The 3R2N Ecological Assessment for this site indicates substantial wood- and landslides, improving air quality and enhancing the value of private have guided the selection of areas for protection and protection strategies. lands in the highest three categories. The highest category woodlands rise lands. The assessments provided some of the maps included in the discussion. from parts of the banks of both rivers and continue along the plateau. Sporadic sections of both banks of each river contain riverbank botany with the highest preservation priority (Figure IX.2). The following strategies, among others, are appropriate for the Emerald A. The Emerald Arc Site Arc site: The Emerald Arc site is located between two rivers. It includes the right • develop more parklands and public river access areas; bank of the Monongahela as it flows toward Pittsburgh and the left bank The Pittsburgh to Cumberland Trail runs along the left bank of the of the Youghiogheny River, also flowing toward Pittsburgh. It begins (or Youghiogheny throughout its length in Allegheny County. The trail is • Promote expanded use of riverfront lands for trail use; ends) at the confluence of the Youghiogheny and Monongahela Rivers at a non-motorized recreation trail built primarily on rail banked railroad • Evaluate riverside land for Fish and Boat Commission McKeesport. right-of-way, known as the North Yough Trail. It is planned to reach from boating and fishing access points; Pittsburgh to Cumberland, Maryland, where it will join with a similar trail • Create conservation easements to protect hillsides along running along the Potomac River to Washington, D.C. It was built by the

102 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

all four riverbanks; no river frontage, it is included here because both Becks Run and a large The following strategies, among others are appropriate for the Hays and acreage of significant woodlands are located within its borders. A portion Streets Run site: • Create conservation easements to protect those riverfront of the area adjacent to the river and bordering Becks Run within the city areas containing riverbank botany with the highest is zoned “S” Special District, which provides some opportunity for envi- preservation priority where ownership remains private; ronmental controls. While the number of municipalities is significantly • Devote more land to public parks and public river access • Evaluate wooded slopes for county environmental smaller than in the Emerald Arc site, a joint municipal zoning ordinance areas; covenants for farm, forestry, water supply or open space still is not a likely strategy. The city is not governed by the MPC and, thus, • Create conservation easements to protect uplands and purposes; is not subject to its joint zoning or consistency provisions. The consis- hillsides along the river and Becks Run; • Inventory and protect wetlands and habitat of tency provisions of the MPC, particularly consistency with the county • Create conservation easements to protect those riverfront endangered and threatened species; comprehensive plan, offer a coordination strategy for the other three municipalities (Map 9.3). areas containing riverbank botany with the highest • development of a county comprehensive plan sensitive preservation priority or where the restoration potential is to uses of the riverfront and adjacent lands; high if ownership remains private; • use large setbacks for river front areas; The 3R2N Ecological Assessment for this site indicates substantial wood- • Inventory and protect wetlands and habitats of lands in the highest or “most significant” category, both near the riverside endangered and threatened species; • Provide for low density development on private and along Becks Run. Several sections of both banks of the river contain properties near riverbanks; riverbank botany with the highest preservation priority (Figure IX.3). • Adopt large setbacks for any development of river front areas; • Provide for cluster development along riverbanks and adjacent hillsides to increase required open space; • Provide for low density development on private land near A segment of the Pittsburgh to Cumberland Trail runs along the left the riverbank and Becks Run; and • Adopt forestry and land clearing restrictions to protect bank of the Monongahela River. This segment, which currently extends water quality and prevent landslides; and through Homestead Borough and part of Munhall Borough, will eventu- • Adopt forestry and land clearing restrictions to protect water quality and prevent landslides. • Prepare a stormwater management plan for the ally connect with the North Yough Trail at McKeesport. Adjacent to the watershed. trail, farther from the river, is a right-of-way of the Norfolk and Southern V. Conclusion Railroad. The next major feature inland from the river is State Route As this report demonstrates, there are many strategies available to 837. B. The Hays and Streets Run Site conserve and preserve riverfront and supporting lands. These strategies consist of a mix of public and private actions. No one strat- The Hays and Streets Run site includes a portion of the left bank of the A public ownership strategy for the riverfront and immediate historic egy may be appropriate for all of the land along the four rivers, but Monongahela River as it flows toward Pittsburgh. Much of the land along flood plain would be an important step toward preservation and restora- combinations of strategies can greatly improve the ecological health and near the river bank is undeveloped. As one moves away from the tion of this area. Particular attention should be given to wetlands along of Allegheny County’s river oriented location. The next step is to bank, the land remains relatively flat for some distance and then begins to the river and Becks Run. A stormwater management plan for Becks Run find public agencies, interested private citizens and private organiza- slope upward, culminating in steep upward slopes. Scattered residential could enhance this wetland protection strategy by identifying wetlands not tions willing to pursue them with vigor. and commercial development currently characterizes the land more re- shown on the National Wetlands Inventory. Hillsides and woodlands can moved from the bank. A stream known as Becks Run flows into the river be protected by public ownership, conservation easements or forestry and about halfway through the site. land clearing ordinances. ~END

This Hays and Streets Run Site is governed by four different municipalities,111 three of which front on the river. Although one municipality has

103 3 rivers 2nd nature

104 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

NOTES trust as trustee; sale or disposition of the land must be in accordance with Allegheny County is authorized to acquire land for public parks and multi- [now 20 Pa. C.S. § 8301 et seq.].); Hoffman v. Pittsburgh, 365 Pa. 386, 391- use recreational trails. 16 P.S. § 6925; see also 16 P.S. § 6001 (repealed in 392, 75 A.2d 649, 651 (1950) (“A municipal corporation has no implied or part). 1. See generally Samuel P. Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Effi- incidental authority to alien, or to dispose of for its own benefit, property ciency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890-1920 (1959). dedicated to or held by it in trust for the public use or to extinguish the 13. See Julia C. Klapproth and James E. Johnson, Understanding the Sci- public uses in such property, nor is such property ... or the proceeds of ence Behind Riparian Forest Buffers: Effects on Water Quality (2000) 2. See generally, Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind (4th sale thereof available for the payment of the debts of the municipality.” http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/forestry/420-151/420-151.html (last visited ed. 2001) and Samuel P. Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency, quoting 3 Dillon, Municipal Corporations, § 1102 (5th ed.). See also cases May 16, 2005). n.1 above; Samuel P. Hays, “From Conservation to Environment: Envi- there cited.)) ronmental Politics in the United States Since World War II,” Out of the 14. In general, see 53 P.S. § 3351 to 3356 (“All townships of the first Woods: Essays in Environmental 102–07 (Char Miller & Hal Rothman 10. 20 Pa. C.S. § 8301 et seq. class, boroughs, and cities of this Commonwealth are hereby empowered eds., 1997). to acquire, by purchase, gift, or lease, and hold as the property of the 11. Goodman Appeal, 425 Pa. 23, 31, 227 A.2d 816, 821 (1967) municipality, tracts of land at present covered with forest or tree growth, 3. Samuel P. Hays, Beauty, Health and Permanence: Environmental Poli- or suitable for the growth of trees, and to administer the same, under the tics in the United States, 1955-1985 (1987). 12. For Pittsburgh (a city of the second class), see 53 P.S. § 23140; for direction of the Commissioner of Forestry of the Commonwealth of third class cities (Clairton, Duquesne and McKeesport, see 53 P.S. § 38703, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the practices and principles of scientific 4. “The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration” http:// for boroughs, see 53 P.S. § 47703 (“Any borough may enter upon, ap- forestry, for the benefit and advantage of the said municipalities. Such www.ser.org/content/ecological_restoration_primer.asp (last visited May propriate and acquire by gift, devise, purchase, lease, or otherwise, private tracts may be of any size suitable for the purpose, and may be located 16, 2005). property within the limits of the borough, or in any adjacent township, or either within, adjacent to, or at a distance from the corporate limits of the any borough may designate and set apart any lands or buildings, owned municipality purchasing the same: Provided, That it shall be requisite for 5. http://www.alleghenylandtrust.org/Hillsides/ by the borough and not dedicated or devoted to other public uses; and the commissioners, burgess, or mayor of any municipality, availing itself 3R2NHillsides3DRAFT.pdf (last visited May 16, 2005). two or more boroughs may jointly appropriate and acquire by gift, devise, of the provisions of this act, to submit to the Commissioner of Forestry, purchase, lease, or otherwise, private property within the limits of any and secure his approval of, the area and location of any lands proposed to 6. http://www.alleghenylandtrust.org/Hillsides/PittsburghHillsides.html township adjacent to any of such boroughs, for the purpose of making, be acquired for the purposes of municipal forests, previous to the passage (last visited May 16, 2005). enlarging and maintaining recreation places. All the costs and expenses of the ordinance provided for in section two.”) (repealed as to boroughs relative to any such property, acquired by two or more boroughs jointly, by the Act of May 14, 1915, P.L. 312, c. XII, art. 1, § 1, and as to town- 7. 53 P.S. § 10101 et seq. shall be paid by the respective boroughs in such proportions as may be ships of the first class by the Act of July 14, 1917, P.L. 840, § 1500; and 8. There are numerous books, articles and websites providing information agreed upon by the councils thereof. as to third class cities by the Act of June 23, 1931, P.L. 932, art. XLVII, about fee and easement ownership by conservation organizations. For an § 4701); now as to third class cities, see 53 P.S. § 38830 to 38837 (“Cities Any borough may likewise acquire private property within the limits of excellent local introduction to conservation organizations, the interests in may acquire, by purchase, gift, or lease, and hold tracts of land covered another borough or city, for the purposes designated in this section, if the land which they may hold, see Andrew M. Loza, ed., Pennsylvania Land with forest or tree growth or suitable for the growth of trees, and admin- other borough or city shall, by ordinance, signify its consent thereto.”); Conservation Handbook: A guide for conservation organizations, munic- ister the same, under the direction of the Department of Forests and Wa- for joint acquisition by two or more boroughs or a borough and a city, ipalities and private landowners (Allegheny Land Trust 1995) or visit the ters, in accordance with the practices and principles of scientific forestry, township, or county, see 53 P.S. § 47711 (“Any two or more boroughs, or a Allegheny Land Trust website at http://www.alleghenylandtrust.org. For for the benefit of the city. Such tracts may be of any size suitable for the borough with any city or township, or a borough with a county, may jointly much more information on a broader, national scale, see The Land Trust purpose and may be located within or without the city limits.”) [NB: Any acquire property for, and operate and maintain, any recreation places. Any Alliance website at http://www.lta.org/ (last visited May 16, 2005). sale of municipal forest in 3d class city requires referendum and majority borough or boroughs shall have power to join with any school district in approval], as to boroughs, 53 P.S. § 47751 to 47759 [NB: Sale must meet 9. See Goodman Appeal, 425 Pa. 23, 227 A.2d 816 (1967) (where township equipping, operating and maintaining recreation places, and may appropri- normal requirements for sale of borough real estate but no referendum is purchases land and dedicates it as a public park, township holds the land in ate money therefore.”). required.]; as to Townships of the first class, 58 P.S. § 58040 to 58047 and

105 3 rivers 2nd nature

as to Townships of the second class, 58 P.S. § 67207 [NB: Referendum 24. 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). ing ordinances that are enacted by municipalities pursuant to their police requirement imposed in event township determines to sell § 67207(f).] power, i.e., governmental action taken to protect or preserve the public 25. 16 P.S. §§ 11941 et seq. health, safety, morality, and welfare. Where there is a particular public 15. 53 P.S. § 7101 et seq. health, safety, morality, or welfare interest in a community, the municipality 26. 16 P.S. § 11944. may utilize zoning measures that are substantially related to the protection 16. 30 Pa. C.S. § 721. and preservation of such an interest.” C&M Developers v. Bedminster Twp. 27. 16 P.S. § 11946. Zoning Hearing Bd., 573 Pa. 2, 820 A.2d 143 (2001) (citations omitted). 17. 30 Pa. C.S. § 721(c) Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and 34 28. 26 U.S.C. § 170(h); Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14. The details of this sec- Pa. C.S. § 701(c) Pennsylvania Game Commission. 35. This program is carried out under the authority of the National Flood tion and of the provisions for favored federal income or estate tax treat- Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4001 et seq. 18. There are numerous books, articles and websites providing informa- ment are beyond the scope of this report. Excellent discussions can be tion about fee and easement ownership by conservation organizations. For found in a variety of sources, including Steven J. Small, The Federal Tax 36. 16 U.S.C. U.S.C. § 1536 et seq. an excellent local introduction to conservation organizations, the interests Law of Conservation Easements (Land Trust Alliance) and C. Timothy in land which they may hold, see Andrew M. Loza, ed., Pennsylvania Land Lindstrom, Esq., A Guide to the Tax Benefits of Donating a Conserva- 37. 3716 U.S.C. § 470 et seq. Conservation Handbook: A guide for conservation organizations, munic- tion Easement (October 2004), available at http://www.jhlandtrust.org/ ipalities and private landowners (Allegheny Land Trust 1995) or visit the media/pdfs/taxguide.pdf (last visited May 16, 2005). 38. 33 U.S.C. § 1344. Allegheny Land Trust website at http://www.alleghenylandtrust.org. For much more information on a broader, national scale, see The Land Trust 29. Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(c). 39. 44 C.F.R. Part 60. Alliance website, http://www.lta.org/ (last visited May 16, 2005). 30. Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(d)(1). 40. 52 P.S. § 10605 et seq. 19. See 16 P.S. § 11941 et seq. 31. See, e.g., Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1001 (1992) 41. Pennsylvania Flood Plain Management Act (Act 166), 32 P.S. § 679.202 20. There are many, many articles and texts discussing these tax benefits. One (regulation that deprives owner of all use of land is a “taking” of pri- et seq. readable and readily accessible source is C. Timothy Lindstrom, A Guide vate property). For the comparable Pennsylvania constitutional view, see to the Tax Benefits of Donating A Conservation Easement (May 2004) Machipongo Land & Coal Co. v. DEP, 569 Pa. 3, 34, 799 A.2d 751, 769 42. 25 Pa. Code ch. 106. (http://www.galandtrust.org/PDF%20files/Tax%20guide%202004.pdf (2002). 43. 25 Pa. Code § 106.31. (last visited May 16, 2005). 32. Miller & Sons Paving, Inc. v. Plumstead Twp., 552 Pa. 652, 717 A.2d 483 44. 16 U.S.C. U.S.C. § 1536 et seq. For an excellent introduction, see Ira 21. See Julie Ann Gustanski, “Protecting the Land: Conservation Ease- (1998). Houck, The Endangered Species Act and its Implementation by the Unit- ments, Voluntary Actions, and Private Lands,” in Protecting the Land: ed States Departments of Interior and Commerce, 64 Colo. L. Rev. 277 Conservation Easements Past, Present, and Future, 9, 17 (Julie Ann Gus- 33. See, e.g., Jones v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Town of McCandless, 134 Pa. (1993). tanski & Roderick H. Squires eds., 2000). History of land trusts; Janet Cmwlth. Ct. 435, 578 A.2d 1369 (1990) (upholding zoning ordinance pro- Diehl & Thomas S. Barrett, The Conservation Easement Handbook: vision preserving “sensitive natural resources such as woodlands, streams, 45. 16 U.S.C § 1532(6). Managing Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Pro- and steep slopes” against regulatory takings challenge), citing Boundary Drive Associates v. Shewsbury Twp. Board of Supervisors, 507 Pa. 481, 491 A.2d grams (1988). 46. 16 U.S.C § 1532(20). 86 (1985) (upholding constitutional validity of agricultural preservation district as applied to owner’s property). 22. 32 P.S. §§ 5051 to 5059. 47. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533 and 50 C.F.R. part 424. 34. “Property owners have a constitutionally protected right to enjoy 23. 32 P.S. § 5053. 48. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a). their property. That right, however, may be reasonably limited by zon-

106 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

49. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(b). 1998), used by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Re- 70. 32 P.S. § 680.5. sources Conservation Service, Wetland Science Institute and Soils Divi- 50. See 32 P.S. § 5307. sion in cooperation with National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils 71. 32 P.S. § 680.11(a). http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/ (last visited May 16, 2005). 51. See 30 Pa.C.S. §§102 and 2305. 72. See 32 P.S. § 680.12. 59. http://www.nwi.fws.gov/ (last visited May 16, 2005). 52. See 34 Pa.C.S. §§ 102, 925, 2141, 2306-07, 2329, and 2364. 73. 32 P.S. § 680.13. 60. See USACOE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual, http://www.wet- 53. A list of Pennsylvania’s protected species of invertebrates, birds and lands.com/regs/tlpge02e.htm (last visited May 16, 2005). 74. Pine Creek, Girty Run, Deer Creek, completed 3/6/1986, covering 20 mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles, and plants can be found ona municipalities; Montour Run, completed 2/1/1990, covering 5 municipal- website maintained by Pa DCNR at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/ 61. 33 U.S.C. § 1311. ities; Monongahela River, completed 6/15/1994, covering 33 municipali- contents.aspx (last visited May 16, 2005). At present, 2 species of in- ties; Turtle Creek, completed 12/5/1991, covering 17 municipalities; and vertebrates (both freshwater clams) 20 species of birds and mammals, 27 62. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U. S. Army Corps Of En- Flaugherty Run, Allegheny, completed 11/19/1998, covering 3 municipal- species of fish, amphibians and reptiles, and 18 species of plants are list- gineers, 531 U.S. 159, 121 S. Ct. 675 (2001). ities. Source: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/ ed. Specific information is available from some of the other Pennsylvania Subjects/StormwaterManagement/Approved_1.html (last visited May agencies, e.g., the Fish and Boat Commission at http://sites.state.pa.us/ 63. U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. 16, 2005). One plan, Little Sewickley Creek, covering 7 municipalities PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/endngre.htm (last visited May 16, 2005) and http:// is currently in preparation, as of March 7, 2003. http://www.dep.state. sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/endang1.htm (last visited May 16, 64. 32 P.S. § 693.1 et seq., see particularly §§ 693.3 and 603.6; 25 Pa. Code pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/StormwaterManagement/ 2005) for more technical information; Pennsylvania Game Commission ch 105, various sections. UnderPrep_1.htm (last visited May 16, 2005). http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=458&q=150321 (last 65. See 25 Pa. Code § 105.20a. visited May 16, 2005). 75. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/ StormwaterManagement/TechnicalInformation/167RegionReport.pdf , 66. 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq. Historic preservation is a responsibility of each 54. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). pp. 35-37 (last visited May 16, 2005). federal department and agency, but policy is coordinated by the Advisory 55. 50 CFR § 17.3. Council on Historic Preservation. To learn more about the national pro- 76. See 53 Pa. C.S. § 2963(3). gram, visit http://www.achp.gov/nhpp.html (last visited May 16, 2005). 56. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 516 U.S. 77. See C&M Developers v. Bedminster Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 573 Pa. 2, 820 687, 115 S. Ct. 2407 (1995). 67. 37 Pa.C.S. § 101 et seq. This program is run by the Bureau for Historic A.2d 143 (2001) (citations omitted). Preservation of the Pennsylvania History and Museum Commission. To 57. For an interesting review and critique of wetlands policy in the United learn more about the state program, visit http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/ 78. Hopewell Twp. Bd. of Supervisors v. Golla, 499 Pa. 246, 452 A.2d 1337 (Pa. States, see Robert E. Beck, The Movement in The United States to Resto- bhp/overview.asp?secid=25 1982). (“A conclusion that an ordinance is valid necessitates a determina- ration And Creation of Wetlands, 34 Nat Res. J. 781 (1994). tion that the public purpose served adequately outweighs the landowner’s (last visited May 16, 2005). right to do as he sees fit with his property, so as to satisfy the requirements 58. “The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated of due process.”) by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to sup- 68. 32 P.S. § 680.1 et seq. port, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 79. See, e.g., Machipongo Land & Coal Co. v. Department of Envt’l Protection, 69. The department’s current Stormwater Management Policy was ad- vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 569 Pa. 3, 799 A.2d 751 (2002); United Artists’ Theater Circuit v. City of Phila- opted in 2002 and can be found at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/eps/docs/ generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” 33 C.F.R. delphia, 535 A.2d 370, 635 A.2d 612 (1993). cab200149b1126000/fldr200149e0051190/fldr200149e32221af/doc- § 328.3(a)(8)(b) (Corps regulatory definition of wetlands). See also Field 20028qc1546017/392-0300-002.pdf (last visited May 16, 2005). Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (VERSION 4.0 March 80. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1001 (1992). In

107 3 rivers 2nd nature

Machipongo Land & Coal Co. v. DEP, 569 Pa. 3, 34, 799 A.2d 751, 769 sheds.org/techresources/bufferordinance.pdf (last visited May 16, 2005) islation aimed at protecting the health, safety, and welfare of citizens un- (2002), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said: “Lucas stands for the prop- Radnor Township, PA, Ordinance No. 2003-22 http://www.radnor.com/ der the general welfare clauses contained in municipal codes.” Taylor, 851 osition that regulations that deprive an owner of ‘all economically ben- government/documents/rip_buffer/RiparianDec03.pdf (last visited May A.2d at 1025. eficial or productive use of land’ are takings unless the use constitutes a 16, 2005). Also see EPA Model Ordinance to Protect Local Resources, public nuisance or are caused by the nature of the use and the owner could http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/mol1.htm (last visited May 104. Trumco, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board for Shaler Twp., 132 Pgh. Leg. J. 259 have expected that the government might prohibit it.” 16, 2005). (All’y Co. 2004).

81. Lombardozzi v. Millcreek Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 829 A.2d 779, 782 (Pa. 92. “Transferable Development Rights,” the attaching of development 105. Township of Shaler Code of Ordinances, Chap. 151, Logging. Cmwlth. Ct., 2003) (citations omitted). See also Norate Corporation, Inc. v. rights to specified lands which are desired by a municipality to be kept Zoning Board of Adjustment, 417 Pa. 397, 207 A.2d 890 (1965); Rogalski v. undeveloped, but permitting those rights to be transferred from those 106. “Zoning ordinances may not unreasonably restrict forestry activi- Upper Chichester Twp., 406 Pa. 550, 178 A.2d 712 (1962) (similar language). lands so that the development potential which they represent may occur ties. To encourage maintenance and management of forested or wooded on other lands where more intensive development is deemed to be appro- open space and promote the conduct of forestry as a sound and eco- 82. See Berk v. Wilkinsburg Zoning Board, 48 Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 469, 410 A.2d priate.” 53 P.S. § 10107 (definitions). For MPC, see 53 P.S. § 10619.1. nomically viable use of forested land throughout this Commonwealth, 904 (1980) (landscaping requirements; “Aesthetics and property values are forestry activities, including, but not limited to, timber harvesting, shall be legitimate considerations in a township’s exercise of its zoning power to 93. 53 P.S. §§ 10801-A to 10821-A. a permitted use by right in all zoning districts in every municipality.” 53 promote the general welfare.”). P.S. § 10603(f). 94. “A joint municipal zoning ordinance shall be based upon an adopted 83. 53 P.S. § 10501 to 10515.3. joint municipal comprehensive plan and shall be prepared by a joint mu- 107. Jones v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Town of McCandless, 134 Pa. Cmwlth. nicipal planning commission established under the provisions of this act.” Ct. 435, 578 A.2d 1369 (1990). This case was decided before § 10603(f) 84. 53 P.S. § 10501 to 10515.3. 53 P.S. § 10801-A. was added to the MPC. However, the court in Chrin, below at note 106, stated that this would not have affected its decision in Jones. 85. See MPC, 53 P.S. § 10603 and 10604 for permissible purposes of 95. 53 P.S. § 10105. zoning. 108. Chrin Bros. v. Williams Township Zoning Hearing Board., 815 A.2d 1179 96. 53 P.S. § 10603(j). (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2003). 86. 53 P.S. §§ 10601 to 10621 and various other sections. 97. See 53 P.S. § 11102 et seq. 109. In alphabetical order, these are Elizabeth Borough, Elizabeth Town- 87. 53 P.S. , 53 P.S. §§ 25501 to 25508. ship, Forward Township, Glassport Borough, Liberty Borough, Lincoln 98. 53 P.S. § 10301(a)(6). Borough, City of McKeesport, Port Vue Borough, Versailles Borough and 88. 53 P.S. § 10105. For the required contents of any comprehensive plan White Oak Borough. adopted under the MPC, see 53 P.S. §§ 10301 and 10301.1. See also Joel P. 99. 53 P.S. § 103012(c). Dennison, Comment, New Tricks for an Old Dog: The Changing Role of 110. Elizabeth Township, Glassport Borough and Lincoln Borough. the Comprehensive Plan Under Pennsylvania’s “Growing Smarter” Land 100. See text, above, at Section III. A. 1. Use Reforms, 105 Dick. L. Rev. 385 (2001). 111. In alphabetical order, these are Baldwin Borough, the City of Pitts- 101. See text, above, at Section III. A. 4. burgh, West Mifflin Borough and West Homestead Borough. Only Bald- 89. 53 P.S. § 10605. win Borough does not front on the river. The City of Pittsburgh occupies 102. Taylor v. Harmony Township Board of Commissioners, 851 A.2d 1020 (Pa. the entire right bank of the river opposite this site. 90. Municipalities in Pennsylvania are authorized to adopt flood plain Cmwlth. Ct. 2004). controls without adopting a zoning ordinance. See note 41, above. 103. “Although police powers are not without limitation, Pennsylvania 91. For examples of riparian buffer ordinances, see http://www.pawater- courts have recognized that municipalities have the power to enact leg-

108 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Appendix A Woodland Area Analysis Values by Watershed

Watershed Name % Woodland % Woodland 250 % Interior Woodland Total Woodland Watershed Name % Woodland % Woodland 250 % Interior Woodland Total Woodland acres or greater Area Score acres or greater Area Score

Allegheny River 12.42 0.00 0.10 12.52 Ohio River 58.08 0.00 20.45 78.52 Allegheny River 17.64 0.00 4.76 22.40 Perry Mill Run 55.27 26.03 43.10 124.40 Allegheny River 29.59 0.00 15.65 45.25 Peters Creek 29.16 0.00 2.67 31.83 Allegheny River (upper) 10.84 0.00 0.69 11.53 Pine Creek 39.81 3.12 9.36 52.29 Allegheny River (Upper) 39.63 19.46 13.74 72.83 Plum Creek 43.24 0.00 4.89 48.12 Becketts Run 49.56 0.00 9.77 59.33 Powers Run 27.35 0.00 0.03 27.38 Becks Run 29.54 0.00 11.03 40.57 Pucketa Creek 66.90 24.68 23.05 114.62 Big Sewickley Creek 50.84 24.95 30.27 106.05 Quigley Creek 29.46 0.00 0.87 30.33 Boston Hollow 61.64 0.00 40.78 102.42 Riddle Run 45.30 0.00 3.12 48.42 Bulls Run 52.29 19.66 24.94 96.89 Sandy Creek 35.94 0.00 2.29 38.23 Bunola Run 63.10 0.00 26.19 89.29 Sawmill Run 14.92 0.00 0.12 15.04 Chartiers Creek 32.39 3.11 6.11 41.61 Shades Run 42.50 0.00 3.85 46.35 Crawford Run 63.05 0.00 37.53 100.58 Shouse Run 52.35 0.00 15.94 68.30 Crooked Run 40.05 7.15 9.78 56.98 Spruce Run 27.05 0.00 3.94 30.99 Days Run 67.39 42.90 62.79 173.08 Squaw Run 35.07 0.00 1.64 36.71 Deer Creek 49.66 9.42 16.16 75.24 Streets Run 34.09 6.71 17.09 57.89 Douglass Run 48.30 6.25 12.51 67.06 Sunfish Run 44.60 0.00 7.45 52.05 Fallen Timber Run 36.76 0.00 4.62 41.39 Tawney Run 44.50 16.35 9.50 70.35 Flaugherty Run 48.85 15.58 36.02 100.45 Thompson Run 28.21 0.00 1.15 29.36 Girtys Run 25.54 0.00 1.61 27.15 Thorn Run 52.09 40.90 69.88 162.86 Guyasuta Run 44.70 0.00 2.56 47.26 Toms Run 71.37 17.49 47.41 136.27 Indian Creek 32.87 0.00 4.72 37.60 Turtle Creek 31.29 6.20 8.39 45.88 Jacks Run 28.47 0.00 0.83 29.30 West Run 21.91 0.00 0.57 22.48 Kelly Run 48.13 0.00 6.78 54.91 Whitaker Run 16.84 0.00 0.01 16.85 Kilbuck Run 54.19 0.00 14.96 69.15 Wylie Run 50.83 9.88 35.85 96.56 Little Sewickley Creek 56.02 28.43 20.90 105.35 Youghiogheny River 47.26 0.00 11.45 58.70 Lobbs Run 48.17 0.00 2.63 50.80 Youghiogheny River 38.88 7.72 14.41 61.01 Long Run 42.59 0.00 16.03 58.62 Lowries Run 42.85 17.40 16.50 76.74 McCabe Run 24.79 0.00 1.18 25.98 Monongahela River 12.59 0.00 1.84 14.43 Monongahela River 27.41 0.00 4.98 32.38 Monongahela River 40.73 0.00 13.69 54.42 Monongahela River 38.59 24.16 27.81 90.56 Montour Run 31.12 6.55 11.13 48.80 Moon Run 33.25 0.00 2.64 35.88 Narrows Run 32.29 0.00 8.00 40.30 Nine Mile Run 17.29 6.51 2.35 26.15 Ohio River 18.98 0.00 6.68 25.66 Ohio River 23.91 0.00 3.36 27.27

109 3 rivers 2nd nature

Appendix B Riparian Analysis Values by Watershed

Watershed Name % Woodland that Touched the % woodland within the Watershed Name % Woodland that Touched the % woodland within the Riparian Buffer of 100 meters Riparian Buffer of 100 meters Riparian Buffer of 100 meters Riparian Buffer of 100 meters

Allegheny River 42.27 14.10 Ohio River 94.64 23.10 Allegheny River 85.71 28.71 Perry Mill Run 93.16 62.51 Allegheny River 66.34 21.36 Peters Creek 82.43 39.14 Allegheny River (upper) 38.53 3.13 Pine Creek 92.29 50.03 Allegheny River (Upper) 98.22 43.56 Plum Creek 91.47 50.87 Becketts Run 97.59 56.43 Powers Run 83.57 36.11 Becks Run 89.06 62.99 Pucketa Creek 92.51 61.43 Big Sewickley Creek 98.92 55.06 Quigley Creek 91.27 45.30 Boston Hollow 94.69 67.27 Riddle Run 95.17 60.90 Bulls Run 94.68 52.82 Sandy Creek 87.26 51.88 Bunola Run 94.64 75.02 Sawmill Run 50.15 25.27 Chartiers Creek 89.41 39.23 Shades Run 89.18 93.84 Crawford Run 97.75 57.47 Shouse Run 96.56 82.38 Crooked Run 92.43 44.96 Spruce Run 94.76 39.73 Days Run 95.59 61.59 Squaw Run 95.88 49.88 Deer Creek 95.54 55.69 Streets Run 93.61 48.45 Douglass Run 97.55 56.57 Sunfish Run 92.29 47.89 Fallen Timber Run 89.27 32.80 Tawney Run 90.86 51.21 Flaugherty Run 97.32 64.46 Thompson Run 59.82 29.34 Girtys Run 88.33 31.91 Thorn Run 98.85 69.93 Guyasuta Run 99.82 60.71 Toms Run 95.07 81.14 Indian Creek 94.02 46.09 Turtle Creek 84.50 41.17 Jacks Run 81.74 40.08 West Run 11.27 12.17 Kelly Run 89.05 45.50 Whitaker Run 62.83 30.37 Kilbuck Run 92.10 61.39 Wylie Run 95.41 52.08 Little Sewickley Creek 96.88 67.00 Youghiogheny River 94.63 61.01 Lobbs Run 88.43 51.86 Youghiogheny River 94.86 43.18 Long Run 91.32 58.88 Lowries Run 94.07 54.38 McCabe Run 83.20 45.80 Monongahela River 87.87 24.82 Monongahela River 82.51 31.86 Monongahela River 83.42 26.81 Monongahela River 38.34 9.56 Montour Run 90.56 41.82 Moon Run 95.84 42.25 Narrows Run 88.94 43.81 Nine Mile Run 64.15 53.49 Ohio River 73.60 10.70 Ohio River 73.60 10.70

110 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Appendix C Landscape Metric Values by Watershed

Watershed Name Mean Shape Index Mean Nearest Neighbor Watershed Name Mean Shape Index Mean Nearest Neighbor (in meters) (in meters)

Allegheny River 1.61 61.50 Nine Mile Run 1.94 113.95 Allegheny River 1.78 88.56 Ohio River 1.93 97.15 Allegheny River 1.98 106.18 Ohio River 1.93 97.15 Allegheny River (Upper) 1.93 79.63 Ohio River 1.70 97.85 Allegheny River (upper) 1.71 103.76 Ohio total 1.85 97.38 Allegheny Total 1.80 87.93 Perry Mill Run 1.84 66.83 average 1.83 83.97 Peters Creek 1.85 92.04 Becketts Run 2.05 117.07 Pine Creek 1.97 82.85 Becks Run 2.10 93.11 Plum Creek 1.79 62.01 Big Sewickley Creek 1.89 91.51 Powers Run 1.77 69.42 Boston Hollow 1.74 50.01 Pucketa Creek 1.79 68.32 Bulls Run 1.76 69.78 Quigley Creek 1.77 53.86 Bunola Run 2.10 85.69 Riddle Run 1.63 75.89 Chartiers Creek 2.02 90.85 Sandy Creek 2.18 95.89 Crawford Run 1.81 58.48 Sawmill Run 2.07 113.41 Crooked Run 1.69 70.15 Shades Run 1.98 76.70 Days Run 1.61 69.01 Shouse Run 1.69 135.60 Deer Creek 1.89 70.04 Spruce Run 1.89 99.80 Douglass Run 1.78 87.02 Squaw Run 2.19 95.81 Fallen Timber Run 1.85 92.75 Streets Run 2.10 115.53 Flaugherty Run 1.88 81.52 Sunfish Run 1.85 65.68 Girtys Run 2.03 99.85 Tawney Run 1.66 67.93 Guyasuta Run 1.78 113.85 Thompson Run 1.90 68.99 Indian Creek 1.84 49.19 Thorn Run 2.04 131.89 Jacks Run 1.98 101.50 Toms Run 1.85 54.60 Kelly Run 1.81 56.23 Turtle Creek 1.86 76.12 Kilbuck Run 1.85 77.57 West Run 2.23 125.52 Little Sewickley Creek 1.88 68.79 Whitaker Run 2.01 65.10 Lobbs Run 1.91 56.65 Wylie Run 1.91 45.40 Long Run 1.77 74.80 Yough Total 1.72 57.37 Lowries Run 1.86 101.87 Youghiogheny River 1.61 45.96 McCabe Run 1.68 65.34 Youghiogheny River 1.83 68.78 Mon Total 1.90 81.17 Monongahela River 1.79 74.97 Monongahela River 1.92 78.79 Monongahela River 1.99 82.26 Monongahela River 1.89 88.66 Montour Run 1.92 90.27 Moon Run 1.98 107.38 Narrows Run 1.86 96.11

111 3 rivers 2nd nature

Appendix D Woodland Area Analysis Values by Watershed

Watershed Name Woodland Riparian Analysis Landscape Metrics Total Woodland Watershed Name Woodland Riparian Analysis Landscape Metrics Total Woodland Area Value Value Watershed Value Area Value Value Watershed Value

Allegheny River 22.48 23.44 9.04 54.96 Ohio River 90.56 110.23 25.80 226.59 Allegheny River 11.53 41.66 23.94 77.13 Perry Mill Run 61.01 138.05 29.50 228.56 Allegheny River 14.43 47.90 26.80 89.13 Peters Creek 47.26 160.53 22.97 230.76 Allegheny River (upper) 12.52 56.36 23.69 92.57 Pine Creek 48.42 156.07 27.96 232.45 Allegheny River (Upper) 15.04 75.42 10.01 100.47 Plum Creek 58.62 150.20 28.17 236.99 Becketts Run 16.85 93.19 17.43 127.48 Powers Run 72.83 141.77 27.25 241.86 Becks Run 25.66 84.31 24.68 134.64 Pucketa Creek 70.35 142.07 29.71 242.12 Big Sewickley Creek 22.40 87.70 25.82 135.92 Quigley Creek 67.06 154.12 26.04 247.21 Boston Hollow 29.36 89.15 29.45 147.96 Riddle Run 76.74 148.46 24.14 249.34 Bulls Run 27.15 120.24 11.37 158.76 Sandy Creek 69.15 153.49 27.63 250.27 Bunola Run 26.15 117.64 22.96 166.75 Sawmill Run 58.70 155.63 37.70 252.03 Chartiers Creek 27.27 117.74 24.60 169.62 Shades Run 75.24 151.23 29.21 255.68 Crawford Run 32.38 114.38 28.14 174.90 Shouse Run 46.35 183.02 27.80 257.17 Crooked Run 29.30 121.82 24.18 175.30 Spruce Run 68.30 178.94 21.37 268.61 Days Run 27.38 119.67 29.35 176.41 Squaw Run 89.29 169.66 13.25 272.19 Deer Creek 31.83 121.56 25.33 178.73 Streets Run 96.89 147.50 29.27 273.66 Douglass Run 41.61 128.63 12.49 182.73 Sunfish Run 96.56 147.49 38.00 282.05 Fallen Timber Run 25.98 129.00 30.37 185.35 Tawney Run 106.05 153.97 25.40 285.42 Flaugherty Run 78.52 84.31 24.68 187.51 Thompson Run 100.58 155.23 32.41 288.21 Girtys Run 41.39 122.06 25.24 188.69 Thorn Run 100.45 161.77 26.92 289.15 Guyasuta Run 38.23 139.14 11.84 189.21 Toms Run 114.62 153.94 29.61 298.18 Indian Creek 30.99 134.49 24.37 189.85 Turtle Creek 105.35 163.88 29.50 298.73 Jacks Run 45.25 114.42 31.46 191.13 West Run 102.42 161.97 35.70 300.08 Kelly Run 36.71 145.77 11.85 194.32 Whitaker Run 124.40 155.66 29.98 310.04 Kilbuck Run 54.42 112.70 27.41 194.52 Wylie Run 162.86 168.78 8.61 340.25 Little Sewickley Creek 35.88 138.09 23.57 197.54 Youghiogheny River 136.27 176.21 33.79 346.27 Lobbs Run 40.30 132.75 24.81 197.86 Youghiogheny River 173.08 157.18 29.45 359.71 Long Run 45.88 125.67 27.91 199.46 Lowries Run 30.33 136.57 34.07 200.97 McCabe Run 40.57 152.06 12.19 204.82 Monongahela River 48.80 132.38 25.57 206.75 Monongahela River 57.89 142.06 9.82 209.78 Monongahela River 37.60 140.11 36.07 213.78 Monongahela River 52.29 142.32 26.70 221.31 Montour Run 48.12 142.34 31.30 221.76 Moon Run 52.05 140.17 30.28 222.51 Narrows Run 54.91 134.55 33.18 222.65 Nine Mile Run 59.33 154.02 9.70 223.04 Ohio River 56.98 137.40 29.18 223.56 Ohio River 50.80 140.29 33.04 224.13

112 Ecology and recovery - Allegheny County

Appendix E Regulatory Strategies for Riverside Preservation and Conservation

REGULATORY OPTIONS REGULATORY OPTIONS

Land Use Controls Other Regulatory Mechanisms

Federal State County Local Federal State Home Rule County Local

Endangered Species Endangered Species Subdivision Subdivision Act [USFWS]

Zoning Zoning National Historic History Code [Pa Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Preservation Act [DOI] Museum Commission] Ordinance Ordinance • Use Limitations • Use Limitations • Density • Density Limitations Limitations Storm Water Storm Water Storm Water • Open Space • Open Space Management Act Management Act Management Act Requirements Requirements – Erosion and – Erosion and – Erosion and • Land Clearance • Land Clearance Sedimentation Controls Sedimentation Controls Sedimentation Controls Resrictions Restrictions [PaDEP] • Transferable • Transferable Development Rights Development Rights Water Pollution (CWA) Water Pollution (Clean [EPA] Streams Law) [PaDEP] Other Police Power Other Police Power

• Tree Removal on Wetlands Protection Wetlands Protection Steep Slopes (CWA §404) [EPA Dam Safety & • Other Hazardous USACOE] Encroachments Act Lands Protection Ordinances [PaDEP]

Flood Plain Zoning - Flood Plain Zoning - MPC MPC

Flood Plains (National Flood Plain Flood Insurance Act) Management Act Flood Plain Flood Plain Management Act, Flood Management Act, Flood Plain Regulations Plain Regulations (not MPC) (not MPC)

Storm Water Storm Water Storm Water Management Act Management Act Management Act

113 3 rivers 2nd nature

Appendix F Ownership Strategies for Riverside Preservation and Conservation

OWNERSHIP OPTIONS

Public Ownership Private Ownership

Fee Ownership

Parks Fee Ownership by Conservation Organization • Local • For Preservation or Conservation Purpose with No • County Public Use • State • For Preservation or Conservation Purpose with Public Use • Limited Public Uses • Unlimited Public Uses Forests • Local • County • State Preserves • Natural Areas • Other Open Space Reserve • County Environmental Covenants – 16 P.S. § 11941 to 11947 Natural Areas Boat and Fishing Access Tax Delinquent Properties Acquired by Municipality or School District Unrestricted Public Lands

Less Than Fee Ownership

Conservation Easements Conservation Easement • Held by Governmental Agency on Private Lands • On Privately Owned Lands • Held by Private Agency on Public Lands • On Government Owned Lands • County Open Space Covenants – 16 P.S. § 11941 to 11947 Restricted Development (Real Covenants)

Acquisition Options

Purchase Purchase “Bargain Purchase” Dedication by Private Owner (Donation) Donation Land Exchange Land Exchange Eminent Domain 114