appendix vii: planning and environmental linkage
TRANSCRIPT
Appendix VII: Planning and Environmental Linkage
Appendix VII: Planning and Environmental Linkage
Planning and Environmental Linkage
The SmartMoves Regional Vision, Goals and Strategies for resilient communities include strategies to conserve natural and cultural resources of the region as well as promoting environmentally sustainable practices. Keeping consistent with this overall strategy, SPC integrates environmental considerations into the transportation planning at an early stage and meets the federal requirements for long range transportation plans in this area. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) is the current regulation overseeing metropolitan transportation planning. Within this act, congress amended the transportation planning laws to require increased consideration of environmental resources in early metropolitan transportation planning. These provisions focus on several key requirements for the development of metropolitan long range transportation plans:
• FAST Act requires the MPO to consult with the regulatory and resource agencies “responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation concerning the development of the transportation plan,” - Regulations for Long Range Transportation Plans (23 C.F.R. § 450.322(g))
• Consultations shall involve “comparison of transportation plans to inventories of natural or
historic resources, if available.” - Regulations for Long Range Transportation Plans (23 C.F.R. § 450.322(g))
• Consultations shall involve “comparison of transportation plan with State conservation plans or maps, if available” - Regulations for Long Range Transportation Plans (23 C.F.R. § 450.322(f)(7))
• FAST Act requires “a discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation activities
and potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan. The discussion may focus on policies, programs, or strategies, rather than at the project level.” Regulations for Long Range Transportation Plan Development (23 C.F.R. § 450.322(f)(7))
These provisions originate from a desire to extract benefits for overall transportation project development by considering environmental resources early in the transportation planning process. The early consideration of environmental resources during the transportation planning process can assist the subsequent environmental clearance process and compliance with the
S m a r t M o v e s 2
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on individual transportation projects. This concept is referred to as “linking planning and NEPA” or, more generally, “planning and environmental linkage” in transportation planning. This concept can assist in program predictability, project decisions, project deliverability, and mitigation decisions while responding to the desire to improve both transportation and the environment.
The following figure details the process that SPC follows to integrate environmental considerations into the regional long range transportation planning process and to comply with the FAST Act PEL requirements for long range transportation plans.
3 S m a r t M o v e s
S m a r t M o v e s 4
For SmartMoves for a Changing Region, SPC has produced a detailed online mapping application. This application addresses the key PEL requirements of FAST Act that strengthen transportation planning and environmental linkages.
The online mapping application and related maps and documents, in the following areas, address the planning and environmental linkage requirements of FAST Act:
• Agency Consultation Process – SPC consulted with regulatory environmental resource and cultural resource agencies in development of the resource inventory and project screening culminating in the presentation to the Pennsylvania Agency Coordination meeting in May. Table 1 summarizes the agency consultations that were conducted.
Table IX-1: Agency Consultation Summary
Consultation Activity Date Agency consultation approach review with FHWA and receipt of updated agency contact list
October 2018
Agency consultation invitation letters distributed
December 14, 2018
Face to face consultation meetings with agency representatives from within the SPC Region (USACE, PADEP, PA DCNR, PHMC, Natural Heritage Program)
December 2018 – March 2019
Phone and/or e-mail consultation with additional agency contacts outside of the SPC region
December 2018 – March 2019
Environmental Inventory maps and Project Screening results posted to the PEL web map application for review and comment by agencies.
April 2019
Consultation coordination with PennDOT Environmental Managers (Districts 10-0, 11-0, 12-0)
April 2019
Statewide Agency Coordination Meeting presentation May 22, 2019 Formal Public Comment Period Address any comments from the public, and federal, state, or Tribal Agencies
May 6, 2019 to June 7, 2019
• Environmental Inventory and Resource mapping – A detailed inventory of available planning level data for environmental and cultural resources in the region was assembled; including numerous interactive web maps of the natural and cultural resources of the region.
• Existing State Conservation Plans and Maps – FAST Act long range transportation planning regulations require a comparison of transportation plans with state conservation plans. This section presents a list of the state conservation plans and maps that were reviewed and provides links to the plans, maps, and associated resources. Where associated GIS data was available, it has been integrated into the development of the REF and the environmental screening.
5 S m a r t M o v e s
• Regional Ecosystem Framework (REF) – This section of the application includes an interactive REF map and describes the development of the REF and its uses in displaying sensitive natural resources and special conservation areas of the region.
• Environmental Screening and Integrated Maps – This section of the application highlights the analysis comparing a sample of plan projects to the environmental inventory. For this plan, the projects selected to be included in the environmental screening were the 138 projects that are part of Stage 2 of the Appendix IV-1: Revenues and Projects Currently Within Fiscal Capacity project list. The projects in this stage are most likely to be TIP candidate projects in the near future and the highest priority to compare to the inventory of environmental and cultural resources. The environmental screening includes over 50 GIS layers representing the key indicators of the environmental resources critical to National Environmental Policy Act clearance. This section includes a summary matrix (Table 2) and integrated maps that show the projects of the plan.
• Resiliency Aspects – The application includes an integrated map showing the plan projects compared to indicators of future vulnerabilities including floodplain and flooded road closure data. For Allegheny County, advanced analysis has been conducted to show road segments with future high risk for flooding, based on the work done by PennDOT for its Extreme Weather Vulnerability Study. In addition, a landslide susceptibility model for the SPC region is under development by SPC and some preliminary results for Allegheny County are included in the integrated resiliency mapping.
• Potential Environmental Mitigation Activities – Discusses the potential options and strategies for environmental mitigation activities for resources with the greatest potential to restore and maintain environmental functions. In identifying the “types of potential environmental mitigation activities,” general examples of mitigation approaches for the most commonly encountered resource categories are presented and discussed in a detailed mitigation table. This table also discusses potential areas to carry out these mitigation options. This section also includes the interactive SPC wetland mitigation suitability tool. In the case of one of the most commonly impacted natural resources (wetlands), the output from the SPC wetland mitigation suitability tool shows geographically where this mitigation is most appropriate and has the greatest probability of resulting in a sustainable and successful mitigation wetland. This tool can serve as an important starting point to evaluating wetland suitability for mitigation projects or mitigation banks. The potential mitigation sites would still need to be field verified to make a real determination if the site is feasible.
Table IX-2: En
viro
nm
en
tal S
cre
en
ing
Re
su
lts Fis
ca
lly C
on
stra
ine
d P
roje
ct L
ist
Sta
ge
2
HW
EJR
EF
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
MPMS / GIS ID
District
Surface Water
Wilderness Trout Stream
Class A Trout Stream
Natural Trout Reproduction
Exceptional Value Stream
High Quality Stream
Stocked Stream
CWF/TSF
TMDL Stream
Navigable River
Floodplain
NWI Wetland
Future Hi Risk Flooding
Hydric Soil
Natural Heritage Area
Mussel Indicator
Forest Land Cover
T&E indicator #
Rivers Conservation Plan
Conservation Easement
Watershed Conservat Priority
Agricultural Land Cover
Agricultural Security Area
Agricultural Easement
Soils of Statewide Importance
Prime Agricultural Soils
National Wildlife Refuge
State Park
State Forest
State Game Lands
Local Park
Rec / Open Space Land Cover
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Cemetery
Trail
Water Trail
Public River Access
National Historic Landmark
NRHP Listed Site
NRHP Eligible Site
Local Historic District
Historic RR
Predicted Archaeology Hi Probability +
Hazardous Waste Indicator
Environmental Justice Area
REF Score*
Graff B
ridge P
reservatio
n2
39
78
10
XX
XN
AX
XX
XH
XX
XX
XX
76
X6
6
PA
528 o
ver Lake A
rthu
r2
42
41
10
XX
XX
NA
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
13
13
0
US 4
22 o
ver Tw
o Lick C
k.2
55
48
10
XX
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
33
36
US 1
19 Su
llivan SB
Brid
ge2
56
16
10
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
57
X1
3
US 1
19
over SR
80
01
Brid
ges2
56
21
10
XN
AX
XL
XX
X6
11
9
Freed
om
Ro
ad Im
pro
vem
ent (P
ow
ell to
Hain
es)7
23
77
10
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
20
XX
20
Margaret R
d In
tersection
85
57
41
0X
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
21
9
Karn
s Cro
ssing B
ridge
86
10
51
0X
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
X3
2X
42
Hays R
un
3R
91
26
21
0X
XX
XX
NA
XX
XL
XX
XX
XX
X3
5X
X4
3
Mars R
R B
ridge W
est Expan
sion
9
29
08
10
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
XX
26
X6
US 1
19 H
amill N
orth
bo
un
d B
ridge
95
72
71
0X
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
X1
2X
X8
US 1
19 H
amill So
uth
bo
un
d B
ridge
95
72
81
0X
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
X7
XX
2
Du
nb
ar Dip
98
68
91
0X
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
2X
X1
0
Po
rtersville Brid
ge9
87
30
10
NA
XX
MX
X7
26
Brid
ge to N
ow
here EB
PM
&W
B P
M9
88
11
10
XX
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
51
30
Brid
ge to N
ow
here EB
PM
&W
B P
M9
88
27
10
XX
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
52
5
PA
839 o
ver M
aho
nin
g Cr.
99
12
91
0X
XX
NA
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
98
X5
1
SR 42
2 Ch
eese R
n R
d to
Trim Tree
Rd
10
02
89
10
XX
XX
XN
AX
XX
HX
XX
XX
89
XX
37
Ston
ey Ru
n B
ridge #1
10
11
13
10
XX
XX
XN
AX
XX
LX
XX
XX
29
X8
2
PA
28 Slab
tow
n So
uth
10
11
34
10
XX
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
XX
39
XX
53
1/1
12
th In
fantry B
ridge an
d G
raff Ram
p
Reh
abilitatio
n1
09
62
21
0X
XX
NA
XX
XX
HX
XX
XX
X8
9X
81
SR 22
thru
Blairsville P
M1
12
42
31
0X
XX
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
XX
XX
XX
62
XX
12
SR 28
AV
E Reco
nstru
ction
11
24
27
10
XX
XX
XX
NA
XX
XX
HX
XX
XX
XX
X8
XX
47
SR 42
2 Ind
iana B
ypass R
econ
structio
n1
12
43
01
0X
XX
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
XX
XX
X1
4X
X1
0
SR 11
9 Ind
iana B
ypass R
econ
structio
n1
12
43
11
0X
XX
XX
NA
XX
XL
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X3
4X
X1
4
US 1
19 Su
llivan N
B B
ridge
11
25
37
10
XN
AX
LX
XX
63
X2
1
US 1
19 Lu
tz Scho
ol R
d N
B B
ridge
11
26
32
10
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
32
X1
3
US 1
19 Lu
tz Scho
ol R
d SB
Brid
ge1
12
66
11
0X
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
X2
8X
2
SR6
8 Safety Imp
rove
men
ts9
90
04
11
0X
XX
XX
NA
XX
XL
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X1
3X
4
Ind
ian Sp
rings R
d &
Ru
stic Lod
ge Rd
Intersectio
n Im
pro
vemen
t2
01
92
00
21
0X
XX
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
XX
34
XX
28
Natu
ral Reso
urces
T&E/C
on
servation
Farmlan
ds
Pro
tected Lan
dC
ultu
ral Reso
urces
+ P
red
ictiv
e A
rch
ae
olo
gy s
co
re is
the
% o
f the
pro
ject a
rea
tha
t ha
s a
hig
h p
rob
ab
ility fo
r arc
ha
eo
log
y.
*R
EF
Sco
re c
alc
ula
ted
by d
ivid
ing
tota
l RE
F s
co
re b
y p
roje
ct b
uffe
r are
a.
# T
E In
dic
ato
r Pre
se
nce
H=
Hig
h M
=M
ed
ium
L=
Lo
w
En
viro
nm
en
tal S
cre
en
ing
Resu
lts
Fis
cally
Co
nstra
ined
Pro
ject L
ist
Sta
ge 2
HW
EJR
EF
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
MPMS / GIS ID
District
Surface Water
Wilderness Trout Stream
Class A Trout Stream
Natural Trout Reproduction
Exceptional Value Stream
High Quality Stream
Stocked Stream
CWF/TSF
TMDL Stream
Navigable River
Floodplain
NWI Wetland
Future Hi Risk Flooding
Hydric Soil
Natural Heritage Area
Mussel Indicator
Forest Land Cover
T&E indicator #
Rivers Conservation Plan
Conservation Easement
Watershed Conservat Priority
Agricultural Land Cover
Agricultural Security Area
Agricultural Easement
Soils of Statewide Importance
Prime Agricultural Soils
National Wildlife Refuge
State Park
State Forest
State Game Lands
Local Park
Rec / Open Space Land Cover
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Cemetery
Trail
Water Trail
Public River Access
National Historic Landmark
NRHP Listed Site
NRHP Eligible Site
Local Historic District
Historic RR
Predicted Archaeology Hi Probability +
Hazardous Waste Indicator
Environmental Justice Area
REF Score*
Natu
ral Reso
urces
T&E/C
on
servation
Farmlan
ds
Pro
tected Lan
dC
ultu
ral Reso
urces
Cam
pb
ells Ru
n R
oad
27
21
91
1X
XX
XX
LX
0X
8
22/30
ove
r the P
arkway W
est2
74
45
11
XL
25
Smith
field St R
econ
struct, P
h 1 &
22
74
93
11
XX
XX
XH
XX
XX
XX
X3
0X
X6
9
PA
286/San
du
ne-Lo
gans
27
50
51
1X
XX
XX
XX
LX
XX
XX
X9
X8
Swin
bu
rne B
ridge
27
74
71
1X
XM
XX
X1
XX
6
McK
eesp
ort D
uq
uesn
e Brid
ge6
35
83
11
XX
XX
XX
LX
XX
XX
XX
28
XX
8
6th
Street B
ridge R
ehab
76
38
81
1X
XX
XX
XX
HX
XX
XX
XX
XX
43
XX
84
Electric Ave o
ver Falls Ru
n7
82
32
11
XX
XL
X1
4X
X5
PA
65: Fo
rt Du
qu
esne to
Ken
dal
79
44
81
1X
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
36
XX
49
286
/Sagamo
re-Sand
un
e PH
28
05
08
11
XX
XX
XX
XL
XX
XX
X7
X1
2
PA
51 R
esurface
91
71
81
1X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
XX
41
XX
51
PA
65/East W
ashin
gton
Street
91
76
81
1X
XX
XN
AX
XX
LX
XX
XX
XX
12
XX
2
Allegh
eny V
alley Expressw
ay9
17
82
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
XX
46
XX
42
Streets R
un
Ro
ad9
17
96
11
XX
XX
XL
XX
4X
X1
1
PA
28/H
ighlan
d P
ark Br In
terchan
ge9
18
45
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
HX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
36
XX
40
Ch
arles An
derso
n B
ridge
91
90
71
1X
XX
HX
XX
XX
2X
X1
2
PA
28: M
illvale-Etna In
terchan
ge9
22
71
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
X3
3X
X4
6
PA
28 - Etn
a Inter-B
ypass
92
27
21
1X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
X3
3X
X5
4
PA
28/Etn
a Byp
ass - High
land
Pk B
r9
22
73
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
XX
32
XX
58
PA
28: H
ighlan
d P
ark - RID
C9
22
74
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
XX
46
XX
49
PA
28 R
IDC
Park - H
armarville
92
27
51
1X
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
X3
2X
66
PA
28: H
armarville-R
usselto
n9
22
76
11
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
XX
X2
8X
X3
0
PA
65: Frt D
uq
uesn
e Br to
Cal A
ve9
22
79
11
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
39
XX
19
Talbo
t Aven
ue R
amp
Brid
ge Reh
abilitatio
n9
39
15
11
XX
XX
MX
XX
25
XX
5
Arm
stron
g Tun
nel R
ehab
93
92
21
1X
XX
XM
XX
X3
5X
X4
3
I-37
6/Ban
ksville Interch
ange (TYP
secon
d 4
yrs)9
70
28
11
XX
XX
XX
XL
XX
XX
XX
X4
XX
19
PA
65/Em
swo
rth to
Sewickley B
r9
79
34
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
MX
XX
XX
XX
52
XX
17
Tarentu
m B
ridge o
v NS R
R1
00
62
41
1X
XX
XX
XX
XX
HX
XX
XX
XX
X4
0X
X8
1
McK
ees R
ocks B
ridge P
hase 3
10
07
01
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
HX
XX
X2
5X
X5
3
Bo
ulevard
of A
llies Ram
ps
10
07
28
11
XX
XX
LX
XX
32
XX
36
PA
28 / East O
hio
Street
10
07
73
11
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
55
XX
69
PA
28 / A
lleghen
y Valley
10
07
74
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
XX
X2
5X
X4
2
+ P
red
ictiv
e A
rch
ae
olo
gy s
co
re is
the
% o
f the
pro
ject a
rea
tha
t ha
s a
hig
h p
rob
ab
ility fo
r arc
ha
eo
log
y.
*R
EF
Sco
re c
alc
ula
ted
by d
ivid
ing
tota
l RE
F s
co
re b
y p
roje
ct b
uffe
r are
a.
# T
E In
dic
ato
r Pre
se
nce
H=
Hig
h M
=M
ed
ium
L=
Lo
w
En
viro
nm
en
tal S
cre
en
ing
Resu
lts
Fis
cally
Co
nstra
ined
Pro
ject L
ist
Sta
ge 2
HW
EJR
EF
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
MPMS / GIS ID
District
Surface Water
Wilderness Trout Stream
Class A Trout Stream
Natural Trout Reproduction
Exceptional Value Stream
High Quality Stream
Stocked Stream
CWF/TSF
TMDL Stream
Navigable River
Floodplain
NWI Wetland
Future Hi Risk Flooding
Hydric Soil
Natural Heritage Area
Mussel Indicator
Forest Land Cover
T&E indicator #
Rivers Conservation Plan
Conservation Easement
Watershed Conservat Priority
Agricultural Land Cover
Agricultural Security Area
Agricultural Easement
Soils of Statewide Importance
Prime Agricultural Soils
National Wildlife Refuge
State Park
State Forest
State Game Lands
Local Park
Rec / Open Space Land Cover
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Cemetery
Trail
Water Trail
Public River Access
National Historic Landmark
NRHP Listed Site
NRHP Eligible Site
Local Historic District
Historic RR
Predicted Archaeology Hi Probability +
Hazardous Waste Indicator
Environmental Justice Area
REF Score*
Natu
ral Reso
urces
T&E/C
on
servation
Farmlan
ds
Pro
tected Lan
dC
ultu
ral Reso
urces
PA
28 / East O
hio
Street
10
07
75
11
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
XX
X5
5X
X7
0
PA
28- H
ighln
d P
k to R
IDC
10
07
76
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
XX
44
XX
0
PA
28-Yu
tes Rn
to B
ull C
k1
00
77
71
1X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
HX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X3
5X
X5
4
PA
28- B
ull C
k to B
utler
10
07
78
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
HX
XX
XX
XX
28
XX
13
SR 48
Mo
sside B
lvd-P
A 1
30 to
Haym
aker1
00
78
21
1X
XX
XX
XX
LX
XX
XX
X1
0X
X1
0
Saw M
ill Ru
n B
lvd: P
A 8
8 to U
S 19
10
07
89
11
XX
XX
XX
XL
XX
XX
XX
X3
XX
23
PA
51-Le
ban
on
Ch
urch
10
07
93
11
XX
XX
XX
LX
XX
XX
XX
X5
XX
4
Oh
io R
ver Blvd
-Terrace Ave
10
07
96
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
54
XX
13
Oh
io R
ver B
lvd-R
iver A
ve1
00
79
71
1X
XX
XX
XX
XX
MX
XX
XX
18
XX
55
Oh
io R
ver Blvd
-Ped
Walkw
ay1
00
79
81
1X
XX
XX
XX
XL
XX
XX
X3
5X
X4
4
West En
d B
ridge
10
09
56
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
X1
2X
X5
6
62n
d Stree
t Brid
ge1
00
95
81
1X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XH
XX
XX
X4
3X
X6
2
Frankfo
rt Ro
ad B
ridge
10
11
65
11
XX
XX
NA
XX
XM
XX
XX
85
XX
11
3
PA
51/M
cKin
ley - Oh
io State
10
12
32
11
XX
XX
NA
XX
XM
XX
XX
XX
16
X5
4
I-79
at PA
910
Interch
ange
10
43
28
11
XX
XX
XL
XX
XX
8X
X7
PA
18
Brid
ge over B
eaver River
10
54
41
11
XX
NA
XX
XM
XX
XX
X5
2X
X3
4
Neville R
oad
/Bab
cock R
oad
Reco
nstru
ction
10
62
69
11
XX
XX
XX
XM
XX
XX
16
XX
94
Larimer A
ve Brid
ge1
06
38
61
1X
XX
LX
5X
X6
PA
65/Em
swo
rth to
I-791
09
34
91
1X
XX
XX
XX
XX
MX
XX
XX
X5
3X
X6
8
Co
nstitu
tion
Blvd
10
93
52
11
XX
XX
NA
XX
XX
MX
XX
XX
XX
42
XX
41
Mid
land
Be
aver R
oad
10
93
56
11
XX
XX
NA
XX
XX
MX
XX
XX
XX
XX
60
XX
54
Stoo
ps Ferry R
d/M
cGo
vern
Blvd
10
93
84
11
XX
XX
XX
XH
XX
XX
XX
X6
7X
X4
1
Perry H
ighw
ay 21
09
38
61
1X
XX
XX
NA
XX
MX
XX
XX
X2
9X
7
Perry H
ighw
ay1
09
38
91
1X
XX
XN
AX
XX
meid
um
XX
XX
X1
0X
X8
PA
65 - Eigh
th Stree
t to E. R
och
ester Brid
ge1
10
35
61
1X
XX
XX
NA
XX
XX
MX
XX
36
XX
20
Westin
gho
use B
ridge
11
16
24
11
XX
XX
XH
XX
XX
X6
XX
9
SR 9
56
(Mercer R
d to
New
Wilm
ingto
n
Twp
line) - Safety in
pro
vemen
ts2
01
92
01
81
1X
XX
XX
NA
XX
XX
MX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X4
0X
18
Sewickley B
ridge P
reservatio
n P
hase 2
20
19
20
22
11
XX
XX
XX
XX
XH
XX
XX
XX
XX
27
XX
69
Forb
es Ave B
ridge o
ver Fern
Ho
llow
20
19
20
23
11
XX
MX
XX
XX
X1
X2
6
+ P
red
ictiv
e A
rch
ae
olo
gy s
co
re is
the
% o
f the
pro
ject a
rea
tha
t ha
s a
hig
h p
rob
ab
ility fo
r arc
ha
eo
log
y.
*R
EF
Sco
re c
alc
ula
ted
by d
ivid
ing
tota
l RE
F s
co
re b
y p
roje
ct b
uffe
r are
a.
# T
E In
dic
ato
r Pre
se
nce
H=
Hig
h M
=M
ed
ium
L=
Lo
w
En
viro
nm
en
tal S
cre
en
ing
Resu
lts
Fis
cally
Co
nstra
ined
Pro
ject L
ist
Sta
ge 2
HW
EJR
EF
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
MPMS / GIS ID
District
Surface Water
Wilderness Trout Stream
Class A Trout Stream
Natural Trout Reproduction
Exceptional Value Stream
High Quality Stream
Stocked Stream
CWF/TSF
TMDL Stream
Navigable River
Floodplain
NWI Wetland
Future Hi Risk Flooding
Hydric Soil
Natural Heritage Area
Mussel Indicator
Forest Land Cover
T&E indicator #
Rivers Conservation Plan
Conservation Easement
Watershed Conservat Priority
Agricultural Land Cover
Agricultural Security Area
Agricultural Easement
Soils of Statewide Importance
Prime Agricultural Soils
National Wildlife Refuge
State Park
State Forest
State Game Lands
Local Park
Rec / Open Space Land Cover
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Cemetery
Trail
Water Trail
Public River Access
National Historic Landmark
NRHP Listed Site
NRHP Eligible Site
Local Historic District
Historic RR
Predicted Archaeology Hi Probability +
Hazardous Waste Indicator
Environmental Justice Area
REF Score*
Natu
ral Reso
urces
T&E/C
on
servation
Farmlan
ds
Pro
tected Lan
dC
ultu
ral Reso
urces
Swin
dell B
ridge
20
19
20
25
11
XL
XX
4X
X6
Co
un
ty Ro
ad P
ainters R
un
Rd
20
19
20
29
11
XX
XX
XX
MX
XX
21
XX
15
US 30 C
orrid
or Im
pvm
ts3
20
40
12
XX
XX
XN
AX
XX
LX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X1
4X
X1
8
PA
711 C
rawfo
rd A
ve Brid
ge7
43
42
12
XX
NA
XX
MX
XX
XX
XX
20
XX
44
SR 3007
over I-70
75
97
21
2X
XN
AX
MX
XX
20
XX
8
Layton
Brid
ge8
11
92
12
XX
XN
AX
XX
HX
XX
XX
XX
X1
0X
78
Salina B
ridge
81
74
71
2X
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
XX
X3
4X
X6
PA
88 over W
hiteley C
reek
90
64
61
2X
XN
AX
XH
XX
2X
13
McC
lure/K
ingview
Ro
ad In
terchan
ge9
66
61
12
XX
XN
AX
XM
XX
XX
26
XX
12
PA
381: SR
40 to O
hio
pyle
98
29
71
2X
XX
XX
NA
XX
XH
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X2
1X
74
PA
711: SR
1017 to
Ch
e Ch
e Rd
98
30
91
2X
XX
XX
XX
NA
XX
XH
XX
XX
XX
X3
0X
X4
9
PA
711: U
S 30 to W
ilpen
Rd
98
33
71
2X
XX
XX
XN
AX
XH
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X3
8X
X4
6
PA
844: P
A 2
31 to W
ellsbu
rg Rd
98
34
81
2X
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
X4
4X
44
US 40: I-79
to P
A 51
99
83
51
12
XX
XX
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
XX
XX
X4
X3
0
US 40: D
aisytow
n R
d to
Lane B
ane B
rdg
98
36
11
2X
XX
XX
NA
XX
MX
XX
XX
XX
X3
6X
15
PA
381: P
A 7
11 to Im
el Rd
98
42
71
2X
XX
NA
XX
MX
XX
XX
XX
28
XX
20
PA
381: M
elcroft to
Co
Line
98
42
91
2X
XX
XX
XX
NA
XX
XL
XX
XX
XX
XX
X1
5X
X3
3
US 40: P
A 28
1 to Yo
ugh
Brd
g9
84
32
12
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
XX
X2
2X
X3
4
US 40: U
S 119 to Lick H
ollo
w R
d9
84
88
12
XX
XX
NA
XX
XH
XX
XX
XX
36
XX
19
US 40: P
A 43
to D
earth R
d9
85
05
12
XX
XN
AX
XM
XX
XX
XX
XX
24
XX
8
B'ville H
igh Le
vel Brd
g9
88
47
12
XX
XX
NA
XM
XX
XX
XX
X4
1X
X2
9
West N
ewto
n B
ridge
98
86
91
2X
XN
AX
MX
XX
XX
XX
56
XX
40
US 19: P
A 51
9 to SR
10251
00
39
61
2X
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
30
X9
US 19: SR
1002 to V
alley Bro
ok R
d1
00
41
31
2X
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
X2
4X
X2
US 19: SR
1025 to SR
10021
00
42
01
2X
XX
XX
NA
XX
XH
XX
XX
XX
39
X1
0
PA
381: P
A 3
1 to P
A 130
10
10
66
12
XX
XX
XX
XN
AX
XX
MX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X4
2X
71
PA
381 - SR
2043 to
US 30
10
10
67
12
XX
XX
XX
NA
XX
HX
XX
XX
XX
X5
3X
80
PA
201 R
amp
to P
A 51 So
uth
10
53
50
12
XX
XN
AX
XM
XX
XX
13
XX
7
I-79 R
amp
at McC
lelland
Rd
10
53
52
12
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
25
X4
PA
19/221 Ru
ff Cree
k Int
10
53
58
12
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
XX
14
X9
US 19/40: I-79 to
Ch
estnu
t Street
10
54
93
12
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
53
XX
2
US 19 C
orrid
or Sign
al & Safety U
pgrad
es1
07
43
21
2X
XX
XX
NA
XX
XH
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X3
5X
X7
+ P
red
ictiv
e A
rch
ae
olo
gy s
co
re is
the
% o
f the
pro
ject a
rea
tha
t ha
s a
hig
h p
rob
ab
ility fo
r arc
ha
eo
log
y.
* RE
F S
co
re c
alc
ula
ted
by d
ivid
ing
tota
l RE
F s
co
re b
y p
roje
ct b
uffe
r are
a.
# T
E In
dic
ato
r Pre
se
nce
H=
Hig
h M
=M
ed
ium
L=
Lo
w
En
viro
nm
en
tal S
cre
en
ing
Resu
lts
Fis
cally
Co
nstra
ined
Pro
ject L
ist
Sta
ge 2
HW
EJR
EF
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
MPMS / GIS ID
District
Surface Water
Wilderness Trout Stream
Class A Trout Stream
Natural Trout Reproduction
Exceptional Value Stream
High Quality Stream
Stocked Stream
CWF/TSF
TMDL Stream
Navigable River
Floodplain
NWI Wetland
Future Hi Risk Flooding
Hydric Soil
Natural Heritage Area
Mussel Indicator
Forest Land Cover
T&E indicator #
Rivers Conservation Plan
Conservation Easement
Watershed Conservat Priority
Agricultural Land Cover
Agricultural Security Area
Agricultural Easement
Soils of Statewide Importance
Prime Agricultural Soils
National Wildlife Refuge
State Park
State Forest
State Game Lands
Local Park
Rec / Open Space Land Cover
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Cemetery
Trail
Water Trail
Public River Access
National Historic Landmark
NRHP Listed Site
NRHP Eligible Site
Local Historic District
Historic RR
Predicted Archaeology Hi Probability +
Hazardous Waste Indicator
Environmental Justice Area
REF Score*
Natu
ral Reso
urces
T&E/C
on
servation
Farmlan
ds
Pro
tected Lan
dC
ultu
ral Reso
urces
LVTIP
: PA
819 to N
orve
lt (SR 9
81-Q20)
10
79
57
12
XX
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
X3
1X
X8
LVTIP
: No
rvelt to P
leasan
t Un
ity1
08
01
01
2X
XX
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X4
5X
X3
4
LVTIP
: Ple
asant U
nity to
Airp
ort
10
81
40
12
XX
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
43
XX
21
SR 906 R
econ
structio
n1
11
65
81
2X
XN
AX
MX
XX
XX
X2
9X
X7
Do
no
ra-Mo
nn
essen H
igh B
ridge
11
23
89
12
XX
XX
NA
XX
MX
XX
31
XX
11
Avo
nm
ore B
ridge
11
23
92
12
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
48
X6
W. Le
echb
urg B
ridge
11
23
95
12
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
X2
2X
X1
2
US 19 co
rrido
r and
intersectio
n im
prv (O
ld
Oak - W
aterdam
)2
01
92
10
11
2X
XX
XX
NA
XX
XH
XX
XX
XX
49
X1
2
US 30 W
alwo
rth V
iadu
ct2
01
92
10
31
2X
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
XX
43
XX
3
US 30 &
Geo
rges Station
Intersectio
n2
01
92
10
41
2X
XX
NA
XX
LX
XX
X1
1X
X3
Do
no
ho
e & G
eorges Statio
n In
tersection
20
19
21
17
12
XX
XN
AX
XL
XX
XX
XX
XX
8X
3
NH
S Be
ttermen
ts (19 in W
aynesb
urg, 1
8 in
Wash
ingto
n, 88 in
Ch
arleroi, 8
8 in M
on
City)
20
19
21
19
12
XX
XX
NA
XX
MX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
35
XX
6
I-70 In
terstate Deto
ur Im
pro
vemen
t plan
imp
lemen
tation
-2
01
92
12
11
2X
XX
XX
XX
XN
AX
XH
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X1
6X
X9
I-79 In
terstate Deto
ur Im
pro
vemen
t plan
imp
lemen
tation
- -2
01
92
12
21
2X
XX
XX
XX
NA
XX
XH
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X2
8X
X9
McM
urray R
d U
S 19 to
Mo
rganza R
d2
01
92
12
41
2X
XX
XN
AX
XX
MX
XX
XX
XX
48
X5
+ P
red
ictiv
e A
rch
ae
olo
gy s
co
re is
the
% o
f the
pro
ject a
rea
tha
t ha
s a
hig
h p
rob
ab
ility fo
r arc
ha
eo
log
y.
* RE
F S
co
re c
alc
ula
ted
by d
ivid
ing
tota
l RE
F s
co
re b
y p
roje
ct b
uffe
r are
a.
# T
E In
dic
ato
r Pre
se
nce
H=
Hig
h M
=M
ed
ium
L=
Lo
w