JUNE 2016

GRADUATE PORTFOLIO INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

JENNIFER BRADY DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND REGIONAL PLANNING

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reflection ........................................................................................................................................3 Cartographic Abstract ...................................................................................................................9 Cambria City Planning Report...................................................................................................10 Compositional Abstract ...............................................................................................................30 Cultural Context Statement ........................................................................................................31 Analytic Abstract .........................................................................................................................50 Somerset County Planning Report .............................................................................................51

2

My time at Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s (IUP) Department of Geography and Regional Planning can be documented as a completely different experience in comparison to my undergraduate career at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown (UPJ). I suppose everyone says that, but in more ways than one, I found that applying the same tactics and techniques to this degree and the department that I called “mine” for two years did not seem to function in the same ways as those my undergraduate career served. As a growing geographer, I found this Master’s program to be both more rewarding and now that I have finished all necessary coursework, more relieving than those feelings associated with the achievement of my undergraduate Bachelor of Arts. The largest comparison comes in regards to the sizes of the campuses, going from around 3-4,000 students to a university with about three times that amount was in a word, overwhelming, on the first day of my Master’s degree. My largest worry was that I was going to get a parking ticket—I remember viewing several yellow tags peering up from underneath wiper blades that day, and I was adamant about not being one of those guys.

The first day of my penultimate degree was not clouded by parking tickets, or the dread of getting an outrageously horrid I-card photo, or even walking into the wrong building and getting lost. It was not a negative experience, in fact, my first, and only class on Monday during the Fall semester was Introduction to Planning, a class that I felt comfortable enough with, thanks to my undergraduate work, and even more so when I found out the book was the same one used in my Urban Planning class at UPJ. To a student, there is nothing that is more relieving than having a textbook that recycles to another class.

Predominately, my graduate coursework seemed applicable to the career field I expected to see myself in, with one real lack: design principles with the application to urban design. I realize IUP is not the intended school for a degree in Landscape Architecture, or even Urban Design, however, I would have liked to have more classes that went into further detail with at least the latter. In regards to urban design, I was fortunate enough to be able to take Zach Norwood’s Graphic Communication for Planners 2cr course and Dr. Watts’s Planning Design II course. For me, this is where I realized what I wanted to do with my degree, and upon talking to Mr. Norwood, realized that IUP was not the university that offered the degree which I hoped. I found that I enjoyed programs such as Tremble SketchUp, and the Adobe Creative Suite. It was during my first Spring semester at IUP that I really discovered where I wanted to go with my degree— a feeling that was unbeknownst to me before that point. However, it was also during my first Spring semester that I realized that I was more than halfway through with my Master’s degree in Environmental Planning and quitting, or transferring at that point was unadvisable—I persevered with what I had and remained where I was, at least as far as academic institutions go.

Various courses challenged my thinking—again, it seems like every student would say this. But, when I think about “challenging”, I don’t necessarily think of advanced calculus or complex chemical equations, but more so in the philosophical genre. Thought and Philosophy on Wednesday nights both challenged me in the style of studying both through attempting to comprehend what I was reading, but also formulating a position in regards to the article or reading. Through the exams of this course, I found that attempting to emulate a style that straddled advanced and grand did not apply, nor did simplistic and straightforward. In fact, both styles were rejected, instead, I endeavored to synthesize the two, and found a style that fit with my point of view and personality.

Another comparison I feel compelled to reflect upon is my status of a commuter. I feel as though this aspect of my graduate work is necessary to include, and both contributed positively and negatively to my graduate experience and degree acquirement. My first semester was in a word—stressful. Again, I feel as though most students, at least those who apply themselves and operate in an academic manner and state of mind, feel these exact feelings. Many things occurred which I was not able to foresee, both physically and mentally, but I feel as though I handled most of the occurrences with proper judgement; and some not so

3

much. Through advisement and counseling of the situations at hand, I was able to remove myself from a negative situation, and possibly destructive force upon my degree. The commute to and from school might have increased by twofold, but in the end, I feel as though this was the correct decision, for both me and my academic career.

I also must acknowledge the transition to the “new building” as it came to be called, and Leonard Hall. Through I did not complete my undergraduate career at IUP, nor did I really have any real connection to the area as some of my peers did, I can however add that I did live in Indiana County for roughly eight years before making the transition to Johnstown to compete my undergraduate work. Leonard Hall still will maintain its charming disrepair in my mind. I will still reflect on the yellowed walls, moldy smell of the graduate office, and the poor freshman who inevitably could not navigate the shape of the building and couldn’t find their classroom, or the women’s restroom, for that matter. Next year’s incoming graduate students will never know the discotheque effect the ceiling fans had on those night classes during August or April and May. Nor will they have the frustration of locating the printer in Gail’s office. They will never have the comfort, or smell, of the graduate office sofa. They will never experience the mini-heart attack feeling of reclining too far back in one of the abandoned professorial office chairs that found its way to the graduate students. Though some may look at some of the things I’ve listed above and perceive them to be negative aspects of my graduate experience, I don’t think that is at all true. Quite the contrary, Leonard Hall might have been “too far gone” for IUP to properly maintain in an economical fashion, but it surely will not be replaced in my mind. The new Humanities and Social Sciences building may have functional elevators, a café in the basement, air conditioning and heating, various technological improvements, and wayfinding to classrooms and departments, but there’s just a certain something—charm or appeal or plain allure that is associated with the first building, Leonard Hall, I found to be “mine”.

In conclusion, my time and experience during my graduate degree was something certainly that had its ups and downs, but it was an experience that I feel stands on its own—it is undeniably one that I feel the most proud of achieving, it certainly is regarded as the most rigorous part of my life thus far, I’ve completed works successfully, I’ve accomplished goals I set out to do, but I’ve also made mistakes, failed myself in some aspects and reaped those consequences, with that being said, my experience was certainly a learning one, and I certainly am thankful for that.

In review of my works I’ve decided to include in my graduate portfolio, one of the most applicable, in my mind is the completion and effort I put into my Summer 2016 internship. For this specific experience I worked under Ryan Keita, director of Vision 2025 through Johnstown Area Regional Industries (JARI). During my experience with Vision 2025, I not only got to act as an active member in the community, a community I grew up in, but also was able to acquire a first-hand experience as being a public servant. In short, Vision 2025 is a community based effort in Johnstown, Pennsylvania that encompasses different community improvement plans, including three specific initiatives: Strong sense of community, life-sustaining landscapes, and vibrant and open local economy. Each community improvement plan includes five designated “capture teams” responsible for different issues or improvements to the community. Each capture team includes a leader and volunteers that help to achieve the goals of each of the teams. Each capture team holds meetings periodically to coordinate efforts in the community and to update each other on progress and obstacles. For example, Geocaching, Community Garden Improvement, Downtown (Johnstown) Planning and Inventory, Cambria City Planning, Energy Efficient Housing Programs, Riverwall Charrette, and Entrepreneurship Opportunities are all capture teams, among many more, identified in Vision 2025.

As per the requirements set by the Department of Geography and Regional Planning and IUP’s internship guidelines, I completed a 180-hour internship that focused on greenspace and parking inventory in a

4

neighborhood of Johnstown, Cambria City. Cambria City is designated as a historic district and is undergoing efforts to improve infrastructure as it applies to greenspace and parking. An important factor to note is that Cambria City serves as the ground for many outdoor recreational and music festivals. Currently, Ethic-Fest, Polka-Fest, and Slavic-Fest all occur within this neighborhood. Due to these, and other events, such as those run by Ace’s, a banquet and reception hall, the Venue of Merging Arts (VOMA), a non-profit reconfigured church that hosts nightly music events, and Bottleworks, an arts organization operating as a community facility, parking becomes a main issue within the community. It is concurred amongst City Hall and residents of Cambria City that when such festival events occur, and/or VOMA and Bottleworks both host an event, parking becomes an issue.

This piece of work was chosen to apply for the cartographic category of the graduate portfolio requirement as per the Department of Geography and Regional Planning’s Graduate Handbook. It was selected due to its application of both demonstrating my writing and report fabricating abilities, but also demonstrates my ability to study a neighborhood, that I may have grown up in, but have been removed from for a length of time. Many various changes occurred, most of them in the closing of businesses, consolidation of churches in the historic neighborhood, and even closing of the elementary school I attended when I was a child. Through this extensive study, I chose this specific piece because it exemplifies the practice of making maps to serve a function, not just for my final product of acquiring credits and academic achievement, but will also serve to aid my former supervisor, Ryan Kieta, in further growth and self-sustainably of the capture teams he is spearheading. This work combines aesthetics and techniques I have developed through my coursework at IUP, and also experiences I’ve had throughout my time both as an undergraduate student and a graduate student. Through this work, I believe I have built on the premise that information can be communicated spatially in both a visually appealing manner, but also in an organized methodic manner, as well.

As a growing planner, parking is an issue that never, truly goes away. Many cities continue to grow, through that may not be the case in Southwestern Pennsylvania, it is still the case in many larger cities across the United States. As job perspectives for associate or entry-level planners are fairly uncommon in Pennsylvania, it is something that I have just accepted as fact that I will acquire work in a different state, or even different region across the country. My experience as an intern serving to document, inventory, and formulate a parking recommendation as per the requirements of the City of Johnstown will not only serve me in the fact that I’ve acquired 3cr from this experience, but will also serve me in experience for employment in the field.

In addition to parking, I also worked to document and inventory vacant lots, or places in Cambria City that will be conducive to greenspace expansion. It is to be noted that greenspace does not always pertain to parks, or grassy areas, but can also apply in those aspects that include storm water management, improving a main thoroughfare, or the implementation of flora to provide visual improvements to a street, bridge, or urban trail. While working as an intern with Vision 2025, I was able to identify a multitude of vacant properties that are suitable for greenspace expansion. In addition to these properties, I was also able to identify several East-West running streets that are most suitable for streetscaping procedures. Working with Ryan Kieta, a landscape architect by trade, we were able to conclude that these streets would serve the best opportunities for streetscaping practices. From his expertise and mine, we were able to identify practices that included the best, most preferred spaces for street trees, pedestrian friendly street lights, sidewalk improvement locations and preferred areas where greenspace is most likely to flourish.

It was within the greenspace expansion part of my work that I truly found the most comfortability in working. As an individual who is concerned with environmentally friendly practices, the emergence of local businesses and their consecutive success, outdoor recreation, and the rebranding of a city that seems

5

unfairly designated as a completely negative space and plagued by constant negative press, I found this aspect of my work with Vision 2025 to be the most enjoyable. Finding an aspect of your career that is enjoyable, in my mind, is probably the most rewarding aspect, so it was during this experience, and the reason I selected this piece, that I found that two principles meshed—happiness and hope for a community that holds history for me, and a career I can relish in.

The improvement of this work, in my opinion, is going to come from continued involvement in the Vision 2025 initiative. I have communicated with Ryan Kieta that I would like to still be involved and participate, especially as it pertains to greenspace expansion, not just in Cambria City, but within the entire Johnstown region. Efforts to involve me within a capture team are in place. Other improvement options could arise in further research into the parking aspect of the report—I did not have enough time to create a formal arrangement amongst the businesses in Cambria City due to unforeseen circumstances.

The second work I have chosen applies to document my writing capabilities. Though it was not a course that was offered by the Department of Geography and Regional Planning, ANTH 616 Pre-Columbian North American Archaeology challenged me in a way that I haven’t been challenged since my undergraduate work. When we chose a path, especially within academia, we sometimes become so narrowly focused that regarding other disciplines, at least from a student perspective, does not always come to pass. I was fortunate enough to be able to register for this course and successfully complete it with an above average grade. In discussion with the professor, she was adamant about my, and another geography graduate student’s participation, work ethic, and contribution to the course.

Besides applying for a graduate-level course in my degree progression, the inter-disciplinary experience in an anthropology course was one that helped me chose this course over others offered during the Spring 2016 semester. Being somewhat related to geography, anthropology provided context for some of my interests that I may not have considered until perhaps when I was employed. The piece of work I chose was part of the final, on-going project required for the course. As part of what employed archaeologists do are called “cultural context statements”, depicting a variety of factors for a region such as lithic materials, present or non-present cultures, presence of flowing or ancient streams or confluences. A main part of this project included the research of a specific watershed, and inclusion of specific cultures or traditions that applied to the area.

I chose this piece of work to apply for the writing aspect because I believe it demonstrates my writing ability in the most academic format. Though I do not chose to continue my education to the Ph.D. level, I am considering a secondary Master’s degree in a different discipline, and I believe this work is applicable, even though it does not serve to display concrete products such as the aforementioned internship report and cartographic elements.

Within my study, I chose the Brandywine Creek Watershed, of the Lower Delaware River Basin. A significant amount of time was required to research an area I was very unfamiliar with, in both geographical and archaeological senses. This work challenged me in both regards for the fact I have never physically visited the Brandywine Creek Watershed, nor have I studied archaeology in any amount. Within the project, an extensive amount of archaic and pre-history knowledge was required for completion of the report. Using both IUP’s Department of Anthropology and Dr. S. Neusius’s resources, the final was given to Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission for their records. As per the requirement of the course, specifically, access to the Cultural Resource Geographic Information System (CRGIS) was given for the duration of the course. Handling and being responsible for very sensitive information is a skill set I believe not only academics should have, but also anyone seeking a career in any job market.

6

This selection served me in many ways and I have chosen it because it demonstrates my writing ability in the most academic format. Research, though out of the geographical discipline, is a vital aspect of a graduate degree, and being able to synthesize and create a product from that research is the main goal of the Master’s degree within the Department of Geography and Regional Planning. It is within this document, and amongst others, that I believe I have demonstrated that.

In terms of improving this work, I believe that I would want to spend more time within the CRGIS database. Due to time restraints and an unfamiliar program, I believe I only scratched the surface of what I would have been capable of if I had more time and familiarity with the software. However, this would require additional access granted by the PHMC, and I am uncertain if I would be allowed to have access to the sensitive material again. As far as improvements that were made to the piece, I re-formatted the entire document to be single spaced, deleted contradicting elements of the piece, and created a table within the appendix to portray locations of finds, as this is a crucial element to any cultural context statement.

The final aspect of my graduate portfolio is the analytical piece. For this requirement, I chose my GEOG 552 Planning Methods county report. This report was completed during the Fall 2015 semester with Dr. S. Ghosh.

This report focused on Somerset County, Pennsylvania. As per the requirements of graduate students within this course, I completed many elements such as determining the GINI coefficient, a SWOT analysis, Shift-Share analysis, and Cluster analysis to portray Somerset County’s position in respect to Pennsylvania. I used sources to the best of my ability, such as the United States Census Bureau, Social Explorer, the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. All data retrieved from these sources was reported accurately and in a visually appealing manner. The county planning report shows my expertise in analytical skills in the fact that I was able to visually provide complex and non-complex solutions to those that otherwise might have been overlooked. This report demonstrates that I am able to determine a complex problem, like an aging population or decreasing population and provide various solutions or methods that can be undertaken to rectify, or lessen these impacts.

In addition to the content of the report providing basis for my analytical skills, the document itself provides proof of my ability to break down a problem and deliver a product that is accurate and visually appealing. The report was not given in its entirety, but in sections, however, within each section were a multitude of tasks and information that needed to be determined and reported upon. Sense as to what portions of the document needed to be completed using Microsoft Excel, and further into what portions would be best displayed as line graph, or pie chart, for example.

Due to my personality being so tuned to details, this document proved to be one that I am truly proud of. Its sheer size and magnitude not only were daunting, but the data sources used were unfamiliar, and previous to taking the course, I perceived my ability using the software used to present visual graphs and charts to only be general. After the report was completed, however, my knowledge using programs to create visually appealing graphs and charts to portray information increased to above average, and excellent. I felt very confident in using these programs to create charts and graphs for various other courses, and now that my academic coursework is completed at IUP, I feel very confident using these skills in the job market and in my future employment to display my aptitude with analytical skills.

I improved this piece in a few different ways. First, the used of Microsoft Word as a medium for formatting this document was changed to Adobe InDesign. Microsoft Word is a word processing program that does have built in features such as Table of Contents, Table of Figures, and References, but due to the size of planning report, and all the figures, photos, and tables that were required in the document, this became increasingly difficult to navigate and produce a document that was editable from the professor’s point of

7

view. In terms of content, I would not retract anything, as each element serves a purpose, and I am unsure of what additions to the document would serve a purpose.

In conclusion, these pieces show only a minute part of how I have grown as a professional geographer. However, I believe them to be the best of each of the categories as per the requirement of the graduate portfolio. My growth stems from a strong base created in my undergraduate study and continued throughout my graduate degree. I feel confident in the products I have completed thus far, I have received praise for work I have completed and feel comfortable in continuing an active role in Vision 2025. This opportunity most likely would have never occurred for me due to introversion, but I am thankful and hopeful that it, especially, will serve me in my current job seeking that I have undertaken. I’ve learned a variety of things during my time at IUP—from exposure to assorted pedagogical duties through my assistantship to academic forms of writing and analytical representation in a visually appealing manner. These experiences not only shape me and will aid me in my career development and job search, but have also made me realize that I have become the best I can be at this point, and document my growth to the professional I have become.

8

GEOG 678 – Internship

The piece chosen to apply for the cartographic element of the graduate portfolio for perspective Master of Science applicant, Jennifer Brady, is the internship final report competed for the Summer 2016 semester. This piece displays portions specific to the planning discipline—i.e. elements such as zoning regulations and notations, greenspace expansion projects and landscape architecture principles, parking qualms within neighborhoods, and land use regulations that may or may not apply. This piece displays real-time data from Cambria City, a neighborhood within Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The development of this report serves Vision 2025, a community based initiative to improve Johnstown, both economically and aesthetically.

The maps used during the internship were provided by the Engineering, Architecture, and Design Services (EADS Group), however additional information was collected during the 180-hour internship, and these maps therefore did not serve the overarching goal I was working towards—identifying greenspace and parking inventory. Manipulation of these maps was necessary to provide a product to Ryan Keita, Vision 2025 Director, and supervisor.

Several applications were used to create cartographic elements both for the further development of Vision 2025 and for my immediate, personal use for the graduate portfolio and career development. Adobe Photoshop was the main computer based application used in a final deliverable product, in addition, Cambria County GIS served a purpose in providing up-to-date information regarding property ownership. An iPhone mobile application was also utilized during field work and Tremble SketchUp was used marginally, as well.

The Cambria County Planning Report not only provides information for greenspace expansion and parking availability to the City of Johnstown and those interested parties, but also served a small contribution to the Urban Trail Connectivity project run by Brad Clemenson. His intent is to create walkways and paths that connect all neighborhoods of Johnstown. To serve his interests, I identified streets in Cambria City at appropriate widths and possible routes for the Cambria City urban trail.

This report serves to provide the cartographic element for the graduate portfolio for Jennifer Brady, Department of Geography and Regional Planning at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

9

Vision 2025

Cambria City Planning

Internship Report

Jennifer Brady Department of Geography & Regional Planning

GEOG 698: Internship Summer 2016

10

OBJECTIVES

Johnstown Area Regional Industries (JARI) and Ryan Kieta and Wally Burlack, both community development professionals hired for their ability to achieve improved community and economic development, are working together to achieve the goals and mission of Vision 2025. For the majority of my time with JARI, I worked mostly under Ryan, one of the directors for the Vision 2025 initiative. Vision 2025 is a community based effort in Johnstown, Pennsylvania that encompasses different community improvement plans, including three specific initiatives: Strong sense of community, life-sustaining landscapes, and vibrant and open local economy. Each community improvement plan includes five designated “capture teams” responsible for different issues or improvements to the community. Each capture team includes a leader and volunteers that help to achieve the goals of each of the teams. Each capture team holds meetings periodically to coordinate efforts in the community and to update each other on progress and obstacles. For example, Geocaching, Community Garden Improvement, Downtown (Johnstown) Planning and Inventory, Cambria City Planning, Energy Efficient Housing Programs, Riverwall Charrette, and Entrepreneurship Opportunities are all capture teams, among many more, identified in Vision 2025.

Within the larger effort of Vision 2025, I was aiding one of the capture teams, Cambria City Planning. Within the specific capture team of Cambria City Planning are two phases: regulations and design guidelines, and projects and physical improvements. Both phases have time schedules appropriate for the scope of work included. This specific capture team works under Rick Truscello, AICP and Planning Services Director for The EADS Group. In the previous

stage for Cambria City Planning, Rick worked with the multiple individuals and organizations to designate Cambria City as a National Register Historic District and helped develop new design guidelines (achieved April 2015) funded by Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Developmental, and the Community Foundation for the Alleghenies. His work includes details pertaining to the current infrastructure of Cambria City, architectural patterns of the current buildings and residences, and important current guidelines for new construction. Construction guidelines include those that pertain to floodplain requirements and building form and pattern. The initial review identified key buildings in the neighborhood, including 16 proposed sites for planned reuse.

The next stage in Cambria City Planning includes 22 individual elements approved by the City. Those elements include community engagement, development of a neighborhood logo, examination of current building conditions, a parking study, evaluation of existing land use, walkway improvements, and river access, among many others. My internship primarily supported the parking study and greenspace expansion opportunities. Within the parking study, analysis of on- and off- street parking availability was completed. Documentation of current parking standards of the City was also acquired. However, obstacles with the parking standards (Article VIII) arose, and will be detailed further in this report. Due to unforeseen circumstances, consultation with surface lot owners and the production of a formal parking agreement was unable to occur. In the stakeholder meeting with Rick Truscello, Renee Daly (insert title...) and Ryan Kieta this issue was brought up, however, resolution at the time was difficult to achieve.

11

Additional information in the analysis of existing land use will aid development leaders in updating the mapping from the Cambria County Comprehensive Plan. Traffic calming and

streetscape improvements to specific roads were documented graphically and recommendations through conceptual drawings were given.

PRODUCTS OF INTERNSHIP

My duties served to inventory and map greenspace expansion opportunities and parking lot availability. I also produced a plan for greenspace and parking availability within the Cambria City neighborhood of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. In addition to this task, I also analyzed the neighborhood for existing and potential greenspace locations and briefly determined urban trail connectivity to downtown Johnstown.

I developed a graphic plan and recommendations for greenspace expansion and parking inventory (for those determinable sites) using Adobe Photoshop and base maps created by The EADS Group. All graphic representations of work are available in the Appendix. Additional work included analysis of the neighborhood for urban trail connectivity to downtown Johnstown and adjoining neighborhoods.

GREENSPACE EXPANSION

Currently within Cambria City there are several vacant lots that fall under the category for greenspace expansion. A variety of owners, including private businesses and private residents, own the surface rights to these lots. Mineral and underground rights to all parcels within Cambria City are owned by Pristine Resources Incorporated. All ownership rights were determined using Cambria County GIS, an online GIS site detailing up-to-date information.

Greenspace expansion occurred in several different mediums. For example, The EADS Group had previous identified 16 feasible sites. These sites include several already vacant lots with property owners appearing to be cooperative with greenspace introduction and expansion, while some are still under private ownership, and others designated as holdouts. Through field work, several additional properties were identified using Canvassmate, an iPhone mobile application; field work identified a total of 26 sites. Sites from both the field study and the initial assessment overlap, the revisited number of potential greenspace sites for Cambria City is 36. Of those 36, the total vacant parcels of land identified are 19. All sites with current ownership information are listed in the Appendix.

In an effort to reduce fragmentation of greenspace, and to use the current physical layout, a suggestion was made to improve the east-west running streets: Cambria Place, Power Street, Brallier Place, and Chestnut Street. By using these existing streets as infrastructure, efforts to improve—by ways of streetscaping such as implementation of trees, assorted planters, or other landscaping methods—are suggested. Due to its large amount of traffic and current status of State Route 56, Broad Street is not included into the greenspace expansion. However, when redesign is applied to the rest of the neighborhood, this street and its design should be revisited to improve continuity within the neighborhood. Important features to consider when implementing Broad Street into the greenspace expansion of Cambria City is the large amount of traffic it carries. Numerous heavy trucks utilize this road as a thoroughfare, in an addition to everyday commuters. Due to this factor, traffic calming practices, such as curb extensions and enlarged medians, would be aspects to consider. Within the greenspace expansion plan, an important factor to consider is business collaboration and agreements. Several businesses within Cambria City are in support of the greenspace expansion: Bottleworks on 3rd

12

Avenue, Cambria City Flowers on 6th Avenue, and Stella Property Development. Both Stella Property Development and Cambria City Flowers are owned by the same individuals. Bottleworks is one of the key institutions within Cambria City due to the fact it has acquired grant money to reconfigure its existing parking lot to a green parking lot. Architectural plans have been designed and presented to Angela Rizzo, Executive Director at Bottleworks. Several goals of the redesigned parking lot include: multi-purpose use and flexibility; maximization of pedestrian friendliness; and utilizing the existing, local businesses in the area and to work to have communication amongst them regarding when events are taking place. In a stakeholder meeting, Angela Rizzo was very cooperative and offered designs for the kind of space they are envisioning to act as a catalyst for the neighborhood. One of her main goals is to create an order of importance and utilize the space in a way that is applicable and agreeable with everyone involved. In an effort to satisfy all parties involved, Bottleworks is working to maintain some level of parking within its facility, as well. In regards to the parking availability in Cambria City, some factors Bottleworks is looking to consider are expected crowd numbers, timing of events, and a concrete agreement amongst the current businesses.

Additional businesses in the neighborhood include owners of Cambria City Flowers and Stella Property Development, Chad. E. Pysher and Steven J. Biter. Both have expressed interest in helping revitalize the community through greenspace expansion. They currently own three properties in Cambria City, all of which have been identified by JARI and field work as sites feasible for greenspace expansion.

Theorizing that Bottleworks’ green parking lot will act as a catalyst in the area, several opportunities for expansion arise through the acquisition of several dilapidated residences and businesses and vacant lots. Some factors to keep in mind when expanding greenspace within a community is the fact that

greenspace should remain as connected as possible. Fluidity of greenspace in not only ideal from a planning perspective, but also from a natural biodiversity perspective. Additionally, the use and development of core areas is desirable from a greenspace planning perspective. Using The EADS Group’s base map and information from field work and ready provided information, several maps were produced with viable scenarios to be implemented periodically, see Figure 1. Ownership of vacant lots are listed in the Appendix. Area E focuses in the eastern area of the community, it is encouraged to work with Bottleworks’ lots and run along the side of Roosevelt Blvd. (Area G) on the side nearest the river. This area is theorized to be a suitable space for a proposed greenway corridor. However, the convergence of Broad St. and Roosevelt Blvd. is understood to be dangerous due to heavy and high speed traffic; therefore, prolonged pedestrian use in Area G is discouraged. Greenspace expansion is to run along to Power Street and connect with 6th Ave., Areas H, D, and C. Currently, across from JAHA, the is an empty lot (Site 7 owned by Carrie Foor,– the previous 6th Avenue Pizza restaurant). Adjacent is a residence owned by Keith Krisay, that would need to be acquired and demolished to complete the corridor on that side of the street. On the other side are two parcels, both under Toth and Simkovic ownership. Area A, in the Northern corner of the neighborhood is similar to the previous scenario, as it is theorized that a greenway corridor would be constructed along the river. The cooperation of the 10th Street location of Alternative Community Resource Program (ACRP) is also required in this scenario. However, at the northern corner of the neighborhood, Lot 1, owned by the Kovalchick Corporation, proves to be an obstacle, due to monetary issues and land speculation on his part. The current condition of this land does not meet the amount of money Kovalchick is requesting. As the status of several businesses within this scenario is unknown, some factors are still undecided when considering this as an opportunity for greenspace expansion. Lot 2, owned by MTR Inc. currently serves several unknown residents or businesses as cars periodically and permanently use it for

13

parking. However, the application of street trees, streetscaping methods and community efforts to improve Cambria Place and Chestnut St. (Areas I and J, respectively), is not hindered by the aforementioned obstacles. In coordination with a central greenspace theme, Area D that utilizes Lots 8, 9, and 10 would be an additional ideal inclusion in the first scenario. As these lots are located more or less centrally in Cambria City, the acquisition of ownership of the surface rights would be quite important for greenspace expansion. Current ownership of these lots are as follows: Pysher and Biter, Carpenter, and End Poverty Now Incorporated, respectively. Areas B and F, both located along Broad St. at opposite ends, are potential locations for proposed gateways. Examples of proposed signage would include welcoming or notice of leaving Cambria City. These areas are crucial to include because currently there does not appear to be any recognition of the historic neighborhood to

passersby, and unless you’re local, you might not even know of its historic and cultural importance. Additional theorized empty and possible acquired businesses in Cambria City include: Kindya Electric Contractors, The Parrot Bay Café, and The Hungarian Reformed Church. Status of these businesses are listed as non-vacant, but non-functional. Residences that appear to be in a state of distress include those along Roosevelt Blvd., Lot 18, owned by Pietron and Moore, respectively, Lot 15 owned by Stephen Toth, and Roxbury Place. Further investigation into current status of ownership and acquisition ease has been conducted through communication with Jennifer Burkhart, Codes Officer, for the City of Johnstown. She lists the following properties (as of May 2016) as vacant: 403-405 Chestnut, 220 Chestnut, 421 Brallier Place, and 724 Broad Street.

PARKING INVENTORY

The current parking availability in Cambria City was quantified using both online GIS resources (Cambria County GIS and Google Maps), maps provided by JARI and The EADS Group, along with supplemental field work. Issues in parking arise when vendors come in to provide for events. These vendors take up space, those attending the events need space, businesses in operation around the event need space, and residents need space. Coordination with businesses in event holdings and communication amongst them is required for alleviation of parking issues and residential complaints. Institutions, such as Bottleworks, are unsure of current Cambria City or Johnstown parking standards as these tend to differ from city to city. Further communication with Renee Daly, and Kimberly Struble, building code official, regarding building codes and permits was confirmed, however, these parking standards proved to be difficult to apply to several of the businesses in Cambria City and requirements proved to be difficult to apply. Obstacles regarding

the parking inventory will be detailed further in this document.

The zoning classifications for Cambria City include: Municipal (M-1), Residential (R-2), TND, Commercial (C-2) and Conservancy (S). The surface lots are located in all of these zones except Conservancy. Lending to the availability of parking for residents and commercial businesses.

Examples of establishments with surface lots in Cambria City include several retail businesses, places of worship, residences, and numerous restaurants and bars. Additional establishments include several privately owned business such as an electrical contractor, an auto body shop, and a car dealership.

Parking space requirements for Cambria City were derived from the City of Johnstown’s Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII: Supplementary Provisions, provided by Kimberly A. Struble, building code official. However, complications occurred when these requirements were applied to

14

the establishments of Cambria City, as Article VIII describes the parking standards in an extensive amount of detail. Due to temporal restraints and the extensive labor requirement it would take to derive accurate measurements for parking lots in each of the establishments in Cambria City, quantification of parking requirements cannot be completed at this time. Additionally, it is to be noted that the City of Johnstown neglects to consider on-street parking in Article VIII. When applied to a neighborhood, such as Cambria City, it is unadvisable to not take this into account.

Analysis of Cambria City’s residential parking requirement totaled 138.5 parking spaces allotted to residences for one-and-two and three-or-more family homes. Field work, Cambria County GIS, and Google Maps aided in proper identification of residential buildings in contrast to those buildings which serve a commercial function. When quantification parking in Cambria City, we realized that there is a parking shortage and efforts to either change the City’s parking standard or create more parking opportunities must be taken.

In analysis of spatial trends, most homes are focused in the center blocks of Cambria City. Residences occur in 83% of the blocks. In analysis of the parking requirement, it is to be noted that all residential buildings share the block with a business or an empty lot.

In application of the City of Johnstown’s parking standard, designation of one space per one-two family residence and one and a half spaces per three-or-more homes, analysis yields that Cambria City is indeed short of parking. Some homes have the convenience of attached or unattached garages; however, these were disregarded during field work as ownership was unsure and some have their own parking spaces within their lot. Whilst this is not the case across the neighborhood, it does appear more than several times. Assumption lends to the idea that these people either do not own personal vehicular transportation, or they simply park on the street adjacent to their home. Utilization of on-street parking is prevalent and convenient in Cambria City and should be recognized by the City’s parking standard.

URBAN TRAIL CONNECTIVITY

Brief work was also contributed to the urban trail connectivity project, proposed and lead by Brad Clemenson, coordinator of LIFT Johnstown. This is an attempt to connect several hiking, walking, and biking trails in the downtown, Cambria City, and West End sections of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Several corridors have been identified and examined for connectivity:

Corridor 1 Connecting the Cambria Iron Trail through Cambria City and the West End

Corridor 2 Connecting the Path of the Flood Trail to downtown Johnstown

Corridor 3 Connecting Greenhouse Park to the existing James Mayer Riverwalk Trail

For the intent of this study, examination and location feasibility focused on Corridor 1, especially as it pertained to Cambria City’s position in the urban trail connectivity, and the ongoing efforts that are being taken to enhance this historic neighborhood. Field work was conducted in late May 2016 to determine most possible routes that include appropriate street width, sidewalk availability, safety issues, and use of existing infrastructure. All proposed routes are included in Figure 6 in the Appendix.

The importance of urban trails should remain in the forefront, especially as organizations have helped identify positive impacts on neighborhoods that incorporate urban trails into their built environment. Amenities such as these not only help improve health issues such as obesity, but when put in a location that has destinations in downtown areas or CBDs, can help to alieve traffic congestion, and increase greenspace in areas where it would otherwise be difficult to foster.

15

In Cambria City, there are three possible routes for connection to downtown Johnstown:

The first scenario in the Urban Johnstown Connectivity Project utilizes the foot-bridge along Broad Street as a crossing point. In this scenario, the urban trail is theorized to come from downtown Johnstown, along Iron Street, and cross the foot-bridge at the intersection of Broad Street and Roosevelt Boulevard. From there, it would be routed along the side of Roosevelt Boulevard closest to the Conemaugh River. When the trail reaches the intersection of 4th Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard, it will turn right to run along Power Street, it will continue to 6th Avenue where it will continue westward. The urban trail is then expected to run along 6th Avenue towards the adjacent Brownstown neighborhood. Extension beyond Brownstown was not determined for this project.

Important factors that lent to this decision was that this specific scenario employs the already existing strip of land along both Roosevelt Boulevard and Power Street. Also, making Roosevelt Boulevard a one-way street will allow for some safety concerns to be alleviated. In an attempt to create a more enhanced Cambria City, the 6th Avenue corridor plays an important role in the Cambria City Planning part of Vision 2025.

Additional work in this particular scenario includes improvement of pedestrian access to the sidewalk along Broad Street – a heavily used state route for both commuters and heavy truck traffic. Also, if the proposed pathway is to occur at the intersection of 6th Avenue and Broad Street, traffic calming devices, or improved street crossings would have to be implemented for the safety of pedestrians and bikers. Additional information is included in the Obstacle section of this document.

The second scenario holds similar characteristics to the first scenario, however, instead of crossing the foot-bridge at the confluence of Roosevelt and Broad, the proposed urban trail is expected to go along Iron Street and come to connect to 4th Avenue and across the 4th Avenue bridge. From the intersection of 4th Avenue and Power Street,

the proposed path is then along Power Street until it reaches the 6th Avenue intersection. It is proposed to run along 6th Avenue, again extending across Broad Street to Brownstown.

Within this scenario, Broad Street and its heavy traffic is altogether avoided. This proves to be an important avoidance due to safety concerns and efforts that would have to be taken to make this corridor pedestrian friendly and safe. Again, this proposed urban pathway would incorporate 6th Avenue in its design, lending to the idea that Cambria City has opportunity for expansion of greenspace and improvement of this particular avenue.

The third scenario holds similarities to the second scenario where it utilizes Iron Street and the 4th Avenue bridge. From there, it will continue shortly along 4th Avenue, and will turn right to go along Chestnut Street. The proposed pathway is to then extend all the way to 10th Avenue, and will then circle back to 6th Avenue by way of Cambria Place.

As this scenario is the opposite in terms of adhering to the periphery of the community, it lends to a more tourist perspective of Cambria City. By looping around the community, this proposal will highlight specific, important buildings that would possibly lend to further economic development opportunities in Cambria City. Due to its historical designation and cultural past, a proposal to include prominent buildings, such as the churches or featured businesses, this scenario holds a factor that would prove beneficial to explore.

An alternative scenario would be to incorporate the most beneficial aspects of the others, while dismissing the most obstacle-ridden aspects of each. While this is a possible scenario, it does require further research into additional aspects of Cambria City (e.g. built environment, amenities). that should be included in an urban trail connection.

When completing a project such as urban trail connectivity, important things to consider when bisecting or skirting the edges of neighborhoods are the neighborhood’s strengths and weaknesses.

16

Cambria City is no exception as it possesses certain features that fall into one of these two categories.

Overall, Cambria City has strong infrastructure that supports the implementation of an urban trail project. Sidewalks line most of the streets (except Brallier Place and Cambria Place) and sections of Roosevelt Boulevard. Due to the conditions of the alleys (Brallier and Cambria), it is unadvisable to implement a pathway through these areas. Not only are the alleys narrow, but lighting is sporadic, and potentially dangerous during nighttime hours. Additional strengths Cambria City possesses lie in its lengthy historic and cultural past. In 2015, it gained newer design guidelines and is currently going through additional planning initiatives to improve and enhance these aspects. An effort should be made to highlight these important, marketable features, especially those centered around the ethnic, cultural aspect Cambria City possesses.

Within Cambria City, several obstacles prove to be difficult to overcome in the planning and implementation phase of an urban trail. Several scenarios have been planned, but each includes some level of challenges. The biggest downfall of Cambria City is its location along Broad Street. This state route allows for heavy traffic, both industrial and residential for most daylight hours. Crossing Broad Street proves to be unsafe and difficult in some locations, as well as in some other locations, such as along Roosevelt Boulevard where sidewalks are sporadic and non-existent along one side. Additional problems arise in regards to the infrastructure, especially as it relates to the lack of housing and business setbacks. Problems may occur with increased foot and bike traffic along sidewalks. Further examination and possible surveying and public input meetings would be required to determine if this statement holds true.

These recommendations stand solely as conceptual and are in no case permanent and subject to change.

TECHNIQUES & APPROACHES

Several methods were employed in the completion of the Greenspace and Parking Internship through Johnstown’s Vision 2025.

Most maps were acquired digitally, composed by The EADS Group and shared with knowledge of their use through Google Drive. Other techniques for completing the internship included two days of field work—each served a quantification of vacant lots or distressed structures or surface lot maximum spaces. Additional methods included use of Adobe Photoshop for digitizing structures, depicting use, and detailing current ownership, as of May 2016.

Conceptual designs were constructed through hand-drawn sketching and later digitized with Adobe Photoshop.

Various stakeholder meetings took place which provided information regarding both greenspace

expansion and parking inventory information. Other sources of information included building code officials for the City of Johnstown, and code enforcement officers for the City of Johnstown.

Stakeholder meetings consisted of interested parties, such as Renee Daly, Director of Community and Economic Development for the City of Johnstown, Angela Rizzo, Director of Bottleworks on 3rd Avenue in Cambria City, and Rick Truscello, (AICP) of The EADS Group. Ryan Keita was present at all stakeholder meetings. Additional information that pertains to the parking inventory included the parking space equation for determining parallel parking spaces: !"#$$"&$'(")(+".)

./. Measurements for street length

were calculated using Google Maps’ measurement function. The following table depicts the numerical breakdown of analysis of the actual parking availability in Cambria City.

OBSTACLES

Obstacles included mainly those pertaining to temporal and labor restraints. As mentioned previously, using the City of Johnstown’s parking standards in detail is not feasible during a 3cr internship. Due to these standards—e.g. 1 space per 2 barstools and 1 space per employee at peak hours and 1 space per 250 square foot of space used for business operation for restaurant/bar parking requirements—application was not able to be completed in the time I had to perform my duties. The quantification of parking requirements for Cambria City were not able to completed in an accurate manner due to this stipulation. This obstacle affected additional elements of the internship including formalization of a parking agreement amongst business owners in Cambria City. However, in

the quantification of parking spaces available in Cambria City, this number was easily computed through field work and the aforementioned mathematical equation.

Additional obstacles arose with the completion of the parking agreement amongst business owners in Cambria City. Due to the parking standard requirement not being completed, an agreement letter formalizing parking requirements was also unable to be completed.

Obstacles arose in scheduling stakeholder meetings due to the schedules of those involved; however, these were all rescheduled and all stakeholder meetings that were proposed to occur did indeed occur.

OBSTACLE RESOLUTION

In an attempt to complete parking space requirement quantification, an idea to apply a secondary parking standard to Cambria City was explored. It was theorized to be an adequate alternative as parking standards appeared to be similar across the country, and through working with Ryan, simpler standards were thought(?) to exist. This resolution seemed doable and time efficient, as well.

However, application of parking spaces dependent upon square footage of buildings seemed to be prevalent across the country in each parking standard that was identified. Therefore, the use of another city’s parking standard did not seem to be appropriate.

In an attempt to deliver an accurate, concrete final product under the direction of Ryan Kieta,

analysis of residential parking was the only parking inventory that could be performed. Using the City of Johnstown’s parking standard of one-and-two family residences are allotted one space per unit, and three-or-more family residences are allotted a space and a half per unit. Familiarity has been established with the layout and general building structures within Cambria City, so additional field work was not deemed necessary. With the use of Google Maps, satellite imagery, and Cambria County GIS, building structures were identified that appeared to adhere to residential designation. Ownership of residences were identified, and these findings were keyed to a Photoshop map and PDF. See Figure 5 in the Appendix for visualization.

Additional resolutions were provided in the stakeholder meeting with Renee Daly, Rick

On-Street (parallel parking) 1,094 Off-Street (surface lots) 500 Off-Street (residential surface lots) 30

TABLE 1: CAMBRIA CITY PARKING

18

Truscello, and Ryan Keita. All findings and obstacles were presented at City Hall in Johnstown. It is recognized that further information is still needed to determine proper parking requirements for Cambria City. As Director for Economic and Community Development, Renee Daly is taking over the remainder of this project. Rick Truscello also brought up the implementation of variances and potentially using footprints of buildings to determine square footage of buildings to then determine the parking requirement, in a “working-backwards” fashion.

Within the urban trail connectivity project, specifically, obstacles arise in each of the scenarios aforementioned; however, particular obstacles are relevant to particular scenarios, while other obstacles apply to all the scenarios.

In the first scenario, the main obstacle to overcome is the fact that Broad Street abuts the sidewalk and foot-bridge that is proposed to extend along Roosevelt Boulevard. The safety of pedestrians should be held at highest importance, and alleviation of all probable and possible safety hazards should be considered. This route extends along Roosevelt Boulevard where sidewalk opportunities are lacking, but along the riverwalls is an extensive, connected space of grass existing infrastructure is present but this space fluctuates in width, where the smallest width is about 2 feet. In such places, opportunities for an urban trail that incorporates biking would be hard to maintain with pedestrian walkability standards. Additional safety concerns arise in relation to the confluence of Roosevelt Boulevard and Broad Street—this intersection is perceived to be dangerous, especially as vehicles tend to speed

around the corner. A possible alleviation in regards to this specifically, would be to make Roosevelt Boulevard a one-way street.

Specific to the second scenario are several obstacles that are related to traffic and pedestrian safety, as well. In relation to the 4th Avenue bridge, a considerable amount of truck traffic uses this as a thoroughfare. Though this street does not run along Broad Street as the first scenario does, it is expected to cross it at the 6th Avenue intersection, across from JAHA, thus lending to additional safety concerns with pedestrians crossing streets.

The third scenario also is proposed to run along Iron Street and cross the 4th Avenue bridge. Within this scenario, as well as the second, increased traffic amounts may cause distress amongst some pedestrians. Obstacles may arise specific scenario in regards to navigation, especially as the urban trail pathway is proposed to loop through Cambria City instead of following a linear path. As this proposed pathway is the longest and most extensive, an obstacle that may come up is monetary funding.

All scenarios are expected to cross Broad Street at the 6th Avenue intersection. This intersection does have a stop light for traffic on all four-ways. However, additional traffic calming practices are recommended to be employed to ensure safe crossing for pedestrians. Additionally, the route along 6th Avenue, especially up the hill, is an extensive slope, and may prove to be difficult for some people. However, the end route for all proposed urban trails may shift and result in other obstacles not detailed in this report.

FINAL CONTRIBUTION

The final contribution to the Vision 2025, Cambria City Planning capture team was in the form of a narrative, several maps detailing key sites including vacant lots, greenspace expansion scenarios, and surface and off-street parking opportunities. Recommendation scenarios are followed up within the following paragraphs.

Theorizing that Bottleworks’ green parking lot will act as a catalyst in the area, several opportunities for expansion arise through the acquisition of several dilapidated residences and businesses and vacant lots. Some factors to keep in mind when expanding greenspace within a community is the fact that greenspace should

19

remain as connected as possible. Fluidity of greenspace in not only ideal from a planning perspective, but also from a natural biodiversity perspective. Additionally, the use and development of core areas is desirable from a greenspace planning perspective. Using The EADS Group’s base maps and information from field work and ready provided information, several maps were produced with viable scenarios to be implemented periodically, see Figure 1 in the Appendix. Ownership of vacant lots are listed in the Appendix Additional improvements to Cambria City include the dismantling of the river walls, a project that has an extensive timeline and is not expected to be complete for years to follow. However, as this project has been proposed to the Army Corps of Engineers, and accepted, work is expected to begin Summer 2016 with analysis of the current need of the walls being completed through the use of geographic information systems (GIS), surveying, remodeling, and analysis. Cambria City is expected to benefit from this development, under the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers.

Cambria City will also benefit from streetscaping principles such as the incorporation of street trees, appropriate elements for sidewalk zones, traffic calming procedures where applicable (Roosevelt Boulevard), flexible use of parking lanes for on-street parking maximum use, high visibility crosswalks where necessary, an increase in public open space, pedestrian buffering, and the encouragement of neighbor interaction are all community planning practices that can be applied to Cambria City. Opportunities for curb expansion should be seized when possible, lending to the increase of public space and creation of amenities. By improving the street corridors in this fashion, other improvements are theorized to follow, such as increases in local businesses and increase in neighborhood prosperity. To conclude, this recommendation for Cambria City revitalization is a component of the City of Johnstown’s Vision 2025, using an open collaborative approach including residents and businesses to improve the current status of greenspace and parking in Cambria City.

INTERNSHIP APPLICATION TO CAREER GOALS

Recognizing that my overall career goal is a significant amount of time in the future, and due to the fact that I wish to discontinue my educational attainment at Master’s degree, my internship has served me in more ways than I initially perceived.

From a political perspective, it was enlightening to see all the obstacles someone like Ryan Kieta, who maintains a director position in Vision 2025, must overcome before reaching a small, concrete goal. For example, the Progress Party, which was held on May 23rd, 2016 at the Cambia City bar Ace’s, simply updated the community on small barriers and goals that have been overcome and achieved in the past year. Though seemingly small, the Progress Party and the community effort that banded together to achieve a project such as Vision 2025 was illuminating, especially

for a city like Johnstown that predominately has a negative reputation. When I initially applied for this opportunity, I admit I was not completely aware of the scope of the project until late in May when I attended the event. Being able to participate in an initiative such as this is not only applicable to a career, but also encouraging.

Additionally, stakeholder meetings and involvement with those people that are active in the community serves a crucial role in my career goal achievement. When looking to accomplish goal such as designation of a neighborhood to historical, cooperating and maintaining functioning relationships with those individuals is crucial; not just from a planning perspective and career, but from any career goal one desires. The benefits from the ability to coordinate a meeting, and actively participate with people

20

interested in the same thing you are is a skill that applies directly.

As one of the directors for the Vision 2025 initiative, Ryan Kieta was not always present and in the office Monday-Friday. The ability to work independently, problem-solve, and develop forward-thinking skills that allow one to move on to the next project are also skills that have been developed from this internship that apply directly to my personal career goals.

The capture team I was aiding was Cambria City Planning, led by Rick Truscello, AICP at The EADS Group. In my duties, I inventoried and analyzed properties, including vacant lots, dilapidated buildings, or residences or structures that are in prime locations for acquisition and development of greenspace. As my Master’s

work was centered in Environmental Planning, this internship applied directly in what I perceive my immediate employment opportunities to be and where I see myself in a working environment. Being a Johnstown native it was not only practical for me to complete an internship within the city, but more specifically, Cambria City, but it was encouraging to see initiatives being sparked and completed in a city that often gets negative remarks and bad press.

In conclusion, the Cambria City Planning internship not only has direct application to my specific career goals, but also aided in cultivating other skills crucial to a career that has focus in the public sector, and involves individuals from organizations that not only include engineering and design, and other private companies, but non-profit organizations and prominent city officials.

21

APPENDIX

Lot Number

Ownership

1. Kovalchick Inc. 2. MTR 3. Plescovik 4. Shahade 5. Pysher and Biter 6. Cambria City Parks and Recreation 7. Foor 8. Pysher and Biter 9. Carpenter

10. End Poverty Now 11. St. Casimir 12. St. Stephen’s 13. Bottleworks 14. Bottleworks 15. S. Toth 16. Kline 17. Kline 18. Moore and Pietron 19. McConaughy Estate

Lot Number

Ownership Spaces

1. Cambria City Mission 12 2. B & L Wine Cellar (Gerard and Susan Brill and Richard and Antoinette Lamm) 7 3. Our Son’s – Customer (Frederick J. Folta) 11 4. Our Son’s – Staff (Frederick J. Folta) 3 5 Francis G. Ozog Funeral Home Inc. 58 6. 6TH Ave. Pizza Den—closed (Nicholas C. Bennet) 7 7. Cambria City Vet (Vincent and Johanna L. Vena) 24 8. Village St. Café (Big Enterprises LLC) 13 9. IBEW 13

10. Subway suite (Nicholas C. Bennet) 14 11. John and Shirley Allevato (residence) serves Missy’s Place 5 12. Johnstown Concert Ballet ( Carla A. and Joseph M. Prucnal Jr.) 7 13. Clean Water Car Wash (Morris Kline) 13 14. The Phoenix and Hideaway Bar – employees (David Sapolich) 5

TABLE 2: VACANT LOT OWNERSHIP

TABLE 3: OWNERSHIP AND SPACE COUNT

22

15. The Phoenix – customers (David Sapolich) 36 16. Ray Lint (car dealership—merchandise needs parking) 14 17. David Sapolich (residence) 5 18. Diamond Conformal Coating LLC 17 19. Volocko Construction LLC 8 20. Altoona-Johnstown Diocese (St. Stephen’s, The Resurrection parish) 40 21. Stephen Pisarcik (residence) 2 22. Johnstown Housing Authority 42 23. Johanna Urena and Stephanie Cribas (residence) 2 24. RECA Limited Partnership 6 25. St. Rochus 27 26. William Pleskovic (residence) 4 27. Dennis Fitzpatrick (residence) 4 28. Kindya Electric Contractor 5 29. St. Rochus Congregation 16 30 Robert and Theresa Cassat (residence) 2 31. Aaron Hocker (residence) 2 32. Martin Furman (residence) 1 33. Martin Furman (residence) 2 34. Maria Skunta (residence) 2 35. Mary Ann Robatin (residence) 1 36. Deborah Dziagwa (residence) 1 37. Joseph Kurchma (residence) 1 38. Andrea Fenimore (residence) 1 39. Johnstown Police Department (restricted access) 15 40. Caroline Rolley (residence) 2 41. St. Mary’s Church 5 42. ACRP 8 43. Bottleworks 40 44. Ace’s (Hadix-Green Partnership) 18 45. St. Mary’s Church 42 46. St. Stephen’s Church 9 47. Stephen Olenick (residence) 5 48. End Poverty Now Inc. “No Parking” 20 49. MTR Inc. (grassy area not really intended for parking) 15 50. Roxbury Place 13 51. The Back Door Café (Thomas M. Chulick and Denise L. Thompson) 5 52. David M. Hodos (residence) 2 53. Dewey’s Auto Body (Paul James Boratko) 10

23

FIGURE 1: RECOMMENDATION SCENARIOS

24

FIGURE 2: VACANT LOTS

25

FIGURE 3: SURFACE LOT (PURPLE) AND ON-STREET PARKING AVAILABILITY (ORANGE)

26

FIGURE 4: COMPLETE MAP DETAILING PARKING AND GREENSPACE EXPANSION

27

FIGURE 5: RESIDENTIAL PARKING (GREEN) VS. UNCOUNTABLE PARKING (RED

28

FIGURE 6: URBAN TRAIL CONNECTIVITY SCENARIOS

29

ANTH 616 – Pre-Columbian North American Archaeology

The compositional element I chose to display my graduate level writing ability falls outside the Department of Geography and Regional Planning, however, throughout my time in the anthropology discipline, and specifically, this course, I found similarities between the two departments, and my thinking challenged in many ways, had I decided against taking the course.

The piece I chose to display my writing ability is the Cultural Context Statement, an archaeological research project that took place during the Spring 2016 semester. This piece displays my writing ability through the interpretation and research of information in the Brandywine Creek Watershed, located in southwestern Pennsylvania and northern Delaware. Elements included in the Cultural Context Statement include those that pertain to Pre-history research and analysis, Archaic research and analysis, Transitional research and analysis, and Woodland research and analysis. Several of these time periods are specific to the Middle Atlantic region of the United States, while others are observed across the county.

This piece shows specific abilities that include responsibility with the use and access to sensitive information within the Pennsylvania Cultural Resources Geographic Information System (CRGIS), research and interpretation of archaeological information, and synthesis of pertinent information and the ability to formulate a coherent, academic, graduate-level product.

This report serves to provide the compositional element for the graduate portfolio for Jennifer Brady, Department of Geography and Regional Planning at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

30

`

Cultural Context Statement

Brandywine Creek Watershed

Jennifer Brady Department of Geography & Regional Planning

ANTH 616: Pre-Columbian North American Archaeology Spring 2016

31

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This document is a prehistoric archaeological data synthesis for the Brandywine Creek Watershed. This watershed is part of the Delaware River, designated Lower Delaware Subbasin (03), and is designated further as Watershed 03H. This report is designed to aid in the mitigation of major, multi-component prehistoric sites, as well as provide information regarding regional, archaeological, and historical and geologic surveys in the area.

This report should prove useful for archaeologists and those involved in present and future projects in this area, as well as those non-professional individuals or groups that may or may not be affected by cultural artifacts or harbor interest with assorted Native American prehistory of eastern Pennsylvania and the Delaware River Basin. This document will provide information from sources such as the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), the Bureau of Historic Preservation (BHP), Pennsylvania Archeological Site Survey (PASS) criteria, and provide a synthesis of Cultural Resource Management (CRM) information. Additional information regarding geographic locations of archaeological sites within the watershed and

their respective physiographic features will be provided in the appendix at the conclusion of this document. For this report, access was granted to the Pennsylvania Cultural Resource Geographic Information System (CRGIS), due to differences on the state-by-state level, data for Delaware could not be retrieved, and Pennsylvania information will only be reported upon.

GEOGRAPHY & ENVIRONMENT

The Brandywine Creek Watershed encompasses a total of 301 sq. miles of total drainage area. The watershed begins in the Honey Brook area of northern Chester County, Pennsylvania and flows southward until it reaches the Christiana River in

Delaware. It is holds a total of 372 streams which flow for roughly 536 miles. Geographically, the Brandywine Creek Watershed is located in southeastern Pennsylvania and northwestern Delaware. It straddles Chester County and

FIGURE 1: BRANYWINE CREEK WATERSHED

34

Delaware County in Pennsylvania, and New Castle County in Delaware. Several major cities including West Chester, Pennsylvania and Wilmington, Delaware are included within this watershed (Brandywine Valley Association: 2015).

The Brandywine Watershed lies within the Northern Piedmont and Piedmont Uplands physiographic provinces. The Piedmont Uplands are characterized by broad, gently rolling hills

and valleys with low to moderate relief. The portion of the valley situated within the Piedmont consists of broad, moderately dissected valleys and karstic terrain. Additionally, the Blue Mountains serve as a boundary line geographically, and also culturally for Laurentian influences. Several factors such as pollution sources stemming from a mix of agricultural and urban procedures impact the watershed in a fairly negative perspective.

BACKGROUND & KEY PROJECTS

The Brandywine Watershed is designated under the BHP as yielding quality data on archaeological sites located in upland settings. Using PHMC and CRGIS data resources, information yielded distinct and numerous sites including those affiliated with Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Transitional, and Woodland. Additionally, archaeological surveys and geologic surveys have been conducted in compliance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. From CRGIS and PHMC, archaeological site information is available for the watershed.

However, it is to be noted that in addition to Prehistoric and Archaic peoples, the Brandywine

Creek Watershed is also home to some post-European contact sites, as well. Near Chadds Ford, along U.S. Route 1, lies the Brandywine Battlefield Revolutionary War site.

Geologic surveys of the area have concluded that not only are the Piedmont Uplands extremely faulted and faulted, but that the bedrock of the region is comprised of roughly three specific types of metamorphic rocks: metamorphic sedimentary rocks of the Wissahickon group, gneiss and intrusive rocks of the Wilmington complex, and basement gneiss of the continent and its metasedimentary cover, which includes quartzite and marbles (Brandywine Watershed: 2015).

CHAPTER 2

PREHISTORY & PALEO-INDIAN

Dating back to nearly 13,000 B.C., Native Americans occupied the rugged landscape of the Lower Delaware River basin and the subbasin of the Brandywine Creek Watershed. By utilizing the natural resources available to them, Native Americans were able to hunt, fish, and gather a vast array of flora and fauna to survive and flourish in this region of the Piedmont Uplands and the Northern Piedmont physiographic regions. Paleo-Indian site types include quarries, lithic reduction stations, base camps, base camp maintenance stations, outlying hunting camps,

and isolated finds (Custer: 1996). A specific site within the Brandywine Creek Watershed, detailed by Custer, with Paleo-Indian tracings: (36CH644). This site is characterized by PASS as having a middle slop setting, and has been found with Paleo-Indian point and biface traces.

Prehistoric occupation in this drainage area occurred somewhere between 13000 B.P—10000 B.P. when it is suspected that small groups of families migrated into the previously uninhabited region. It is suspected that these people moved into the area due to the recession of the Wisconsin

35

glacial ice, with the first 5,000 years of inhabitance being thought to have been characterized by a cold and wet climate.

Overall, the vegetation of the region at this time could be characterized by a mixture of grassland, deciduous forests and boreal forests. However, environmental change occurred around and after 8000 B.C. with a general shift towards a drier climate. During this time, spruce and boreal forests are thought to dominate the land with small amounts of deciduous trees and mixed grasslands dotting the landscape.

It is thought that the Enterline industry may represent some of the earliest human occupation in Pennsylvania with these people exploiting land closest to the water sources in their territory. There is a definite focus in the Delaware Valley and its principle feeders for occupational areas. In the Upland regions, it is thought that these people preferred to be near reliable water sources for obvious sustenance for themselves, but also for the attraction of possible huntable game. It is also found that these areas were very poorly drained and remain to be part of the swampy floodplains of the Brandywine Creek. The water sources provided focal points for hunter-gatherer settlement within the high mobile subsistence communities. It is also theorized that any movements within these settlements were compromised by the fact that these early people were so reliant on their lithic materials, hence, they would be heavily located in areas where these preferred bedrock sources were located. However, it is to be noted that Pre-Clovis evidence for occupation simply does not exist within the Brandywine Creek Watershed (Custer: 1996).

Archaeological sites from this time period and region are usually identified by the fact that points were very well-crafted and made from high quality stone. Some of these high quality points are made of chert, while jasper was also very common. The majority of these fluted points were made of Pennsylvanian jasper, fine-grained black flint, and Onondaga chert. These peoples are thought to have carried their tools with them to various other, nearby locations. Some theorize this true because of evidence found in New York,

New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. Others proposed the idea of a trade route and social exchange of these items (Custer: 1996).

These points are characterized by a single, long, channel-like flute, and various scrapers and flake tools are also commonly found with these point styles. In further analysis of the lithic materials and material culture of the region, it is found that use of non-local flint for their points was profoundly rare, and straight or parallel sided points made up most of the blade found, with some figures estimating numbers not quite half, but close at 42.1% (Custer: 1996).

In analysis of the transition of Paleo-Indian to Archaic Period in Pennsylvania, there seems to be absence of clear cultural success. In addition to the absence of this clear cultural succession in Pennsylvania, there is also absence in New York and New England. This information suggests a kind of hiatus for the entire region.

When determining the presence of Paleo-Indian sites in Pennsylvania, it has been determined that the majority of sites occurs in the western section of the state as compared to the eastern, and they are especially lacking within the Susquehanna and Delaware drainage basins. However, this does not mean that there is a lack of Paleo-Indian

FIGURE 2: A DISTRIBUTION OF PALEO-INDIAN SITES ARE DETAILED IN RED (PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION: 2016)

36

and Early Archaic sites within this region, as information does exist and is discernable through the CRGIS program. Specific Paleo-Indian sites have been documented within Chester County: (36CH160), (36CH200), and (36CH136) and (36CH175). These specific Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic sites were discoverable due to the fact that they were found within a part of an

oxbow lack of the Brandywine River. Some other Paleo-Indian sites that were found in the lowlands of southern Chester County and Delaware counties are located in Kennett Square and Hockessin.

CHAPTER 3

EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD

The Early Archaic Period is given dates ranging from around 10000 B.P.—8000 B.P. In Eastern Pennsylvania, there is little known regarding the Early Archaic Period. However, it is to be noted that in a general sense, the tool forms changed in this time as compared to the Paleo-Indian occupation. The fluted points from Paleo-Indian times changed to stemmed and notched points. This major technological change is seen to define the Early Archaic period from the other time periods archaeologists look at. Additionally, the emergence of polished tools is another distinct marking of the Archaic Period as compared the Paleo-Indian. The greater variety of productions styles in the assemblages also leads archaeologists to the reasonable distinction between these two time periods because of the technology shift acting as a distinctive trait for marking the Paleo-Indian period from the Archaic.

Additionally, the lithic materials used to construct these points also changed. Rhyolite use increased (Custer 1996: 129). Another change that dominated this time period is the fact that mobility may have decreased. It is theorized that this occurred because archaeological sites show information that lends to the idea that people settled into regions—these same regions being the ones their ancestors initially explored and occupied during their Paleo-Indian times.

These people present in this time period are also theorized as moving over large territories to

acquire the location and materials that were easily found and collectable. The idea that the people of this time period followed the migration patterns of large game probably holds false, but the idea of hunting elk, deer, or other small game might have dominated the diet in the sense of large mammals. While hunting and fishing are important, it is also theorized that these people were able to consume a variety of seeds, nuts, roots and berries. However, as there is little evidence of the stone tools to prepare or aid in the consumption of these foods, this remains a theory. A possibility for the lack of tools, however, remains in being that the tools used to crush, or prepare these foods for consumption were accomplished with degradable materials, such as wood or bone, or antler tools. If this is the case, these materials would not have been normally preserved in the archaeological record of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Archaeology: 2011).

Within this time period, it is rare to find organic materials, such as food remains preserved. Inferences on the main diet of these people living in this time period are based predominately on the tools and lithic materials found at know sites. From these inferences, it can be assumed that the people of the Early Archaic time period were mostly generalized foragers, and hunter gatherers (Minderhout: 2013).

Jay Custer, an important contributor to eastern Pennsylvanian archaeology, (1996) designates

37

the Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic period into a Hunter-Gatherer I period because of the interpretation of the lifestyle of the Early Archaic period being vaguely changed from the Paleo-

Indian, this interpretation follows William Gardener, as the lifestyles of the shift from Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic period seem to be simply unchanged.

EARLY ARCHAIC IN THE BRANDYWINE CREEK WATERSHED

In the Brandywine Creek Watershed, the Archaic traditions in Pennsylvania are split into Laurentian, west and northwest) and the Piedmont tradition. Within Eastern Pennsylvania, the knowledge and concrete evidence of the Early Archaic Period is lacking. However, several isolated sites with Early Archaic tendencies were found in the PASS database, and will be discussed further. Within this time frame, a total of eleven Early Archaic sites have been recorded in the CRGIS database. For example, representing the Piedmont Tradition, Chadds Ford site #1, is an example of an open habitation that is designated prehistoric, Early Archaic. The artifacts found at this particular site include chipped stone tools and stone debitage specimens. At the Exton Lane site (36CH0919), Early Archaic tendencies are present. With lithic materials such as quartzite, jasper, quartz, chert/flint, and argillite also being present features. At this particular site, chipped stone tools were found in quantities upward of 40. The dominant tradition at this site is Piedmont with 18 diagnostic artifacts found in the area with materials from argillite, quartz, and quartzite. Additionally, Palmer, Lehigh/Snook Kill, and Laurentian Tradition were also found at this particular site.

At the Woodward site (36CH0374), radiocarbon dates place features such as rock hearths and fire pits, cache pits, and postmolds at roughly 3950 ±60) and 2000 ±60. General artifacts from this site include a significant number of stone debitage (4041), chipped stone tools (116) and cores (140), however, their material is unknown. A single granite celt was found in the area, with two hammer-stones from unknown material. The diagnostic artifact type that is associated with this site shows predominately Lamoka with 12 counts, followed by Susquehanna, Triangles (Late Woodland), Lehigh/Snook Kill and Adena (stemmed points).

In general, points from the Early Archaic time period within the Brandywine Creek Watershed do not show that they were ground and polished. These projectile points also do not show basal grinding. The use of rough, non-flinty stones was continued, but as time progressed, these people were found to also use flint, chert, and jasper. And probably most importantly, the knives and projective points from this time are probably the most sensitive indicators archaeologists use to determine the transition from Paleo-Indian times to the Archaic Period.

MIDDLE ARCHAIC

The Middle Archaic is said to have occurred around 8000 B.P.—5000 B.P. At the beginning of the Middle Archaic, broad leafed trees began to dominate the forests. These trees included species that supplied a wide variety of nuts, include walnut, hickory, butternut, and oak to the people of this time. Additionally, grasses that produced seed and edible roots, plus edible berries were also available for consumption. A wide variety in the kind of animals that were able to be hunted

are also distinctive of this time period, such animals include species of deer, beaver, bear, rabbit and a variety of fish. With the increase of food resources available, adaptations and a variety of tools also emerged in this time period. They include tools such as axes or adzes to exploit the hardwood forests, and at atlatl (spear thrower) was used for hunting animals (Pennsylvania Archaeology: 2011).

38

Within the archaeological record, charred nuts, such as acorn and walnut began to appear. As do the grinding stones for the process of these nuts and seeds. For fishing purposes, netweights have also been found. It is theorized that the emergence of these tools lends to the idea that plants and fish were becoming more important to the people at this time, and they were being processed in larger quantities than ever before. With the idea that large quantities of nuts and seeds are easier to obtain than a large mammal through hunting, and the idea that these seeds and nuts were more easily stored for future consumption. As Pennsylvania Archaeology points out, “…there is a 150% increase in the number of sites from this time period compared to the Early Archaic and it is believe that this represents a significant increase in human populations” (2011).

The Middle Archaic time period, or as Custer defines it, the Hunter-Gatherer II cultural period (Custer 1996:133), is not only a poorly understood and known about time in eastern Pennsylvania, but also across the Middle Atlantic region as a whole. An important factor affecting the Middle Archaic time period and our knowledge about the people and their culture is the shift in environment. This important environmental change affected populations all throughout the Middle Atlantic region, not just eastern Pennsylvania (Custer: 1996), and is defined through the gradual rise in sea level to accompany the retreat of the continental ice sheets. In a period following the Paleo-Indian, the Holocene marine transgression phenomenon also occurred in this time period, rising sea level produced widespread lowland flooding, which then extended up into many river valleys, included the Lower Delaware where the Brandywine Creek Watershed is situated. Effects

of these lower river valleys flooding include a marked rise in local water tables, an increase in shoreline complexity, estuary developments, and an increase in floral and faunal resources in newly formed marsh, bog, and wetland areas.

Additional information regarding the points of this time period include the fact that bifurcate base bifacial tools are used as a diagnostic of the Middle Archaic in eastern Pennsylvania. Most of the bifurcate bifaces within the Brandywine Creek Watershed have been found on upland slopes near ephemeral streams and bogs.

Custer (1996:133) identifies the region within a widely distributed “Atlantic Slope”. Like the Early Archaic, there are changes in the technology of this time period, leading to a distinct split from Early to Middle Archaic. This includes the use of ground stone tools, that may indicate and increased reliance or intensification of plant based diet. Additionally, there is a shift in the amount of residential mobility, a decrease may not have occurred, but the movements of the people of this time period suggest that they appear to have become more predictable and regular in their movement patterns. Caching of tools or raw materials support this hypothesis, additionally, it also suggests that these people have developed a system for return visits to certain places. A variety of lithic sources were used, and these include course-grained stone material. Within the Middle Archaic time period site types include base camps and procurement camps. The procurement camps are often manifested as small lithic scatters. Within the Middle Archaic, the settlement pattern is perceived to be different from the preceding periods.

MIDDLE ARCHAIC IN THE BRANDYWINE CREEK WATERSHED

Within the Brandywine Creek Watershed, there are several Middle Archaic sites found through the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and CRGIS database. For this time period, a total of 18 sites were found in the Brandywine Creek Watershed. Kaufman Site I (36CH0537) an open, prehistoric site of unknown

function was found to contain rock hearths and fire pits, with chipped stone tools and stone debitage. Within this specific sites, Koens Crispin/Savannah River and Susquehanna diagnostic artifact types were found. At Kaufmann II (36CH0438), a village site type was found with 90-100% intact site conditions. This

39

site yielded chronology from lithics placing it within Middle Archaic, and Late Woodland. Radiocarbon dates place the site at, or around the following: 760 (±70), 530 (±60), 830 (±80), 570 (±80), 170 (±70), 430 (±80), 270 (±50). Storage pits, and trash pits were found, with (355) postmolds with several extended burials. Lithic materials found at this site include quartzite, quartz, limestone/dolomite, and diabase. The largest number of general artifacts found at this site is prehistoric ceramics (778) of unknown material. Other general artifacts found at this site include adzes, antler and bone, celts, clap pipes, fire cracked rock, ground and polished stone tools, hammerstone, human bone, redware, and stone debitage. Additionally, diagnostic artifact types that were present at this site included American stoneware, bifurcate points, Funk Incised, Lancaster Incised, Late Woodland ceramics, Shenks Ferry Cordmarker, Transitional

Whiteware, and Triangles from the Late Woodland time period.

At (36CH0646) Area DB-4 North, within the Piedmont Lowland Section, Archaic lithics were found, mostly containing quartz. These artifacts were chipped stone tools and stone debitage. With stemmed Adena, creamware, ironstone, Pearlware (all decoration types), Susquehanna, and traditional Whiteware artifact types. At the Valley Creek Area-A (36CH0721), cache pits were found with Paleo-Indian, Middle and Late Archaic, Transitional, Early, Middle and Late Woodland, as well as dates ranging from 1700-1900. The diagnostic artifact types found in the area were bifurcate points, broadspear, fluted point, Kirk Stemmed, Koens Crispin/Savannah River, Lamoka, Middle Woodland points, notched/stemmed points, Orient, Perkiomen, Transitional Tradition, and Triangles from the Late Woodland.

LATE ARCHAIC

The Late Archaic Period is from years dating 5000 B.P.—3500 B.P. Within this time period, archeological data is significantly more abundant during this time than for the preceding time periods. The data that has been collected from this time period and suggests a transition from mobile hunting and gathering to a more sedentary lifestyle. This more sedentary lifestyle is also accompanied by increasing social complexity and an increasing rate of cultural change (Custer 1996: 163). According to Custer, the majority of the lithic scatters may be represented by quartz debitage. Regardless, the settlement patterns that appear in this time period deem to lend to the idea that a shift of peoples to locate near the reliable water sources. This might have occurred because of environmental shift that occurred during this time period, from a wet climate towards more of a dry climatic episode. In addition to the increase of population during this time, collection strategies and extensive exchange networks are theorized to have developed. In eastern Pennsylvania, the overall hypothesis stands that people formed band or other social group territories. Within the Late Archaic period, the

Delaware Valley Archaic complex and the Popular Island complex occur (Custer 1996:179).

As with the preceding time periods, lithic material use continued to increase as time progressed. Local materials dominate the lithics, while it is theorized that other materials, such as argillite seem to take on a social, symbolic, or ideological value (Custer 1996 214-216). During the Late Archaic, the introduction of heavy wood working tools and stone bowls marked the technological shift.

The Late Archaic period can be seen as a time of trend intensification from the Middle Archaic period. During this time period, human populations continued to increase in size. Additionally, grinding stones and netweights became increasingly more popular. In addition to fishing, it is theorized that nets played a crucial role in the acquisition of birds. By the Late Archaic, it is also evident that human population size within bands increased to such a point that foods needed to be more efficiently processes and in larger quantities to sufficiently provide for themselves. The archaeological record provides

40

the data to support this assertion as large roasting hearths appear more frequently around this time period. These hearths are found in floodplain sites, and data shows that they were most likely used to process nut and root tubers. During times of plentiful food sources, it is expected population sizes were rather large, and in winter, it is theorized that these larger groups broke into smaller groups to occupy camps. By the end of

the Late Archaic period, there is evidences in the form of charred nut shells and plant residues that show a greater variety seeds were exploited. During this time period, there is evidence that the people began to focus their time on collecting and growing seed plants. The squash is seen to have been one of the most likely first cultigens supplementing the diet of the Late Archaic (Pennsylvania Archaeology: 2011).

LATE ARCHAIC IN THE BRANDYWINE CREEK WATERSHED

In eastern Pennsylvania, the Late Archaic period is characterized by spear points lacking stem constriction. There is also a great variety of basal smoothing occurring. Largely, the eastern part of the state is found largely void of grooved axes, bannerstones, and other elaborated groundstone tools. It is clear this time period differs from its preceding time periods in simply the forms and site numbers recorded, as PHMC and CRGIS have identified a total of 132 sites that represent the Late Archaic.

Within the Late Archaic, most of the sites under the PHMC and CRGIS database are recorded as Open Habitations and Lithics, however, further investigation concluded that two quarries were present, site (36CH0836) and site (36LA0962). The latter, LASA-30, has chronology dating to Prehistoric Late Archaic, Transitional, and Late Woodland. The dominant lithic materials were quartzite and quartz. Additionally, Broadspear, Laurentian Tradition, Piedmont Tradition, Potomac Creek Cord Impresses, and Late Woodland Triangles were also found at this site.

Piersol site, (36CH0339), a village site type was also classified under this time period. Found 60 meters from the nearest water, it shows that the peoples did choose to begin sedentary lifestyles

near reliable water sources. Radiocarbon dates put the village site at or around 810 (±80), 440 (±70), 550 (±140), 400 (±60), 730 (±80), 240 (±70), with prehistoric, Late Archaic, and Late Woodland time periods being represented. Late Archaic, Laurentian Tradition, Madison, Orient, Prehistoric, Late Woodland Triangles, and Vinette (interior, exterior cord-marked large temper-conical/globular) being present.

CHAPTER 4

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD

The Transitional Period, or the Terminal Archaic, as it is sometimes known, marks the time between

the Archaic Period and the Woodland. The dates given to this period are 3500 B.P.—3000 B.P.

FIGURE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF ARCHAIC SITES IS DETAILED IN RED. (PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION: 2016)

41

According to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, the Transitional Period marks some kind of a climatic change to a warm, dry period that is theorized to have affected the hunter gatherer strategies practiced by the people of this time. Like the Late Archaic, the sites of this time period are more commonly found in close proximity to a reliable water source. The sedentary lifestyle of these people also continue from the Late Archaic period into the Transitional Period.

Another defining characteristic of the Transitional Period is that trade becomes important and stone for making tools is traded for over hundreds of miles. It is also true that burials ceremonialism appears for the first time in the eastern United States, though this does not remain true for Pennsylvania. It is theorized that there is significant change in social organization around this time period, though that theory lacks substantial amounts of evidence.

A distinctive trait of the Transitional Period is the emergence of a new spear point style. These points are large and broad-bladed, and known as broadspears. These spears were made from materials such as jasper or metarhyolite, but also are found in less common materials such as chert, quartzite, and argillite. While the function of the broadspear is contested amongst archaeologists, the belief is that they served either as cutting, scraping, and drilling tools, or that they were in fact made for the name given to them. Other tools commonly found in the Transitional Period are bannerstones, net sinkers, and assorted grinding stones for the processing of seeds and nuts. During the Transitional Period, it is theorized that the importance of processing nuts and seed became more important, as the collections of seeds such as knotweed, little barley, and maygrass are found to have increased during this time. It is believed that fishing starting to become increasingly popular and an important source for food during this time, with the food collection methods from the Late Archaic also being used during this time.

Commonly placed in this period is the use of soapstone or steatite. The use of this rock material is most often found in the form of portable

cooking containers, the precursors to fired clay pottery. The bowls often are heavy, and thought to have been traded over long distances, therefore, their significance to the people at this time period is thought to be extremely significant. Such significance might have been for celebrations of marriage, feasts, childbirth, or in religious observance. In addition to bowls, steatite disks, in the form of beads and pendants have been found in Transitional Period sites within Pennsylvania. The trading of steatite objects hints at a development of alliances and trading partnerships that emerged during this time (Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission: 2015).

FIGURE 4: BROADSPEARS FROM TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. SOURCE: PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION WEBSITE

FIGURE 5: AN EXAMPLE OF A STEATITE BOWL. SOURCE: PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION WEBSITE

42

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD IN THE BRANDYWINE CREEK WATERSHED

Within the watershed, PHMC and CRGIS identify 37 archaeological sites that have Transitional Period resemblances. Most of the sites have “Open Habitation” for their site type, however, two quarries are listed, in addition to “Lithic Reductions” and “Historic and Prehistoric”, amongst multiple “Unknown”.

At site number (36CH0161), Lincoln #3/Kowoski, the site is listed as a historic, lithic reduction, open habitation, prehistoric. The nearest water was measured as being 0 meters away (an extinct stream), with the 2nd nearest water measured at 10 meters away (perennial stream). This site has chronology ranging from 1900-2000, prehistoric, Archaic, Transitional,

and Woodland. The Radiocarbon dates from this site are as follows: 346 (±53), 606 (±126), 643 (±137), 1049 (±75), 1715 (±79). The features of this site include storage pits/trash pits, rock hearth/fire pits. And postholes/postmolds. Lithic materials from this site include quartzite, jasper, quartz, rhyolite, and chert/flint. The majority of general artifacts found at this site include stone debitage (14,259), prehistoric ceramics with (1,090), cores at (418) and chipped stone tools at (75). Grooved axes, ground and polished tools, and pestles/grinding/pitted stones were also present at this site. Lamoka, Late Woodland ceramics, Marcy Creek, Minguannan Series ceramics, Orient, Perkiomen, Shenks Ferry Incised (Stewart) and Late Woodland Triangles were also present at this site.

At site (36CH0465), Transitional Period is represented as well as Prehistoric and Archaic. The main lithic material of this site is quartzite, and broadspears and Perkiomen were identified at this site.

At site number (36CH0034), Kauffman Steatite Quarry, the Transitional Period is represented in the feature of a quarry pit with the main lithic material of steatite. From this site, steatite bowls and fragments were found.

CHAPTER 5

EARLY WOODLAND PERIOD

The Early Woodland Period as defined by Neusius and Gross (2014:378) is defined as the years from 3000 B.P—2250 B.P. During this time period, a profound culture change occurred. The Early Woodland Period, along with the Middle Woodland Period, marks the beginning of the time when the major river valleys yielded

avenues of communication (Custer 1996:223). Seasonal settlement included winter base camps with storage features, while upland sites are seen as transient camps, in this sense, sedentary lifestyles are seen to have increased. From these base camps, it is hypothesized that groups of people were sent out to acquire wild plant foods

FIGURE 6: A DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSITIONAL SITES IS DETAILED IN RED (PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION: 2016)

43

such as seed or nuts, and in addition, to bring back huntable game. It is also theorized that the domestication of squash and maygrass might have occurred in this time period, though the evidence is lacking and inconclusive. These plants may ben been commonly grown in gardens in the eastern part of the state at this time, as well.

Many of the interior lithic scatters are related to this time period. It is theorized that exchange systems and trade moved rhyolite and argillite though the region, but collapse of tis trade network found its demise by the end of the Middle Woodland Period (Custer 1996:237). Some evidence also points to the movement of Algonquian speakers into the region from the north (Fidel 2001).

During this time, the environment is characterized by the prevalent oak-hickory forest. The rate of sea level rising is theorized at occurring at a slower rate, which allowed for estuary environments to form and allow for the stable populations of shellfish and fish in larger streams and rivers (Custer 1996). The character of settlement also shifted to account for the environmental change, peoples moved to the riverine environments and banks of the rivers for reliable water sources, but also to take advantage of the prevalent food sources, in the form of fish, shellfish, and other marine organisms.

It is during this time period that the first pottery is Pennsylvania was hand molded, had small handles, was flat bottomed and had plain surfaces. “The bottoms show impressions from being shaped on some kind of woven mat. These earliest pots seem to be crude, ceramic copies of soapstone bowls. Slightly later vessels were built up of slabs or coils of clay and conical in shape. They were welded together with a wooden paddle wrapped with cord or string, which left impressions of the cordage on the outside and sometimes the inside of the pot. Although seemingly fragile, pottery vessels probably represent a significant change in the processing and storage of food resources” (Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission: 2015).

It is during this time that fishtail points started to become evident in eastern Pennsylvania. In eastern Pennsylvania, there are four mounds that can be attributed to Early—Middle Woodland time periods (Custer: 1996). Though sporadic, the Adena culture is present in eastern Pennsylvania, with the largest Adena cache at Shelley Island. It is also during this time period that paddled cord and net impressed pottery become prominent.

The Early Woodland Period appears to have been a very dynamic, technological, social and religiously involved period of archaeological record. However, the understanding of why and how these developments is lacking and requires future research as to the record of happenings.

EARLY WOODLAND IN THE BRANDYWINE CREEK WATERSHED

Using the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission’s resources, along with CRGIS, (17) archaeological sites were identified with Early Woodland tendencies.

At site (36CH0332) Locus 8, an open habitation, prehistoric designation, Early, Middle, and Late Woodland are represented, as well as Late Archaic and Prehistoric. The lithic material at this site is 91-100% quartz, and prehistoric ceramics, chipped stone tools, and stone debitage has been found at this site. The diagnostic artifact type at this site has been identified as Piedmont Tradition, Steubenville/Fox Creek, and Late Woodland Triangles.

At site number (36CH0837) Ewing 2, Middle Archaic, Transitional, and Early Woodland Periods have been identified with lithic material of quartzite, and jasper being predominately present. Chipped stone tools and stone debitage were the general artifact types, with bifurcate points, Steubenville/Fox Creek and Transitional Tradition making up the diagnostic artifact types.

At Dutt #L/Parke Farm, (36CH0283), an open habitation, prehistoric site, found at 0 meters to the closest water (extinct stream) and 60 meters from the 2nd nearest water (perennial stream), lithic and ceramics are present. The chronology denotes Prehistoric, Late Archaic, Early, Middle

44

and Late Woodland time periods. The features of this site include rock hearths and fire pits, postmolds, and burials. Jasper, quartz, rhyolite, and chert and flint were all found as lithic materials at this site. Prehistoric ceramics, chipped stone tolls, clay pipes (prehistoric), fire

cracked rock, gorgets, pendants, hammerstones, and non-utilitarian lithics were also found at this site. The diagnostic artifact types at this site are Late Archaic, Middle Archaic Points, Orient, Shenks Ferry Cordmarked, and Late Woodland Triangles.

MIDDLE WOODLAND

The Middle Woodland ranges from circa 2250 B.P.—1500 B.P (Neusius and Gross 2014:378). Traditional Mid-Atlantic approach designates the Middle Woodland occurring from this time, which is appropriate for eastern Pennsylvania.

It is during this time period that the most significant population change occurs. Custer (1996) states that the increase in population levels during the Early and Middle Woodland periods followed a demographic trend that began in the Late Archaic, he uses the Abbott Farm site as evidence. As in the Early Woodland, trade and exchange networks flourished at this time period, however, by the end of the Middle Woodland, this extensive system collapses. Within this time period, The Black Rock Complex of the lower Delaware River valley and the Wolfe Neck Complex of the northern Delmarva Peninsula are characterized by the presumed extended or multifamily base camps that found occupation beginning in the Early Woodland. As with the Early Woodland, these peoples began to become more sedentary, finding base camps near reliable water sources and riverine environments (Custer 1996 259-260). The lithic scatters that occur in higher numbers are probably due to the movement of small groups during winter dispersal when these small bands of people would leave their riverine base camps that they occupied during the spring, summer and fall seasons (Custer 1996:248). It is hypothesized that some degree of population restructuring occurred

during the Early Woodland and Middle Woodland periods, resulting in the large Middle Woodland component at the Abbott Farm site. This restructuring might have been due to the environmental changes that occurred at this time. Chipped stone artifacts include broad-bladed, stemmed and notched points. Point types considered to be reliable indicators of this time period include those found at Otter Creek, broadspears such as Susquehanna, Perkiomen, and Koens-Crispin, and Savannah River, and Fishtails (Custer: 1989). In many areas, especially in the Piedmont to the west and north of Lower Delaware River basin, certain lithic materials are commonly associated with specific broad bladed points—for example: rhyolite for Susquehanna, and argillite for Koens-Crispin. Artifact associations lead archaeologists to believe that the broader points were designed to exploit the new riverine resources, found commonly with steatite vessels (Witthoft: 1953).

MIDDLE WOODLAND IN THE BRANDYWINE CREEK WATERSHED

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, along with the CRGIS database identifies (26) archaeological sites that meet Middle Woodland criteria. Most of the sites fall under “Open Habitation”, with several being “Lithic Reduction” and the remaining sites being

designated as a variety of “Historic/Unknown” and “Prehistoric/Unknown”.

Brandywine Conservancy sites, found 57 meters from the nearest water and 90 meters from the 2nd nearest water. Its site number, 36DE0088

FIGURE 6: PERKIOMEN BROADSPEARS SOURCE: DELAWARE DIVISION OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS WEBSITE

45

(previously 36DE22,) is placed under Prehistoric, Late Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Historic chronology. This site was found with the majority of lithic materials containing quartz. General artifacts from this area include architectural, historic ceramics, prehistoric ceramics, chipped stone tools, historic clay pipes, coins, cores, fire cracked rock, glass, ground and polished stone tools, redware, and assorted stone debitage. The diagnostic artifact types from this site include Lamoka, Piedmont Tradition and Redware (all types).

Site number (36CH0152), an open habitation, prehistoric site was found 40 meters from the closest water (an extinct stream) with the 2nd closest water being 150 meters away (a perennial stream). This site has chronology that places it in Prehistoric, Late Archaic and Middle Woodland. Quartzite, quartz, and jasper are the dominant lithic materials of this site. And the general artifact types at this site include chipped stone tools and stone debitage. Diagnostic artifact types include the Piedmont Tradition.

Heller A, site number (36LA0913), a designated open habitation/prehistoric, found 0 meters from the nearest water (an extinct stream) and 450 meters from the 2nd nearest water (a perennial

stream), gives chronology that places it in Prehistoric, Late Archaic, Transitional, Early, Middle and Late Woodland. Lithic materials found at this site include quartzite, jasper, quartz, rhyolite, limestone/dolomite, slate, argillite, and siltstone. General artifacts from this site include an unknown number of chipped stone tools and stone debitage. Diagnostic artifact types from this site include Koens Crispin/Savannah River, Piedmont Tradition, Steubenville/Fox Creek and Late Woodland Triangles.

Locus B: Area DB-4 South, site number (36CH0648) is an open habitation, prehistoric site found 80 meters from the nearest water and 330 meters from the 2nd nearest water, both perennial streams. This site has chronology from prehistoric, Middle and Late Woodland, and Historic time periods. The main lithic material from this site is recorded as quartz, with quartzite, jasper, chert and flint, and chalcedony all recorded as 0-10%. General artifact types as this site include chipped stone tools (less than 25) and stone debitage (801 and more). Diagnostic artifact types found at this site include Blue and Gray American Stoneware, Creamware, Ironstone, Late Woodland points, Pearlware (all decoration types), Prehistoric, Transitional Whiteware, and Yellowware.

LATE WOODLAND

The Late Woodland time period is said to have existed from about 1500 B.P—1000 B.P. (Neusius and Gross 2014:378).

Custer (1996) characterizes the Late Woodland period as the Village Life cultural period. The lifestyle most commonly associated with this time period, and continued on from the Early and Middle Woodland time periods is the sedentary lifestyle. This time period is also associated with the full-scale adoption of cultivated plants. It is theorized that the domesticated plants were probably introduced into the region from the south and west.

Shifts in settlement pattern accompanied the increased reliance on crops. Artifact styles changed and ceramic decorations became more elaborate. The Minguannan complex dominates

southeastern Pennsylvania, but the Shenks Ferry complex, centered in the Susquehanna River valley, is also present (Custer 1996:286-289). The Minguannan complex does not appear to fit the overall pattern for agricultural villages.

Sites are small and lack house features, storage pits, or midden areas (Custer 1996:288). Site types and their distributions change little from the preceding periods. There is considerable variation in the archeology of eastern Pennsylvania, as a whole, for the Late Woodland period (Custer 1996:297), and it can be seen that Village Life cultural period is not relevant to much of southeastern Pennsylvania.

In the Delaware Valley, the Late Woodland is said to have occurred approximately 1050 B.P. (Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

46

Commission: 2015). “It is characterized by well-made pottery, the widespread use of triangular arrow points, and most groups were involved in a mixed food economy involving horticulture, hunting, fishing, and gathering” (Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission: 2015). As Custer stated, the settlements at this time were more permanent and some theorize that they may have involved year-round occupations.

The surface and textures of the pottery change; during this time period, pottery became thinner, and more durable. It also started to become characterized by a variety of incised geometric designs on the rim sections. It is also during this time period that Archaeologists are able to assign names to regional pottery styles and assume that they represent distinct cultural, ethnic or tribal groups (Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission: 2015).

LATE WOODLAND IN THE BRANDYWINE CREEK WATERSHED

The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and CRGIS designate the most sites for this time period at (69). Most of the sites are open habitations, there is one documented quarry, and two documented villages from this time period, as well.

At site number (36CH0550), Wylie Tract, a historic and prehistoric site type, the Late Woodland time period is represented. This site was found 0 meters from the nearest confluence, an order 2. At this site, prehistoric, Archaic, Middle, and Late Woodland, and Historic chronology is present. The lithics at this site are documented as jasper, sandstone, and quartz. General artifacts found at this site include historic ceramics, chipped stone tools made from sandstone, chipped stone tools made from quartz, glass, metal, redware, stone debitage from jasper, and stone debitage from quartz. Diagnostic artifact types found at this site include Transitional Whiteware.

Site CHHB-16, (36CH0069), a designated open habitation, prehistoric site was found 10 meters from the nearest water and 20 meters from the 2nd nearest water, both perennial streams. This site has chronology in the Prehistoric, Late Archaic, Transitional, and Late Woodland time period. The lithic materials recorded at this site include quartzite, jasper, quartz, chalcedony, and argillite. The general artifacts found at this site include chipped stone tools and stone debitage. The diagnostic artifact types found at this site include Orient made from jasper, Piedmont Tradition, and Late Woodland Triangles.

Site number (CH360145) is also designated as an open habitation, prehistoric site. This site was found 10 meters from the nearest water (a perennial stream) and 80 meters from the 2nd nearest water (an extinct stream). The chronology of this site includes Prehistoric, Late Archaic and

FIGURE 7: LATE WOODLAND ARTIFACTS FROM THE DELAWARE RIVER VALLEY

47

Late Woodland time periods. The main lithic material at this site is quartz, while jasper and quartzite are also present, but significantly less. The general artifact types at this site are historic ceramics, chipped stone tools, glass, grooved axes, ground and polished stone tools, metal, pestles/grinding/pitted stones, Redware, and stone debitage. The diagnostic artifacts found at this site are Creamware, cut nails, Late Woodland points and Piedmont Tradition.

At the Suplee 3 (CHHB-19) site, (36CH0756), Late Woodland tendencies were found 25 meters from the nearest water (perennial), with the 2nd nearest stream 155 meters away (extinct stream). This site has chronology placing it in Late Woodland. Diagnostic artifact types are quartz Archaic, notched and stemmed points (no material identified), notched and stemmed points (quartzite), notched and stemmed points (siltstone), Orient (chalcedony), Shenks Ferry—undifferentiated, and quartz Woodland.

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

To summarize, the literature of southeastern Pennsylvania archeology emphasizes a series of themes that cross-cut and apply all time periods. These themes include mobility patterns, the acquisition of lithic and lithic material, the emergence of new technologies and ideas, subsistence patters, settlement patterns and seasonality of base camps and villages, trade and exchange networks, and pottery and ceramics, including the technology and evolution of these pottery and ceramics.

The major concerns include the establishment of archaeological sequences and determining the settlement and subsistence patterns. The physical environment should be considered to be a

primary factor structuring cultural patterns, and their evolution or stagnation.

Population increases are attributed to environmental changes or stagnation. Migrations, and extensive trade and exchange systems reflect social processes that influenced the region, and the extended to an inter-regional basis.

Within the archaeological discipline, it becomes obvious that many interpretations are frequently based on assumptions, generalizations, and theories—all of which need to be tested. As time and technology progress and advance, hopefully there will be more concrete evidence to prove, or in some cases, disprove theories as to how, where, or why, people did certain things in a certain way;

FIGURE 8: A DISTRIBUTION OF WOODLAND SITES IS DETAILED IN RED. (PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION: 2016)

48

such as cultivate plants, or chip their lithics in a certain fashion. In addition to this, social themes are considered only in relation to particularly unusual artifacts or sites. With the earliest time periods more than often overlooked, especially as it pertains to this, additionally, anthropological questions, such as the development of social complexity, are seldom addressed. Additional

research issues should be addressed and perhaps more solid conclusions can be reached.

49

APPENDIX

Prehistoric & Paleo-Indian

Early Archaic

Middle Archaic

Late Archaic

Transitional Early Woodland

Middle Woodland

Late Woodland

Total

Floodplain 1 4 8 15 6 4 4 10 52

Hill Ridge/Toe

3 1 4

Hillslope 5 4 2 2 13

Hilltop 1 1 2

Lower Slopes

3 1 7 3 14

Middle Slopes

1 3 1 1 6

Ridgetop 1 1 2

Saddle 1 1

Stream Bench

2 4 8 63 20 8 12 27 144

Terrace 1 25 6 5 9 19 65

Unknown 2 1 4 1 5 13

Upland Flat

3 1 3 11 5 2 2 4 31

Upper Slopes

1 1

Total 6 15 23 138 42 21 34 69

REFERENCES CITED

Brandywine Valley Association 2015. Brandywine Valley Association—BVA. Brandywine Valley Association. Brandywine Red Clay Alliance Cross, Dorothy 1971. The Abbott Farm Site: Middle Woodland Summary. In Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory,

edited by Barry C. Kent, pp. 319–338. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, PA Custer, Jay F. 1996. Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Anthropological Series No. 7, Pennsylvania

Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. _______. 2001. Classification Guide for Arrowhead and Spearpoints of Eastern Pennsylvania and

the Central Middle Atlantic. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, PA

Custer, Jay F., and Daniel R. Griffith 1986. Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle and Lower Delmarva Peninsula. In Late Woodland

Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, pp. 29-57. University of Delaware, Newark. Fiedel, Stuart J. 2001. What happened in the Early Woodland? Archaeology of Eastern North America, 101-142.

50

Kent, Barry C., Ira F. Smith, and Catherine Josephine McCann 1971. Early Woodland Period. In Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory, pp. 195–197. Pennsylvania

Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, PA ________. 1971. Late Woodland Period. In Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory, pp. 329–332. Pennsylvania

Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, PA Mason, Ronald J. 1971. Paleo-Indian Occupation in the Delaware Valley. In Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory,

edited by Barry C. Kent, pp. 65–84. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, PA Minderhout, David Jay 2013. Native Americans in the Susquehanna River Valley, past and present. Becknell University Press,

Lanham, MD Neusius, Sarah Ward, and G. Timothy. Gross 2007. Seeking Our Past: an introduction to North American archaeology. Oxford University Press, New York Pennsylvania Archaeology 2011. This Week In Pennsylvania Archaeology: The Evolution of the Archaic Period Diet. The State

Museum of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, December 16 Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 2015. Early and Middle Woodland Period. Pennsylvania Archaeology. Pennsylvania Historical and

Museum Commission, September 10 _________. 2015. Late Woodland Period. Pennsylvania Archaeology. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission, September 10 _________. 2015. Transitional Period. Pennsylvania Archaeology. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission, September 10 Stewart, R. Michael, Chris C. Hummer, and Jay F. Custer 1986. Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle and Lower Delaware River Valley and the Upper

Delmarva Peninsula. In Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, pp. 58-89. University of Delaware Press, Newark.

Witthoft, John 1971. A Paleoindian Site in Eastern Pennsylvania. In Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory, edited by

Barry C. Kent, pp. 18–64. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, PA ________. 1953 Broad spearpoints and the Transitional Period cultures in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical

and Museum Commission.

51

GEOG 552 – Planning Methods

This piece was chosen to provide for the graduate requirement of analytic piece for the Master of Science degree in Geography and Regional Planning, Environmental Planning track.

The Somerset County Planning Report shows abilities that are required in careers across the board, but in specific, several skills that apply to planning. These skills include the interpretation and use of real-time data sources such as the United States Census Bureau, the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis and the American Community Survey. In short, this piece shows information such as geographic location and natural resources, demographic analysis, economic analysis, as well as current and future planning and development strategies at the county level.

Several important factors were analyzed during the completion of this planning report—age and sex demographics, industrial breakdown of the county, unemployment rate, GINI coefficient and Lorenz Curve, and Shift-Share and Cluster analyses. All information reported on was derived from governmental sources such as the Decennial Census, with graphs and tables were also created from this data.

This report serves to provide the analytic element for the graduate portfolio for Jennifer Brady, Department of Geography and Regional Planning at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

52

Somerset County Planning Report

Jennifer Brady Department of Geography & Regional Planning

GEOG 552: Planning Methods Dr. Ghosh, Fall Semester 2015

53

Introduction

Geography & Location

History

Current Conditions

Existing Planning Initiatives

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO SOMERSET COUNTY

54

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Somerset County planning report was compiled as an individual report in the Planning Methods (GEOG 552) course through the Department of Geography and Regional Planning at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Data was assessed concerning demographics, labor force, and economic pattern analysis from several sources such as the United States Census, the American Community Survey, and the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. Information from the United States Decennial Census was retrieved for the year 2000, and the American Community Survey year 2010 using 1 year

estimates. Photos and graphics were collected from various sites, including the Somerset County Historical Center, the United States National Park Service and local and national newspaper websites, along with private photographs.

Chapter 1 focuses on location and geography, a brief history of Somerset County, current conditions of the county, and existing planning initiatives. Various maps, infographics, and figures visually aid this section of the report.

LOCATION & GEOGRAPHY

Geographical information was derived from several websites such as Google Earth and Somerset County’s Historical Center. Somerset County is located in South Western Pennsylvania. To reach Somerset from the Pennsylvania Turnpike one uses Exit 110 of I-70 and I-76. The Pennsylvania Turnpike intersects the county near its absolute middle and runs East-West. Somerset’s total land area was measured in 2010 and was approximated at 1,074.37 square miles. Geographically, Somerset County is one of the furthest southern counties of Pennsylvania.

Figure 1 shows geographic location within Pennsylvania and Figure 2 shows municipal information. Both Figures were derived from the Family Search, Somerset County, Pennsylvania Genealogy website. The county borders Garrett and Allegany Counties of Maryland, and the Pennsylvania counties of Fayette, Westmoreland, Cambria, and Bedford. At Somerset County’s northern part, Windber, PA is found. This region is characterized by the sprawl of Johnstown (Cambria County) seeping into Somerset.

FIGURE 1: SOMERSET COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

FIGURE 2: SOMERSET COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES

55

Somerset County features several state protected parks in addition to the Flight 93 National Park: Kooser State Park, Laurel Hill State Park, Laurel Mountain State Park, and Laurel Ridge State Park. There are also several state forests residing in Somerset County: Forbes State Forest and Gallitzin State Forest. Landform wise, Somerset County is part of the Allegheny Plateau, with most of the plateau being converted to agricultural uses. The county is bisected by steeply eroded valleys and rivers, and the Laurel

Highlands, also known as “the ridge”, which runs north and south. One of the biggest assets of the ridge, economically, includes the capitalization of the wind resource in the form of wind turbines to create energy.

Mount Davis, the highest natural point in the state of Pennsylvania, can also be found in Somerset County. It measures 3,213 feet and is located in the southern part of the county.

HISTORY

Historical information was derived from the Somerset County Historical Center website. Western Pennsylvanian's felt unfairly discriminated against and rallied against the tax and the government in America’s early days. They carried out riots, demonstrations, and even tarred and feathered excise collectors. In 1794, the Whiskey Rebellion began in Berlin, Somerset. The county was created on April 17, 1795 from part of Bedford County and was named after Somerset, United Kingdom.

March 5, 1795 marked the incorporation of the German Farmer, the first newspaper in the county. There have been three major fires in the borough of Somerset during the town's history. The first occurred on October 16, 1863 early in the morning. The fire was started in a single house; the fire consumed homes on both sides of the street and quickly spread down the main street of town. Thirty families were homeless, many of the businesses were destroyed, and an estimated $80,000 damage done. The second fire occurred on May 9, 1872, during a dry spell. This fire

FIGURE 3: PENNSYLVANIA INTERSTATES AND HIGHWAYS. SOURCE: GEOLOGY, PENNSYLVANIA WEBSITE

56

started less than 100 feet from the first one. It was believed to have been started by a spark near the Somerset Foundry. Ninety buildings were destroyed, including churches, homes, businesses, offices, and hotels. The total losses were estimated at $300,000 dollars.

The third fire happened on May 4, 1876 in a stable near the Somerset Foundry. Several historic buildings and homes were destroyed and estimated damages were $125,000.

In 2001, the September 11th events occurred in New York City, however, Somerset County also became infamous with this disaster. A hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in Stonycreek Township near the town of Shanksville. The Flight 93 Memorial is protected under the United States National Park Service and estimates 300,000 visitors per year.

Worldwide news was graced infamously with Somerset County’s tales when in July 2002 nine coal miners were rescued from the Quecreek mine after a multiday struggle. Jennerstown houses the Mountain Playhouse, a theater that is

housed in a restored 1805 gristmill. The abandoned gristmill was discovered in Roxbury, Somerset County, by founder James Stoughton and moved in 1939 log-by-log through the snow to its present site.

CURRENT CONDITIONS

CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC

Information for current conditions for Somerset County was collected from the Somerset Historical Center, the Somerset County Planning Office, and the Jennerstown Mountain Playhouse websites. Jennerstown Mountain Playhouse produces a season of theatrical shows ranging

from standard American musical theater to dramas and slapstick farce. Performances run typically two to three weeks, with both weekend and weekday performances in evening and matinee form.

1794•Whiskey Rebellion began in Berlin, PA

1795•March: German Farmer was incorporated•April: Somerset became a county

1863•First major fire in Somerset

1872•Second major fire in Somerset

1876•Third major fire in Somerset

2001 •Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville

2002•Nine miners were rescued from Quecreek

FIGURE 4: TIMELINE OF EVENTS. SOURCE: SOMERSET COUNTY HISTORICAL CENTER WEBSITE

FIGURE 5: FLIGHT 93 NATIONAL MEMORIAL. SOURCE: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WEBSITE

57

Members of Actors' Equity Association perform in all productions as they have since the theater's opening in 1939. The theater also employs directors from the Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers, and musicians from the American Federation of Music. In addition, the Jenner Art Gallery (located in the theater lobby) features the works of area artists. Somerset County Mountain Craft Days was founded in 1970 to promote, preserve, demonstrate and enhance public appreciation and enjoyment of the historic crafts heritage of Somerset County and surrounding areas. Annually, the event attracts about 12,000 visitors and features 120 artisans and entertainers performing, manufacturing and selling wares and crafts.

NATURAL AND ECONOMIC

Beginning in 2001, Somerset County Wind farms commenced commercial operation using six 1.5 Mega-Watt (MW) wind turbines that, combined, produce 9 MW of energy and 25,000 megawatt-hours of electricity annually. The wind farm is located one-half mile south of the Pennsylvania Turnpike and measures 215 feet tall, making it readily visible to travelers of the turnpike. In 2012, Somerset County installed 68 turbines to complete Twin Ridges Wind Farm.

HERITAGE AND SOCIETY

The Georgian Inn of Somerset was built as a private residence in 1915 by a prosperous coal and cattle baron; the mansion was initially designed for entertaining and owned by Daniel Burnside Zimmerman who made his fortune in cattle in the west and prospered from the coal industry in the east. He eventually became the richest man in the county and died at 65. Today, the mansion was purchased and restored to its original grandeur by owners Charles and Stephanie Charrie and opened in 2010 as The Georgian Inn of Somerset. Fine, tapas, and casual dining is offered seven days a week. A tour of the property discloses the luxury accommodation in a number of rooms and suites.

FIGURE 6: JENNERSTOWN MOUNTAIN PLAYHOUSE. SOURCE: THE POST-GAZETTE WEBSITE

FIGURE 7: VIEW FROM THE VISITOR’S CENTER AT FLIGHT 93 NATIONAL MEMORIAL. SOURCE: THE NEW YORK TIMES

FIGURE 8: MOUNTAIN CRAFT DAYS. SOURCE: THE LAUREL HIGHLANDS WEBSITE

FIGURE 9: MOUNTAIN CRAFT DAYS. SOURCE: THE LAUREL HIGHLANDS WEBSITE

FIGURE 10: MOUTAIN CRAFT DAYS. SOURCE: THE DAILY AMERICAN

58

EXISTING PLANNING INITIATIVES

Somerset County has a comprehensive plan that was completed in 2006. In the executive summary of the plan, the county outlines several objectives that require attention. Bringing economic diversity to grow the base of their economy is one of the first. This includes identifying business development and expansion needs. The plan to establish an Early Warning Network to monitor the health of existing businesses and to provide rapid response to at-risk companies is also outlined, which includes contacting existing businesses to identify expansion, training, or regulatory needs.

Planning officials also identified business linkages for attraction purposes, and were seeking to further identify opportunities for the development of the agricultural industry in Somerset County. Somerset County’s initiative in promoting the development of recreation and natural resource-based tourism industries is also included in the Comprehensive Plan.

The county seeks to identify tourism opportunities related to the Great Allegheny Passage Trail and capitalize on them. They would also seek to promote natural resources as an economic advantage for companies while considering all projects in terms of tourism impact. The Planning Commission also identifies physical projects and implementation steps. To do this, the county aims to foster a mixed-use “Nexus Center” near Route 219/281/31Turnpike area, they would also identify key sites and ownership issues and development site feasibility studies.

An additional initiative by the Planning Commission includes the development and strengthening of partnerships that match education and training with current and future skills for employment. The county would seek to work with institutions of higher education, identify existing and lacking employment skills

FIGURE 11: FIGURE 11: WIND TURBINES IN SOMERSET COUNTY SOURCE: HTTP://2EIGHTPHOTOGRAPHY.NET/TAG/WINDMILLS/#JP-CAROUSEL-324

FIGURE 12: SOMERSET COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. SOURCE: SOMERSET COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

59

in the region. Somerset County believes that, in general, their transportation is reasonably effective; however, they do seek to improve several factors relating to the efficiency of it. They include the completion of key regional connections to the Maryland and the Baltimore/Washington, D.C. metro area, and developing small, but important, interconnections between major routes.

The county is interesting in zoning and land development ordinances, especially as recent

development is at odds with the economic development initiatives, especially tourism, and is functionally inefficient. Somerset and Stonycreek Townships have the greatest need for land use controls due to growth potential of the Flight 93 National Memorial. The county seeks to evaluate zoning implementation options. The county aims to reduce the ability of sprawling strip-type development, especially when Route 219 is completed to I-68.

60

CHAPTER 2: DEMOGRAPHIC

ANALYSIS

Introduction

Population Characteristics & Trends

Urbanization Trends

Population Distribution: Age & Sex

Population Distribution: Races

Household Characteristics

61

CHAPTER 2

INTRODUCTION

This section focuses on the demographic analysis of Somerset County. The analysis performed in this section also refers to a specific set of techniques for developing national population estimates by age, sex, and race from administrative records to be used to assess the quality of the decennial census. The methods in this chapter provide us the availability to study the human population in a variety of ways

including birth and death rates, immigration and emigration, sex, age, and various household characteristics. Data was retrieved from the United States Census, American Fact Finder, and Social Explorer (online websites). Data from the years 2000, 2010, 2005, and 2013; the latter two dates being from the American Community Survey while 2000 and 2010 were years of the United States Decennial Census.

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS & TRENDS

The population of Somerset County has generally been decreasing. The United States Census has been documenting the decrease of Somerset’s total population change over the last four years at being between -285 and -1,530. The final figure for Somerset County’s loss of population for the years between 2000 and 2010 however can be determined as a single integer: -2.85%. Table 1 shows the visualization. Pennsylvania’s population, as documented by the United States Census, has increased on a whole. Pennsylvania has had an increase of 3.43% as shown in Table 2.

Figures 13 and 14 represent the data in a more visually appealing manner. The bar graphs below show Somerset County and Pennsylvania’s population, respectively. The trends are shown more distinct in this manner; Somerset’s decrease and Pennsylvania’s increase.

Somerset County’s growth rate can be seen in Figure 15 Between 2000 and 2005, the growth

Somerset County

Census 2000

Census 2010

Total Population 80,023 77,742

Population Growth Rate -2.85%

Pennsylvania

Census 2000

Census 2010

Total Population 12,281,054 12,702,389

Population Growth Rate 3.43%

FIGURES 13 AND 14 POPULATION CHANGES IN PENNSYLVANIA AND SOMERSET COUNTY SOURCE:CENSUS.GOV

62

rate is recorded at roughly -2%, but in manipulating the data, the growth rate can be seen at -.8% for the recorded years of 2005-2010. This value is more than double (if omitting the negative value, therefore working with two positive values) the previous number. However, for the years 2010-2014, the data again plummeting, showing a steady decrease at -1.9%, very near the beginning value of 2000-2005. Pennsylvania’s growth rate can also be seen in Figure 15. The values for Pennsylvania seem to follow Somerset’s growth trend when put on the same scale. Pennsylvania starts at the estimated value of 1.2%, nearly close to doubles to 2.1% and then drops below the beginning number to .6% for the last four years of 2010-2014. The following population density maps were accessed from Social Explorer, an interactive website providing current and historical census data and demographic information or the United States. Through this website, one can access the entire US Census from 1790 to 2010 and the entire American Community Survey (ACS) from 2005 to 2012. The following figures reveal population density data from 2000 and 2010, recorded from the United States Census. Population density data as shown for both Pennsylvania and Somerset County. Pennsylvania’s shift in population density from 2000 and 2010 as visualized through Figures 16 and 17. The visual representation shows dense urban populations near major cities such as Pittsburgh

FIGURES 16 AND 17: PENNSYLVANIA POPULATION DENSITY FOR 2000 AND 2010 SOURCE: SOCIAL EXPLORER

FIGURES 18 AND 19: SOMERSET COUNTY POPULATION DENSITY FOR 2000 AND 2010, RESPECTIVELY. SOURCE: SOCIAL EXPLORER

FIGURE 15: GROWTH RATES OF PENNSYLVANIA AND SOMERSET COUNTY SOURCE:CENSUS.GOV

63

and Philadelphia. The comparison between the two selected years (2000 and 2010) show increase in urbanization in these areas. Population density for Somerset County is also visualized in this manner. Also through Social Explorer, Census Tract data is available for determining the population density. Somerset County’s population density can be visualized as decreasing. There are less dense populations present in 2010 encircling Somerset, Somerset County as compared to 2000. Summarizing Somerset’s population characteristics, one can see the decline trends best on Figure 13 for the years 2000-2014. Through the line chart in Figure 15, the growth rate of

Pennsylvania and Somerset County is visible. The line graph gives the impression Somerset had an increase of population for the years of 2005-2010, however, once the data is manipulated in other contexts, the realization that this is false comes to light. Population density is another factor of demographic analysis that was included. Pennsylvania showed generally similar trends with urbanization continuing around and near the already formed major metropolitan areas such as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Somerset County, however, experienced a decline in population density mainly around and near Somerset, Somerset County.

URBANIZATION TRENDS

Urbanization can be defined as the process by which people migrate from the countryside to the city, and the accompanying changes in lifestyle and the way they make a living.

Currently speaking, Somerset County is more rural than Pennsylvania on a whole. The population of Somerset County is decreasing on a whole, but the urban population of Somerset is increasing. When compared, Somerset County is urbanizing faster than Pennsylvania. This can be attributed to the lower population value of the county. Tables 3 and 4 show the numerical values obtained from the United States Decennial Census. The following Figures also show the urban population distribution of Somerset County and Pennsylvania. Figures 20 and 21 are as follows. The differences are striking; Pennsylvania and Somerset values are switched, with Pennsylvania

Urban Distribution of Population: Somerset County

Census 2000

Census 2010

Urban Population 20,187 22,699

Rural Population 59,836 55,0435

Urbanization Rate 25.23% 29.02%

Urban Distribution of Population: Pennsylvania

Census 2000

Census 2010

Urban Population 9,464,101 9,991,287

Rural Population 2,816,953 2,711,092

Urbanization Rate 77.06% 78.66%

TABLES 3 AND 4 URBAN DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION FOR SOMERSET COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA SOURCE: CENEUS.GOV

64

having a much larger urban population than Somerset County. Figures 22 and 23 visualize a similar concept of urbanization of Somerset County for the respective years of 2000 and 2010. 73% of the county is rural with the remaining 27% residing in urban areas. Similarly, Census 2010 recorded a rural population value of 70% and an urban population of 28%. The values for rural population decreased, urbanization is increasing slightly in Somerset County between 2000 and 2010.

Pennsylvania’s percentage of urban population versus rural population is the polar opposite of Somerset County’s values. The rural population, as recorded by the United States Census for 2000 is 23% and the urban population is recorded at 77%. Similarly, Pennsylvania’s urban population for the Decennial Census of 2010 is recorded at 79% and the rural population is recorded at 21%. Figures 24 and 25 represent the data, respectively.

Likewise, the urbanization trends can be shown visually using a line graph. Figures 26 and 27 display the increase and decrease in urbanization populations for Somerset County and Pennsylvania, respectively. In summary, the share of urban population in contrast to rural population is shown in this report as both pie charts and line graphs. The information is conveyed for Somerset County and Pennsylvania for both Decennial Censuses (2000 and 2010). Somerset County is urbanizing slowly. The urbanization rate went from 25% to 29% between the years 2000 and 2010. Figures

FIGURES 20 AND 21: URBAN AND RURAL POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR PENNSYLVANIA AND SOMERSET COUNTY. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU.

FIGURES 21 AND 22 SOMERSET COUNTY URBAN AND RURAL POPULATIONS FOR 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU.

FIGURES 23 AND 24: PENNSYLVANIA URBAN AND RURAL POPULATIONS FOR 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU.

65

22, 23, and 26 represent this data. Pennsylvania is also urbanizing slowly, however, the data shows it is urbanizing at an even slower pace than Somerset County. 2000 revealed an urbanization rate of 77% compared to 2010 when it rose to 78%. The data for Pennsylvania is visually represented in Figures 22, 23, and 27.

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION: AGE & SEX

The demographic age breakdown of Somerset

County and Pennsylvania differ slightly but have the general same shape. In further analysis of the age pyramids, Figures 28, 29, 30, and 31, one can see the general young ages are similar until the age range of 15-19. Pennsylvania differs from Somerset in the fact that age 15-19 years drastically Somerset County maintains a steady

FIGURES 26 AND 27: URBANIZATION TRENDS FOR SOMERSET COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA, RESPECTIVELY FOR THE YEARS 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: CENSUS.GOV

FIGURES 28-31: POPULATION PYRAMIDS FOR SOMERSET COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA FOR THE YEARS 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

66

population for the 15-19 decreases, especially for 2000, for both males and females. This data trend continues to stay the same in 2000 and 2010. year old for both 2000 and 2010. For both Somerset County and Pennsylvania, the age range of 20-24 increases drastically for both males and females

compared to the 15-19 age decrease. This data trend can be explained as this is the typical age young adults attend college, travel, and move away. The data from ages 24-85 for both Pennsylvania and Somerset County exhibit similar trends.

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION: RACE

The demographics of a population include factors such as age, sex, economic status, level of education, income level, and racial characteristics While Somerset County is a largely rural county, it has little diversity compared to Pennsylvania. Racial distribution for Somerset County is similar for both years. The same applies for Pennsylvania; numerical values of races stayed the same over the ten-year period. For both Pennsylvania and Somerset County, the dominate race is white, followed by African American, those who designate themselves as more than two races, Asian, Other, and American Indian/Alaskan Native followed by Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The graphs were split into majority races (top three: White, Black or African American, and Two or More Races) in order to obtain a proper trend analysis from the pie charts. In further analysis of the pie charts, referring to Somerset County for the year 2000, Figures 32 and 33, the evidence is clear that racial distribution is predominantly white. In Figure 33, minority population is broken down into four categories. Some Other Race, American Indian and Alaskan Native, Asian and Other. These categories are so comparatively small in Somerset County that an additional graphic had to be used in order to see trends across the years. The severe lack of racial diversity can be attributed to the fact that Somerset is a very rural county. There are so few pull-factors at work that minority populations looking to immigrate would not consider Somerset County for residence.

FIGURES 32-35: RACIAL DISTRIBUTION FOR SOMERSET COUNTY, YEARS 2000 AND 2010.SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

67

Figures 34 and 35, Somerset County Racial Distribution 2010 show similar values of racial distribution compared to 2000. However, there is a slight increase in the Two or More Races category, thus decreasing white population percentage. Similarly, the minority percentage pie chart also exhibited fluctuations. Some Other Race decreased from 51% to 58%. Asian decreased from 35% to 29%, American Indiana and Alaskan Native decreased from 13% to 11%, but Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander increased from 1% to 2%. Referring to Table 5, these peoples more than doubled their population. Pennsylvania, overall, is much more diversified than Somerset County. This can be attributed to the sheer size of the population compared to Somerset County. In analysis of the pie charts, Figure 36 displays Pennsylvania’s top three races: White, black/African American and Two or More Races. The breakdown of the data can be seen in Table 5. Similar to Somerset County, the minority populations were put into a separate pie chart for analysis reasons. Pennsylvania’s breakdown of minority populations can be seen in Table 5. Generally, Pennsylvania can be viewed as mostly white. The Racial distributions out to be 89%. Black population comes in second with 10% and Two or More Races is 1%. Compared to Somerset County, these values are more or less the same, with less than a 10% difference in the white population. Similarly, the minority populations experience similar trends for the year 2000. In comparison, Figures 38 and 39 exhibit similar trends as Figures 36 and 37. Pennsylvania’s white population lost 2% from 2000 to 2010, its Black/African American population gained 1% from 2000 to 2010 and its Two or More Races category gained 1% from 2000 to 2010. Comparing to Somerset County, Pennsylvania’s top three races are the same as Somerset County’s but exhibit slightly more diverse numbers. Pennsylvania’s minorities from the year 2000 to 2010 exhibited such small changes that the differences are indistinguishable on the pie chart graphs composed. For the differences in populations, see Table 5.

FIGURES 36-39: PENNSYLVANIA RACIAL DISTRIBUTION FOR 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

68

Somerset County Pennsylvania

2000 2010 2000 2010

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander

6 17 3,417 3,653

American Indian and Alaskan Native 65 86 18,348 26,843

Asian 172 239 219,813 349,088

Some Other Race 250 468 188,437 300,983

Two or More Races 317 466 142,224 237,835

Black or African American 1,275 1,863 1,224,612 1,377,689

White 77,938 74,603 10,484,203 10,406,288

Total Population 80,023 77,742 12,251,054 12,702,379

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

Household data for Average Household size and Average Family Size was available on the United States Census Bureau website. Data was analyzed and trends were found in

both Pennsylvania and Somerset County. Both Pennsylvania and Somerset County experienced decrease in Average Family size and Average Household Size. Somerset County appeared to have a more drastic decline than Pennsylvania for both Average Family Size and Average Household Size.

TABLE 5: RACIAL DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR SOMERSET COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA FOR THE YEARS 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: CENSUS.GOV

FIGURES 40 AND 41 AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE FOR PENNSYLVANIA AND SOMERSET COUNTY. SOURCE: CENSUS.GOV

69

Numerical representation is available in Table 6. Pennsylvania also experienced a decrease for both Family and Household Size from the Census years 2000-2010. Visual representation is demonstrated in Figures 40 and 41. The total number of households for Pennsylvania and Somerset remained generally the same from census year to census year for each. Somerset County lost merely 132 households from 2000 to 2010. Pennsylvania gained 2,419 more households from 2000 to 2010. The difference in these two trends can be attributed to Pennsylvanian population being much greater than Somerset County’s. Figure 421 visually represents the data while Table 7 shows the numerical values. The percentage of family and non-

family households were also retrieved from the United States Decennial Census for the years 2000 and 2010. Somerset County experienced an increase for both values of family and non-family households for both years of 2000 and 2010. Visual representation is shown in Figures 43 and 44. Pennsylvania showed similar trends; increasing in both years. Visual representation for Pennsylvanian Household Structure data is shown in Figures 45 and 46. Data for Pennsylvania and Somerset County

that as it pertains to information for Family and Non-Family Households, collected for the years 2000 and 2010. Family households for both Somerset and Pennsylvania increased from 2000 to 2010. Non-Family households also increased for both Pennsylvania and Somerset County. In conclusion, Somerset County shows trends in population characteristics that Pennsylvania does not have; its population is on the steady decline, while Pennsylvania’s population is steadily increasing. Somerset County is also becoming more urbanized. Similar to Pennsylvania, Somerset’s rural population is 1 Pennsylvanian data is scaled by 100% for viewing ease

moving into the cities. Somerset County also exhibits different age and sex demographic trends in its population. Somerset shows a larger 20-24-year-old group for both males and females than Pennsylvania, signifying there is a larger group available to work residing in the county. Somerset County’s racial distribution is very conforming compared to Pennsylvania; Somerset, being a rural county does not possess pull factors to bring in minority races like Pennsylvania does on a whole.

FIGURE 42: TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS FOR 2000 AND 2010 FOR PENNSYLVANIA AND SOMERSET COUNTY. SOURCE: CENSUS.GOV

Census 2000

Census 2010

Average Household Size

Somerset County 2.45 2.35

Pennsylvania 2.48 2.45

Average Family Size

Somerset County 2.95 2.87

Pennsylvania 3.04 3.02

Total Households

Somerset County 31,222 31,090

Pennsylvania 47,770 50,189

TABLE 6: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE FOR SOMERSET COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA FOR THE YEARS 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: CENSUS.GOV

70

Somerset County Pennsylvania

Census 2000 Census 2010 Census 2000 Census 2010

Family Households 22,044 21,025 3,208,388 3,261,307

Non-Family Households 9,178 10,065 1,568,615 1,757,597

FIGURES 43, 44, 45, 46: HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE FOR SOMERSET COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA FOR 2000 AND 2010 SOURCE: CENSUS.GOV

TABLE 7: FAMILY AND NON-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS FOR SOMERSET COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

71

Introduction

Labor Force Characteristics

Employment & Unemployment Rate

Earnings by Industry

Commuting Pattern

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS OF THE

ECONOMIC PATTERN

72

CHAPTER 3

INTRODUCTION

A county’s economic labor force is comprised solely of humans. It is analyzed through the qualities, characteristics, skills and knowledge the humans who live in the county region possess, and otherwise bring to the county and region through employment. Analyzing the fields within a labor force of a county region can then aid in identifying the local trends and characteristics of the economic development of the county region. The trends and characteristics examined are then applied to a long-range and inclusive plan for the area. For this process, the unit of analysis is Somerset County. The data were retrieved for the years 2000 and 2010, from the United States Decennial Census and American Community Survey (1 year estimates) respectively. Additionally, Pennsylvania data were retrieved from the United States Decennial Census and American Community Survey (1 year estimates) for the years 2000 and 2010, respectively.

Several concepts that are identified in this section are as follows: The size and future Somerset County and Pennsylvania’s labor force, the number of people working and unemployed, the

change of Somerset County and Pennsylvanian labor force over time, major industries in the area, and the average commute time for Somerset County and Pennsylvanian residents.

LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS

Somerset County’s percent share of population able to work within and outside the labor force in the United States Decennial Census is represented in the following figures.

In analysis of the information, Figure 48: Somerset County 2000, shows 57% of the population is in the labor force while 43% is not in the labor force. Figure 49, Somerset County ACS 2010 shows similar values, 57% in the labor force and 43% not in the labor force. Table 8 shows the raw data.

The two figures for Somerset County show extreme similarities for the people above the age of 16 years within and outside of the labor force for the 2010 ACS 1-year estimate and United States Decennial Census year 2000 for Somerset County.

Pennsylvania also shows similar data for the years 2000 and 2010, however, from the graphs, there is a 1% difference between the two years. In 2000, the United States Census recorded 62% of the Pennsylvania population—ages 16 and above—in the labor force, and 38% of the population—above, and including age 16—not in

FIGURE 47: ECONOMIC GRAPHIC. SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING WEBSITE

73

the labor force. Similarly, in 2010, the American Community Survey recorded 63% of the Pennsylvanian population—ages 16 and above—to be in the labor force and the remaining 37% not in the labor force. Figures 50 and 51 visualize the data while Table 8 exhibits the raw data. The line graph, Figure 52, shows the difference between Somerset County for the years 2000 and 2010 and Pennsylvania for the years 2000 and 2010. Figure 52 visualizes the data collected from the American Community Survey (1 year estimates) 2 Pennsylvania’s raw data scaled by 100% for viewing ease and comparative reasons.

for the year 2010 and the United States Decennial Census 20002. The line graph shows Somerset County beginning at 27,852 and decreasing to 27,712 for those individuals not included in the labor force and decreasing from 36,667 to 36,547 for those included within the labor force. Pennsylvania’s data showed similar trends. The

43%

57%

SOMERSETCOUNTYCENSUS2000

Notinlaborforce Inlaborforce:

43%

57%

SOMERSETCOUNTYACS 2010

Notinlaborforce Inlaborforce:

37%

63%

PENNSYLVANIAACS 2010

Notinlaborforce Inlaborforce:

FIGURES 48-51: SOMERSET COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA LABOR FORCE STATISTICS. SOURCE: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

74

Somerset County Pennsylvania

In Labor Force

Not in Labor Force

In Labor Force

Not in Labor Force

2000 36,667 27,852 6,000,512 3,692,528

2010 36,547 27,712 6,470,008 6,000,512

year 2000 began at 36,925 and increased to 37,970 for those not included within the labor force. For those included within the labor force, Pennsylvania experienced an increase from 60,005 to 64,700. Again, keeping in mind Pennsylvanian values are scaled by 100%, and for the raw data values to refer to Table 8.

The distribution of Somerset County’s Educational Attainment was measured using the age range of those individuals being 25 and older and recorded using the United States Decennial Census year 2000 and American Community Survey year 2010 (1 year estimates) Visual

representation of Educational Attainment for Somerset County 2000 and 2010 are shown in Figures 53 and 54.

From the year 2000 to 2010, Somerset County decreased its “Less Than High School” rate going from 24% to 16%. Additionally, Graduate/Professional Degree attainment lost 3% from 2000 to 2010, and Bachelor’s Degree attainment for Somerset County increased from 7% to 10%. College attendance increased, as well, going from 12% to 16%. Table 9 shows the raw data Pennsylvania data is visually represented in

Figures 55 and 56. Pennsylvania showed similar data trends as Somerset County. Similar to Somerset, educational attainment for “Some College” increased from 22% to 23% from the year 2000 to 2010. In addition to “Some College” those individuals seeking Bachelor’s Degrees and their attainment increased from 14% to 16% from the year 2000 to the year 2010. Dissimilar to Somerset County, however, Pennsylvania was recorded as gaining 2% in an increase to its Graduate and Professional Degrees and their attainment. Pennsylvania’s High School

FIGURE 52: PENNSYLVANIA VS. SOMERSET COUNTY DATA FOR INCLUSION IN LABOR FORCE AND EXCLUSION IN THE LABOR FORCE, YEARS 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY.

TABLE 8: SOMERSET COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA DATA FOR LABOR FORCE. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS

75

3 Pennsylvania data is scaled by 100% for viewing ease and comparability. For raw data, see Table 9.

Graduation remained at 38% constant from 2000 to 2010, but for raw data to refer to Table 6. “Less than High School” educational attainment lost 5%, from 2000 and rose to 18%.

Data for Pennsylvania and Somerset County was collected from the United States Decennial Census for the year 2000 and the American Community Survey for the year 2010 (1 year estimates). Figure 57 visually represents the educational attainment data for both Somerset County and Pennsylvania3. For the majority of the educational levels, Somerset County and Pennsylvania both exhibited similar trends. “Less Than High School”, for both decreased from 2000 to 2010; signifying more people are not dropping out of high school, or are choosing to stay in high school. “High School Graduate”, “Some College” and “Bachelor’s Degree” all increased from the years 2000 to 2010 for both Somerset County and Pennsylvania; signifying there are more people seeking higher education and completing it. In the “Graduate and Professional Degree” category, however, is where Pennsylvania and Somerset County contradict. Somerset County experienced roughly

24%

53%

12%

7% 4%

SOMERSETCOUNTYCENSUS2000

LessthanHighSchool HighSchoolGraduateSomeCollege Bachelor'sDegreeGraduateorProfessionalDegree

16%

57%

16%

10%

1%

SOMERSETCOUNTY2010(1YREST)LessthanHighSchool HighSchoolGraduate SomeCollegeBachelor'sDegree GraduateorProfessionalDegree

18%

38%22%

14%

8%

PENNSYLVANIACENSUS2000

LessthanHighSchool HighSchoolGraduateSomeCollege Bachelor'sDegreeGraduateorProfessionalDegree

FIGURES 53 AND 54: SOMERSET COUNTY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SSURVEY

76

a 3% drop from 2000 to 2010 while Pennsylvania gained roughly 2,000 more graduate and professional degree holders. This trend can be explained as Somerset County does not have a university or otherwise similar establishment with graduate or professional degree options, and

those seeking them will typically move from the county elsewhere, either in Pennsylvania or out of the state, and those professionals in employment of this industry will live relatively near their place of employment.

2000

Somerset Pennsylvania

Less Than High School

12,598

1,496,105

High School Graduate

28,172

3,150,013

Some College 6,423

1,772,535

Bachelor’s Degree

4,016

1,153,383

Graduate or Professional Degree

2,036

694,248

2010 Somerset Pennsylvania

Less Than High School

8,346

1,078,395

High School Graduate

29,296

3,235,186

Some College 8,289

1,985,617

Bachelor’s Degree

4,882

1,395,067

Graduate or Professional Degree

227

864,428

13%

38%23%

16%

10%

PENNSYLVANIAACS20101YREST

LessthanHighSchool HighSchoolGraduateSomeCollege Bachelor'sDegreeGraduateorProfessionalDegree

FIGURES 55 AND 56: PENNSYLVANIA EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SSURVEY

77

EMPLOYMENT & UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

The rate of employment is a factor that is crucial to the development, or retrogression of a county. The following figures and graphs visually represent the data and will also show raw data for Somerset County and Pennsylvania. The data was collected from the United States Decennial Census for the year 2000 and the American Community Survey (1 year estimates) for the years 2005, 2010, and 2014. Raw data for employment and unemployment information is available concluding this section in Table 10.

Somerset County’s rate of unemployment in 2000 was 6% in the year 2000. It rose to 5% in 2005, a seemingly reasonable fluctuation. In 2010, however, the unemployment percentage was recorded at 10%. This can be explained because of the recession of 2007-2008. For the year 2014, American Community Survey recorded the unemployment percentage at 5%, a decrease from 10% in 2010.

Pennsylvania’s data trends were not too far off from Somerset County’s. In 2000, Pennsylvania

12,598

28,172

6,4234,016 2,036

8,346

29,296

8,289

4,882

227

14,961

31,500

17,725

11,534

6,942

10,784

32,352

19,856

13,951

8,644

LE S S THAN H IGH S CHOOL

H IGH S CHOOLGRADUA TE

SOME COLLEGE BA CHELOR' S DEGREE GRADUA TE ORPROF ES S IONA L DEGREE

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

SomersetCounty2000 SomersetCounty2010 Pennsylvania2000 Pennsylvania2010

FIGURE 57: PENNSYLVANIA AND SOMERSET COUNTY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE YEARS 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

78

had a recorded unemployment rate of 6%, the same as Somerset County. In 2005, it experienced a 2% increase to 7%, and in 2010, it continued to rise to 10%, the maximum value of data collected for this project. In 2014, the unemployment value was recorded at 7%.

Figures 62, 63, 64, and 65 visually represent Pennsylvanian data for the years 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014. The data was collected from the United States Decennial Census and the American Community Survey (1 year estimates). For the most part, Pennsylvania has a steady working population, the largest increase in unemployment can be explained through the recession of 2007-2008, thus effecting 2010. The unemployment rate was calculated by taking the total number unemployed then dividing it by the total number of individuals in the labor force. Both values, total unemployed and total number in the labor force, were retrieved from the United States Decennial Census 2000 and American

Community Survey 2010 (1 year estimates). For the most part, Pennsylvania and Somerset County share similar data trends. Census 2000 recorded Somerset County’s unemployment rate merely .1% above Pennsylvania’s. American Community Survey 2005 ranks Somerset County’s unemployment rate slightly less than 2% below Pennsylvania’s. American Community Survey 2010 has Somerset County’s unemployment rate .1% from Pennsylvania’s and in 2014, the American Community Survey has Somerset County’s unemployment rate at nearly 2% lower than Pennsylvania’s.

In analysis of the data trends, Somerset County shows slightly lower levels of unemployment compared to Pennsylvania. The sharp increase in unemployment in both Pennsylvania and Somerset County in 2010 can be attributed to the recession of 2007-2008, which affected the entire United States of America and spread to a worldwide recession. When the American Community Survey collected data in 2014, Somerset County was found to be moderately close to Census 2000 values, while Pennsylvania still is recovering from the 9.59% unemployment rate in 2010.

FIGURES 58, 59, 60 AND 61: SOMERSET COUNTY UNEMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT PERCENTAGES FOR 2000, 2005, 2010, AND 2014. SOURCE: UNITED STATES DECENNIAL CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

79

Somerset County Labor Force Employed Unemployed Unemployment Rate%

Census 2000 36,667 34,541 2,094 5.71%

ACS 2005 36,231 34,421 1,748 4.82% ACS 2010 36,547 32,971 3,535 9.67%

ACS 2014 35,593 33,685 1,908 5.36%

Pennsylvania

Labor Force Employed Unemployed Unemployment Rate%

Census 2000 6,000,512 34,541 339,386 5.66%

ACS 2005 6,101,500 5,684,223 407,568 6.68%

ACS 2010 6,470,008 5,653,500 620,700 9.59%

ACS 2014 6,507,479 6,045,924 457,791 7.03%

FIGURE 66: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR PENNSYLVANIA AND SOMERSET COUNTY. SOURCE: UNITED STATES DECENNIAL CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

TABLE 10: PENNSYLVANIA AND SOMERSET COUNTY LABOR FORCE, UNEMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT DATA FOR 2000, 2005, 2010, AND 2014. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

80

EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY

Somerset County has a diverse economy with the population receiving the most amount of earnings in the “Public Administration” sector. This sector deals with the implementation of government policy, locally and on the state level. This value remains the largest industry by a vast amount, more than $100,000 (in the 2010 USD value). Its estimated 2010 value by the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis is $285,036. The second largest industry with earnings value is “Educational services, health care, and social assistance”. This industry includes jobs such as academic individuals, those in the health care profession and those providing health care and social assistance for individuals. This industry, as obtained by the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis is $167,172. The third largest industrial sector in Somerset County is “Manufacturing”. This sector is part of the goods-producing industry. It includes establishments in the mechanical, physical, and chemical

manufacturing and transformation industries. The Manufacturing sector of Somerset County has $154,542. The lowest industries are “Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining”, “Information”, followed by “Finance and insurance, real estate and rentals and leasing”. Somerset County information is visually represented in Figure 67.

Pennsylvania also has a diverse industrial sector with people obtaining jobs and careers from many different regions of the economy. However, visually, Pennsylvania does not seem to have many industries dominating the earnings; earnings are much more diversified amongst all the categories. Pennsylvania’s highest earning industry does not follow Somerset County’s pattern; its highest earning industry is the “Educational services, and heath care and social assistance” sector, the value for this sector is $57,982,525 (USD values in 2010).

FIGURE: 67 EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY FOR SOMERSET COUNTY. SOURCE: UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

81

Pennsylvania’s second highest earning sector, as of 2010, collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis is the “Professional, scientific, management, and administrative and waste management services” sector. With $59,666,642. The third highest earning industry is “Public administration” with $57,982,525. Pennsylvania’s lowest earning sectors were “Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining”, “Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services “and “Other services, except public administration”, respectively. Pennsylvania information is visually represented in Figure 68. Figure 69 shows both Pennsylvania3 and Somerset County

3 Pennsylvania data is scaled by 100% for viewing capability and comparison purposes.

earnings by industry Table 11 shows the raw data for Pennsylvania and Somerset County in the Appendix. The United States Department of Economic Analysis gathered data for the year 2010 for Somerset County and Pennsylvania. Data shows Somerset County’s earnings by industry are somewhat diverse, but relative to Pennsylvania, they do not exhibit the amount of diversity the state has. For comparison, see Figure 69. Somerset County’s top three sectors do not coincide with Pennsylvania’s. However, Somerset County’s top industry does fall within Pennsylvania’s top three; Public Administration.

FIGURE 68: EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY FOR PENNSYLVANIA FOR THE YEAR 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

82

COMMUTING PATTEN

Commuting is sometimes essential for towns and counties, as often times the jobs are not always

within walking distance. People choose to travel to work every day, choosing routes they deem the shortest, least traveled, or most construction free, with a combination of all three aspects, to the everyday commuter is in a word: ideal.

The United States Census and American Community Survey collected data for 2000 and 2010, respectively. Somerset County residents commute on average, 22.9 minutes every day, one way. This number rose to 24.5 minutes in 2010. Pennsylvanian data for Census 2000 was recorded at 25.2 minutes, one way, and rose slightly to 25.9 minutes in 2010. Figure 70 visually represents the data. Pennsylvanian commute times are 2-3 minutes longer than Somerset County. This can be explained as Pennsylvania has a substantially larger amount of

FIGURE 69: EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY FOR PENNSYLVANIA AND SOMERSET COUNTY. SOURCE: UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

FIGURE 70: AVERAGE COMMUTE TIME TO WORK, 2000 AND 2010, SOMERSET COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

83

urbanized areas which commuters have to navigate through; thus increasing their commute time. Somerset County has several major state and interstate roads, including Route 219, Route 30 and Interstate 76 (The Pennsylvania Turnpike). For visual representation of the major roads of Somerset County and Pennsylvania, refer to Figure 3 in Chapter 1, Location & Geography.

Another factor influencing commute times is construction. The Tribune Democrat, a regional newspaper, outlines the “New 219” project. For decades, individuals and organizations have fought for a four lane Route 219 from Cambria to Somerset County to Maryland. The Route 219 Expansion Project is set to connect Somerset to Meyersdale by 2017, and maybe even 1-68 in the future. Work began on Route 219 in 2012 and will effect commuting patterns for the Somerset/Cambria region when it is completed. In addition to reducing commute times for individuals, it is estimated to bring economic development to the region. Another impact for the New-219 Project will be the removal of coal trucks and industrial vehicles from rural and back roads, thus creating less accidents and reducing commute times for those individuals who use these roads on everyday basis and travels.

Another analysis of commuting patterns is how commuters chose to travel. There are options such as individually through one’s

personal vehicle, carpooling in an individual’s vehicle, public transportation, walking, working from home, and various others. Somerset County exhibits a diverse commuting pattern for 2000 and 2010. Figures 73 and 74 visualize the information. The United States Decennial Census shows Somerset County at 79% of the commuting population using cars, trucks, or vans as individuals. This value increased to 82% in 2010. The second highest method of commuting in Somerset County for 2000 was cars, trucks, or vans as carpoolers. These individuals comprised 12% of the commuters and in 2010, decreased to 9%. The third highest commute pattern is not exactly a commute, per se, “Working from home” comprised 5% of the data in 2000 and remained stagnant in 2010. “Public Transportation”,

FIGURE 72 AND 73: SOMERSET COUNTY COMMUTING PATTERNS FOR 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES DECENNIAL CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

FIGURE 71: CONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 219 IN SOMERSET COUNTY. SOURCE: TRIBUNE DEMOCRAT WEBSITE, JOHN RUCOSKY

84

“Others”, and “Walked” comprise the final percentages of Somerset County’s commuting pattern at 1%, 3%, .26%. These values remained relatively the same in 2010: 1%, 3% and .09%, respectively.

Pennsylvania’s commute patterns are somewhat stagnant for the years 2000 and 2010 collected by the United States Decennial Census and American Community Survey. Pennsylvania’s largest commuting method was the same as Somerset County’s: cars, trucks, or vans through individual driving at 77%. This value remained 4 Pennsylvania data is scaled by 100% for viewing capability, ease, and comparability.

the largest commuting pattern for 2010, as well, staying at 77%. The second largest commuting pattern for Pennsylvania in 2000 was also the same as Somerset County’s: cars, trucks, or vans through carpooling at 10%. In 2010, this value decreased by 1%, thus being reported as 9%. Pennsylvania’s third largest commuting methods is public transportation at 5%; this value remained stagnant from 2000 to 2010. Pennsylvania’s smallest methods of commuting for 2000 were recorded as “Walked”, “Worked from home”, and “Others”: 4%, 3%, and 1%, respectively. These categories remained in the same position for 2010, as well, 4%, 4%, and 1%.

To compare Somerset County and Pennsylvania4 data, Figure 75 visualizes the information. Raw data is provided in Table 12 following the conclusion of this section. From Figure 76, it is obvious that individual driving is the dominant transportation choice for both Somerset and Pennsylvania. Even with the scale of 100%, Pennsylvania still overtakes Somerset County with the sheer amount of people, especially in the “…Individual Driving” and “Public Transportation” categories. Public Transportation in Somerset County can be considered lacking compared to Pennsylvania, there is not a properly and consistently functioning infrastructure in place for the continued use of public transport, and most people must drive on average 23 minutes to their place of work. The average commute time for Somerset County is relatively close to Pennsylvania’s, even though the amount of people is so much lower compared to Pennsylvania. In comparison, “Worked from Home” and “Others” categories for both Somerset County and Pennsylvania are low, and display roughly similar values.

FIGURES 74 AND 75: PENNSYLVANIA COMMUTING PATTERNS FOR 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

85

Somerset County Pennsylvania

Census 2000 Census 2010 Census 2000 Census 2010

Car, Truck, or Vans: Individual Driving 26,981 26,660 4,247,836 4,407,079

Car, Truck, or Van: Carpooling Driving 4,211 2,714 577,364 504,848

Public Transportation 88 30 289,699 310,436

Walked 1,062 992 229,725 218,870

Others 213 390 47,041 69,723

Worked From Home 1,494 1,733 164,646 212,107

Average Commuting Time to Work 22.9 24.5 25.2 25.9

FIGURE 76: SOMERSET COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA COMMUTING PATTERNS, 2000 AND 2010 SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

TABLE 12: RAW DATA FOR PENNSYLVANIA AND SOMERSET COUNTY DISPLAYING COMMUTING PATTERNS FOR 2000 AND 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES DECENNIAL CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

86

Introduction

Economic Base Analysis

Shift-Share Analysis

Cluster Analysis

Gini Coefficient

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF THE

ECONOMIC PATTERN

87

CHAPTER 4

INTRODUCTION

This chapter is an extension of the Economic Analysis that began in Chapter 3. It includes two sections, one of which, the economic base analysis, includes the Location Quotient analysis. The Location Quotient analysis is a specific type of analysis that is the method of quantifying how concentrated a particular industry, occupation, or demographic group is in a region compared to a whole. It aids us as it reveals what makes a particular region unique in comparison to the average, and will also tell us how crucial a specific industry, occupation, or demographic group is to that region compared to the average. The aforementioned Location Quotient focuses on the economy and industries in Somerset County and compares them to Pennsylvania values. The economic base industries that are identified by the Location Quotient are defined by the fact they export more goods than they import, signifying they are competitive in the

product or service they produce, so much that there is a demand outside the region for this product or service. Additionally, the remaining industries are considered non-basic and are defined by the fact they import goods and services to the region, goods and services that are not produced in an ideal fashion within the region.

The second part of this section includes a Shift-Share analysis. This specific type of analysis aids social scientists in determining what portions of regional economic growth or decline can be attributed to a national economic industry or regional factors. It identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy. A summary of the strong and competitive industries as well as the weak and less competitive industries of Somerset County are provided, and through identification of weak industries, suggestions for economic improvement are provided as well.

ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS

This section of Chapter 4 details the Location Quotient Analysis (LQ). This type of analysis quantifies how crucial a specific industry or sector of the economy is to the overall economy of a county. The LQ can also reveal what industries or sectors of the economy make a certain region unique in comparison to a larger economy. In the case of this planning report, Somerset County’s economy will be compared to Pennsylvania’ economy. The table below features Somerset County’s LQ in comparison to Pennsylvania for the year 2000. The values from this table were retrieved from the United States Census Bureau

In analysis of the table, when the LQ is close to 1, that signifies there is little difference between Somerset County and Pennsylvania. For example, Retail Trade (1.0117) is similar for both

Somerset County and Pennsylvania. When it drops significantly below or rises significantly above 1, it signifies a difference between Somerset County and Pennsylvania. For example, Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining comes out to be 3.8992. This industry stands out as a basic sector of Somerset County’s economy as it exports more resources and services in this economy than Pennsylvania does on a whole. The second highest LQ is Construction at 1.3123 and third is Public Administration at 1.2079. These figures are not nearly as impressive as Agriculture et al., however, being slightly above 1 does bode well for Somerset County’s economy. The lowest LQ values for Somerset County in 2000 are Finance and insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing (.6984), Information (.6664), and Professional, scientific, management, and administrative and

88

waste management services (.6104). These sectors are designated as non-basic since they import more of these goods and services more than they export, and are highlighted in Table 12 as red values.

Table 14 shows the same information ten years later. The values from this table were also retrieved from the United States Census Bureau. In analysis of 2010 data, Somerset County’s largest basic sector of the economy remains Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining. However, in 2010, there was a shift for second and third highest basic sectors; Arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services rose from 1.1514 to 1.4286 in 2010, and Public Administration overtook Construction for third largest basic sector at 1.3784. The industries within both Tables 11 and 12 of which are bolded are Somerset County’s top three basic sectors of their economy, signifying they export more goods and services within these sections of the economy than they export. The lowest values for Somerset County in 2010 are

Finance and insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing (.5108), Professional, scientific, management, and administrative and waste management services (.6280) and Educational services, and health care and social assistance (.7810). These values are signified in Tables 11 and 12 as red. In comparison of these two tables, Somerset County’s economy largely remains in the Agricultural sector. This information proves to be true because Somerset County is largely dominated by agricultural land use, the Somerset County tax assessment estimates 71% of the land use is designated as Agricultural.

Somerset County struggles with sectors that include finance, real estate, scientific, administrative, and education services. These economic sectors are vital to a well-functioning, balanced economy. Currently, the county has initiatives in place to rectify some of this. A proposed campus expansion for the Allegheny College of Maryland will hopefully bring more skilled labor into the region to help boost some of the economic sectors in Somerset County that seem to be struggling. With the development,

SomersetCountyLocationQuotient:UnitedStatesCensus2000

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining 3.8992

Construction 1.3123

Manufacturing 1.0560

Wholesaletrade 0.7757

Retailtrade 1.0117

Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities 1.0385

Information 0.6664

Financeandinsurance,realestate,andrentalandleasing 0.6984

Professional,scientific,management,administrative,andwastemanagementservices 0.6104

Educationalservices,andhealthcareandsocialassistance 0.8798

Arts,entertainment,recreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices 1.1514

Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration 1.1587

Publicadministration 1.2079

TABLE 13: SOMERSET COUNTY LOCATION QUOTIENT, 2000. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU

89

there is probability there will be an increase in Educational Services and the Professional et al., sectors. Except for those sectors highlighted in red within both Tables 11 and 12, Somerset

County remains in close comparison with Pennsylvania.

SHIFT-SHARE ANALYSIS

The shift-share analysis is a tool social scientists use to determine what portions of regional economic growth or decline can be attribute to national, economic industry, and regional factors. It aids in identifying where a regional economy has competitive advantages over the larger economy. National Share, Industrial Mix, and Local Share effects are also included in this analysis. Each of these components aid in understanding how a regional economy is faring compared to the economy on a whole. The National Growth Effect details how changed in the state and national economy impact the local economy to some extent. The Industry Mix Effect details the changes in a particular industry in

relation to all other industries combined; the relative change. It measures the relative advantage or disadvantage of an industry, and allows us to identify the industries that are contributing to the growth or decline of the economy, and if an industry is growing faster than the overall economy. The Local Share Effect indicates the competitive advantage of the local economy. It measures the rate of growth or decline in a particular industry and compares the rate of growth or decline in the same industry at the state or national level, depending on the parameters of the study. In this case, the regional economy will be Somerset County and the larger economy will be Pennsylvania.

SomersetCountyLocationQuotient,UnitedStatesCensus2010

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining 3.6408

Construction 1.2566

Manufacturing 1.2082

Wholesaletrade 0.8646

Retailtrade 0.9727

Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities 1.1246

Information 0.9675

Financeandinsurance,realestate,andrentalandleasing 0.5108

Professional,scientific,management,administrative,andwastemanagementservices 0.6280

Educationalservices,andhealthcareandsocialassistance 0.7810

Arts,entertainment,recreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices 1.4286

Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration 0.9602

Publicadministration 1.3784

TABLE 14: SOMERSET COUNTY LOCATION QUOTIENT, 2010. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU

90

INDUSTRIAL MIX EFFECT

In analysis of Somerset County, the first component, the Industrial Mix Effect is examined. The top three sectors of Somerset County’s economy as explained by the Industrial Mix Effect, are Educational services, and health care and social assistance (19.95%), and Arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services (17.09%), Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (12.78%). These sectors of the economy are contributing to the

growth of Somerset County, and can be inferred, are growing faster than Somerset’s overall economy. While Information, which is ranked at (-32.59%), Manufacturing, ranked at (-24.56%) and Wholesale trade ranked at (-20.59%), are the lowest three ranked by Industrial Mix, contributing to the decline of Somerset County’s economy, and growing at negative values compared to Somerset’s overall economy. The table concluding this section details all economic sectors for Somerset County.

LOCAL SHARE EFFECT

In addition to the Industrial Mix Effect, the Local Share Effect is also used to determine if aspects of a regional economy are doing well or declining. Somerset County’s main economic sector is Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining, however, this sector, as ranked by the Local Share Effect is (-14.70), one of the lowest values. Agriculture et al., in addition to Finance and insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing (-32.51%), Other services, except public administration ranked at (-23.27%) and Educational services, and health care and social assistance (-22.21%), are the several other lowest ranked economic sectors by the Local Share Effect. These economic sectors, as defined by the Local Share Effect, are in decline in the local industry, and are also in decline when they are compared to the same industry at the state level. Pennsylvania recently went through a Marcellus Shale gas industry boom, which is (mining) included in the Agriculture et al., economic sector; perhaps giving reason to as why this industry is doing so poorly when compared at the state level. In addition, Pennsylvania is becoming more and more nationally and internationally known for educational services and health care. Universities such as the University of Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania University are renowned for

research in medicine and their progressiveness in the field; Somerset County, sadly, cannot compare with that level of experience and professionalism. Somerset County has significant positive values in other sectors of its economy. Information (24.13%) is the highest scoring economic sector according to the Local Share Effect. Its relative growth is significantly lower within the local economy (see Industrial Mix), however, its relative growth compared to Pennsylvania’s Information sector is significantly higher. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) includes publishing, software publishing, telecommunications, broadcasting, and recreational and sporting event production and distribution within this sector. Somerset County has several telecommunications companies, including cable companies, which may be attributing to this high value.

Arts, entertainment, recreation and accommodation and food services (17.58%) is one of the highest values according to the Local Share Effect. Somerset County’s geography contributes greatly to the winter recreational sport fanatic; ski resorts. Seven Springs and Hidden Valley are both located within Somerset County

91

along the western border of the county, in the Laurel Highlands.

These two attractions also cater to events, host special occasions, and provide food services and accommodations. Another event located in Somerset County is Mountain Craft Days, in which local arts and wares are sold; perhaps also boosting this sector of Somerset’s economy.

Somerset County’s Public administration sector (5.67%) is also on the rise. Its Industrial Mix was slightly positive (1.69%), signifying Public administration is doing marginally better than the local economy, but its value of nearly 6% states it is doing noticeably better when compared to Pennsylvania’s Public administration economic sector.

SomersetCountyShift-ShareAnalysis,UnitedStatesCensus2000and2010 IndustrialMix

Local ShareEffect

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining 3.46% -14.70%Construction -3.45% -11.55%Manufacturing -24.56% 4.47%Wholesaletrade -20.59% 2.44%Retailtrade -2.56% -11.28%Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities -5.80% 0.02%Information -32.59% 24.13%Financeandinsurance,realestate,andrentalandleasing -3.14% -32.51%Professional,scientific,management,administrative,andwastemanagementservices 12.78% -5.77%Educationalservices,andhealthcareandsocialassistance 19.95% -22.21%Arts,entertainment,recreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices 17.09% 17.58%Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration -4.15% -23.27%Publicadministration 1.67% 5.67%

FIGURES 77 AND 78: SEVEN SPRINGS RESORT IN SOMERSET, PENNSYLVANIA. SOURCE: SEVEN SPRINGS WEBSITE AND ASHLEY PAPPAL.

TABLE 15 SOMERSET COUNTY SHIFT-SHARE ANALYSIS, INDUSTRIAL MIX AND LOCAL SHARE EFFECT. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

92

CLUSTER ANALYSIS

Cluster analyses are another key approach for social scientists to gain a better understanding of a region’s economy. Cluster analyses are key for understanding and improving the performance of the regional economy at hand, in this case, Somerset County. The foundation of a region’s economy can be defined as a group of clusters, this group, or groups, appear clustered together in the graph, see Figure 79. Figure 79 exhibits a loose cluster; including Agriculture…, Information, Wholesale trade, Constriction, Retail Trade, and the Transportation… sector. The cluster analysis is composed of three benchmarks: the X-axis (horizontal) is the Employment rate, shown in percentage, with its raw data coming from the United States Census Bureau. The Y-axis (vertical) is Earnings, also represented in percentage, with its raw data also retrieved from the United States Census Bureau, and calculations done by the author. Finally, bubble size, which is demonstrated by the Location Quotient, and was calculated in the Economic Base Analysis previously in this chapter.

The following graph shows one, loose cluster, spanning Quadrant II and Quadrant III. The values in these two quadrants exhibit (-,+) and (-,-) values for their X and Y coordinates, Employment growth and Earnings, respectively. These clusters form together because each of the industries benefit from being geographically adjacent to one another and are related. These industries have similar competitive strengths and needs. From a planning perspective, it is paramount to develop policies and practices that are oriented towards economic development within these groups of industry, especially, as they depend on each other. It is also paramount to help boost sectors that appear in heavy, radical decline. Finance…is such an economic sector that exhibited radical employment decline (-32%) and also has a relatively low LQ (.5).

The cluster analysis shows Arts… having the greatest employment growth with a relatively low increase in earnings. This might be explained as

a lot of low-wage workers are employed in this sector; restaurant workers, hotel staff, and other college-high school aged workers being employed in this sector as temporary or seasonal employment due to the winter recreational activities available in Somerset County. The Location Quotient of Arts… is (1.43), slightly higher than Pennsylvania’s (1.0).

Another trend in the cluster analysis is the large bubble size of Public administration. This sector has a slightly larger bubble size (1.38), and has experienced both an increase in Employment rate and Earnings, giving it a location in the upper-left of Quadrant I. There is opportunity for further development in the Public administration sector of Somerset County.

Agriculture…, however, maintains the largest Location Quotient for Somerset County, (3.64). This sector has potential to grow as its LQ is such a high factor, signifying it is a highly competitive industry. The downfall, however is that Employment rate (-7.89) is in drastic decline, and Earnings are relatively low (.7%). A suggested planning initiative is to divert resources to Somerset County’s Agricultural…. Sector, as it is within a loose cluster of economic sectors, is identified as a base sector of employment, and Somerset County cannot afford to have this sector of its economy moving out of the region.

Other sectors of employment that have potential for growth are Transportation…, and Manufacturing…, and Construction. These industries show LQs above (1.0), but show negative Employment rate with an increase Earnings percentages. Professional… and Educational services… are also two other sectors that have potential for growth. They are lower than Pennsylvania, as far as competitiveness, but have positives increases of their Employment rate and Earnings. Figure 79 listed below shows visual representation for this section of the report.

93

GINI COEFFICIENT

The Gini Index or Gini Coefficient is a statistical dispersion measure intended to represent the income distribution of a region’s residents and will be discussed and explained as it relates to Somerset County in this section. The index is based on the Gini coefficient, a statistical measurement that ranks income distribution on a scale between (0 and 1). The measure has been in use since its development by the Italian statistician Corrado Gini in 1921. It is used to measure the inequality of any distribution, but is commonly associated with wealth. (1) on the Gini index would register perfect inequality, while a score of (0) represents perfect equality. Low numbers on the Gini Index are not always perfect indicators of economic health, however; the Gini index measures net income, not net wealth. Somerset County’s Gini Coefficient is (.18); a

reasonably low coefficient signifying there is substantial equality within the county. The data values were derived from calculations with raw data coming from the United States Census Bureau. Table 16 below represents the data for both the Lorenz Curve and the Gini Coefficient. Data for the Gini Coefficient was calculated using Microsoft Excel, and the integer was derived by subtracting column Y (5) from column X (6), the Diversification was also calculated using Microsoft Excel and that number calculation was (1-.18), (.18) as the Gini Coefficient In addition, and related to the Gini Index, Figure 80 following the conclusion of this section visualizes Somerset County’s Lorenz Curve. As it relates to the Gini Index, this graphical representation also represents inequality and equality in Somerset County’s

FIGURE 79: CLUSTER ANALYSIS FOR SOMERSET COUNTY. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU

94

economy. When the Lorenz Curve coincides with a perfectly linear ray through the origin, (visualized in orange) the interpretation of the graph is that there is complete equality, when the Lorenz curve deviates from the 45° linear ray, the Lorenz Curve is interpreted at unequal.

Somerset County’s Lorenz Curve deviates slightly from the 45° linear ray, signifying a reasonably equal economy, but with enough inequality that there is deviation

%Share(SomersetCounty)(1)

%Share(PA)(2)

Number(3)

Denom.

(4)

Y

(5)

X

(6)

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining

0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00

Arts,entertainment,andrecreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices

0.12 0.08 0.17 0.10 0.02 0.02

Publicadministration 0.06 0.04 0.22 0.14 0.04 0.04

Construction 0.07 0.06 0.30 0.20 0.09 0.09

Manufacturing 0.15 0.12 0.45 0.32 0.16 0.16

Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities

0.06 0.05 0.50 0.37 0.23 0.24

Retailtrade 0.11 0.12 0.62 0.49 0.31 0.31

Information 0.02 0.02 0.63 0.50 0.34 0.35

Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration

0.04 0.05 0.68 0.55 0.39 0.39

Wholesaletrade 0.02 0.03 0.70 0.58 0.53 0.59

Educationalservices,andhealthcareandsocialassistance

0.20 0.26 0.91 0.84 0.81 0.85

Professional,scientific,andmanagement,andadministrativeandwastemanagementservices

0.06 0.10 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.97

Financeandinsurance,andrealestateandrentalandleasing

0.03 0.06 1.00

Total: 3.86 4.04

GiniCoefficient 0.18

Diversification 0.82

TABLE 16: DATA FOR LORENZ CURVE AND GINI COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2010

95

FIGURE 80: LORENZ CURVE FOR SOMERSET COUNTY. SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU AND AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2010

96

Introduction

SWOT Analysis

Future Development Strategies

Conclusions

CHAPTER 5: FUTURE PLANNING

& DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

97

CHAPTER 5

INTRODUCTION

This chapter of the Somerset County Planning Report focuses on future planning and development strategies. The first section details the SWOT Analysis, a structured planning used to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats involved in the county. Strengths of that section are identified as those advantages Somerset County holds over the rest of Pennsylvania. Weaknesses, on the other hand, include those disadvantages. Opportunism are identified as areas the county has the chance to exploit and cultivate to become eventual strengths. Threats are identified as those outside elements that cause complications to Somerset County’s growth and development.

Future Development Strategies will be outlined following the SWOT Analysis. Using academic resources such as the Green-Leigh and Blakely framework for future development, the strategies include four key areas: local development, business development, human resource development, and community development.

Following Future Development Strategies, concluding remarks are given. Specific tools that can be used to enhance strengths and opportunities to become stronger and more pronounced, and the opportunities to overcome weaknesses and alleviate threats are also listed in the concluding section.

SWOT ANALYSIS

STRENGTHS

First and foremost, Somerset County’s most pronounced strengths lie within its location. Due to its geographical locale, Somerset County exhibits natural assets no other county can lay claim to. State parks dot the county, includes parts of Ohio Pyle State Park, Gallitzin, and various state game lands designations. Somerset County also has Pennsylvania’s highest natural point, Mount Davis. For a full list of the state parks and natural regions, please see Chapter 1.

Somerset County’s geographic proximity to Maryland and its connectedness via the Pennsylvania Turnpike is also considered a

strength. This connectedness lends to Somerset County’s strengths in the fact it provides a major automotive route to connect it with other parts of the state and country.

Additionally, Somerset County natural assets give it ample strengths in the fact that the renewable energy sector has taken a foothold in the Laurel Highlands. Tourism and recreation also give Somerset County an economic edge above the others. Hidden Valley and Seven Springs Ski Resort both call Somerset County home, and through the tourism industry, bring in wealth and populations from across the state.

98

WEAKNESSES

Somerset County’s weaknesses lie in its demographics. Its population is declining, signaling there is little to keep its college-age and working-age population within the region.

The demographics of Somerset County are also extremely conforming as it relates to racial statistics. Overwhelmingly, the county is White; with very little deviation. The lack of racial diversity is a weakness because this signifies there are little to no cultural pull factors at work in Somerset County to help bring racial diversity into the region. Also, the lack of diversity will provide a disadvantage to Somerset County when

employers are looking to hire and maintain a diverse racial employment group.

Additionally, Somerset County’s economic standing is lending to its weaknesses. The lack of sectors such as Information and Finance are proving to be detrimental to Somerset County. The lack of Creative Class, or innovative and creative processes for producing consumer goods by knowledge-based workers in sectors of employment such as science and engineering, research, education, and information and technology sectors have statistically higher wages, are more ethnically diverse and are younger working aged population groups.

OPPORTUNITIES

Somerset County has opportunities for reuse and revitalization of land. Due to its largely agricultural background, Somerset County has the ability to promote the service sector type of jobs that will attract and maintain a younger working aged population demographic.

In addition, its proximity to Maryland and the Pennsylvania Turnpike make it a destination for travelers. The new 219 project that is currently in construction is also considered an opportunity, this road construction will connect Somerset to Meyersdale via 4-lane highway, a project that has been in the works for nearly 50 years. However, the estimated date of completion is not until fall 2017.

Additionally, the renewable energy sector is another opportunity that could be further explored. Wind energy is prominent in Somerset County, but other energy sources remain, such as solar power.

FIGURE 81: THE NEW 219 PROJECT. SOURCE: PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE

99

THREATS

The main threat for Somerset County lies in its demographics. The lack of younger aged populations is a weakness, and if left unchecked could lead to economic downturn and economic vulnerability. Additional threats include region threats through the fracking industry destroying the natural landscape of Somerset County, though this industry has entered a bust-phase in Pennsylvania.

Other threats include extreme weather fluctuations. Somerset County has large amounts of capital invested in the winter recreational facilities of Seven Springs and Hidden Valley. If the region encounters a light or warm winter, these industries will have to work harder and spend more money to create the necessary conditions required for skiing or other winter recreation.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

Both landbanking and Incentive Zoning would be viable options when it comes to future local development in Somerset County. Due to Somerset County’s decline in industry, or lack thereof, taking these underdeveloped areas and designating them for future development would help the county tremendously. Incentive Zoning

could also be a successful tool in Local Development. Being geographically close to Maryland and having the major transportation routes crisscrossing the county, Somerset has an advantage in attracting businesses by way of extra incentive.

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

For future business development providing incentives to bring Creative Class type economic sectors to the region is utmost important. By

providing tax breaks businesses would be attracted to the region, especially those that rely on each other.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

The development of human resources in Somerset County should be focused in attracting the Creative Class and youth enterprise. Utilizing skill banks, or integrated training programs for employees already within the county will both attract future development of human resource skills and sharpen the skills of the employees

already there. Maintaining the youth population is paramount for Somerset County, as this population is most likely to move roam the area when the opportunity arises. If youth enterprise is encouraged and produced, this population demographic is less likely to move from the area.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Future community development should be focused on the social and cultural heritage Somerset County already possesses. The county exhibits cultural events such as Mountain Craft Days and participate in the Jennerstown

Mountain Playhouse. Such cultural development already in place leads to further cultural and community development. These areas of cultural representation lead to a stepping stone for Somerset County to capitalize upon. Tourism

100

within these events should be encouraged. Additionally, the Flight 93 National Memorial is an example of the community banding together

after a disaster. This community development also has the potential to be capitalized on when it comes to tourism.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, Somerset County seems to possess more advantages, strengths, and opportunities than weaknesses and threats. However, the weaknesses and threats that have arisen and are prevalent in Somerset County are ones that cannot be ignored; and if left unchecked will prove to be detrimental to the county. These weaknesses and threats include lack of ethnic diversity and lack of a substantial or developing Creative Class. If these issues are addressed at even a small scale level, this would improve Somerset County’s chances of employing and maintaining the younger generation. With these younger generations having steady employment in a field they enjoy, they are more likely to stay in the area.

The opportunities that are in Somerset County are related to the interconnectedness it has with the rest of Pennsylvania and the connectedness it has with Maryland through state routes and highways and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. With the construction of the Route 219 project, Somerset County becomes even more connected, especially as it pertains to major metropolitan areas such as northern Virginia, Washington D.C. and northern Maryland, additionally, this route will provide frequent travelers with an expedited means of transportation.

In addition, several opportunities are verifiably able to be capitalized upon as it related to the

renewable energy sector, especially as it relates to the wind energy sector. Somerset County is settled directly in the Laurel Highlands, giving the county an edge on the rest of the competition without any effort or funds. With Pennsylvania currently experiencing a bust-phase of the fracking industry, this gives Somerset County the additional incentive to develop other energy sources to provide to the region.

Somerset County, on the whole, is doing well for a rural Pennsylvania county with a declining population. However, it must be noted that Somerset County has a distinctly larger younger population. This will prove to be a major incentive for Somerset County to develop youth enterprises and other industries aimed at the younger population it has so far maintained.

Its agricultural base economy lends both weaknesses and strengths. On one hand, it maintains a steady scenic environment, on the other, this industry pays poorly.

Its natural assets give it an aesthetic edge over urban areas. Somerset County maintains a type of scenic, rustic beauty that not too many places can otherwise capitalize on. The natural environment also lends Somerset County the added advantage of recreational activities, the ski resorts that have sprung up in the area testify to this.

101

REFERENCES

Google Maps. (2015). Retrieved September 2015. Hurst, D. (2014, October 4). Route 219 project touted as economic engine. Retrieved November 2015. The Memorial - Flight 93 National Memorial. (2015). Retrieved September 2015. Mountain Playhouse. (2015). Retrieved September through October, 2015. Seven Springs Mountain Resort - Pennsylvania Ski Resort. (2015). Retrieved November 2015. Social Explorer. (2015). Retrieved October through November, 2015. Somerset County Government - Comprehensive Plan. (2011). Retrieved October 2015. Somerset Historical Center. (2015). Retrieved September through October, 2015. Somerset Historical Center - Mountain Craft Days. (2015). Retrieved September 2015. Twin Ridges Wind Farm Powers Up In Pennsylvania. (2013, February 1). Retrieved September 2015. United States Bureau of the Census. (2015). Retrieved October through December 2015. United States Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). (2015). Retrieved October through November 4, 2015. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Retrieved October 2015.

102

APPENDIX

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Table1:AnalysisofPopulationCharacteristicsandTrends

*CalculatePopulationGrowthRate. Formula[(Population2010minusPopulation2000)dividedby(Population2000)]

Table2:UrbanizationTrends

Somerset Pennsylvania

Census2000 Census2010 Census2000 Census2010

UrbanPopulation 20,187 22,699 9,464,101 9,991,287

RuralPopulation 59,836 55,043 2,816,953 2,711,092

UrbanizationRate* 25.23% 29.20% 77.06% 78.66%

*CalculateUrbanizationRateasUrbanPopulationdividedbyTotalPopulation,showthefigurein%

Table3A:PopulationDistributionbyAgeandSex

Somerset MalePopulation FemalePopulation TotalPopulation

Census2000 Census2010 Census2000 Census2010 Census2000 Census2010

Under5years 2,109 1,862 2,092 1,830 4,201 3,692

5to9years 2,476 2,044 2,395 1,989 4,871 4,033

10to14years 2,764 2,269 2,640 2,190 5,404 4,459

15to19years 2,656 2,338 2,496 2,178 5,152 4,516

20to24years 2,421 2,344 1,863 1,759 4,284 4,103

25to34years 5,410 4,982 4,493 3,684 9,903 8,666

35to44years 7,276 5,536 5,998 4,549 13,274 10,085

45to54years 5,965 6,567 5,479 5,906 11,444 12,473

55to64years 3,932 5,873 3,932 5,387 7,864 11,260

65to74years 3,210 3,444 3,136 3,684 6,346 7,128

75to84years 2,174 2,004 3,309 2,923 5,483 4,927

85yearsandover

491 794 1,306 1,606 1,797 2,400

Somerset Pennsylvania

Census2000 Census2010 Census2000 Census2010

TotalPopulation 80,023 77,742 12,281,054 12,702,379

PopulationGrowthRate* -2.85% 3.43%

PopulationDensity(persq.mile) 74.5 72.4 274 281.9

103

Table3B:PopulationDistributionbyAgeandSex

Pennsylvania MalePopulation FemalePopulation TotalPopulation

Census2000 Census2010 Census2000 Census2010 Census2000 Census2010

Under5years

372,448 373,216 355,356 356,322 727,804 729,538

5to9years 424,244 384,359 403,701 369,276 827,945 753,635

10to14years

443,602 405,227 420,247 385,924 863,849 791,151

15to19years

259,267 266,649 243,356 251,182 502,623 517,831

20to24years

547,308 637,702 547,141 623,679 1,094,449 1,261,381

25to34years

776,806 757,250 783,680 753,869 1,560,486 1,511,119

35to44years

961,114 801,861 986,962 813,808 1,948,076 1,615,669

45to54years

838,567 954,832 866,465 985,572 1,705,032 1,940,404

55to64years

538,760 788,210 592,865 834,134 1,131,625 1,622,344

65to74years

429,514 450,840 539,758 528,698 969,272 979,538

75to84years

272,383 274,821 439,943 399,272 712,326 674,093

85yearsandover

65,650 95,396 171,917 210,280 237,567 305,676

Table4:PopulationDistributionbyRace

Somerset Pennsylvania

Census2000 Census2010 Census2000 Census2010

TotalPopulation 80,023 77,742 12,281,054 12,702,379

White 77,938 74,603 10,484,203 10,406,288 BlackorAfrican American

1,275 1,863 1,224,612 1,377,689

AmericanIndianand AlaskaNative

65 86 18,348 26,843

Asian 172 239 219,813 349,088 NativeHawaiianand otherPacificIslander

6 17 3,417 3,653

SomeOtherRace 250 468 188,437 300,983TwoorMoreRaces 317 466 142,224 237,835

Table5:HouseholdCharacteristics Somerset Pennsylvania

Census2000 Census2010 Census2000 Census2010

AverageHouseholdSize 2.45 2.35 2.48 2.45 AverageFamilySize 2.95 2.87 3.04 3.02

a.TotalHouseholds 31,222 31,090 4,777,003 5,018,904

aa.FamilyHouseholds 22,044 21,025 3,208,388 3,261,307

ab.Non-FamilyHouseholds 9,178 10,065 1,568,615 1,757,597

104

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS – LABOR FORCE ANALYSIS

Table1:EmploymentStatusofthePopulation

SomersetCounty PennsylvaniaCensus2000 ACS20101yrEst Census2000 ACS20101yrEst

Population16yearsandover: 64,519 64,259 9,693,040 10,273,564Inlaborforce: 36,667 36,547 6,000,512 6,470,008Civilian: 36,635 36,506 5,992,886 6,463,490Employed 34,541 32,971 5,653,500 5,842,790

Unemployed 2,094 3,535 339,386 620,700

InArmedForces: 32 41 7,626 6,518

Notinlaborforce 27,852 27,712 3,692,528 3,803,556UnemploymentRate* 5.71% 9.67% 5.66% 9.59%

Table2:Income SomersetCounty Pennsylvania

Census2000 ACS20101yrEst Census2000 ACS20101yrEst

PerCapitaIncome 15,178 19,613 20,880 26,374

PerCapitaIncome(adjustforInflation)* 21,249 27,458 29,232 36,924

MedianHouseholdIncome 36,822 28,556 40,106 49,288

MedianHouseholdIncome(adjustforinflation)Inflation)*

51,551 39,978 56,148 69,003

Table3:EducationalAttainment SomersetCounty Pennsylvania

Census2000 ACS20101yrEst Census2000 ACS20101yrEst

Population25yearsandover 55,956 56,777 8,266,284 8,558,693LessthanHighSchool 12,598 8,346 1,496,105 1,078,395HighSchoolGraduate 28,172 29,296 3,150,013 3,235,186SomeCollege 6,423 8,289 1,772,535 1,985,617Bachelor'sDegree 4,016 4,882 1,153,383 1,395,067GraduateorProfessionalDegree 2,036 227 694,248 864,428

Table4:PovertyStatusofthePopulation SomersetCounty PennsylvaniaCensus2000 ACS20101yrEst Census2000 ACS20101yrEst

Population18yearsandover: 62,480 74,016 9,003,796 9,558,471Populationabove18yearslivinginpoverty 28,059 59,228 882,372 1,125,995%PopulationlivinginPoverty 12% 14% 9.8% 7.0%Populationabove18yearsNOTlivinginpoverty 34,421 14,788 8,121,424 8,432,476

105

Table5:EmploymentbyIndustry

SomersetCounty PennsylvaniaCensus2000 Census2010 Census2000 ACS20101yrEst

11-21Agriculture,Forestry,Fishing,Mining,Quarrying,OilandGas

1,750 1,612 73,459 78,462

22Utilities 5,848 2,404 339,363 NA

23Construction 2,721 4,869 906,398 339,00731-33Manufacturing 5,848 4,869 906,398 714,137

42WholesaleTrade 953 3,785 684,179 166,422

44-45RetailTrade 4,229 1,884 304,335 689,555

48-49TransportationandWarehousing 1,931 1,884 304,335 296,880

51Information 606 1,075 372,148 105,315

52FinanceandInsurance 1,588 1,075 372,148 372,922

53RealEstateandRentalandLeasing N/A N/A N/A NA

54Professional,Scientific,andTechnicalServices

1,786 1,971 478,937 556,189

55ManagementofCompaniesandEnterprises N/A N/A N/A NA

56AdministrativeSupport,WasteManagement,RemediationServices

N/A N/A N/A NA

61EducationalServices 6,650 6,722 1,237,090 1,525,278

62HealthCareandSocialAssistance N/A N/A N/A NA

71Arts,Entertainment,andRecreation 2,799 3,863 397,871 479,177

72AccommodationsandFoodServices N/A N/A N/A N/A

81OtherServices(exceptPublicAdministration)1,940 1,473 274,028 271,836

82PublicAdministration 1,740 1,926 235,767 247,610

106

Table5A:EmploymentbyIndustry SomersetCounty PennsylvaniaCensus2000 Census2010 Census2000 ACS20101yrEst

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining

1,750 1,612 73,459 78,462

Construction 2,721 2,404 339,363 339,007

Manufacturing 5,848 4,869 906,398 714,137Wholesaletrade 953 812 201,084 166,422Retailtrade 4,229 3,785 684,179 689,555Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities

1,931 1,884 304,335 296,880

Information 606 575 148,841 105,315Financeandinsurance,andrealestateandrentalandleasing

1,588 1,075 372,148 372,922

Professional,scientific,andmanagement,andadministrativeandwastemanagementservices

1,786 1,971 478,937 556,189

Educationalservices,andhealthcareandsocialassistance

6,650 6,722 1,237,090 1,525,278

Arts,entertainment,andrecreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices

2,799 3,863 397,871 479,177

Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration

1,940 1,473 274,028 271,836

Publicadministration 1,740 1,926 235,767 247,610

Table6:EarningsbyIndustry SomersetCounty PennsylvaniaCensus2000 Census2010 Census2000 Census2010

11-21Agriculture,Forestry,Fishing,Mining,Quarrying,OilandGas

N/A 8,003 N/A 3,537,758

22Utilities N/A N/A N/A N/A

23Construction N/A 70,260 N/A 20,253,406

31-33Manufacturing N/A 154,542 N/A 39,605,017

42WholesaleTrade N/A 58,259 N/A 18,520,348

44-45RetailTrade N/A 99,207 N/A 21,863,904

48-49TransportationandWarehousing N/A 93,309 N/A 15,668,589

51Information N/A 16,216 N/A 14,978,181

52FinanceandInsurance N/A 37,442 N/A 29,749,241

53RealEstateandRentalandLeasing N/A N/A N/A N/A

54Professional,Scientific,andTechnicalServices N/A 37,442 N/A 59,666,64255ManagementofCompaniesandEnterprises N/A N/A N/A N/A

56AdministrativeSupport,WasteManagement,RemediationServices

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

61EducationalServices N/A 167,172 N/A 64,791,077

62HealthCareandSocialAssistance N/A N/A N/A N/A

71Arts,Entertainment,andRecreation N/A 65,295 N/A 12,664,186

72AccommodationsandFoodServices N/A N/A N/A N/A

107

81OtherServices(exceptPublicAdministration) N/A 65,398 N/A 13,381,763

82PublicAdministration N/A 285,036 N/A 57,982,525

Table6A:EarningsbyIndustry SomersetCounty Pennsylvania 2010 2010Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining 8,003 3,537,758Construction 70,260 20,253,406Manufacturing 154,542 39,605,017Wholesale trade 58,259 18,520,348Retailtrade 99,207 21,863,904Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities 93,309 15,668,589Information 16,216 14,978,181Financeandinsurance,andrealestateandrentalandleasing

37,442 29,749,241

Professional,scientific,andmanagement,andadministrativeandwastemanagementservices

42,777 59,666,642

Educationalservices,andhealthcareandsocialassistance

167,172 64,791,077

Arts,entertainment,andrecreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices

65,295 12,664,186

Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration 65,398 13,381,763Publicadministration 285,036 57,982,525

108

Table7ACommutingPatterns SomersetCounty Pennsylvania Census2000 Census2010 Census2000 Census2010AverageCommuteTimetoWork 22.9 24.5 25.2 25.9Car,TruckorVan-IndividualDriving 26,981 26,660 4,247,836 4,407,079

Car,TruckorVan-Carpooling 4,211 2,714 577,364 504,848

PublicTransportation 88 30 289,699 310,436

Walked 1,062 992 229,725 218,870

Others 213 390 47,041 69,723

WorkedfromHome 1,494 1,733 164,646 212,107

Table7B:CommutingPercentages SomersetCounty Pennsylvania Census2000 Census2010 Census2000 Census2010AverageCommuteTimetoWork 22.9 24.5 25.2 25.9Car,TruckorVan-IndividualDriving 79.24% 81.98% 76.45% 77.01%Car,TruckorVan-Carpooling 12.37% 8.35% 10.39% 8.82%PublicTransportation 0.26% 0.09% 5.21% 5.42%Walked 3.12% 3.05% 4.13% 3.82%

Others 0.63% 1.20% 0.85% 1.22%WorkedfromHome 4.39% 5.33% 2.96% 3.71%

109

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS – ECONOMIC PATTERN

Table5A:EmploymentbyIndustry(LocationQuotient)

SomersetCounty PennsylvaniaCensus2000 Census

2010Census2000 ACS20101yrEst.

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining 1,750 1,612 73,459 78,462

Construction 2,721 2,404 339,363

339,007Manufacturing 5,848 4,869 906,39

8714,137

Wholesaletrade 953 812 201,084

166,422Retailtrade 4,22

93,785 684,17

9689,555

Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities 1,931 1,884 304,335 296,880

Information 606 575 148,841

105,315Financeandinsurance,andrealestateandrentalandleasing

1,58

8

1,075

372,14

8

372,922

Professional,scientific,andmanagement,andadministrativeandwastemanagementservices

1,786 1,971 478,937 556,189

Educationalservices,andhealthcareandsocialassistance

6,650 6,722 1,237,090 1,525,278

Arts,entertainment,andrecreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices

2,799 3,863 397,871 479,177

Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration 1,940 1,473 274,028 271,836

Publicadministration 1,740

1,926 235,767

247,610Totals 34,54

132,971

5,653,500

5,842,790

Shift-ShareAnalysis SomersetCounty PennsylvaniaCensus2000 Census2010 Census2000 ACS20101yrEst

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining

1,750 1,612 73,459 78,462

Construction 2,721 2,404 339,363 339,007

Manufacturing 5,848 4,869 906,398 714,137

Wholesaletrade 953 812 201,084 166,422

Retailtrade 4,229 3,785 684,179 689,555

Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities

1,931

1,884

304,335

296,880

Information 606 575 148,841 105,315

Financeandinsurance,andrealestateandrentalandleasing

1,588 1,075 372,148 372,922

Professional,scientific,andmanagement,andadministrativeandwastemanagementservices

1,786 1,971 478,937 556,189

Educationalservices,andhealthcareandsocialassistance

6,650 6,722 1,237,090 1,525,278

110

Arts,entertainment,andrecreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices

2,799 3,863 397,871 479,177

Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration

1,940 1,473 274,028 271,836

Publicadministration 1,740 1,926 235,767 247,610

Industries/EconomicSectorsbyNAICSCode

SomersetCounty

SomersetCounty

2000 2010 Change2000-12 GrowthRatein%

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining

1,750 1,612 -138 -7.89%

Construction 2,721 2,404 -317 -11.65%

Manufacturing 5,848 4,869 -979 -16.74%

Wholesaletrade 953 812 -141 -14.80%

Retailtrade 4,229 3,785 -444 -10.50%

Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities

1,931

1,884

-47 -2.43%

Information 606 575 -31 -5.12%

Finance,insurance,realestate,andrentalandleasing

1,588 1,075 -513 -32.30%

Professional,scientific,management,administrative,andwastemanagementservices

1,786 1,971 185 10.36%

Educational,healthandsocialservices

6,650 6,722 72 1.08%

Arts,entertainment,recreation,accommodationandfoodservices

2,799 3,863 1,064 38.01%

Otherservices(except 1,940 1,473 -467 -24.07%

Publicadministration 1,740 1,926 186 10.69%

TotalEmployment,Changes,andGrowthrates

34,541 32,971 -1,570 -4.55%

NAICSCode Pennsylvania Pennsylvania2000-10 2000 2010 Change2000-10 GrowthRatein%

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining

73,459 78,462 5,003 6.81%

Construction 339,363 339,007 -356 -0.10%

Manufacturing 906,398 714,137 -192,261 -21.21%

Wholesaletrade 201,084 166,422 -34,662 -17.24%

Retailtrade 684,179 689,555 5,376 0.79%

111

Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities

304,335

296,880

-7,455 -2.45%

Information 148,841 105,315 -43,526 -29.24%

Finance,insurance,realestate,andrentalandleasing

372,148 372,922 774 0.21%

Professional,scientific,management,administrative,andwastemanagementservices

478,937 556,189 77,252 16.13%

Educational,healthandsocialservices

1,237,090

1,525,278

288,188 23.30%

Arts,entertainment,recreation,accommodationandfoodservices

397,871 479,177 81,306 20.44%

Otherservices(exceptpublicadministration)

274,028

271,836

-2,192 -0.80%

Publicadministration 235,767 247,610 11,843 5.02%

TotalEmployment,Changes,andGrowthrates

5,653,500 5,842,790 189,290 3.35%

Industries/EconomicSectorsbyNAICSCode

SomersetCounty

SomersetCounty2000-10

2000 2010 StateGrowthEffect

IndustryMixEffect LocalShareEffect

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining

1,750 1,612 3.35% 3.46% -14.70%

Construction 2,721 2,404 3.35% -3.45% -11.55%

Manufacturing 5,848 4,869 3.35% -24.56% 4.47%

Wholesaletrade 953 812 3.35% -20.59% 2.44%

Retailtrade 4,229 3,785 3.35% -2.56% -11.28%

Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities

1,931 1,884 3.35% -5.80% 0.02%

Information 606 575 3.35% -32.59% 24.13%

Finance,insurance,realestate,andrentalandleasing

1,588 1,075 3.35% -3.14% -32.51%

Professional,scientific,management,administrative,andwastemanagementservices

1,786 1,971 3.35% 12.78% -5.77%

Educational,healthandsocialservices

6,650

6,722

3.35% 19.95% -22.21%

Arts,entertainment,recreation,accommodationandfoodservices

2,799 3,863 3.35% 17.09% 17.58%

112

Otherservices(exceptpublicadministration)

1,940 1,473 3.35% -4.15% -23.27%

Publicadministration 1,740 1,926 3.35% 1.67% 5.67%

Total 34,541 32,971 3.35% -41.91% -7.89%

SomersetCounty2000-10

StateGrowthEffect

IndustryMixEffect

LocalShareEffect TotalShift=StateShare+IndustryMix+LocalEffect

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining

59 61 -257 -138

Construction 91 -94 -314 -317Manufacturing 196 -1,436 261 -979Wholesaletrade 32 -196 23 -141Retailtrade 142 -108 -477 -444Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities

65 -112 0 -47

Information 20 -198 146 -31Finance,insurance,realestate,andrentalandleasing

53 -50 -516 -513

Professional,scientific,management,administrative,andwastemanagementservices

60 228 -103 185

Educational,healthandsocialservices

223 1,326 -1,477 72

Arts,entertainment,recreation,accommodationandfoodservices

94 478 492 1,064

Otherservices(exceptpublicadministration)

65 -81 -451 -467

Publicadministration 58 29 99 186Total 1,157 -14,476 -2,726 -1,570

ClusterAnalysis LocationQuotient

LocalShareEffect

EmploymentGrowthRate

Earnings Earnings(%) EmploymentGrowthRate

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining

3.64077484 -14.70% -7.89% 8,003 0.69% -7.89%

113

Construction 1.2566489 -11.55% -11.65% 70260 6.04% -11.65%

Manufacturing 1.20822105 4.47% -16.74% 154542 13.29% -16.74%

Wholesaletrade 0.86463627 2.44% -14.80% 58259 5.01% -14.80%

Retailtrade 0.97271392 -11.28% -10.50% 99207 8.53% -10.50%

Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities

1.1245742

0.02%

-2.43%

93309

8.02%

-2.43%

Information 0.96753296 24.13% -5.12% 16216 1.39% -5.12%

Financeandinsurance,andrealestateandrentalandleasing

0.51083261 -32.51% -32.30% 37,442 3.22% -32.30%

Professional,scientific,andmanagement,andadministrativeandwastemanagementservices

0.62798951 -5.77% 10.36% 42,777 3.68% 10.36%

Educationalservices,andhealthcareandsocialassistance

0.78097595 -22.21% 1.08% 167,172 14.38% 1.08%

Arts,entertainment,andrecreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices

1.42862058 17.58% 38.01% 65,295 5.61% 38.01%

Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration

0.96024916 -23.27% -24.07% 65,398 5.62% -24.07%

Publicadministration 1.37840316 5.67% 10.69% 285,036 24.51% 10.69%

SomersetCounty Pennsylvania

Census2010

%Share LQ Census2010 %Share

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining

2404 7.3% 1.26 78,462 1.3%

Construction 4869 14.8% 1.21 339,007 5.8%Manufacturing 4869 14.8% 1.21 714,137 12.2%

Wholesaletrade 812 2.5% 0.86 166,422 2.8%

Retailtrade 3785 11.5% 0.97 689,555 11.8%Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities

1884 5.7% 1.12 296,880 5.1%

Information 575 1.7% 0.97 105,315 1.8%Financeandinsurance,andrealestateandrentalandleasing

1075 3.3% 0.51 372,922 6.4%

Professional,scientific,andmanagement,andadministrativeandwastemanagementservices

1971 6.0% 0.63 556,189 9.5%

Educationalservices,andhealthcare,andsocialassistance

6722 20.4% 0.78 1,525,278 26.1%

Arts,entertainment,andrecreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices

3863 11.7% 1.43 479,177 8.2%

Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration

1473 4.5% 0.96 271,836 4.7%

Public 1926 5.8% 1.38 247,610 4.2%

114

administrationTotal: 32971 5,842,790 100.0%

%Share(1) %Share(PA) Num.(3) Denom.(4) (5)Y (6)X

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining

0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00

Arts,entertainment,andrecreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices

0.12 0.08 0.17 0.10 0.02 0.02

Publicadministration 0.06 0.04 0.22 0.14 0.04 0.04

Construction 0.07 0.06 0.30 0.20 0.09 0.09

Manufacturing 0.15 0.12 0.45 0.32 0.16 0.16

Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities

0.06 0.05 0.50 0.37 0.23 0.24

Retailtrade 0.11 0.12 0.62 0.49 0.31 0.31

Information 0.02 0.02 0.63 0.50 0.34 0.35

Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration

0.04 0.05 0.68 0.55 0.39 0.39

Wholesaletrade 0.02 0.03 0.70 0.58 0.53 0.59

Educationalservices,andhealthcareandsocialassistance

0.20 0.26 0.91 0.84 0.81 0.85

Professional,scientific,andmanagement,andadministrativeandwastemanagementservices

0.06 0.10 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.97

Financeandinsurance,andrealestateandrentalandleasing

0.03 0.06 1.00 1.00 3.86 4.04

GINI 0.18

Diversification 0.82

LorenzCurve

0.00 0.00

Agriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,andmining 0.05 0.01

Arts,entertainment,andrecreation,andaccommodationandfoodservices

0.17

0.10Publicadministration 0.22 0.14

Construction 0.30 0.20

115

Manufacturing 0.45 0.32

Transportationandwarehousing,andutilities 0.50 0.37

Retailtrade 0.62 0.49

Information 0.63 0.50

Otherservices,exceptpublicadministration 0.68 0.55

Wholesaletrade 0.70 0.58

Educationalservices,andhealthcareandsocialassistance 0.91 0.84

Professional,scientific,andmanagement,andadministrativeandwastemanagementservices

0.97

0.94

Financeandinsurance,andrealestateandrentalandleasing 1.00 1.00

TABLE 11

2010

Somerset Pennsylvania

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining

8,003 3,537,758

Construction 70,260 20,253,406

Manufacturing 154,542 39,605,017

Wholesale trade 58,259 18,520,348

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 99,207 21,863,904

Retail trade 93,309 15,668,589

Information 16,216 14,978,181

Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing

37,442

29,749,241

Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services

42,777 59,666,642

Educational services, and health care and social assistance

167,172

64,791,077

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services

65,295 12,664,186

Other services, except public administration 65,398 13,381,763

Public administration 285,036 57,982,525