WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES • 16110 FPP 11/71
»T
Interstate Planning for Regional
Water Supply and Pollution Control
VS. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Series describes the
results and progress in the control and abatement of pollution
in our Nation's waters. They provide a central source of
information on the research, development, and demonstration
activities in the water research program of the Environmental
Protection Agency, through in-house research and grants and
contracts with Federal, state, and local agencies, research
institutions, and industrial organizations.
Inquiries pertaining to Water Pollution Control Research
Reports should be directed to the Chief, Publications Branch
(Water), Research Information Division, R&M, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
INTERSTATE PLANNING FOR REGIONAL WATER
SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL
by
Delaware River Basin Commission
25 State Police Drive
P. O. Box 360
Trenton, New Jersey 08603
for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Project #16110 FPP (FWPCA WPD-136-01-66)
November 1971
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $3.
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Monitoring, EPA, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
This Foreword, prepared by the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the con-
sultants' report which follows, presents the results of a study of the problem of
water supply and waste disposal in the three-State, six-county region in which the
Tocks Island Reservoir and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area are
being developed.
The consultants' report presents various alternatives for water supply and waste
disposal in the 1,000 square mile drainage area of the Tocks Island Reservoir.
This region is presently undergoing rapid growth as a result not only of the Federal
dam, reservoir, and recreation area projects, but of major new highways, second-
home development, land speculation, and the burgeoning recreation industry.
Peak summer populations are projected over a 50-year period and utilities systems
alternatives which could accommodate such projected growth are presented in the
report. Water supplies in the region are seen as adequate to meet future demands,
with heavy emphasis on development of groundwater resources. Five alternative
sewerage plans, ranging in degree of regionalization from 116 local treatment
systems to a single system for the entire region, are outlined including detailed
cost estimates. Preservation of water quality in the region is a primary objective
of the study.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 16110FFP (FWPCA
WPD-136-01-66), under the sponsorship of the Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency.
in
-------
CONTENTS
Section
Foreword Delaware River Basin Commission
Consultant's Report Tocks Island Region Environmental Study(follows page) 16
Special Acknowledgments
Consultant's Table of Contents
List of Tables
Lfot of Figures
I Summary of Findings and Recommendations -1-
II Introduction -17-
III General Description of the TIRES Area -23-
IV Alternatives in Plans and Policies -37-
Approaches and Investigative Methods -37-
Summary of Existing Conditions and Facilities -45-
Future Conditions and Needs -48-
Brief Descriptions of Alternative Plans -72-
V Selection of Master Plans -91-
Land Use -92-
Water Supply -96-
Liquid Waste Disposal -101-
Solid Waste Disposal -118-
VI Figures -123-
VII Appendices A through I
-------
FOREWORD
The following report entitled Tocks Island Region Environmental Study (TIRES) was
prepared by the consulting firm of Roy F.Weston, Environmental Scientists and
Engineers, West Chester, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with and for the Delaware
River Basin Commission and many Federal, State, and local agencies of the parties
signatory to the Delaware River Basin Compact. It is a demonstration of inter-
state, intergovernmental planning for regional water supply and pollution control.
The results offer a concrete demonstration that a multiplicity of governmental ju-
risdictions at varying levels can coordinate efforts to formulate environmental
master plans for an intercounty, interstate region undergoing rapid development.
Appendix A of the TIRES Report, entitled, Participants And Their Affiliations,
lists the various individuals and agencies involved in this study.
Importance of Demonstrating Intergovernmental Cooperation
The Delaware River, and particularly the Tocks Island region, offers an ideal op-
portunity to demonstrate intergovernmental cooperation. The Tocks Island region
portion of the river system includes local, State, interstate, and national inter-
ests, all levels of which have responsibilities in the conservation, utilization,
development, management, and control of the water and related land resources.
These interests must be coordinated in the solution of a variety of complex tech-
nical problems, with full consideration of total watersheds, regional impact, and
economies of scale.
TIRES Method of Demonstrating Intergovernmental Cooperation
The Delaware River Basin Commission organized the Tocks Island Region Environ-
mental Study in 1966 under its responsibility as a regional agency of the parties
signatory to the Delaware River Basin Compact. Memoranda of Understanding
were negotiated with the many Federal, State, interstate, regional, and county
agencies concerned with land and water uses, waste disposal, pollution control,
natural resources, and environmental health in the region. A copy of the Memo-
randum of Understanding negotiated and executed with each participant is in-
cluded at the end of this FOREWORD. These agreements provided for the ser-
vices of technical personnel from each of the agencies to a total monetary equi-
valent of over $200,000, as well as providing a funnel for receipt of invaluable
technical and general information related to the study. The cooperation and re-
sources of the various agencies and individuals involved insured that the problems
were considered in depth and that all available alternatives were considered
adequately.
1
-------
The plan of operation and the method by which intergovernmental cooperation
was effectively demonstrated was through the creation of the TIRES Advisory Com-
mittee, composed of top level representatives of each of the 26 participating
agencies. Each Advisory Committee member was responsible for liaison between
his respective agency and the other participating agencies and for assigning in-
dividual specialists from his agency to serve on four TIRES Task Groups, which
provided technical expertise to the Delaware River Basin Commission and its con-
sulting engineers.
The four Task Groups were:
a) Land Use and Population Task Group
b) Water Supply Task Group
c) Liquid Waste Disposal Task Group
d) Sol id Waste Disposal Task Group.
Membership on any of the Task Groups was open to any member of the Advisory
Committee, and to any person or persons designated by Advisory Committee mem-
bers. The purposes of the Task Groups were to assist and guide the Commission
and its consultant and to effect good communications for the interchange of in-
formation between all participants. The Task Groups collected and assembled
data, information, references and reports related to water resources, water supply
water demand, and waste disposal and made them available to the consultant
through the Delaware River Basin Commission. They also reviewed and submitted
comments on interim and preliminary reports prepared by the Commission, its con-
sultants, the Advisory Committee, the other Task Groups, and other cooperating
agencies. These inputs to the Study by the participating agencies were a major
contribution toward the objectives of the TIRES project.
Success of Demonstrating Intergovernmental Cooperation
It has been shown as a result of the TIRE Study that intergovernmental coopera-
tion in regional water resources planning is not only feasible, it is a requirement
in any area or region where a multiplicity of governmental levels is represented,
and where jurisdictions and responsibilities overlap.
An important indication of the success of the TIRES cooperative program has been
found to be the impact of the report, which has attained stature in subsequent re-
gional planning efforts despite the fact that it is only a feasibility study, and not
a detailed plan of action. This is a firm indication that when a program is
evolved that represents a unified cooperative effort of all levels of government,
its recommendations are more readily accepted than if it originated in a single
-------
agency at any one level of government. It can therefore be stated conclusively
that intergovernmental cooperation is an effective and viable tool, and that the
concept has been effectively demonstrated by the TIRE Study.
Liquid Wastes and the Regional ization Concept
The concept of regional ization of liquid waste disposal systems in the Tocks Island
region is represented dominantly in the TIRES report in the development of the
five alternative sewerage schemes. It is appropriate, therefore, to discuss briefly
the importance to the TIRES participants of the comprehensive analysis of the re-
gional ization concept as applied to the TIRES project.
Liquid waste disposal in the 1,000 square-mile Tocks Island region is recognized
as a major problem. The large area, the scattered population centers, and the
topography of the region make it difficult to interconnect the existing population
centers with sewers.
However, the present and future uses of the region's water require that their ex-
isting high quality be fully protected. The present environment of the Tocks Is-
land region is generally of a high esthetic quality, and the current nationwide
interest in the quality of the environment mandates its preservation and enhance-
ment. The special nature of the region, with its centra! attraction the first na-
tional recreation area in the Eastern United States, and the projected enormous
investment in the water-oriented recreation facilities and water supplies, justify
substantial measures to protect the region's water quality. The factors required
consideration of a solution of the waste-water disposal problem that will afford
maximum protection of water quality, especially that of the Tocks Island Reser-
voir. Therefore, a regional system of sewage collection and central treatment
with final disposal of the effluent to the Delaware River at a location below the
Tocks Island Dam became alternative 5, calling for immediate full regionaliza-
tion of liquid waste disposal facilities. However, to find a solution that is both
acceptable and attainable, the TIRES project investigated various subregional
alternatives, providing differing scales of water quality protection, environ-
mental protection, and costs.
The standard advantages of regional ization were found to be apparent and per-
haps even more applicable to the Tocks Island region than anywhere else in the
Delaware River Basin. As a rule, the larger the treatment facility, the less the
cost of construction and operation per capita. More efficient and capable plant
operation is attainable in larger facilities since such plants are able to hire
qualified supervisory and operating personnel as well as to provide adequate
laboratory controls. Many small plants in the Tocks Island region are now op-
-------
erating without these necessities. There is far more flexibility and stability inthe
operation of a large plant. Since, in addition to the protection of the water
quality in the Tocks Island Reservoir, re-use of water will be a factor in the Dela-
ware River downstream of the reservoir, highly sophistcated treatment, which
cannot be accomplished with anything less than the most capable maintenance and
operation, was considered a necessity for the Tocks Island region.
Additional factors included in the analysis of the regionalization concept in the
study area were:
1) the cost of water-quality surveillance in the streams and aquifers
that must receive and assimilate the effluents from the sewerage
systems;
2) protection of the esthetic quality of the environment, one of the
principle goals of the TIRE Study and its cooperating agencies.
Modern, well operated waste water treatment plants can produce
effluents that are safe enough from the standpoint of protection
of public health, and effluents that will not harm fish or other
aquatic life. For example, if effluents are to be discharged into
the Tocks Island Reservoir, it can be assumed that they will be
treated to whatever degree necessary to protect bathers and
boaters using die reservoir, to protect aquatic life in the im-
poundment, and to protect the potability of water supplies taken
from the reservoir directly or from the Delaware River downstream
of the dam. However, few would agree that the esthetic quality
of a waterway is not somewhat degraded by the discharge into it
of sewage, no matter how well treated and diluted. For this
reason, the analysis of the regional ization concept included the
desirability of limiting the number of streams receiving treated
'effluents. Obviously, the mo^e regional ized system would give
the greatest degree of protection of the esthetic qual ity of the
environment;
3) protection of water quality. Beyond the question of esthetics,
it was, deemed necessary to give special consideration of this
future site of a major national recreation area, to the relative
degree of protection of the physical, chemical, and biological
quality of the waters receiving the effluents from the various
sewerage schemes studied. Modern treatment plants can be de-
signed and operated to protect beneficial water uses, however,
there is no guarantee that th.ey will be so operated. Mechanical
-------
failures and human errors that are not uncommon in small treat-
ment works, especially in poorly staffed systems—and small
plants are generally less effectively staffed than larger facilities.
• The extent to which treatment facilities fail to meet design ef-
fluent standards was found to be an important consideration in
the TIRES area;
4) degree of dilution. The regionalization concept was analyzed
further by consideration of the degree of dilution that will be
provided in the receiving waters. Under less regionalized sys-
tems, as presented in sewerage alternative 1 in the TIRES report,
the tributary streams that would receive the treated effluents are
mostly small streams with low flows, especially during the warm
summer season when dilution requirements would be greatest.
i Effluents discharged directly into the Tocks Island Reservoir
would have available a virtually unlimited amount of dilution
water. : However, the mixing characteristics of reservoirs are
generally difficult to predict in advance. The actual dilution
may be far less than that indicated by the rate of flow of water
through Tocks Island Reservoir. Moreover, the waste assimila-
tive capacity of impounded waterways is generally small com-
pared with that of free flowing streams. The flow of the Dela-
ware River below Tocks Island Dam is to be regulated—aug-
mented during periods of natural low flow. This regulation will
provide a high degree of dilution of effluents discharged to the
main stem of the Delaware below the dam. The factors of dilu-
tion and waste-assimilative capacity favored a regionalized ap-
proach in the Tocks Island region.
The foregoihg, in addition to presenting the importance of detailed consideration
of the regionalizatiori concept in the Tocks Island region, reveals the determina-
tion of the study group to consider optimum solutions to regional water supply and
waste disposal problems, rather than solutions based upon short range objectives
at the least cost. If for no other reasons, the objective and need to protect the
water quality of the Tocks Island Reservoir and the environment of the surrounding
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area are considered to be sufficient to
warrant development of optimum solutions for the region, and for the public pur-
poses it will eventually serve.
Mathematical Model ing
The Tocks Island Region Environmental Study did not incorporate mathematical
optimization techniques in developing the final alternatives for water supply and
5
-------
waste disposal, although such techniques were considered at the outset and sub-
sequently rejected as not applicable at the time. In addition, it was determined
that the detail of system definition and range of system configuration for the study
were beyond the scope of mathematical models existing in 1966 when the study
was undertaken.
Public Release of the Consultants' Report
Shortly after the consultants' final TIRES report was received by the Delaware
River Basin Commission, in mid-1970, a decision was made by the Commission to
release the report to the public.
Because the three-volume consultants' report was too large and expensive to dis-
tribute widely, a summary was prepared by Commission staff. The summary was
included as an attachment to notices of a series of public information meetings in
the Tocks Island region and was also made available for general distribution to the
press and at other meetings in the region. Arrangements were made for copies of
the full TIRES document to be located at accessible locations (schools, town halls,
and libraries) throughout the study area for public inspection.
Public information meetings were held at Stroudsburg, Pa., on November 16 and
21, 1970, respectively. The first of these was a formal press conference which
resulted in wide coverage of the report and its content in area news media. The
second was a presentation at the fifth anniversary meeting of the Tocks Island Re-
gional Advisory Council, a regional seven-county interstate agency concerned
with planning in the Tocks Island area.
On December 2, and 8, 1970, additional public information meetings were held
at Newton, N.J., and Mi I ford, Pa., respectively.
Although the meetings were publicized in advance, relatively few persons at-
tended.
Finally, during November 1970, copies of the consultants' report were distributed
to all participating agencies through the TIRES Advisory Committee, area plan-
ning commissions, municipalities, and others concerned with Tocks Island region
development.
All copies of the consultants' report distributed to date have included a covering
letter as required by the Delaware River Basin Commission, as follows;
-------
"November 2, 1970
"The enclosed report on the locks Island Region Environmental Study was
prepared for the Delaware River Basin Commission by the consulting firm of Roy F.
Weston, Environmental Scientists and Engineers, of West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The report presents the results of a three-year study of the problem of water supply
and waste disposal in the three-State, six-county region in which the Tocks Island
Reservoir and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area aVe being de-
veloped .
"The consultants' report presents various alternatives for water supply and
waste disposal in the rapidly growing region. Most important are those alternative
sewerage plans designed to protect the quality of water in the region. In particu-
lar, the aim of the study and the sewerage alternatives is to prevent degradation
of water quality in the Tocks Island Reservoir.
"It is emphasized that the report is by the firm of Roy F. Weston, and the
recommendations contained in it are those of the consultants. Although the Dela-
ware River Basin Commission staff and representatives of other Federal, State, and
local governmental agencies participated in the three-year study in various ways,
none of these agencies has, at this time, endorsed the consultants' report.
"This Commission, in cooperation with other agencies, is currently con-
tinuing studies of the sewerage problem of the Tocks Island Region, and it is anti-
cipated that these studies will lead to a selection of the best overall plan for waste-
water disposal in the Tocks Island region. These studies should also guide the Com-
mission in its decision on how best to implement the plan selected.
"In the meantime, it is important to note that the Delaware River Basin
Commission has not yet reached any decisions concerning an approved Tocks Island
regional sewerage plan or its implementation. Reviewers of the consultants' report
are invited to submit comments to the Commission on these matters. "
Delaware River Basin Commission Plans
It had been the intent of the Delaware River Basin Commission to conduct a public
hearing in early 1971 on the inclusion of a regional sewerage system for the Tocks
Island region in the Commission's Comprehensive Plan. The hearing was to have
been held within the study area, and was to have been limited to the physical pro-
blems and prospective solutions. After the hearing, it was the intent of the Com-
mission to consider the testimony and conduct additional staff studies as necessary
to develop a recommendation for inclusion of a sewerage plan in the Commission's
Comprehensive Plan.
7
-------
In the intervening period, however, the locks Island Reservoir project has been
subjected to criticism and additional Federal and Commission studies have been
undertaken. It is not anticipated that final sewerage planning will be developed
until the outcome of the studies and fate of the locks Island Reservoir project is
known.
Additional Technical Data
Comments on the locks Island Region Environmental Study have been received by
the Delaware River Basin Commission from several sources. These comments in-
dicate a need for technical clarification and additional background information
on various aspects of the Study.
Determination of Basic Cost Estimation Data. Basic cost estimation data for
the treatment plants, interceptor sewers, intracommunity sewers, intracommunity
sewers and pumping stations were developed on the basis of the following sources:
Rowan, P- P., Jenkins, K. L., and Howells, D. H. "Estimating Sew-
age Treatment Plant Operation and Maintenance Costs." Water
Pollution Control Federation Journal, Vol. 33, p. Ill, 1961.
Logan, John A., Hatfield, W. D., Russell, George S., and Lynn,
Walter. "An Analysis of the Economics of Waste Water Treat-
ment." Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, Vol. 34,
p. 860, 1962.
Data contained in these references were checked against actual costs of treatment
facilities designed by the consultants in the Tocks Island region. The basic cost
figures thus determined were adjusted by 30 percent to cover additional (tertiary)
treatment, 15 percent was added for construction contingencies, and 20 percent
for associated costs. These factors are explained in the TIRES report text.
Unit prices based on prevailing bid prices in the area were used for estimating
sewer lines and pumping stations. The prices ranged from $20 to $75 per foot for
lines and from $30,000 to $350,000 for pumping stations.
Discussion of Assumed 95 Percent BOD Removal Rate and Stream Quality
Anal yses. No stream assimilation studies were performed as part of the Tocks Is-
land Region Environmental Study. The assumption used was that a flat 95 percent
biological oxygen demand removal rate is suitable for comparative cost analyses.
The basis for this assumption is that all water quality standards established now and
in the future by regulatory agencies will have to be met at the time of construe-
-------
SECTION IV
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sorption Studies
Sorption isotherms were determined for NTA on a sand, a loam, and a clay-
loam soil in order to broadly span the various soil types which might be
encountered in natural situations. The soils used, all of which were
obtained in the vicinity of Ada, Oklahoma, were identified by United
States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service soil surveys
as Konawa loamy fine sand, Claremore loam, and Burleson clay loam. Soils
were air dried and screened to remove pebbles, seeds, and similar extraneous
matter before use.
Solutions of the trisodium salt of NTA (NTA Na-j) uniformly labeled with
carbon- 14 were utilized in sorption studies as well as the other phases
of this investigation. These solutions were prepared from l^C-NTA,
uniformly labeled, specific activity 2.5 mCi/mmole (New England Nuclear
Corporation, 575 Albany Street, Boston, Massachusetts) mixed with proper
proportions of unlabeled NTA Na3-H20 (NTA Batch No. 1, supplied by the
Soap and Detergent Association, 485 Madison Avenue, New York, New York)
to give the desired activity and NTA Na^ concentration. Stock solutions
of NTA Na3 were sterilized by filtering through 0.45 y Millipore filters
and aseptic techniques were employed throughout the sorption studies to
eliminate the possibility of microbial degradation of NTA.
For determination of quantities of NTA sorbed by the soils in contact with
NTA solutions, 2 g portions of soil were carefully weighed into individual
500 ml Erlynmeyer flasks stoppered with polyurethane plugs. Flasks and
contents were sterilized by autoclaving for 15 minutes at 121°C. A 100 ml
aliquot of sterile aqueous l^C-NTA Na3 solution containing 2, 10, or 40 mg/1
NTA Na3 was added aseptically to each flask. Blank flasks containing
aliquots of the same NTA Na3 solutions but no soil were similarly prepared.
Both blank flasks and those containing soil were agitated on a rotary shaker
at 20°C. Periodically, flasks were removed from the shaker for approximately
15 minutes to allow soil solids to settle, and a 2 ml sample of the aqueous
phase was removed aseptically from each flask. These samples were centrifuged
to remove suspended matter. Levels of radioactivity, and hence NTA Na3, in
the centrifugates were determined by means of a Beckman LS-150 liquid
scintillation spectrometer, employing 1.5 ml of centrifugate in 16 ml of
toluene scintillation cocktail containing 8.0 g/1 Butyl PBD and 0.5 g/1 PBBQ.
When maximum scrption of NTA Na3 on soil particles had occurred as indicated
by attainment of constant NTA Na3 concentrations in the aqueous phases of
the soil flasks, the quantities of NTA Na3 sorbed per gram of soil at the
observed equilibrium concentrations were determined from the following
relationship .
-------
to remove approximately 95 percent of the soluble phosphorus in order to control
algae, and also that nutrient concentrations from the upstream drainage area must
be reduced. The question has been raised whether nitrogen should also have been
considered in the consultants' eurrophication analysis.
At the time of the TIRE Study, it was generally accepted that eutrophication could
be controlled more easily by limiting the nutrient phosphorus than by limiting ni-
trogen. It was during this period that the effects of phosphates as a major cause of
water pollution were recognized, and the Federal government encourage detergent
manufacturers to develop substitutes. The Study reflected this concern by includ-
ing a cost factor for phosphate removal .
However, nitrates, and other critical elements known to contribute to the nutrient
problem, were also considered. It was determined that within the accuracy of
estimates necessary for the TIRES regional sewerage feasibility study, the costs for
removal would apply equally to either phosphates or nitrates. This cost estimate
was utilized in the analysis and selection of a recommended sewerage plan for the
region.
Consideration of Package Treatment Plants. The development of alterna-
tive wastewater collection and treatment systems for the Tocks Island region in-
cluded consideration of package treatment plants for on-site use. Such facilities
will be necessary in cases where connection to a subregional or regional system is
not feasible. In addition, the phasing of wastewater collection and treatment sys-
tems has provided generally for the continued use of existing package treatment
plants where warranted.
However, experience has shown that package treatment plants may not provide re-
liable protection to the receiving streams, and that reliability varies directly with
the size of treatment plants in general. The greater the size, the less fequent and
shorter the periods during which the effluent fails to meet the assumed design ef-
fluent qual ity.
As part of the TIRE Study, the percentage of total time that a plant fails to meet
design effluent specifications by five percent or more was estimated. When the
percentage below design was related to the plant capacity, it was found that a
50,000 gall on per day plant can be expected to fail to meet the design effluent
standards by five percent or more about 45 percent of the time.
Reasons for the relationship between size and reliability for sewage treatment
plants were identified as follows:
10
-------
1. greater frequency of equipment failures in smal ler plants;
2. lesser degree of automation in smaller plants;
3. greater deficiencies of training or performance of operating per-
sonnel in small plants.
Other contributing factors may be included, such as:
4. greater relative variability of quantity and quality of raw sewage
received from smaller service areas; and
5. less degree of laboratory control in smaller plants.
It was concluded, therefore, that the use of package treatment plants should not
be recommended for the TIRES area, and that those existing package plants should
be under the administrative control of the agency responsible for implementation
of a regional sewerage scheme for the region.
Sludge Disposal—-Liquid or Solid Waste Problem. Sol id waste cost esti-
mates in the TIRES report do not include consideration of sewage treatment plant
solids (sludge disposal). The omission was deliberate since costs of handling these
sewage treatment plant residues have been included by the consultant in liquid-
waste disposal estimates. With the larger plants, such as called for in the more
pegionalized alternatives, the estimated costs are adequate to provide incinerotion
of sludge, if desirable. For the smaller plants, sludge is proposed to be de-
watered and disposed of on land in the vicinity of the treatment facilities.
Presently in the Tocks Island region, sludge is not generally disposed of
on lands owned by, or adjacent to, sewage treatment facilities, but is commonly
disposed of at sanitary landfills or other lands owned by the municipalities. This
is the reason why the present problem of sludge disposal, although minimal (there
are only four treatment facilities in the 1,000 square mile region having treatment
capacities in excess of 500,000 gallons per day), is considered to be a solid-
waste problems.
The projected high growth figures for the study area; the estimated capacities of
the various future regional and subregional treatment facilities; the absence of
regulations or standards regarding sludge disposal and consideration of the soil
limitations of the region related to the inclusion of organic or liquid-wastes in
sanitary landfill projects, led to the decision by the consultant to include sludge
disposal as part of the liquid waste disposal process. It was felt that administra-
tive control should preferably remain with the agency responsible for management
of the regional liquid-waste disposal facilities.
11
-------
TOCKS ISLAND REGION ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This memorandum of understanding is entered into by and between the
(hereinafter called the
"State Agency") and the Delaware River Basin Commission (hereinafter called the
"Commission") for the purpose of implementing the project entitled INTERSTATE
REGIONAL PLANNING FOR WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE DISPOSAL, herein-
after called the "Project," supported in part by a Demonstration Grant, number
WPD-136, from the Research and Training Grant Program, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration. It is mutually agreed as follows:
1. Technical program.—The State Agency and the Commission will
cooperate in carrying out the Project as described in the "Application for Water
Supply and Pollution Control Demonstration Project Grant" dated February 25,
1966, hereinafter called the "Application," copy of which has been transmitted
to the State Agency.
2. State Agency.—The State Agency will:
(a) assign personnel to take part in the Project as outlined in
the application, including the attendance at meetings of
the Tocks Island Region Environmental Study Advisory
Committee (TIRESAC), participation in thevyork of the
Advisory Committee and task groups, the collection and
assembly of data and information related to water resour-
ces, water supply, water demand, liquid-waste disposal,
and solid-waste disposal in that part of the Tocks Island
Region "Study Area," as defined in the application, that
is within the State (or Commonwealth) of:
(b) furnish references of reports prepared by the agency re-
lated to the Study Area, and will make copies of such re-
ports available for use by the Commission and its consult-
ants;
(c) assist the Commission and its consultants in locating and
contacting other sources of such information in its State;
(d) obtain, to the extent practicable, additional data and
information on that portion of the Study Area in ite ju-
12
-------
risdiction as needed for a feasibility study of water sup-
ply, waste-water disposal, and solid-^waste disposal for
the Study Area, and make such data and information
available to the Commission and its consultants;
(e) review and submit its views and comments on any interim
or preliminary reports prepared in connection with the
Project by the Commission, its consultants, TIRESAC, the
Task Groups, or other cooperating agencies, as requested
by the Commission.
3. Commission.—The Executive Director of the Commission will be
the Project Director, and the Head of the Program Planning Branch of the Commis-
sion will be the Project Coordinator. They will serve, respectively, as Chairman
and Vice Chairman of TIRESAC. A member of the Commission staff will serve as
secretary of TIRESAC and will pfepare minutes of all TIRESAC meetings. The
Commission will:
(a) provide stenographic services required in connection with
meetings and other proceedings of TIRESAC;
(b) maintain records and correspondence pertaining to the
Project, and provide access to these materials by the
State Agency;
(c) prepare, or have prepared, and distribute to the TIRESAC
member representing the State Agency copies of all
TIRESAC-meeting minutes and interim, progress, and
special reports prepared in connection with the Project
by the Commission staff, TIRESAC, the Task Groups, con-
sultants, or other cooperating agencies;
(d) prepare or have its consultants prepare any interim, pro-
gress, or final report required by the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration;
(e) prepare and submit allocations, after consultation with
the State Agency, for any supplemental grants found
necessary to carry out effectively the purposes of the
Project.
13
-------
4. General conditions.—The following general conditions shall ap-
ply to all activities of the Commission and the State Agency supported in whole or
in part by the Demonstration Project funds:
(a) the State Agency will comply with all general conditions
regarding the grant period, nondiscrimination in employ-
ment, patents, publications, and copyrights, as set forth
in the Application;
(b) the State Agency and the Commission staff and all con-
sultants will comply with the requirement of the Dela-
ware River Basin Compact, and particularly Article 15
thereof.
5. Identification of documents.—All reports, maps, and other docu-
ments completed by the State Agency as a part of this Project, other than docu-
ments prepared exclusively for internal use within the State Agency, shall carry
the following notation on the same page (or in the case of maps, in the same
block) containing the name of the State Agency:
This project was supported in part by a Demonstration
Grant, number WPD-136, from the Research and Train-
ing Grant Program, Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration.
6. Confidential findings.—Any reports, information, data, etc.,
given to or prepared or assembled by the State Agency with grant funds which the
Commission requests to be kept as confidential shall not be made available to any
individual or organization by the State Agency without the prior written approval
of the Commission.
7. Information exchange.--Information developed by either Party
to this memorandum of understanding under this Project will be made freely avail-
able to the other Party for purposes of this Project and for other purposes related
to the responsibilities of the other Party. Similarly, information developed by
either Party for purposes not directly related to this Project, but information of
use to the other Party for purposes of the Project, will be made freely available
to the other Parly.
8. Term of Project and grant period.—The term of the Project is
May 1, 1966, through April 30, 1969. The currently approved grant period is
May 1, 1966, through April 30, 1967. All grant funds for any grant period re-
ceived by the State Agency fiom the Commission must be for services performed
14
-------
or expenditures made within the term of the Project and within the approved grant
period. No reimbursable services shall be performed or reimbursable expenditures
made by the State Agency for the second year or third year of the Project term
until the State Agency is notified in writing by the Commission that the grant for
the second or third year, respectively, has been approved by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration.
9. Maximum reimbursement.—The maximum reimbursement by the
Commission to the State Agency for expenditures by the State Agency for person-
nel, equipment, consumable supplies, travel, other expenses, or indirect cost's
shall not exceed the respective amounts allocated from grant funds for these pur-
poses to the State Agency or modification thereof. Except as modified by written
agreement, the maximum total reimbursement by the Commission to the State
Agency for expenditures made and services performed for purposes of this Project
shall not exceed the total grant funds allocated to the State Agency in the Ap-
plication or modification thereof.
10. Submission of vouchers.—Vouchers for reimbursable expenditures
for purposes other than personal salaries will be submitted after and for three-
month periods ending July 31, October 31, January 31, and April 30 in each
project year. Vouchers for reimbursable personal salaries may be submitted at
the end of each calendar month. Vouchers will be accompanied by appropriate
substantiating records, statements, or receipts.
11. Audit of records.—Financial and other records of the Project
will be maintained by the Commission at its headquarters for audit by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration or other Federal agency concerned.
12. Non-interference.—This memorandum of understanding shall not
be construed as preventing either Party from undertaking any activity required to
fulfill other responsibilities in the Study Area or elsewhere.
15
-------
In witness thereof, the parties have caused this memorandum to be
executed as of this day of / 1966.
Date Executive Director
Delaware River Basin Commission
Date (Signature of Official representing
State Agency)
(Title)
(State Agency)
16
-------
TOCKS ISLAND REGION
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
PREPARED FOR
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
APRIL 197O
W.O.25B-O3
. WESTOIM, P.E.
PRESIDENT
ROY F. WESTON
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
LEWIS i_ANE • WEST CHESTER • PENNSYLVANIA • 193BO
-------
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In addition to the WESTON staff listed in Appendix A as participants,
special acknowledgment should be made of the timely efforts of additional
persons in our organization who contributed to the development of final
conclusions and production of this report. Their special contribution,
requiring special effort during extraordinary hours, is gratefully recognized
and appreciated. These persons include:
Engineering Activities
P. Krishnan, Ph.D., P.E.
A. F. Thompson, Ph.D., P.E.
Technical Editing
J. L. Simons, Manager
Graphics
C. S. Amison, Planner
J. W. Hitzelberger, Supervisor of Graphic Arts
D. 0. Thompson, Draftsman
William K. Davis, AIP
Project Manager
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1
FINDINGS
General
Water Supply
Wastewater Disposal
Solids Waste Disposal
RECOMMENDATIONS
Water Supply
Wastewater Disposal
Solid Waste Disposal
II. INTRODUCTION 17
THE PROBLEM
THE OBJECTIVES
THE APPROACH
SCOPE OF REPORT
III. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TIRES AREA 23
TRI-STATE SUBREGION OF DELAWARE RIVER BASIN
Regional Setting
Impact Area
TIRES Area Limits
Prior Studies
Concurrent Programs and Related Activities
THE STUDY AREA
Drainage Basins
Political Boundaries
Physiography
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
IV. ALTERNATIVES IN PLANS AND POLICIES 37
APPROACHES AND INVESTIGATIVE METHODS
Approaches to the Plans
Regional Planning and Population Forecasts
Water Supply Systems
Liquid Waste Disposal Systems
Solid Waste Disposal Systems
SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND
FACILITIES
Existing Development Pattern
Surface and Ground-water Resources
Existing Systems
FUTURE CONDITIONS AND NEEDS
Population Forecasts
Utilities Requirements
Water Supply
Liquid Waste Disposal
Solid Waste Disposal
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Water Supply
Ground-Water Supply
Surface-Water Development
Liquid Waste Disposal
Multiple Small Systems (Alternative I)
Limited Subregional Systems (Alternative II)
Subregional Systems (Alternative III)
Regional System from Subregional (Alternative IV)
Regional System (Alternative V)
Solid Waste Disposal
V. SELECTION OF MASTER PLANS 91
LAND USE
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
WATER SUPPLY
Surface Water
Port Jervis
East Stroudsburg
Strpudsburg
Newton
Other Areas
Ground Water
LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL
Cost Concept
Summary of Capital and Annual Costs
Present Worth Sensitivity Analyses
Water Quality Consideration
Implementation
Systematic Analysis of Factors Other than Cost
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
FIGURES 1 through 5
APPENDICES
APPENDICES A through I
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
IV-1 Peak Season Population Projections 49
by Minor Civil Division
IV-2 Peak Season Population Projections 51
by Drainage Basins
IV-3 Summary of Recreation Season Average 54
Daily Water Supply Requirements for
theDWGNRA
IV-4 Peak Season Average Daily Water Supply 56
Requirement Projections by Drainage
Basin
IV-5 Peak Season Average Daily Water Supply 57
by Minor Civil Division
IV-6 Summary of Recreation Season Average 60
Daily Sewage Flows for the DWGNRA
IV-7 Peak Season Average Daily Wastewater 62
Flow Projections by Drainage Basin
IV-8 Peak Season Average Daily Wastewater 63
Flow Projections by Minor Civil Division
IV-9 Per Capita Solid Waste Generation Criteria 67
IV-10 Peak Season Average Daily Quantities of 67
Solid Waste Generation by Drainage Basin
IV-11 Peak Season Average Daily Quantities of 68
Solid Waste Generation by Counties
IV-12 Estimated Cumulative Quantities of Solid 79
Wastes and Total Land Requirements for
Sanitary Landfill Disposal by Drainage Basin
IV-13 Estimated Cumulative Quantities of Solid 71
Wastes and Total Land Requirements for
Sanitary Landfill Disposal by Counties
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table No. Title Page
IV-14 Estimated Ground-Water Yield versus ^4
Future Total Water Demand (exclusive
of DWGNRA)
IV-15 Average Potential Well Yields of Geologic 76
Formations in the Tocks Island Region
IV-16 Summary of System Components Ultimate 83
Development
V-1 Summary of Estimated Construction Costs 102
of Liquid Waste Disposal Systems by Con-
struction Period
V-2 Summary of Estimated Total Project Costs 102
of Liquid Waste Disposal Systems by Con-
struction Period
V-3 Summary of Estimated Average Annual 103
Costs for Liquid Waste Interception and
Treatment
V-4 Summary of Estimated Average Annual 103
Costs Per Capita Liquid Waste Disposal
Systems
V-5 Present Worth (1970) of Total Water-Quality 107
Management Costs Using Basic Assumptions
and Costs
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
1 Waste-Water Treatment Systems
Alternative One—Multiple Small Systems
2 Waste-Water Treatment Systems
Alternative Two—Limited Sub-Regional Systems
3 Waste-Water Treatment Systems
Alternative Three—Sub-Regional Systems
4 Waste-Water Treatment Systems
Alternative Four—Regional System, Evolved
5 Waste-Water Treatment Systems
Alternative Five—Regional System
The figures listed above are presented in sequence at the end of this volume.
-------
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDINGS
General
1. The Tocks Island Region of the Delaware River Basin is experiencing
rapid economic development, due in large part to two Federal projects,
the Tocks Island Reservoir and the Delaware Water Gap National Rec-
reation Area (DWGNRA), and due, to a lesser extent, to the westward
expansion of the highly urbanized areas of New York City and north-
eastern New Jersey.
2. This economic development will stimulate population growth (both
seasonal and permanent), and will result in more intensive use of land
for residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial purposes.
3. The recreation facilities resulting from the two Federal projects are
expected to handle a recreation load of more than 10 million visitor-
days per year, with a peak-day load of about 142,000 visitors.
4. Peak-season population, not including DWGNRA visitors, in the six-
county Tocks Island Regional Environmental Study Area (TIRES
area)-is expected to increase from about 193,000 in 1970 to almost
926,000 in the year 2020.
5. The expected rapid growth in what is now a predominantly rural area
will create new problems and aggravate old problems of water supply
and waste disposal. Existing water-supply systems, wastewater systems,
and solid-waste disposal systems are grossly inadequate to serve antic-
ipated future demands.
6. Continuous planning and management on an interstate regional basis
will be necessary to foresee and prevent problems of water resources
and related land use in the Tocks Island Region.
-1-
-------
7. For purposes of this study, population (exclusive of DWGNRA
visitors), and related water-supply requirements, wastewater volumes,
and solid-waste loads for the study area have been projected as follows:
Year
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Peak-season
population
193,000
316,000
475,000
640,000
792,000
926,000
Water-supply
mgd
24
41
64
90
115
139
waste u
Wastewater
mgd
19.3
32
47
64
79
93
Quantities
Solid wastes
pounds/day
1,061,000
3,334,000
7,780,000
8 The peak-visitor population in the DWGNRA at full development and
the associated water-supply requirements and waste quantities have
been projected as follows:
Peak-season Waste Quantities
population Water-supply Wastewater Solid wastes.
mgd mgd tons/year
141,500 3.9 5.7 2,500
9. The plans for water supply, liquid-waste disposal, and solid-waste dis-
posal developed in this study are based in a general way on the "Sketch
Plan," prepared by Raymond and May Associates (1966) for the Penn-
sylvania State Planning Board and for the New Jersey Department of
Conservation and Economic Development.
10. The Sketch Plan was updated by the collection of more detailed land
use data to show existing developments and trends as of late 1967, but
-2-
-------
the basic premises of the original plan were still a valid guide for pro-
jecting future land use.
11. The plans developed in the locks Island Regional Environmental Study
have adequate flexibility for accomodation of developments that depart
significantly from the Sketch Plan.
12. Publication of this report constitutes a demonstration of the validity of
regional-interstate-interagency planning, which was a primary objective
of this project. Without the cooperation and resources of the various
agencies and individuals involved in this study, it is unlikely that the
problems would have been properly considered or that the available
solution approaches would have been adequately developed.
13. This study has shown that sound advance planning can determine a
truly comprehensive least-cost system which covers financing and other
administrative and auxiliary factors as well as the obvious direct con-
struction and operating costs.
14. A planned system of essential utilities (including water supply and
waste disposal) has considerable potential for beneficial influence on
area development. With such an approach and the related capability of
encouraging or deterring connections, there is a sounder basis for
decisions affecting area development and a reinforcement of the likeli-
hood of achieving a least-cost system.
Water supply
1. Water resources are generally abundant and of good quality throughout
the Tocks Island Region, and will meet the projected demands if the
quality is not degraded by improper disposal of wastewater or solid
wastes.
-------
2. Generally, ground water is available in quantities adequate to'meet the
projected new demands for water in the study area, and it usually can
be developed more economically than surface supplies.
3. Existing systems for collection, treatment, and distribution of water
will have to be expanded to meet projected demands, but the available
water resources will not limit growth within the levels of economic
development anticipated for the region.
4. Existing surface-water systems, such as those at Port Jervis, New'York,
Stroudsburg and East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania and Newton, New
Jersey, can be expanded to meet their projected needs either by
further development of surface-water resources or by construction of
supplemental ground-water facilities.
5. The corridor area along U. S. Route 209 (in its present location) be-
tween Stroudsburg and the boundary of the National Recreation Area
will probably have to depend on a surface-water system using water
from Tocks Island Reservoir.
6. Although water resources are generally adequate in the region, the
paucity of geologic information for most of the region precludes pre-
paration now of detailed plans for development of these resources.
7. Capital costs of source development and of major transmission and
treatment facilities for additional community water supplies to meet
the projected new demands of the study area through the year 2020
have been estimated as follows (all costs in millions of dollars):
Development
Period
1970 to 1990
1990 to 2020
Construction
Costs
57.8
13.3
Associated
Costs
11.6
2.7
Total Project
Costs
69.4
16.0
-4-
-------
Wastewater disposal
1. Soils in most of the region are unsuitable for the underground disposal
of effluents from septic tanks or other similar wastewater disposal
systems, and proliferation of such on-site disposal systems would de-
grade the quality of the environment and create health hazards.
2. Protection of the region's environmental quality and public health will
require public systems for collection and treatment of wastewaters
from all parts of the study area except for scattered small residential,
recreational, or commercial developments.
3. Alternative plans for serving the projected sewerage needs of the region
have been developed to the extent necessary to compare the relative
merits of these alternatives with respect to cost and effectiveness.
4. Six alternative sewerage plans were devised and studied, ranging in de-
gree of regionalization from a system of 116 local community
collection and treatment works to a single network of interceptor
sewers connecting all communities of the study area into a major waste-
water treatment plant downstream of Tocks Island Dam.
5. The six wastewater disposal alternatives are as follows:
Alternative I. Multiple Small Systems.-This would have 116 relatively
small systems, each serving a local concentration of population, with
wastewater collection and treatment capacities ranging from 0.02 to 5.0
million gallons daily (mgd). Alternative I represents the historical ap-
proach to sewerage, with minimum regionalization. It would serve a
sewered peak-season population of approximately 673,600 in the year
2020.1
^In addition to the DWGNRA visitor population (141,500 estimated peak-
day load at full development).
-5-
-------
Alternative II. Limited Subregional Systems.-This alternative provides
for some regionalization, with consolidation of many of the small local
systems into 52 systems ranging in capacity from 0.02 to 24.0 mgd.
The total 2020 population served by these systems would be about
752,000 during peak periods.
Alternative III. Subregional Systems.--This plan provides for con-
siderably more regionalization than Alternative II; and would consist of
six separate collection and treatment systems with capacities ranging
2
from 3.6 to 28.0 mgd. These systems would serve an aggregate peak-
season population of 795,500 in the year 2020.
Alternative IV. Regional System from Subregional.--This plan is ini-
tially the same as Alternative III, with six Subregional systems through
the year 2000. After 2000, these subregional systems would be con-
solidated to form a single collection system that would convey all liquid
wastes from sewered communities throughout the study area to a
3
central treatment facility located downstream of Tocks Island Dam.
This plant, with a capacity of 90 mgd, would serve a 2020 peak-summer
population of 840,500.
Alternative V. Regional System.-This plan would provide at an earlier
date the same system called for after 2000 under Alternative IV. This
alternative would also serve a 2020 peak-season population of
840,500.1
1ln addition the DWGNRA visitor population (141,500 estimate peak-
day load at full development).
In addition to the subregional plants, there would be 15 very minor facilities
serving isolated areas. These 15 percent would serve only about one percent
3of the service population and so are not elaborated upon herein
In addition to the subregional and regional plants, there would be 15 very
minor facilities serving isolated areas. These 15 facilities would serve only
about one percent of the service population and so are not elaborated
upon herein.
-6-
-------
Alternative VI.-This Alternative was developed by combining I and III.
Alternative I' Would be constructed during the first stage (1970 to
1980) and then abandoned during the second stage (1980-2000); Alter-
native III would be implemented during the second and third stages.
Significant cost disadvantages were obvious, and Alternative VI was not
analyzed in further detail.
6. All sewerage alternatives considered would involve high degrees of
wastewater treatment (advanced treatment) to protect the quality of
streams and other waste-receiving waters.
7. The assumption of advanced treatment was made so that the cost esti-
mated would reflect the probable future requirements of the water
quality standards of the Delaware River Basin Commission.
8. In general, the advantages are greater and the per capita costs are lower
for the more highly regionalized alternatives.
9. Scattered residential and commercial developments throughout the
study area that are beyond economical pipeline distances of a com-
munity or regional sewerage system will have to be served by on-site
liquid-waste disposal systems. The number of such on-site systems de-
creases with the degree of regionalization of the public systems.
10. The projected 2020 peak-seasonal population that would be served by
on-site and by public systems is as follows:
^95 percent Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Suspended Solids removals
and substantially all phosonates.
-7-
-------
Alternative Population Served by _
~~ Qn-Site Systems Public Systems
I 251,900 673,600
II 173,500 752,000
III 130,000 795,500
IV 85,000 840,500
V 85,000 840,500
11. Capital and average annual costs of treatment facilities, interceptor
sewers, and major pumping stations of the liquid waste disposal systems
have been estimated and are presented in detail in Appendix M of this
report. Alternative I has the lowest capital cost requirement Alter-
natives II and III have the next lowest cost and are approximately
equal; Alternatives IV and V are the most costly to construct.
The absolute cost differences in annual costs between the Alternatives
are less than the capital cost differences, but the same general ranking
prevails.
12. Since service populations differ among the Alternatives, average per
capita annual costs have also been estimated and are presented in later
sections of this report. Alternative 111 was shown to have the lowest per
capita average annual costs.
13. The overall costs of the alternative liquid-waste disposal systems, in
terms of present worth (1967 dollars in the year 1970), including the
construction costs of intra- and extra-community sewers, interceptors,
pumping stations, and treatment plants, as well as operation and main-
tenance costs for collection, treatment, and disposal of treated wastes
-8-
-------
(including those wastes handled by on-site systems), and including
those costs associated with water-quality monitoring and surveillance,
are estimated as follows:
Overall cost
Alternative (Present Worth - 1970)
millions of dollars
I 332
II 337
III 328
IV 332
V 362
These costs, detailed in later sections of this report, do not include the
value of existing sewerage facilities now serving the area, nor do these
costs cover the maintenance or replacement of existing facilities that
may become worn out or obsolete between the present time and 2020.
Such costs are common to all five alternatives and, therefore, need not
be considered in the selection of a wastewater disposal system.
14. Present worth sensitivity analyses were performed to ascertain the ef-
fects on present-worth cost of varying the basic assumptions and input
parameters. Ranges of the following parameters were studied: popula-
tion projections, interest rate, cost of on-site liquid waste disposal,
replacement intervals, and discount periods. Alternative III was shown
to have the lowest present-worth cost in seven of the nine sensitivity
cases which were analyzed.
-9-
-------
15. Each of the Alternatives has high per capita annual costs during the
early years of construction and operation. Therefore, special financing
will be required in the period 1970 to 1980 in order to begin
implementation.
16. By the second and third construction periods (1980 to 2000 and 2000
to 2020), the systems become economically self-sustaining because of
the increased populations served.
17. Preliminary studies indicate that the locks Island Reservoir will be
threatened with an increased eutrophication rate as a result of nutrient
loads from the TIRES area and from the upstream drainage area.
18. Nutrient reduction in the wastewaters originating in the TIRES area
will significantly reduce the threat, but reduction in the nutrient con-
tent of the river upstream is essential for protection of the reservoir.
19. A DARE analysis (Decision Alternative Ratio Evaluation) of Alter-
natives I through V was conducted to insure that factors other than
cost were fully considered in selection of the alternative liquid waste-
water disposal system best suited to the TIRES area.
20. Five factors were included in the DARE analysis: Implementation,
Adaptability, Reliability, Costs, and Social Benefits.
21. The weightings, or relative importance, of the factors were developed
by a panel of 18 members of the staff of ROY F. WESTON for a
comparable regional wastewater disposal project.
22. The relative values of each Alternative for each of the five factors were
developed by a 10-member panel, which included both members of the
previous panel and other ROY F. WESTON personnel.
Financing to cover the difference between actual annual costs and normal
use charges paid by those using the system.
-10-
-------
23. In addition to the normal practice in DARE analysis of using the
average or median values of the factor weightings developed by the
panel, weightings based on the 10 percent probability and 90 percent
probability values were used in the present DARE analysis, in order to
give full consideration to the rather wide differences of judgement
among the individual panel members.
24. In all cases, the DARE analysis based on the consensus evaluation of
the five alternatives showed that Alternative III was the most favorable.
25. Alternative III would involve a regionalized system which would con-
form to the recently adopted policy of the Delaware River Basin
Commission (DRBC Resolution 68-6), which requires that regional
solutions to water pollution problems be used whenever feasible.
Solid waste disposal
1. Although the solid waste disposal phase of this study has been con-
cerned primarily with disposal methods most likely to cause water-
quality problems (landfills of one kind or another), some consideration
of alternative disposal methods (such as incineration and transportation
out of the area) has been necessary to assess the probability of future
use of those other methods in relation to water quality protection.
2. The relative costs of incineration, transportation out of the study area,
composting, and sanitary landfills, favor the last method of solid waste
disposal.
3. Legal and political constraints, in addition to high costs, will probably
limit the transportation of solid wastes out of the study area for dis-
posal.
4. In terms of acreage, soil types, and geology, land adequate for disposal
of the projected solid waste loads by the sanitary landfill method is
-11-
-------
available reasonably near all present and projected concentrations of
solid waste generation in the Tocks Island Region.
5. The sanitary landfill method will probably be the most common
method of solid waste disposal in the Tocks Island Region.
6. If sanitary landfills are properly designed, operated, and regulated, they
can provide satisfactory disposal of solid wastes without detriment to
water quality.
7. If all solid wastes generated in the Tocks Island Region are disposed of
in sanitary landfills, approximately 11 square miles of land, strategically
located within economical haul distances of waste-generation centers,
will be needed.
8. The findings of the solid-waste phase of this study, although less defin-
itive than those of the soon-to-be-completed, more comprehensive
TIRAC study, justify certain actions, such as land acquisition, now to
provide for protection of water resources in the region.
-12-
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Water supply
1. Develop ground water wherever possible to meet the projected water
supply requirements, taking advantage of modern methods of well
location, construction, operation, and management to insure optimum
use of this relatively abundant resource.
2. As soon as practicable, initiate detailed studies of ground water and
potential reservoir sites to provide the information needed by various
jurisdictions to design water-supply systems to serve the projected
increased demands.
3. Develop a surface water supply, using Tocks Island Reservoir as a
source, to serve the corridor area along U. S. Route 209 from Strouds-
burg northeast to the DWGNRA limits.
4. Develop and/or expand municipal and county public water supplies
needed to serve the growing concentrations of residential, commercial,
and industrial water users in the respective jurisdictions.
5. Authorize DRBC to assist in these water-supply developments to the
fullest possible extent.
Wastewater disposal
1. Designate the Delaware River Basin Commission (which is the only
existing agency in the area with the legal authority and organizational
competence to implement waste disposal on an interstate regional basis)
as the agency for central administration of any sewerage plan adopted
for the TIRES area.
2. Assign to DRBC, as this central agency, responsibility for the design,
financing, construction, and operation of the extra-community sewers,
major pumping stations, and wastewater treatment plants.
-13-
-------
3. Develop suitable contractual arrangements between the central agency
and the various communities to cover interception, conveyance, treat-
ment, and ultimate disposal of wastewater.
4. Assign responsibility for intra-community collection of wastewater to
the individual communities or to their parent political jurisdications
(e.g. counties).
5. Adopt Alternative III, the subregional approach involving six sub-
regional sewerage systems, as the plan for wastewater disposal in the
TIRES area.
6. Begin implementation of the selected sewerage plan as soon as it is
made a part of the DRBC Comprehensive Plan, to coordinate design,
financing, and construction of sewerage facilities with the construction
and operation (expected in 1977} of the Tocks Island Reservoir.
7. As soon as practicable, start topographic mapping, right-of-way studies,
land acquisition, detailed cost estimating, development of financing and
administration methods, and other activities for interceptor sewers and
other facilities common to all the alternatives considered.
Solid waste disposal
1. Undertake detailed engineering studies (based on the findings of this
study and those of the TIRAC Solid-Waste Management Study) to
assess the potential effects of solid-waste disposal on the water re-
sources of the Tocks Island Region, to investigate the feasibility of
alternative solid waste disposal methods, and to determine the optimum
sites for sanitary landfills and other disposal facilities.
2. Improve the organizational structures, practices, procedures, and regula-
tions of regional, State, and local solid-waste disposal regulatory
agencies as necessary to maintain surveillance and control of these dis-
posal methods, for protection of water resources in particular and the
quality of the environment in general, as well as for the protection of
public health.
-14-
-------
3. Because of its special responsibilities in the protection of water re-
sources, the Delaware River Basin Commission should take all necessary
steps to insure that solid waste disposal practices conform to the
Commission's water-quality standards. These standards should be re-
vised as necessary to protect water resources and water users from the
effects of improper methods of solid-waste disposal. The Commission
should provide for adequate review and approval of all proposed new
sanitary landfills, and for monitoring of existing sanitary landfills,
either through its own staff or through other agencies under adminis-
trative agreements between these agencies and the Commission.
4. When optimum landfill sites have been located, acquire or otherwise
reserve these sites.
5. Incorporate these sites into the Comprehensive Plan of the Delaware
River Basin Commission to protect them from encroachment by other
noncompatible land uses, and to guide the planning of other land uses.
-15-
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
THE PROBLEM
The Congress of the United States has authorized the Tocks Island Dam
and Reservoir project and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation,
both located in the Delaware River Basin.
The Tocks Island Dam and Reservoir project was authorized by Con-
gress in 1962. This multi-purpose facility is designed to serve four major
purposes: flood control, water supply, recreation, and hydro-electric power
generation. The dam, to be located at river mile 217, approximately five
miles upstream of the Delaware Water Gap, will create an artificial lake
extending 37 miles up the main stem of the Delaware River and 9 miles up
Flat Brook, a tributary joining the main stem at river mile 225.3. The
reservoir will have over 100 miles of shoreline, an average width of one-half
mile, and a maximum width of about one and one-half miles. Pre-
construction design work, land acquisition, and actual construction of the
dam are the responsibilities of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
The reservoir project was originally scheduled for completion-filled and
ready for operation-by 1975.
The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area was authorized by
Congress in September 1965, and is being developed by the National Park
Service. The Recreation Area will encircle Tocks Island Reservoir, and will
include the reservoir and approximately 58,000 acres of adjoining lands in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It will have a capacity for about 150,000
people at any given time, and is expected to provide outdoor recreation for
more than ten million visitors annually.
The DWGNRA will include ten visitor-destination sites offering a wide
variety of facilities for water sports and other outdoor recreation such as
-17-
-------
camping, hiking, and picnicking. It is the first major national recreation area
in the eastern United States. Its purpose is to help serve the recreational
needs of an anticipated 47-50 million people who will live within 100 miles
of the site by the year 2010.
The urbanization and large-scale recreational development, in a rural
area, which will result from these projects will cause new problems and
aggravate old problems related to water supply and waste disposal. The area
involves a multiplicity of governmental jurisdictions. Few have sufficient
staff and overall authority for effective handling of such problems. This
could lead to the customary piecemeal solutions that have often caused
irreparable damage to natural resources in other areas. Few areas are
fortunate enough to have in existence the type of governmental structure
which provides the organizational and advance-planning responsibilities
needed to study such potential problems and able to provide the authority
to implement timely solutions. The Delaware River Basin Commission
(DRBC) is a unique example of such an organization. Circumstances in the
Tocks Island Region of the Delaware River Basin have provided DRBC with
the opportunity to undertake an advanced-planning environmental study.
This study, known as the Tocks Island Regional Environmental Study
(TIRES), results from DRBC's early recognition of potential problems
involving water supply and liquid and solid waste disposal in the three-state,
six-county area that will be significantly affected by the creation of the
Tocks Island Reservoir and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
Area (DWGNRA). The problem is to demonstrate how a multiplicity of
governmental jurisdictions can coordinate their efforts and cooperate to
formulate and adopt an optimum regional environmental master plan.
-18-
-------
THE OBJECTIVES
A primary objective of this cooperative study is to demonstrate re-
gional-interstate-interagency planning for prevention of water-supply short-
ages and water pollution in rapidly developing areas, under the leadership of
a new type of regional coordinating agency, The Delaware River Basin
Commission. A corollary objective is to develop needed information and to
plan for optimum water supply and waste disposal facilities in the specific
interstate region influenced by two large Federal projects, the Tocks Island
Reservoir and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
A final objective of this study is to test the concept of legally pro-
tecting a regional water supply and waste disposal plan by making it a part of
the official Comprehensive Plan of the Delaware River Basin Commission.
The regional plan, developed herein, if adopted by the Delaware River Basin
Commission as part of the Basinwide Comprehensive Plan, in accordance
with section 13.1 of the Compact, would then have the legal status necessary
for its protection and implementation. Time will necessarily pass before the
attainment of this objective can be judged.
The proposed master plan developed as a result of this study provides a
degree of flexibility to allow for unexpected developments. To this extent,
the study represents an attempt to satisfy the needs for water supply and
waste disposal facilities, with neither sanction nor disapproval of what may
occur in spite of planned development, but with realistic consideration of
the kind of development that is most likely to occur based on sound
judgment.
-19-
-------
THE APPROACH
In anticipation of the development of water supply and waste disposal
problems in the region, the Delaware River Basin Commission organized the
three-year locks Island Region Environmental Study (TIRES) to demon-
strate regional-interstate-interagency planning for water supply and waste
disposal in an area developing rapidly under the influence of a large Federal
project. In May 1966, the Commission received a demonstration-project
grant of almost $250,000 from the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, United States Department of the Interior, to help finance the
study. Under the guidance of the Delaware River Basin Commission, the
many Federal, State, interstate, regional, and county agencies concerned
with land and water uses, waste disposal, pollution control, natural re-
sources, and environmental health in the region contributed the services of
technical personnel. The monetary equivalent of these manpower contribu-
tions, totaling $180,000, increased the total budget to $430,000 for the
three-year study.
Overall coordination of the project has been the responsibility of the
Delaware River Basin Commission, acting as a regional agency of the parties
signatory to the Delaware River Basin Compact, as provided by Article II of
that Compact.
The Commission organized the Tocks Island Region Environmental
Study Advisory Committee (TIRESAC), composed of representatives of all
participating agencies. Each Advisory Committee member has provided
liaison between his respective agency and the other participating agencies. A
list of TIRESAC members and their affiliations is presented in Appendix A.
The firm of ROY F. WESTON, Environmental Scientists and Engineers,
of West Chester, Pennsylvania, was retained by the Delaware River Basin
Commission to assume the major responsibility for assembling data and
-20-
-------
information provided by the participating agencies, analyzing the data, pre-
paring reports and preliminary alternative plans, and selecting and developing
recommended master regional plans for water supply and waste disposal in
the study area.
Four "Task Groups" were organized to assist and guide the consultants
and to effect good communications for the interchange of information be-
tween participants. Membership in the Task Groups was opened to any
member of the Advisory Committee and to any person or persons designated
by Committee members. Task Group membership has been modified as the
needs of the project dictated. In most cases, the members have been water
and planning specialists whose work is directly concerned with development
of the Tocks Island Region.
The four Task Groups involved in the study are:
a. Land Use and Population Task Group,
b. Water Supply Task Group,
c. Liquid Waste Disposal Task Group, and
d. Solid Waste Disposal Task Group.
The Task Group members and their affiliations are also listed in Appendix A.
The approach adopted in this investigation, as well as in this report,
should serve as a useful guide for study and planning in other areas of
large-scale reservoir and recreational development. It is the hope of the par-
ticipants that the results of their cooperation will show the way to solution
of similar problems in other river basins throughout the nation.
-21-
-------
SCOPE OF REPORT
This report is intended to summarize the vast amount of data and
analyses compiled during the three-year duration of the project. In order
that the pertinent considerations be easily recognized, a series of appendices
has been published. It contains basic data, descriptions of analytical
procedures, and results of the analyses used to develop and to evalu-
ate the alternative water supply and waste disposal plans presented
herein.
In addition to the published appendices, a large amount of open-file
information has been compiled in the course of this investigation
which are being held by the DRBC as reference information. The
reader is referred to this material should he require additional detail
not presented in this report.
This report is organized such that general background and introductory
information is presented in Sections II and III. The first part of Section IV
presents a general description of the methods of analyses used in the investi-
gation. This is followed by summaries of background studies and existing
conditions and facilities. The third part of Section IV. Alternative Plans,
presents summary descriptions of the various plans which were developed
and studied. Section V discusses, compares, and further analyzes the alterna-
tives and presents the recommended courses of action.
-22-
-------
III. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
0 F
THE TIRES AREA
TRI-STATE SUBREGION OF DELAWARE RIVER BASIN
Regional setting
the Tocks Island Region Environmental Study area covers approxi-
mately 1,010 of the 13,000 square miles of land area drained by the
Delaware River and its tributaries. It is located in the eastern upper-central
portion of the Delaware River Basin and incorporates within its boundaries
parts of the States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The study
area includes and surrounds the site of the proposed Tocks Island Reservoir
and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. It is located gen-
erally west northwest of New York City, with its closest boundary only 40
miles from mid-Manhattan.
Although the study area is quite close on the east and south to the New
York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas, the reservoir site, recreation area,
and surrounding study area encompass beautiful and unspoiled lands which
appear to have been overlooked by development that has occurred around
them, and which remain virtually in their natural state. The area of study is
almost completely forested, relatively undeveloped, and offers abundant
natural scenic attractions. It is composed of portions of six counties in the
three states, each sharing the Delaware River as a part of its boundary. It is a
foregone conclusion that with the creation of the Tocks Island Reservoir and
the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, significant changes are
going to occur in the region covered by the Tocks Island Region Environ-
mental Study. These changes will result from the projected increases in
population and associated facilities and from the influx of visitors to the
reservoir and National Recreation Area.
-23-
-------
Impact area
The reservoir and recreation projects will have a profound effect on the
region adjacent to the recreation area. The primary impact will be felt in
Pike and Monroe Counties in Pennsylvania, and Sussex and Warren Counties
in New Jersey. Orange County, New York, and Northampton County,
Pennsylvania, also will be strongly influenced by the combined projects.
Economic demands on these areas were felt even before the Tocks
Island project was first authorized, when the idea of a dam on the main stem
of the Delaware River was only in the discussion stage. As the proposed
project grew in scope to its present major-facility status, these demands
developed rapidly. They are expected to continue their upward trend as the
population increases and new industrial and recreational growth occurs.
This dynamic and extremely rapid growth potential brought into focus
the need for immediate, coordinated, comprehensive regional planning for
the entire area surrounding the DWGNRA. The DRBC recognized that a
primary concern is the need to plan for the protection and development of
water resources in the area surrounding the reservoir itself. The anticipated
influx of visitors to the Recreation Area, coupled with large-scale permanent
and seasonal development, creates an immediate threat of pollution to the
new reservoir and surrounding areas. Existing water supplies are insufficient
to satisfy future needs, and many of the existing sewerage systems are either
currently taxed beyond their capacity or shortly will be. Unless properly
handled, solid wastes will pose a serious threat to water resources and de-
grade the high aesthetic quality of the region.
TIRES area limits
The area studied is that portion of the Delaware River Basin in Orange
County, New York, and in Pike, Monroe, and Northampton Counties,
-24-
-------
Pennsylvania, that drains into the Delaware River between the mouth of the
Mongaup River and the southern limit of the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, downstream of the Water Gap; and that portion of the
Basin in Sussex and Warren Counties, New Jersey above the mouth of
Paulins Kill, including the watershed of Paulins Kill.
The area has within its boundaries 51 minor civil divisions in portions
of each of the six counties, and has as its border a combination of political
boundaries and drainage divides. It was realized by TIRESAC that, ideally,
the entire Delaware River watershed above the site of the Tocks Island Dam
should be included in any study involving the protection of the waters of the
reservoir created by the Tocks Island Dam. However, the magnitude of a
study of that size, when considered in light of the limited funds available for
the Tocks Island Region Environmental Study made it necessary to define
the TIRES area limits to include only the most critical portion of the impact
area.
Prior studies
In the course of the TIRES investigation, background information and
reports of prior studies were gathered and reviewed. There is a large amount
of information, published and unpublished, which must be assimilated for a
study of this scope covering such a wide geographical area. As a first step in
the assembly of information needed for the study, an extensive bibliography
of published and unpublished references on planning, economic-base studies
and data, water resources, waste disposal, and related information pertaining
to the Tocks Island Region was compiled. The bibliography was issued in
preliminary draft form to all participating agencies and was revised continu-
ously as additional references, old and new, were uncovered. The bibli-
ography is presently available as open-file data from DRBC.
-25-
-------
Not all the entries in the bibliography had a strong bearing on or a
significant relevancy to this study. Therefore, the bibliography was reviewed
and pertinent references acquired. The most important prior studies and
reports are summarized as follows:
1. Corps of Engineers (1961).-Report of the Comprehensive Survey
of Water Resources of the Delaware River Basin (Revised). U. S.
Department of the Army, Philadelphia District, Government Print-
ing Office, Washington, D. C., 11 Volumes.
This work, comprising a main report and 10 additional volumes of
appendices of supporting information, presents the results of the
Federal study of the Water Resources of the Delaware River Basin.
Of particular importance to this present investigation was the in-
formation for the study area relative to economic base, water use
and stream quality, water for irrigational and rural use, recreation
resources, hydrology, general geology and ground water, gross and
net water needs, project designs and costs, and recreation needs
and appraisals.
2. R. R. Nathan Associates (1965).-Impact Analysis-The Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area: Its Potential influence on
Surrounding Communities. Pennsylvania State Planning Board,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and New Jersey Division of State and
Regional Planning, Trenton, New Jersey.
This study and publication describe the area which will in all
probability feel the greatest impact from the Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area. It presents descriptions of the area as it
now exists and attempts to forecast future impact on the area in
terms of dollars, facilities and land requirements, taxes, employ-
ment, traffic, water pollution control, and broad and generalized
population projections.
-26-
-------
3. National Park Service (1966).--The Master Plan-Delaware Water
Gap National Recreation Area-Pennsylvania-New Jersey. U. S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
The master plan for the development and layout of all facilities of
the DWGNRA is presented, including sizes and locations of all
sites, types of recreation, and numbers of visitors each site can
handle, by type. It contains a series of maps and a descriptive text
concerning the project.
4. Raymond and May Associates (1966).-Preface to Planning-A
Sketch Plan for the Tocks Island Region. Pennsylvania State Plan-
ning Board, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and New Jersey Division of
State and Regional Planning, Trenton, New Jersey.
The report presents a generalized view of existing land use,
physical features, and a recommended sketch plan for develop-
ment. It considers population, highways, and utilities in general
terms, and indicates the directions in which the development of
the area should be guided for optimum development and preserva-
tion of recreational and scenic values.
The objective of these studies is to provide an overall guide for
optimum land-use development of the impact area, based on the
findings of the "Impact Analysis" by Nathan and Associates. The
Sketch Plan provides information on projected land use in the
impact area upon which the water supply and waste disposal plans
, prepared in the present study are generally based.
5. Delaware River Basin Commission.-Annual Water Resources Pro-
gram. Delaware River Basin Commission, Trenton, New Jersey.
The annual Water Resources Program, as developed by the
Delaware River Basin Commission, deals with three main areas:
-27-
-------
quantity and quality of the water resources of the basin, existing
and proposed facilities required to satisfy the varying demands
placed upon the water resources, and a presentation of various
projects to be undertaken by the Commission. The program con-
siders supplies from and demands placed upon the Delaware River
Basin and presents background data and information necessary to
balance the supply-demand conditions.
In addition to the above listed reports, the following types of studies
and reports were gathered and reviewed for background information:
1. Local, county, and State planning and economic base reports.
2. Available highway studies.
3. Streamflow data: U.S.G.S. Water Supply Papers.
4. County soil surveys: Soil Conservation Service.
5. Soil Conservation Service watershed and soil studies.
6. Geology maps and groundwater studies.
7. Water quality data.
8. Water and sewer system master plans and feasibility reports.
9. Population forecasts.
10. Cost data of facilities.
11. Recreational water demands.
12. Studies in eutrophication and its prevention.
The Impact Analysis, the National Park Service Master Plan, and the
Sketch Plan are, in essence, the only prior studies directly concerned with
the TIRES area as an entity. A number of efforts are presently underway;
these will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report. Because the
area has had little study as a unit, a large part of the effort of analyzing
background information has necessarily had to deal with correlating and
making consistent the numerous individual and unassociated prior studies
and reports.
-28-
-------
Concurrent programs and related activities
In addition to prior studies and reports, there were several concurrent
studies and programs and related activities underway which have had a direct
influence and bearing on this study. These related efforts were closely co-
ordinated with TIRES.
A complete listing of related activities is available as open-file data from
the DRBC. The most relevant are summarized herein for emphasis:
1. Comprehensive Plan, Delaware River Basin.--The Delaware River
Basin Compact requires that the Delaware River Basin Commission
prepare, adopt, and amend as necessary a comprehensive plan for
the optimum development of the water resources of the entire
Basin. The Delaware River Basin Commission adopted Phase I of
this Comprehensive Plan in March 1962. The Commission and its
staff are engaged continuously in studies leading to modification
of the existing plan. The Plan and any amendments, once adopted,
are legally protected-no proposed project having a substantial ef-
fect on the water resources of the Basin can be undertaken unless
the Commission finds that the project would not conflict with or
impair the Comprehensive Plan. It is envisioned that the regional
water supply and waste disposal plans developed herein by TIRES
would be made a part of the Comprehensive Plan. This would give
the regional plans legal status and protection that would constrain
developments not consistent with those plans.
2. Tocks Island Regional Advisory Council.-Seven counties in the
Tocks Island Area have representation on a recently organized
Tocks Island Regional Advisory Council (TIRAC). They are
Monroe, Northampton, and Pike Counties in Pennsylvania; Sussex
-29-
-------
and Warren Counties in New Jersey; and Orange and Sullivan
Counties in New York. Among the purposes of this organization
are to study region-wide problems, to formulate regional policies,
and to prepare plans for the guidance of desirable development of
communities and facilities in the locks Island Impact Area. The
initial program of TIRAC calls for development of plans for or-
derly development and intelligent use of land surrounding the
National Recreation Area. TIRAC will also be concerned with
problems of highway relocation, water supply, pollution control,
refuse disposal, and fire and police protection. The council mem-
bers are official representatives of the county governments and are
therefore in a position to exercise influence in the legislative and
regulatory activities and policies of the local governments directed
toward land use and community facilities as required to support
any plan developed for the region.
The efforts of TIRAC have been closely followed because its activ-
ities should significantly affect the land development pattern of
the study area. The Tocks Island Region Environmental Study has
\.
maintained close liaison with the TIRAC staff, which is repre-
sented in each of the Task Groups.
3. Master Plan for National Recreation Area.-In the Federal Act
(Public Law 89-158) authorizing the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to adopt
and implement a land and water use management plan for the
National Recreation Area. The Act (Section 5) states that this plan
"..shall include specific provision for, in order of priority-
-30-
-------
"(1) public outdoor recreation benefits;
"(2) preservation of scenic, scientific, and historic features contri-
buting to public enjoyment;
"(3) such utilization of natural resources as in the judgment of the
Secretary of the Interior is consistent with, and does not
significantly impair, public recreation and protection of
scenic, scientific, and historic features contributing to public
enjoyment."
The National Park Service of the U. S. Department of the Interior
has established a special planning office in the Tocks Island region
and has completed the master plan called for in section 5 of Public
Law 89-158. Through the medium of representation on the Ad-
visory Committee for TIRES, and through normal planning and
consultation with the Delaware River Basin Commission under
section 11.1 (a) of the Delaware River Basin Compact, the detailed
planning of the National Recreation Area as directed by Public
Law 89-158 will be fully coordinated with the planning for the
larger TIRES area.
4. State and Local Planning.-Each of the counties in the TIRES area
has established a planning commission. The commissions are, in
varying degrees, generally concerned with formulating the policies
and preparing the plans and surveys required for the orderly and
beneficial development of the counties. They encourage local com-
munity planning and, in some cases, review land subdivisions, aid
in the preparation of local master plans, and act to coordinate the
efforts of various active groups. The states are also involved with
highway planning programs for the DWGNRA impact area.
-31-
-------
The status and progress of each of these programs have been con-
sidered in this study to promote coordination of the various pro-
grams and to assure that the regional water supply and waste
disposal master plans take into account, to the extent possible, the
most recent plans and goals of the various agencies.
-32-
-------
THE STUDY AREA
Drainage basins
To organize the present and future demands for water supply and
liquid- and solid-waste disposal, the study area was subdivided into a number
of sub-areas. The sub-areas correspond to natural drainage basins. Be-
cause the major efforts of the study were directed at water and sewer-
age planning, the choice of using drainage divisions was obvious. The
delineation of major drainage basins and sub-basins considered projected
future population centers.
Eight major drainage areas were selected, as follows:
Major Drainage Basin Area, acres
Pocono Plateau (PO) 105,406
Neversink River (NE) 47,227
Flat Brook (FL) 52,716
Bush Kill (BU) 106,166
Brodhead Creek (BR) 186,970
Cherry Creek (CH) 16,912
Kittatinny (Kl) 18,839
PaulinsKill (PA) 112,347
TOTAL 646,583
The eight major basins were subsequently broken down into 24 sub-
drainage basins.
The major and sub-drainage basin limits were plotted on appropriate
maps. The areas of each of the minor civil divisions (townships, boroughs,
-33-
-------
and counties) were measured, and the respective areas in each of the sub-
drainage basins were tabulated. Non-usable land areas (based on physical
criteria) were removed from the total land area. The results of this analysis
are presented in Appendix B.
This analysis and summary provided a convenient means to effect cor-
relation of minor civil division data with drainage basin data. Population,
land use, economic base, and other data are generally based on political
subdivisions; however, engineering analyses for water and sewerage systems
can best be handled on the basis of natural hydrologic units. Therefore, the
information in Appendix B provides the vehicle for transfer from one base to
the other quickly and consistently.
Political boundaries
Of necessity, some political boundaries were used to define or restrict
the study area and the sub-drainage basins. In other cases, the study area
boundary actually divides a township or municipality.
As mentioned previously, the TIRES area is composed of all or portions
of 51 minor civil divisions, included in the data of Appendix B. Of the
approximately 1,010 square miles contained in the study area, 60
square miles are in New York, 290 square miles are in New Jersey,
and 660 square miles are in Pennsylvania.
Physiography
Of the three physiographic regions into which the Delaware River Basin
naturally divides, two (the Upper and Central regions) are in the TIRES area.
The Pennsylvania and New York-or northwestern-portion of the study area
is located within the southern Appalachian Plateau province. This area in-
cludes a large part of the famous Pocono Mountain resort area and the
Stroudsburgs. The land is generally undulating with ridges on the drainage
divides reaching maximum elevations of approximately 2,000 feet above
mean sea level.
-34-
-------
The southeastern portion of the study area is located in the Valley and
Ridge province and includes some of the Pennsylvania portion of the study
area, near the Delaware Water Gap, and all of the New Jersey portion. This
area is characterized by its pattern of parallel ridges running northeast to
southwest, of which the most important is the Kittatinny Mountain Ridge of
the Shawangaup Mountains. The entire study area has been glaciated and is
included in what is called the "hard" rock area.
The Delaware River, within the TIRES area, at first flows south-
eastward at the point of confluence of the Mongaup River. It forms the
boundary between New York and Pennsylvania for a short reach within the
study area. At Port Jervis, New York, the River turns abruptly south-
westward. At this point, it receives the flows from the Neversink River in
New York. From here, for approximately 37 miles downstream, the River
flows in the valley between the Shawangaup Mountains on the east and the
Appalachian Plateau on the west. This stretch is the site to be inundated by
the Tocks Island Reservoir. The dam will be located about 100 feet below
the southern tip of Tocks Island, an island located on the main stem of the
Delaware River about five miles upstream from the Delaware Water Gap.
Above the Delaware Water Gap, the river is joined by Bush Kill and
Brodhead Creek on the Pennsylvania side, and Flat Brook on the New Jersey
side. The land areas drained by these streams and the Paulins Kill, which
joins the Delaware downstream of the Delaware Water Gap, comprise the
major portion of the Tocks Island Region Environmental Study area.
-05-
-------
IV. ALTERNATIVES IN
PLANS AND POLICIES
APPROACHES AND INVESTIGATIVE METHODS
The development of master plans for water supply and waste disposal in
the TIRES area began with the compilation of comprehensive inventories of
existing conditions and facilities to evaluate land use, economic base, high-
way networks, railroads, surface water resources, geology and ground water
resources, soils, and existing water, sewerage, and solid waste disposal
systems.
Population growth was projected for each minor civil division and trans-
ferred to a drainage area basis. Using these population projections as a base,
per capita values were applied to obtain future projections of water supply
requirements, sewage flows, and solid waste quantities. In the early stages of
the study, two principal planning elements became clear:
1. The magnitude of the task of planning for water supply, sewerage,
and solid waste disposal for the TIRES area dictated that the
study should concentrate on planning for major facilities only.
Detailed study of particular water supply distribution systems or
local sewage collection systems would have diverted the study
efforts away from the more important regional considerations.
Therefore, in the case of sewerage systems, all effort was directed
towards the study of major trunk and interceptor lines (including
necessary pumping) and treatment facilities. In the water supply
investigations, concern was limited to raw water sources, required
treatment, and major transmission facilities. Solid waste disposal
was studied in terms of projected quantities and disposal consider-
ations relative to ground and surface water contamination and
land use.
-37-
-------
The exclusion of local water distribution and sewage collection
systems from detailed study is consistent with the implementation
objectives; these functions should be the responsibility of local
government. Interception and treatment, however, can best be
managed by a centralized regional agency.
2. There was a significant paucity of information concerning popula-
tion and land use patterns in the study area. Planning was being
performed at several levels of government, but it was either in-
consistent in concept, uneven in level of sophistication, in the very
early stages of implementation, or not in sufficient detail for use
as background information for utilities planning. In order to pro-
vide the needed information, extensive examination was made of
existing population, road networks, economic base considerations,
and land use in the area. It was felt that an understanding of these
factors, as they exist today, was essential to forecast the future
patterns and impact on regional development.
In view of the above considerations, this investigation had to be limited
to broad planning concepts in the development of water supply, sewerage,
and solid waste disposal systems. Extensive detailed engineering study and
design were not attempted. In certain cases, definitive study was necessary to
provide reasonably accurate cost estimates and to evaluate technical feasi-
bility. Construction and operation of each system were evaluated to provide
a basis for comparison.
Approaches to the plans
The contents of this report and of the appendices define in detail the
various areas of investigation of this study. As an introduction, this section
presents a summary of the general methods employed and the approaches
taken to formulate the various plans.
-38-
-------
Regional planning and population forecasts.--The major planning efforts
were concerned with population forecasts and land-use considerations. The
population forecasts were derived by use of logistic growth curves for the
various minor civil divisions; input included estimates of historical and
present (1966) peak populations, rates and time periods of peak growth,
existing and future land use, economic considerations, and highway systems.
Future populations were initially estimated for the minor civil divisions;
these estimates were then apportioned among appropriate drainage areas for
water and sewerage planning.
The preliminary Sketch Plan for the area was used as the basis for the
land-use investigation. The Sketch Plan was later revised and given clearer
definition by employing existing land-use studies and highway proposals.
Sufficient detail was then available for water supply and waste disposal
planning within the broad scope of the study program.
Population forecasts on the basis either of minor civil divisions or of
drainage areas are necessary for a study of this type. However, population
densities of developed land will not be uniform throughout a township,
borough, county, or a watershed. Population was therefore correlated with
future land-use so that population concentrations could be located and utili-
ties provided for the intensive-use areas.
Seasonal as well as year-round residents were considered in the fore-
casts. The utilities systems were planned and sized to serve the peak
(summer) populations to insure adequate protection of the environment.
Water supply systems.-Water supply for the TIRES area was not
studied as intensively as liquid waste disposal because of the relative abun-
dance of surface- and ground-water resources. With existing and future land
use plans as a basis, future water supply demands were apportioned among
areas where populations were expected to concentrate, in order to delineate
service areas (see Figure F-l in Appendix F).
-39-
-------
An important consideration in the development of a master plan for
water supply for the TIRES area was that most of the region is generally
underlain with a ground-water supply of high capacity and good quality.
Wherever such conditions exist, economic considerations dictate exploiting
ground-water resources in preference to developing surface-water supply
systems, if chlorination is the only form of treatment required for the
ground water. In the TIRES area, a savings of approximately $0.35 per
thousand gallons can be realized by utilizing ground-water resources instead
of surface-water supplies.
Ground-water hydrology and quality were evaluated in a general way
for the overall study area. Due to the limited data available, conservative
estimates were made of ground-water recharge and aquifer yields. Wherever
ground-water supplies appeared adequate, prospective well fields were out-
lined and cost estimates prepared. If ground water was not available in
adequate quantity or quality, surface supplies were recommended.
During the period of this study, detailed ground-water investigations
and well-drilling programs (under separate contracts) were performed for the
Borough of Delaware Water Gap and for the Hemlock Farms development.
In both cases, adequate ground water supplies were developed; the Hemlock
Farms well program yielded two wells, each with a capacity of approxi-
mately 500 gallons per minute (0.7 mgd). These tangible results provided
verification of the assumptions made in the TIRES study relative to ground-
water availability.
It must be strongly emphasized, however, that haphazard location,
construction, and operation of wells will inhibit accomplishment of the
objectives of the water supply plan. Wells should be located in a scientific
manner and in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Location, operation,
and yields must take cognizance of ground-water use in the entire area.
-40-
-------
Where adequate surface water supplies currently exist, they can
continue to be used until the demand exceeds the supply, at which time
water sources can be augmented by ground-water development.
A comprehensive water supply plan, based primarily on ground-water
development, is presented herein; the results of background data and individ-
ual basin analyses are presented in the Appendices to justify the decision.
The significant cost savings, conservative estimates of recharge and yields,
and the concurrent experience with well-drilling programs provide ample
basis for recommending extensive ground-water development.
Liquid waste disposal systems.-As discussed in Appendix D, studies of
soil conditions indicated that the TIRES area was generally not suitable for
on-site liquid waste disposal systems. The proliferation of such systems in
built-up areas would result in serious health problems, odors, contamination
of surface waters by leaching system overflows, and contamination of
ground waters by inadequately treated wastes. Therefore, development of
the overall liquid waste disposal system was based on the assumption that
local areas which would have population concentrations of greater than two
or three persons per acre should be served by public sewerage systems.
Because of the magnitude of the problem of liquid waste disposal for
the TIRES area, five alternative sewerage systems were developed and evalu-
ated. These ranged from Alternative I, with 116 wastewater treatment
plants, to Alternative V, with a single major wastewater treatment facility
downstream of the Tocks Island Dam site. A sixth Alternative, assuming
local development (Alternative I) followed by regionalization (Alternative
III) was added to complete the comparison.
The alternatives are described in general terms in this section, and in
greater detail in Appendix H. Also, these alternatives are compared on the
basis of costs, implementation, reliability, adaptability, and social benefits,
in Section V of this report.
-41-
-------
The various sewerage system alternative plans were prepared by appor-
tioning the drainage basin projected populations and the projected future
sewage flows among the areas (service areas) where future populations were
expected to concentrate. These service areas are shown in Figure F-l in
Appendix F as recommended future development. Interceptor and major
trunk sewers, and wastewater treatment plants were then located on the
basis of maximum utilization of gravity flow, access, construction difficulty,
and protection of the environment.
To provide maximum protection of the environment and of the Tocks
Island Reservoir, it appeared essential that high-level treatment be required
at each plant. The cost estimates, based upon BOD and nutrient removals of
approximately 95 percent reflect this assumption.
The potential of an increased eutrophication rate of the reservoir
caused by upstream and study area waste discharges was analyzed. Ifs
implications are discussed fn Section V.
Solid waste disposal systems.-The investigation and study of solid
waste disposal systems were conditioned by two important considerations:
1. The basic concern was limited to the prevention of contamination
of ground and surface water by improper disposal methods, and
2. A concurrent major study was being conducted by TIRAC that
dealt exclusively with solid waste disposal within and beyond the
TIRES area. The TIRAC investigation included a complete in-
ventory of existing solid waste disposal practices in the area,
projections of future solid waste quantities, and the formulation
of future solid waste disposal systems.
Therefore, this study is limited to general predictions of per capita and
total daily generation of solid waste, by drainage basin and by county. Gross
land area requirements for the 50-year study period were estimated for
-42-
-------
landfill and incineration disposal systems within the TIRES area based upon
standard compaction estimates.
Unit costs of landfill and incineration were examined, general specifi-
cations for site selection were derived for landfill and incineration
operations, and administrative procedures (including current land purchases
for future need) were evaluated.
The final selection of specific land areas for sanitary landfills or for
disposal of incineration residue requires the collection of a significant
amount of basic data that is presently unavailable. Although collection of
such data was not part of this study, estimates were made of future solid
waste quantities by areas, and general criteria were determined for choosing
sites and selecting disposal methods. With this background and the work of
the TIRAC study, the necessary basic data in the form of precise ground-
water levels, aquifer connections, flood plain areas, site accessibility, soil
conditions, depths to bedrock, and availability of soil cover, can be collected
and analyzed. Through evaluation of these data, final disposal sites and
methods can be properly selected.
The program as developed and recommended herein is based on using
sanitary landfill for ultimate disposal. It was found that satisfactory landfill
areas are close to waste-generating areas and that surface- and ground-water
contamination can be avoided. Comparison of landfill cost estimates ($0.75
to $4.50 per ton) with incineration estimates ($6.00 to $10.00 per ton)
indicated significant disposal cost savings with the landfill method. The
concept of hauling solid waste out of the area for final disposal could not be
justified, largely because the additional haulage cost would result in a less
economical program.
-43-
-------
It is expected that the potential pollutant interchanges between sani-
tary landfill and surface- and ground-water contamination can and must be
identified. Landfill operations should not be tolerated in any part of the
TIRES area where such contamination would result.
-44-
-------
SUMMARY OF EXISTING
CONDITIONS AND FACILITIES
Existing development pattern
The study of existing land use, economic bases, and transportation is
one means of analyzing the emergence and development of an area and of
projecting future development patterns. Such studies are presented in
Appendix C of this report. Figure C-1 of Appendix C shows the current
major land uses in the area.
The relevant conclusions drawn from Appendix C are as follows:
1. Development is currently aggregated in urban centers, villages, and
other localized areas.
2. Large tracts of land used for water supply drainage areas, farms,
resort areas, game lands, forests, and parks suggests that the
TIRES area performs a service/recreation function for nearby
metropolitan areas.
3. The open spaces and low-density land use contribute to the
natural beauty of the region - a major asset.
4. The developing land pattern is a result of urbanizing forces and
recreational needs in the region.
5. At the present time, the TIRES area may be classified as predom-
inantly rural and non-farm, but on the verge of rapid growth.
6. Employment is highest in manufacturing and retail businesses, but
a broad, stable economic base does not exist.
7. Highway travel is the prime means of transportation within the
region. The highway network within the TIRES area is not as good
as the network which brings people to the area; consequently,
local congestion occurs during the summer months.
-45-
-------
Surface- and ground-water resources
Detailed investigations were performed to evaluate surface- and
ground-water quantity and quality in the TIRES area. The area has
abundant supplies of water available for use at reasonable costs.
Surface-water resources were studied by reviewing climatology and by
making statistical analyses of surface-water availability from the major
streams in the area. Streamflow records were analyzed and draft-storage-
frequency tables compiled. Potential reservoir sites were also tabulated.
After surface-water quality data were compiled and analyzed, it was found
that the surface waters in the study area are of high quality, with dissolved
oxygen levels near saturation, pH approximating 7.0, low turbidity, and
acceptable hardness and coliform levels.
The analysis of ground-water resources began with a study of the
geology of the area and a water-well inventory. Based on the exist-
ing well yields and assumed recharge rates, yields per square mile
ranging from 50 to 350 gpm, were derived for the various geological
formations.
Existing systems
An inventory of existing water supply, sewerage, and solid waste dis-
posal systems was compiled for the TIRES and is presented in Appendix E;
the systems are mapped on Figure E-l.
Most of the systems are small and localized, and would make only
minor contributions to any regionalization program. However, a few of the
sewerage and water supply collection and distribution systems would be
significant in regional development. The water and waste disposal systems
-46-
-------
for East Stroudsburg, Stroudsburg, Newton, and Port Jervis were found to
be of sufficient capacity for consideration as regional facilities. Therefore,
comments on their performance and capability are included in this report.
-47-
-------
FUTURE CONDITIONS AND NEEDS
Population forecasts
Data on present population, existing and future land uses, economic
bases, and transportation systems were used to derive population projections
for the TIRES area. The projections were compiled by minor civil division
and by drainage basin.
Appendix F presents a detailed discussion of prior studies, the investi-
gative methods used, and the basic data input requirements. The results of
the projection technique are also presented and implications discussed.
The inability of existing population projection techniques to reflect the
rapid changes in growth expected in the TIRES area led to the development
of a new projection method, based on the modification and use of the
logistic curve. This curve has the ability to reflect rapid rates of growth, but
does not have the undesirable property of allowing these rates to continue
unchecked indefinitely. This procedure was used to project peak-season
populations by minor civil division and by drainage area.
The results of the analyses are presented in Tables IV-1 and IV-2, which
follow. Table IV-1 shows population projections by minor civil division,
while Table I V-2 projects population by drainage area.
Utilities requirements
Water supply.-The planning of water supply depends on determinations
of water quantities required per person, as well as on overall usage. Per capita
consumption in the United States varies widely; recent data indicate 50 to
over 200 gallons per person per day. These variations result from such
factors as the extent and type of industrial development, size of community,
economic and social characteristics of the population, metering of individual
connections, and efficiency of distribution systems. Within the study area a
-48-
-------
TABLE IV-1
PEAK SEASON POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY
MINOR CIVIL DIVISION1
Monroe
Orange
Township
or Borough
Blooming Grove Twp.
Delaware Twp.
Dingman Twp.
Greene Twp.
Lehman Twp.
Matamoras Boro.
Milford Boro.
Milford Twp.
Porter Twp.
Shohola Twp.
Westfall Twp.
Sub-Total:
Barrett Twp.
Chestnut Hill Twp.
Coolbaugh Twp.
E. Stroudsburg Boro.
Hamilton Twp.
Jackson Twp.
M. Smithfield Twp.
Mt. Pocono Boro.
Paradise Twp.
Pocono Twp.
Price Twp.
Ross Twp.
Smithfield Twp.
Stroud Twp.
Stroudsburg Boro.
Tobyhanna Twp.
Tunkhannock Twp.
Sub-Total:
Deerpark
Greenville
Mt. Hope
Port Jervis
Sub-Total:
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
3,100
4,600
2,300
3,900
4r500
3,100
2,000
1,000
900
4,000
2.900
32,300
7,500
5,800
4,900
9,600
5,100
4,500
9,000
1,800
5,100
3,800
900
1,900
8,000
10,500
7,300
7,900
1,500
95,100
9,200
2,200
3,900
10,000
25,300
7,200
7,700
4,400
6,200
7,800
4,100
2,800
1,200
1,100
8,300
5,600
56,400
10,500
10,700
8,300
1 1 ,600
6,800
9,500
20,500
2,300
10,100
5,500
1,500
3,900
14,300
14,200
8,600
16,700
4,800
159,800
15,000
3,800
4,800
10,400
34,000
15,800
11,600
8,300
9,800
12,900
5,200
3,500
1,400
1,400
1 5,400
10,000
95,300
14,600
17,300
13,100
13,800
8,900
17,400
36,900
3,000
18,100
8,000
2,700
7,500
23,800
19,200
10,100
28,400
11,600
254,400
19,000
5,900
5,700
10,800
41,400
30,600
15,200
14,300
14,900
20,100
6,400
4,300
1,700
1,700
25,000
16,400
150,600
19,800
24,000
19,200
16,200
11,700
26,400
51,300
4,000
27,900
1 1 ,300
4,700
13,000
35,400
25,500
11,800
38,400
18,900
359,500
20,900
8,700
6,700
11,300
47,600
49,200
17,800
21,800
21,900
28,700
7,600
5,000
2,000
2,100
34,400
23,700
214,200
26,100
29,000
25,700
18,900
1 5,200
33,600
59,400
5,100
36,800
15,600
7,900
19,500
46,800
33,300
13,700
44,100
22,700
453,400
21,600
11,700
7,700
11,700
52,700
65,300
19,300
29,200
30,700
37,500
8,600
5,500
2,400
2,500
41,200
30,300
272,500
33,400
32,100
31,600
21,700
19,500
37,700
62,900
6,700
42,900
20,700
12,600
25,300
55,800
42,600
15,800
46,700
24,100
535,100
21,800
14,400
8,600
12,100
56,900
-49-
-------
TABLE IV-1
(continued)
PEAK SEASON POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY
MINOR CIVILDIV1SION1
County
Sussex
Warren
Township
or Borough
Andover Twp.
Branchville Boro.
Frankford Twp.
Fredon Twp.
Hampton Twp.
Lafayette Twp.
Montague Twp.
Newton
Sandyston Twp.
Sparta Twp.
Stillwater Twp.
Sub-Total:
Blairstown Twp.
Frelinghuysen Twp.
Hardwick Twp.
Knowlton Twp.
Sub-Total:
1970
7,400
1,400
9,000
2,800
7,100
2,300
3,600
9,400
6,500
19,300
14,300
83,100
4,200
3,400
2,500
3,000
13,100
1980
22,000
1,900
15,300
6,300
16,200
4,200
8,100
12,600
9,800
31,800
20,800
149,000
7,600
8,900
8,500
5,100
30,100
1990
33,500
2,600
22,800
11,900
24,400
7,300
14,700
15,700
13,900
46,100
28,900
221,800
12,200
15,500
15,600
8,200
51,500
2000
36,900
3,300
29,300
17,700
28,100
11,100
20,900
18,500
18,600
58,900
37,800
281,100
17,100
19,100
18,600
1 1 ,900
66,700
2010
37,500
4,100
33,700
21,700
29,300
14,900
24,600
20,800
23,300
67,900
46,500
324,300
21,000
20,400
19,300
15,900
76,600
2020
37,700
4,900
36,300
23,600
29,600
17,800
26,200
22,400
27,500
73,300
54,100
353,400
23,400
20,800
19,400
19,300
82,900
TOTALS:
248,900 429,300
905,500 1,121,200 1,297,800
Values in this Table represent populations in the entire area of the minor civil division although part of that area
(with its population) may actually lie outside of the TIRES area. They do not include DWGNRA visitors.
o
^Because of its small area and population base, the Borough of Delaware Water Gap is combined with Smithfield
Township for purposes of projecting population and demands for water supply and waste disposal.
-50-
-------
TABLE IV-2
PEAK SEASON POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY
DRAINAGE BASINS1
Drainage Basin 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
PO-1 4,600 7,900 12,400 17,400 22,200 26,300
PO-2 1,300 2,400 4,500 7,500 11,300 14,800
PO-3 2,900 4,300 6,400 9,200 12,100 14,800
PO-4 6,200 9,400 14,200 20,400 27,300 33,400
PO-5 6,100 8,700 10,500 11,300 11,700 11,900
Sub-Total: 21,100 32,700 48,000 65,800 84,600 101,200
NE-1 15,200 20,600 25,900 29,900 32,500 34,100
NE-2 1,100 2,400 4,400 6.300 7,400 7,900
Sub-Total: 16,300 23,000 30,300 36,200 39,900 42,000
FL-1 8,000 12,900 19,500 26,400 32,500 37,300
FL-2 200 400 700 1.000 1.200 1.200
Sub-Total: 8,200 13,300 20,200 27,400 33,700 38,500
BU-1
BU-2
BU-3
Sub-Total:
BR-1
BR-2
BR-3
BR-4
BR-5
BR-6
Sub-Total:
CH-1
Sub-Total:
KI-1
Sub-Total: 600 1,000 1,600 2,400 3,200 3,900
PA-1
PA-2
PA-3
PA-4
Sub-Total:
TOTALS: 193,400 316,000 475,200 639,700 792,200 925,500
Mhese population projections do not include DWGNRA visitors.
-51-
8,500
2,000
2.700
13,200
11,700
10,400
15,000
1 1 ,400
16,100
1 1 ,400
76,000
3,800
3Qf}(~\
O\J\J
600
16,100
3,400
4.700
24,200
19,700
15,000
24,200
17,600
22,900
19,700
119,160
5,100
5,100
1.000
27,500
5,700
7,400
40,600
31,600
21,400
37,700
26,700
32,100
31,500
181,000
6,900
6,900
1.600
40,000
8,500
10,900
59,400
45,200
29,300
54,400
39,200
42,800
43,400
254,300
9,100
9,100
2.400
51,500
1 1 ,800
14.600
77,900
57,200
37,500
71,600
55,400
53,700
52.600
328,000
11,800
1 1 ,800
3.200
61,300
14,900
18.200
94,400
66,300
45,900
87,400
75,200
64,000
58,900
397,700
1 5,200
1 5,200
3.900
4,600
9,300
10,500
29,800
54,200
8,900
19,000
17,300
52,400
97,600
14,700
31,000
24,600
76,300
146,600
20,000
39,300
30,800
95,000
185,100
24,200
44,700
36,100
108,100
213,100
27,100
48,400
40,500
116,600
232,600
-------
wide range of conditions, population densities, seasonal fluctuations, and
other characteristics preclude the use of a single value in establishing demand
requirements.
Within the confines of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
Area, estimates of water-supply requirements will be confined to the sites
established in the National Park Service Master Plan. These sites include
picnic areas, beaches, camping areas, and boating facilities. In addition,
major sites will also provide luncheon facilities. Water-supply requirements
for these respective areas will vary with the type of use. For each type of
activity, average rates for gallons consumed per capita per day (gcd) have
been applied as follows:
Picnic Areas 20 gcd
Bathing Areas 10 gcd
Camping Areas 50 gcd
Boating Areas 10 gcd
Luncheon Facilities 4 gcd
These values are based on standards in the Public Health Service publi-
cation "Environmental Health Practice in Recreational Areas", and are in-
tended to be average daily figures. Daily peak supply requirements for these
types of facilities will be more than twice the projected average values,
because demands will remain essentially constant during daylight hours.
Water-supply requirements for the park areas during nighttime hours will be
very low.
The demand rates presented above are conservative; ie., they are high
estimates. These high estimates were used because of the hazards of fore-
casting demands, and to account for possible future increases in per capita
rates. It is assumed that, as in municipal systems, per capita rates will
-52-
-------
increase. Furthermore, high estimates will allow future systems to handle
possible increases in DWGNRA facilities above those presently considered in
the National Park Service Master Plan.
Table IV-3 summarizes water-supply requirements for the National Rec-
reation Area utilized at the projected visitor capacity; Appendix I presents
detailed data used to derive the summary information in this table. The total
demands were derived by applying the above demand rates to the numbers
of people in the various recreational categories as established by the National
Park Service. Average daily demand for the DWGNRA is estimated to be 3.9
mgd during the summer months.
Outside the limits of the National Recreation Area, per capita consump-
tion at the present time is approximately 125 gcd during the summer season
in the various existing municipal systems. The range is approximately 100
gcd to 200 gcd.
Historically, per capita consumption rates have increased with time as a
result of changes in living standards and the advent of such devices as dish-
washers, garbage grinders, and automatic lawn sprinklers. The rate of in-
crease has, in many cases, approached a value of 5 percent annually.
Therefore, the following criteria were adopted and used in this study to
estimate future average daily demands:
Year Water Supply Requirements
gcd
1970 125
1980 130
1990 135
2000 140
2010 145
2020 150
-53-
-------
TABLE IV-3
SUMMARY OF RECREATION SEASON AVERAGE DAILY
WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA1
N.P.S.
Name of Site
Recreation Area Numbers Average Daily Demand
_ Section Included During Recreation Season
mgd
Bush Kill Creek 1-3 0.43
Hill Farm 4-6 0.19
Dingmans Creek 7-9 0.41
Group Camp 10,11 0.04
Silver Spring 12 0.10
Milford 13-15 0.52
Minisink 16-18 0.81
Flat Brook Peninsula 19-23 0.29
Kittatinny 24-30 0.87
Delaware Water Gap 31 0.25
TOTAL 3.91
1
Appendix G contains information used to compile this summary table;
values in this table are expressed to the nearest one-hundredth mgd.
-54-
-------
Table IV-4 presents the results of the water demand projections by
drainage basins as derived by applying the assumed per capita consumption
rates to the population projections. Table IV-5 presents the same type of
information on the basis of minor civil divisions. The totals are higher in
Table IV-5 because the entire political subdivisions are included, although
some may lie in part outside the TIRES area.
The values represent expected average water demands during the
summer months. These demands would decrease during the non-tourist
season in approximate relation to the ratio of summer population to perma-
nent population. The per capita consumption rates include allowances for
associated commercial activities and limited industrial usage.
The average figures can vary with time. Peak-day usage could be as high
as 1.5 times the average-day usage, while the ratio for peak hourly demand
could be as high as 2.5 times the average daily use. Minimum daily use is
normally about two-thirds of the average-day usage. Although these ratios
are important design considerations, they are primarily problems of storage
and layout of the distribution system. Since raw water sources, treatment,
and transmission, are the most important concerns, fluctuations in daily
demand were not considered in detail.
Liquid waste disposal.--As in the formulation of water supply systems,
the design of public sewerage systems relies on design flow criteria, and such
criteria have been established by various State Health Departments for use in
projecting design sewage flows. Because the three states involved in the
present study have established essentially equal criteria for sewage flows,
these figures have been applied.
Within the National Recreation Area, a 40 gcd sewage flow quantity
was selected from "Environmental Health Practice in Recreation Areas"
-55-
-------
Drainage Basin
TABLE IV-4
PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY
WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT PROJECTIONS
BY DRAINAGE BASIN1
1970 19J50 1990 2QQQ. 2010
2020
PO-1
PO-2
PO-3
PO-4
PO-5
Sub-Total:
NE-1
NE-2
Sub-Total:
FL-1
FL-2
Sub-Total:
BU-1
BU-2
BU-3
Sub-Total:
BR-1
BR-2
BR-3
BR-4
BR-5
BR-6
Sub-Total:
CH-1
Sub-Total:
KI-1
Sub-Total:
PA-1
PA-2
PA-3
PA-4
Sub-Total:
TOTALS:
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.8
TJ
1.9
0.3
2.2
1.0
0.1
1.1
1.1
0.2
0.3
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.9
1.4
2.0
1.4
9.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
~0~T
0.6
1.2
1.3
6.8
24.5
1.0
0.3
0.6
1.2
1.1
4.2
2.7
0.3
3.0
1.7
0.1
1.8
2.1
0.4
0.6
3.1
2.6
1.9
3.1
2.3
3.0
2.6
15.5
0.7
0.7
0.1
0.1
1.2
2.5
2.2
12.7
41.1
1.7
0.6
0.9
1.9
1.4
6.5
3.5
0.6
4.1
2.6
0.1
2.7
3.7
0.8
1.0
5.5
4.3
2.9
5.1
3.6
4.3
-4,3
24.5
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.2
2.0
4.2
3.3
10.3
19.8
64.3
2.4
1.1
1.3
2.9
1.6
9.3
4.2
0.9
5.1
3.7
0.1
3.8
5.6
1.2
1.5
8.3
6.3
4.1
7.6
5.5
6.0
6.1
35.6
1.3
1.3
0.3
2.8
5.5
4.3
13.3
25.9
89.6
3.2
1.6
1.8
4.0
1.7
12.3
4.7
1.1
5.8
4.7
0.2
4.9
7.5
1.7
2.1
11.3
8.3
5.4
10.4
8.0
7.8
7.6
47.5
1.7
1.7
0.4
3.5
6.5
5.2
30.9
114.8
3.9
2.2
2.2
5.0
1.8
15.1
5.1
1.2
6.3
5.6
0.2
5.8
9.2
2.2
2.7
14.1
9.9
6.9
13.1
11.3
9.6
8.8
59.6
2.3
2.3
0.6
4.1
7.3
6.1'
17.5
35.0
138.8
Exclusive of DWGNRA demands. All quantities are in million gallons per day.
-56-
-------
TABLE IV-5
Monroe
Orange
PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY
WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT PROJECTIONS
BY MINOR CIVIL DIVISION1
Township
or Borough
Blooming Grove Twp.
Delaware Twp.
Dingman Twp.
Greene Twp.
Lehman Twp.
Matamoras Boro.
Milford Boro.
Milford Twp.
Porter Twp.
Shohola Twp.
Westfall Twp.
Sub-Total:
Barrett Twp.
Chestnut Hill Twp.
Coolbaugh Twp.
E. Stroudsburg Boro.
Hamilton Twp.
Jackson Twp.
M. Smithfield Twp.
Mt. Pocono Boro.
Paradise Twp.
Pocono Twp.
Price Twp.
Ross Twp.
Smithfield Twp.
Stroud Twp.
Stroudsburg Boro.
Tobyhanna Twp.
Tunkhannock Twp.
Sub-Total:
Deerpark
Greenville
Mt. Hope
Port Jervis
Sub-Total:
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.4
4.2
0.9
0.7
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.2
1.0
1.3
0.9
1.0
_QJ
11.6
1.2
0.3
0.5
1.2
3.2
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
1.1
0.7
7.3
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.5
0.9
1.2
2.7
0.3
1.3
0.7
0.2
0.5
T.9
1.9
1.1
2.2
0.6
20.9
1.9
0.5
0.6
1.3
4.3
2.1
1.6
1.1
1.3
1.7
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.2
2.1
1.4
12.9
2.0
2.3
1.8
1.9
1.2
2.4
5.0
0.4
2.4
1.0
0.4
1.0
3.2
2.6
1.4
3.8
1.6
34.4
2.6
0.8
0.8
1.5
5.7
4.3
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.8
0.9
0.6
0.2
0.2
3.5
2.3
21.0
2.8
3.4
2.7
2.3
1.6
3.7
7.2
0.6
3.9
1.6
0.7
1.8
5.0
3.6
1.7
5.4
2.6
50.6
2.9
1.2
0.9
1.6
6.6
7.1
2.6
3.2
3.2
4.2
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.3
5.0
3.4
31.1
3.8
4.2
3.7
2.7
2.2
4.9
8.6
0.7
5.3
2.3
1.1
2.8
6.8
4.8
2.0
6.4
3.3
65.6
3.1
1.7
1.1
1.7
7.6
9.8
2.9
4.4
4.6
5.6
1.3
0.8
0.4
0.4
6.2
4.5
40.9
5.0
4.8
4.7
3.3
2.9
5.7
9.4
0.9
6.4
3.1
1.9
3.8
8.4
6.4
2.4
7.0
3.6
79.7
3.3
2.2
1.3
1.8
8.6
-57-
-------
Warren
TABLE IV-5
(continued)
PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY
WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT PROJECTIONS
BY MINOR CIVIL DIVISION1
o!°B™mu'qPh 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
AndoverTwp. 0.9 2.9 4.5
Branchville Boro. 0.2 0.2 0.3
Frankford Twp. 1.1 2.0 3.1
FredonTwp. 0.3 0.8 1.6
Hampton Twp. 0.9 2.1 3.3
Lafayette Twp. 0.3 0.5 1.0
Montague Twp. 0.4 1.1 2.0
Newton 1.2 1.6 2.1
Sandyston Twp. 0.8 1.3 1.9
Sparta Twp. 2.4 4.1 6.2
StillwaterTwp. 1.8 2.7 ,3.9
Sub-Total: 10.3 19.3 29.9
Blairstown Twp. 0.5 1.0 1.7 2.4 3.0
Frelinghuysen Twp. 0.4 1.2 2.1 2.7 3.0
HardwickTwp. 0.3 1.1 2.1 ,2.6 2.8
KnowltonTwp. 0.4 0.7 1.1 T7 2.3
Sub-Total: 1.6 4.0 7.0 9.4 11.1
5.2
0.5
4.1
2.5
3.9
1.6
2.9
2.6
2.6
8.2
5.3
39.4
5.4
0.6
4.9
3.1
4.2
2.2
3.6
3.0
3.4
9.8
— 6J
46.9
2020
TOTALS:
30.9
55.8
89.9
127.0 162.3
194.4
'The values in this Table represent water supply requirements for the entire area of the minor civil
division even though part of that area (with its associated water supply requirement) may actually
lie outside of the TIRES area. DWGNRA demands have been excluded. All quantities are in
million gallons per day.
o
^Because of its small area and population base, the Borough of Delaware Water Gap is combined with
Smithf ield Township for purposes of projecting population and requirements for water supply and
waste disposal.
-58-
-------
This value was applied regardless of type of recreation use. Similar to the
water demand criteria, the figures employed are conservatively high.
The wastewater flow, based on 40 gcd, to be handled by the treatment
plants is assumed to occur during daylight hours. The 40 gcd rate was in-
creased 2.5 times to 100 gcd for interceptor sizing. Because collection
systems are not a primary concern, these figures are adequate to develop
flow projections. (Peak hydraulic loadings in collection systems would have
to be increased by a factor of four to assure proper design).
Table IV-6 summarizes projected average sewage flow quantities for the
National Recreation Area utilized at projected visitor capacity. The total
sewage flows were derived in the same manner as were the water sup-
ply requirements, i.e. by applying the per capita flow criterion to the
numbers of persons in the recreational areas.
The average daily sewage flow of 5.66 mgd is 45 percent higher than
the projected water supply requirement of 3.91 mgd. This discrepancy was
analyzed relative to the approximate length of sewage collection and inter-
ceptor lines in the Recreation Area. It was found that the difference was
reasonable, based on accepted rates of infiltration of ground water into the
sewer lines. Also, such urban water losses as car washing, watering lawns and
gardens, and structural washing will not exist in the DWGNRA, and there-
fore, a high percentage of water supplied will be recovered.
Beyond the limits of the DWGNRA, a per capita sewage flow of 100
gallons per day was used to derive average flows at the treatment plants. This
value was increased to 250 gcd for peak hydraulic loadings in interceptor and
trunk sewers. Collection system lines would be designed for a hydraulic
loading of 400 gcd.
-59-
-------
TABLE IV-6
SUMMARY OF RECREATION SEASON AVERAGE DAILY
SEWAGE FLOWS FOR
THE DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA1
Name of
Recreation Area
Section
N.P.S.
Site
Numbers
Included
1-3
4-6
7-9
10,11
12
13-15
16-18
19-23
24-30
31
Average Daily
Sewage Flows
mgd
0.64
0.24
0.63
0.54
0.13
0.98
1.33
0.32
1.02
0.33
Bush Kill Creek
Hill Farm
Dingmans Creek
Group Camp
Silver Spring
Milford
Minisink
Flat Brook Peninsula
Kittatinny
Delaware Water Gap
TOTAL: 5.66
Appendix G contains information used to compile this summary table;
values in this table are to the nearest one-hundredth mgd.
-60-
-------
The 100 gcd figure is undoubtedly a high estimate for the early years of
the study period even allowing for infiltration; however, it should become
increasingly appropriate in future years as per capita water consumption
increases.
There is also an apparent discrepancy between per capita water con-
sumption and per capita sewage flows in the area outside DWGNRA. This
differential is caused by the fact that the per capita water consumption rates
include water lost through transmission and distribution system leaks, evap-
oration, and water that is not returned to a sewerage system (e.g. lawn
sprinkling, car washing, street washing).
Table IV-7 presents the results of the sewage flow projections by drain-
age basins as derived by applying the assumed 100 gcd criterion to the
population forecasts; Table IV-8 presents the same type of information on
the basis of political subdivisions. As with the water-supply requirement
projections, the totals are higher in Table IV-8 because each minor civil
division is considered in its entirety, although part may lie outside the
TIRES area.
The quality of sewage flows from the National Recreation Area and
from the remainder of the study area cannot be predicted with any degree of
accuracy at the present time. Because most of the flow will be domestic-type
waste, the overall qualities will likely approximate those qualities prevalent
at the present time in municipal systems. These are as follows:
5-day, 20°C BOD: 200 mg/L
Suspended Solids: 250 mg/L
It is assumed that industrial or toxic wastes in the study area may
require pretreatment in order to make these types of wastes compatible with
municipal-type sewage for combined treatment.
-61-
-------
TABLE IV-7
PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY WASTEWATER FLOW
PROJECTIONS BY DRAINAGE BASIN1
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2010
PO-1
PO-2
PO-3
PO-4
PO-5
Sub-Total :
NE-1
NE-2
Sub-Total:
FL-1
FL-2
Sub-Total:
BU-1
BU-2
BU-3
Sub-Total:
BR-1
BR-2
BR-3
BR-4
BR-5
BR-6
Sub-Total:
CH-1
Sub-Total:
KI-1
Sub-Total:
PA-1
PA-2
PA-3
PA-4
Sub-Total:
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.6
2.1
1.5
0.1
1.6
0.9
0.0
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.3
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.6
1.1
7.5
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.9
1.0
3.0
5.4
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.9
0.9
3.2
2.1
0.2
2.3
1.3
0.1
1.4
1.6
0.3
0.5
2.4
2.0
1.5
2.4
1.8
2.3
2.0
12.0
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.9
1.9
1.7
5.2
9.7
1.2
0.4
0.6
1.4
1.0
4.6
2.6
0.4
3.0
1.9
0.1
2.0
2.7
0.6
0.7
4.0
3.2
2.1
3.8
2.7
3.2
3.2
18.2
0.7
0.7
0.2
0.2
1.5
3.1
2.5
7.6
14.7
1.7
0.8
0.9
2.0
1.1
6.5
3.0
0.6
3^
2.6
0.1
2.7
4.0
0.9
1.1
6.0
4.5
2.9
5.4
3.9
4.3
4.3
25.3
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.2
2.0
3.9
3.1
9.5
18.5
2.2
1.1
1.2
2.7
1.2
8.4
3.2
0.7
3.9
3.3
0.1
3.4
5.2
1.2
1.5
7.9
5.7
3.7
7.2
5.5
5.4
5.3
32.8
1.2
1.2
0.3
0.3
2.4
4.5
3.6
10.8
21.3
2.8
1.6
1.6
3.6
1.2
10.8
3.4
0.8
4.2
3.7
0.1
3.8
6.1
1.5
1.8
9.4
6.6
4.6
8.7
7.5
6.4
5.9
39.7
1.5
1.5
0.4
0.4
2.7
4.8
4.1
11.7
23.3
TOTALS: 19.3 31.6 47.4 63.7 79.2 93.1
Exclusive of DWGNRA. All quantities in million gallons per day.
-62-
-------
TABLE IV-8
PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
BY MINOR CIVIL DIVISION1
Monroe
Orange
Township
or Borough
Blooming Grove Twp.
Delaware Twp.
Dingman Twp.
Greene Twp.
Lehman Twp.
Matamoras Boro.
Milford Boro.
Milford Twp.
Porter Twp.
Shohola Twp.
Westfall Twp.
Sub-Total:
Barrett Twp.
Chestnut Twp.
Coolbaugh Twp.
E. Stroudsburg Boro.
Hamilton Twp.
Jackson Twp.
M. Smithfield Twp.
Mt. Pocono Boro.
Paradise Twp.
Pocono Twp.
Price Twp.
Ross Twp.
Smithfield Twp.
Stroud Twp.
Stroudsburg Boro.
Tobyhanna Twp.
Tunkhannock Twp.
Sub-Total:
Deerpark
Greenville
Mt. Hope
Port Jervis
Sub-Total:
1970
1980
1990
2000
2020
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
3.2
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.2
9.6
0.9
0.2
0.4
1.0
2.5
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.6
5.6
1.1
1.1
0.8
1.2
0.7
1.0
2.0
0.2
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.4
1.4
1.4
0.9
1.7
0.5
16.2
1.5
0.4
0.5
1.0
3.4
1.6
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.3
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
1.5
1.0
9.5
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.4
0.9
1.7
3.7
0.3
1.8
0.8
0.3
0.8
2.4
1.9
1.0
2.8
1.2
25.5
1.9
0.6
0.6
1.1
4.2
3.1
1.5
1.4
1.5
2.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
2.5
1.6
15.0
2.0
2.4
1.9
1.6
1.2
2.6
5.1
0.4
2.8
1.1
0.5
1.3
3.5
2.5
1.2
3.8
1.9
35.8
2.1
0.9
0.7
1.1
4.8
4.9
1.8
2.2
2.2
2.9
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.2
3.4
2.4
21.5
2.6
2.9
2.6
1.9
1.5
3.4
5.9
0.5
3.7
1.6
0.8
2.0
4.7
3.3
1.4
4.4
2.3
45.5
2.2
1.2
0.8
1.2
5.4
6.5
1.9
2.9
3.1
3.8
0.9
0.6
0.2
0.2
4.1
3.Q
27.2
3.3
3.2
3.2
2.2
2.0
3.8
6.3
0.7
4.3
2.1
1.3
2.5
5.6
4.3
1.6
4.7
2.4
53.5
2.2
1.4
0.9
1.2
5.7
-63-
-------
TABLE IV-8
(continued)
PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
BY MINOR CIVIL DIVISION1
Warren
Township
or Borough
Andover Twp.
Branchville Boro.
Frankford Twp.
Fredon Twp.
Hampton Twp.
Lafayette Twp.
Montague Twp.
Newton
Sandyston Twp.
Sparta Twp.
Stillwater Twp.
Sub-Total:
Blairstown Twp.
Frelinghuysen Twp.
Hardwick Twp.
Knowlton Twp.
Sub-Total:
1970
1980 1990 2000 2010
0.7
0.1
0.9
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.9
0.7
1.9
1.4
8.2
2.2
0.2
1.5
0.6
1.6
0.4
0.8
1.3
1.0
3.2
2.1
14.9
3.4
0.3
2.3
1.2
2.4
0.7
1.5
1.6
1.4
4.6
2.9
22.3
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.5
3.0
1.2
1.5
1.6
0.8
5.1
3.7
0.3
2.9
1.8
2.8
1.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
5.9
3.8
28.2
3.8
0.4
3.4
2.2
2.9
1.5
2.5
2.1
2.3
6.8
4.7
32.6
3.8
0.5
3.6
2.4
3.0
1.8
2.6
2.2
2.7
7.3
5.4
35.3
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.2
6.7
TOTALS:
24.8
43.1
66.6
90.5
112.6 129.9
'
The values in this Table represent wastewater flows for the entire area of the minor civil division even
though part of that area (with its associated wastewater flow) may actually lie outside of the TIRES
area. DWGNRA excluded. All quantities in million gallons per day.
Because of its small area and population base, the Borough of Delaware Water Gap is combined with
Smithfield Township for purposes of projecting population and demands for water supply and waste
disposal.
-64-
-------
Solid waste disposal.--Numerous studies have attempted to define the
per capita generation of solid wastes in the United States. Estimates of
current rate of generation range from 3 to 4-1/2 pounds per person per day
(ppd). The differences in approach used by investigators, the lack of accurate
community records, and the changing character of the waste produced have
a bearing on the reliability of the published data.
All investigators, however, agree that during the past decade the
quantity of solid waste materials requiring disposal has been increasing at a
rate of approximately one percent per year. Even a cursory look at present
day modes of packaging frozen foods and at the proliferation of aerosol cans
and non-returnable bottles clearly supports the belief that, without regula-
tion, the trend will continue to increase.
For the purpose of estimating the solid waste accumulation in the
TIRES area, an attempt has been made to select representative figures for
the rate of waste generated per capita. The figures used for 1970, 1990, and
2020 daily per capita waste generation are 4.5 pounds, 5.5 pounds and 6.4
pounds, respectively. Increase in generation should not continue at as high a
growth rate as in the recent past. Rate increases basically result from current
packaging practices and convenience products, and it is expected that these
practices will ultimately be regulated to prevent the large increase currently
being reflected in waste generation.
Assumptions must also be made concerning the production of waste
from commercial and other activities in the TIRES area, and concerning the
quantity of material which will remain in the area from the transient visitors.
Very few studies have been conducted to develop a relationship between
total population and commercial activities in a community. Those that have
been performed indicate per capita quantities of approximately one pound
-65-
-------
per person per day of commercial waste for communities ranging from
80,000 to 200,000 persons; in this study, the one pound rate was applied for
1970 and increased to two pounds by the year 2020.
The criterion used herein relative to solid waste generation by visitors is
based upon the assumption that the major impact will be felt in picnic
grounds and restaurants. An assigned factor of two pounds per person per
day has been used; this represents less than 50 percent of the waste gener-
ated in homes.
Table IV-9 summarizes the per capita solid waste production criteria
used herein; Tables IV-10 and IV-11 present projected peak daily solid waste
loads for 1970, 1990, and 2000. For the DWGNRA, assuming 10,000,000
visitor-days per year, solid waste requiring disposal will approximate 9,000
tons per year.
The implications of 10,000,000 visitor-days at the DWGNRA during
the peak season and of the influx of temporary summer residents are readily
apparent with respect to their effect on solid waste disposal systems. The
capability of a landfill site or incinerator must be established to accom-
modate the permanent residents during most of the year and also be capable
of increasing its capacity during the peak season. The relationship between
the permanent residents' requirements and peak requirements (as presented
in the earlier discussion of population forecasts) indicates that the basic
capacity for disposal of solid waste from the permanent residents must be
capable of being increased by 30 to 50 percent during the peak season. Such
a requirement does not place an unreasonable burden on either a landfill site
or an incinerator. If incinerator capacity is selected to handle the permanent
residents' requirements for an 8-hour day, the same facility could handle the
peak season by adding an additional daily 8-hour period to the operation.
-66-
-------
TABLE IV-9
PER CAPITA SOLID WASTE
GENERATION CRITERIA
in
Pounds per Person per Day
Year-Round and
Total Population
plus
Summer Resident
Year Population
1970 4.5
1990 5.5
2020 6.4
Commercial
Equivalent
1.0
1.5
2.0
Commercial
Contribution
5.5
7.0
8.4
DWGNRA
Visitors
2.0
2.0
TABLE IV-10
PEAK SEASON
AVERAGE DAILY QUANTITIES OF
SOLID
WASTE GENERATION BY
DRAINAGE BASIN1
Drainage Basin
Pocono Plateau
Flat Brook
Neversink River
Bush Kill
Brodhead Creek
Cherry Creek
Kittatinny
Paulins Kill
TOTAL:
1970
115,000
45,000
89,000
72,000
418,000
21,000
3,000
298,000
1,061,000
1990
336,000
141,000
214,000
284,000
1,270,000
48,000
1 1 ,000
1,030,000
3,334,000
2020
849,000
323,000
352,000
795,000
3,340,000
128,000
33,000
1 ,960,000
7,780,000
1
Exclusive of DWGNRA production. All quantities in pounds per day.
-67-
-------
TABLE IV-11
PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY
QUANTITIES OF SOLID WASTE GENERATION
BY COUNTIES1
County
Pike
Monroe
Orange
Sussex
Warren
1970
321,000
522,000
139,000
457,000
73,000
1990
668,000
1,780,000
290,000
1,550,000
360,000
2020
2,280,000
4,470,000
428,000
2,960,000
690,000
TOTAL:
1,512,000
4,648,000
10,828,000
1The values in this Table represent solid waste generation for the entire area
of each township or borough even though a part of that area (with its asso-
ciated solid waste generation) may actually lie outside of the TIRES area.
DWGNRA generation excluded. All quantities are in pounds per day.
-68-
-------
The same flexibility applies to operating a landfill; either a two-shift oper-
ation or doubling of manpower and equipment during a single shift would
accommodate the peak season requirements.
Unlike water supply and liquid waste disposal, solid waste disposal must
be viewed as a cumulative problem. Land for complete disposal by landfill or
for disposal of incinerator residue must be set aside for future use. With the
average figures from Tables IV-10 and IV-11, an estimate was made for the
total land requirements over the 50 year study period. The results of this
analysis are presented in Table IV-12 and IV-13. In deriving the estimates, a
15-foot depth of landfill (accomplished in 3- to 5-foot increments) and a
compaction factor of 800 pounds per cubic yard were assumed. On this
basis, 11 square miles would be needed through 2020 for the study area, and
as much as 15 square miles for complete coverage of the five counties in-
volved.
For the DWG NBA, total land requirements for landfill disposal of solid
wastes will be approximately 0.7 square miles for the 50-year period. Land
for the disposal of non-combustible materials from incinerators would re-
quire approximately 20 percent of the values shown in the tables.
-69-
-------
TABLE IV-12
ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE QUANTITIES OF SOLID WASTES
AND TOTAL LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR
SANITARY LANDFILL DISPOSAL BY DRAINAGE BASIN1-4
Drainage Basin
Estimated Cumulative
Quantities of Solid Waste^
(1,000 Cubic Yards)
Estimated Total Land
Requirements^
(Square Miles)
Pocono Plateau
Flat Brook
Neversink River
Bush Kill
Brodhead Creek
Cherry Creek
Kittatinny
Paulins Kill
TOTALS:
11,000
4,300
5,000
10,000
42,800
1,800
500
25,800
101,200
1.2
0.5
0.5
1.1
4.6
0.2
0.1
2.8
11.0
Values based on average solid waste generation rates over the 50-year period.
o
Assuming 800 pounds per cubic yard compaction in collection truck.
o
°Assuming 15-foot depth of landfill, in 3 to 5-foot increments.
4DWGNRA production excluded.
-70-
-------
TABLE IV-13
ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE QUANTITIES OF SOLID WASTES
AND TOTAL LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR
SANITARY LANDFILL DISPOSAL BY COUNTIES1-4
Estimated Cumulative Estimated Total Land
Quantities of Solid Waste^ Requirements^
(1,000 Cubic Yards) (Square Miles)
Pike 29,500 3.2
Monroe 57,000 6.1
Orange 7,000 0.8
Sussex 38,800 4.2
Warren 8,800 0.9
TOTALS: 141,100 15.2
Values based on average solid waste generation rates over the 50-year period.
f\
^Assuming 800 pounds per cubic yards compaction in collection truck.
^Assuming 15 feet depth of landfill, in 3 to 5 foot increments.
^The values in this Table represent quantities for the entire area of each County.
Even though a part of the area (with its associated quantities) may actually lie
outside of the TIRES area. DWGNRA production excluded.
-71-
-------
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS
OF
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Water supply.--The existing water supply systems described in Appendix G
will be capable of supplying only a small fraction of the future water de-
mands in the TIRES area. The existing 32 public and private water supply
systems presently serve a peak summer population of 66,000 with an average
daily demand of 8.3 mgd. By 1980, the summer average daily water demand
in the study area will exceed 41 mgd, and by the year 2020 almost a million
people will require 139 million gallons a day.
This does not mean, however, that all existing facilities are obsolete. On
the contrary, the four major systems in the study area (serving Stroudsburg,
East Stroudsburg, Newton, and Port Jen/is) all provide a high-quality supply
at a resonable cost within their respective service areas. A limited increase in
all four of these systems is possible, either by increasing surface-water
sources or by supplemental ground-water development.
The growth expected in the study area during the next 50 years neces-
sitates a thorough evaluation of water-supply potential and systems develop-
ment on a regional scale, rather than consideration of minor modifications to
each localized system. Several of the major communities in the TIRES area,
faced with increasing water demands, have undertaken studies of their own
systems. While the conclusions reached in each of these studies are valid for
the respective communities, only rarely do they take into consideration the
water demand which will exist beyond the political boundaries of the com-
munity sponsoring the study.
As indicated previously, the detailed study of individual water supply
systems is beyond the scope of TIRES. Peak water supply requirements have
-72-
-------
been presented on both sub-basin and minor civil division bases, but the
analysis performed herein places greater emphasis on water demand by
watershed.
Ground-water supply. —A review of the general geological informa-
tion has indicated that the major formations have excellent aquifer
capacity. Based on this information, the first objective in the anal-
ysis of water supply was maximum utilization of ground-water potential .
After evaluation of the resources, each sub-basin was then studied for
future water requirements for both winter and summer usage in the years
1990 and 2020. These requirements were expressed on the basis of mgd per
square mile for each sub-basin area and are shown in Table IV-14, which also
shows a summary by sub-basin of potential ground-water yields, with the
usable yield being compared with the peak summer demand for each sub-
basin.
The preliminary comparison of these figures indicated that the future
water requirements from all but eight of the sub-basins might be satisfied by
utilizing only ground-water sources. In the eight sub-basins where the future
demands will not be entirely satisfied by ground water, various alternatives
were considered. Special hydrologic conditions in five of the sub-basins indi-
cate the additional quantities of water can be withdrawn from the aquifers
without significantly lowering the water table or reducing streamflow.
Each sub-basin was correlated with the geologic information in order to
determine which major formations were located within the sub-basin. For
each respective formation, the average potential yield of major wells
was estimated under the assumption that each of these major wells would
be properly located and drilled to optimum depth. These average yield
values by information are shown in Table IV-15.
-73-
-------
TABLE IV-14
ESTIMATED GROUND-WATER YIELD
VERSUS
FUTURE TOTAL WATER DEMAND
(EXCLUSIVE OF DWGNRA)
Sub-Basin
(1)
PO-1
PO-2
PO-3
PO-4
PO-5
NE-1
NE-2
FL-1
FL-2
BU-1
BU-2
BU-3
BR-1
BR-2
BR-3
BR-4
BR-5
BR-6
CH-1
KI-1
PA-1
PA-2
PA-3
PA-4
Area
Estimated Yield of
Existing Large Wells
January 19681
Future
Demand (MGD)
1990
2020
Sq. Miles
(2)
55.5
28.8
25.4
26.9
28.3
62.3
11.4
67.6
14.8
98.0
34.0
33.9
65.8
48.8
47.9
69.2
28.9
30.5
26.4
29.4
37.0
37.4
25.8
75.6
GPM
(3)
1,097
365
265
770
105
1,123
830
894
287
365
170
45
730
1,127
1,715
1,027
325
450
550
130
125
590
309
7,893
MGD
(4)
1.58
0.53
0.38
1.11
0.15
1.62
1.20
1.29
0.41
0.53
0.24
0.06
1.05
1.62
2.47
1.48
0.47
0.65
0.79
0.19
0.18
0.85
0.44
11.37
Winter
(5)
50%
0.85
0.30
0.45
0.95
0.70
1.75
0.30
1.30
0.05
1.85
0.40
0.50
2.15
1.44
1.72
1.21
2.15
2.15
0.50
0.10
1.00
2.10
1.65
5.15
Summer
(6)
1.70
0.60
0.90
1.90
1.40
3.50
0.60
2.60
0.10
3.70
0.80
1.00
4.30
2.90
3.44
2.43
4.30
4.40
1.00
0.20
2.00
4.20
3.30
10.30
Winter
(7)
70%
2.73
1.57
1.57
3.50
1.26
3.57
0.84
3.92
0.14
6.44
1.54
1.89
6.92
4.83
6.16
5.00
6.70
6.15
1.61
0.42
2.87
5.11
4.27
12.25
Summer
(8)
3.90
2.20
2.20
5.00
1.80
5.10
1.20
5.60
0.20
9.20
2.20
2.70
9.90
6.90
8.79
7.16
9.60
8.90
2.30
0.60
4.10
7.30
6.10
17.50
TOTAL
1,009.6
30.72
61.57
91.26
130.45
Based on relatively short-term pumping tests and other yield data for existing wells. Yield estimates probably would be reduced if
wells were pump-tested continuously for long periods during a prolonged drought.
Maximum estimate represents ground-water recharge at 0.75 MGD/sq. mi., derived from Parker et al. (1964), multiplied by the area
of the sub-basin.
3ln the absence of specific sub-basin recharge data, a factor of 20 percent of the generalized basin estimate, 0.75 MGD/sq. mi., is
assumed for all sub-basins. This factors appears to be conservative, and need not be refined except for sub-basins for which the
calculated ground-water yield is marginal or inadequate when compared with demand.
^Column 14 minus Column 8, rounded to nearest tenth, except for BU-1, BR-5, BR-6.
Indicated deficit may be reduced or eliminated by refinement of the projected 2020 demand, as shown in Column 8, or by refinement
of the estimated design ground-water yield, as shown in Column 14. Any residual deficit possibly can be made up by transfer of
ground water from adjoining sub-basins.
Total ground-water development is not feasible because of relative locations of demand centers and potential well fields.
'These indicated deficits will probably have to be met by surface-water supplies; total deficit approximately 15.20 MGD.
-74-
-------
Demand per Square Mile
MGD/Sq. Mi.
Winter
(9)
0.015
0.010
0.018
0.035
0.025
0.028
0.026
0.019
0.003
0.019
0.012
0.015
0.033
0.030
0.036
0.018
0.074
0.070
0.019
0.003
0.027
0.056
0.064
0.068
1990
Summer
(10)
0.030
0.020
0.035
0.070
0.050
0.056
0.053
0.039
0.007
0.038
0.023
0.030
0.065
0.059
0.072
0.035
0.149
0.141
0.038
0.007
0.054
0.112
0.128
0.136
Winter
(11)
0.049
0.055
0.062
0.130
0.044
0.057
0.074
0.058
0.010
0.066
0.045
0.056
0.105
0.099
0.130
0.070
0.232
0.202
0.061
0.014
0.078
0.137
0.165
0.162
2020
Summer
(12)
0.070
0.078
0.088
0.186
0.064
0.082
0.105
0.083
0.014
0.094
0.065
0.080
0.150
0.141
0.180
0.103
0.331
0.288
0.087
0.020
0.111
0.195
0.236
0.231
Estimates of Potential
Ground-Water Yields, MGD
Maximum*^ Design^
(13)
41.63
21.60
19.05
20.18
21.23
46.73
8.55
50.70
11.10
73.50
25.50
25.43
49.35
36.60
35.93
51.90
21.68
22.88
19.80
22.05
27.75
28.05
19.35
56.70
(14)
8.33
4.32
3.81
4.03
4.25
9.35
1.71
10.14
2.22
14.706
5.10
5.08
9.87
7.32
7.19
10.386
5.77
4.576
3.96
4.41
5.54
5.61
3.87
11.34
Ground-Water
Surplus (+) or
Deficit (-)
in 2020
MGD4
(15)
(+) 4.4
(+) 2.1
(+) 1.6
(-) 1.05
(+) 2.4
(+) 4.2
(+) 0.5
(+) 4.5
(+) 2.0
(-)4.67
(+) 2.9
(+) 2.4
0.0
(+) 0.4
(+) 1.65
0.0
(-)4.07
(-)6.67
(+) 1.7
(+) 3.8
(+) 1.4
(-) 1.75
H2.2
(-)6.25
-75-
-------
TABLE IV-15
AVERAGE POTENTIAL WELL YIELDS
OF
GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS
IN THE TOCKS ISLAND REGION
Symbol Geologic Formation Potential Yield
Unc
DC
Dp
Dh
Dsl
DS
Sb
Ss
Om
OGc
PG
Valley bottom glacial deposi-ts
Catskill
Portage
Hamilton Mahantango Only
Onondaga
Esopus
Oriskany
Helderberg
Bloomsburg
Shawungunk
Martinsburg
Carbonates (except Jacksonburg)
Gneisses
gpm
350+
200
100
100
150,75-250
75
100-250
100
200
50
100
300
75
-76-
-------
Each sub-basin was then examined in detail, and potential well fields
were generally located. The well-field locations were checked against the
future land-use pattern, and the estimated supply was matched to future
demand by development stage. For water supply planning purposes, Stage 1
is the period from 1970 through 1990, and Stage 2 respresents the years
1990 through the end of the study period (2020). Wherever ground water is
both adequate and convenient, the future water demand in mgd for each
sub-basin is assumed to be met by the required number of wells in each
aquifer within the respective sub-basins.
Detailed information on the numbers of wells, recommended de-
velopment period, and other related data are open-file information.
It is recognized that the new wells, required during the first stage
(1970 to 1990), will actually be undergoing construction throughout
the period and will not be built at any one given time. For this reason,
generalized well-field locations are shown in lieu of specific well sites. Any
field could readily be relocated, if future land development differs from the
anticipated pattern or if it is desirable to provide a more uniform distri-
bution of ground-water withdrawal in the latter period of Stage 1 develop-
ment. The same pattern would apply to ground-water development in the
second stage.
As each sub-basin was analyzed, the estimated usable ground-water
potential shown in Table IV-14 was evaluated to determine whether or not it
represented the true ground-water potential for the sub-basin. In some cases
the potential value was found to be misleading.
-77-
-------
In one sub-basin (BR-5), either the transfer of surplus ground water
from adjacent basins or surface-water development will be necessary. In two
other sub-basins (BU-1 and BR-6), potential well fields are too remote from
future population, and additional sources will be required.
Surface-water development.-For those areas where conservative esti-
mates of potential ground-water yields indicated that they will not be ade-
quate for future summer demand, a study of supplemental water supply was
made. The amount of the deficit in each sub-basin was estimated (Table
IV-14), and the probable locations of major future population concen-
trations by sub-basin were examined. While the analysis varied with each
deficit area, three basic alternatives were derived:
1. The possibility of developing well fields in adjacent sub-drainage
basins with a surplus of ground water potential and transmitting it
into the deficit basin was considered. The major cost of water
supply development would be for transmission between sub-basins
rather than for well-field development.
2. Development of surface impoundments within the sub-drainage
basin area was considered. Potential sites for dam structures were
taken from the North Atlantic Region Watershed Inventory and
from watershed work plans developed by the Soil Conservation
Service. Many of the potential dam sites considered by the SCS are
primarily for the purpose of flood control, and had to be evalu-
ated quantitatively as to their feasibility for water supply
impoundments. Because of limited yield, only a very small number
of the sites located within the study area were considered for
surface-water development, and each of these would require
further study before it could be finally selected as a single or
multi-purpose reservoir site.
-78-
-------
3. A major portion of the storage volume in the Tocks Island Reser-
voir has been allocated for future water supply. Since many of the
major growth areas lie within a few miles of the reservoir, consid-
eration was given to withdrawal, treatment, and transmission of
water from the reservoir to the populated areas.
Each sub-basin with a ground-water deficit was analyzed separately; the
comparisons between alternatives for each of the sub-basins are described in
detail in Appendix H .
The result of the analysis of deficit-ground-water sub-basins BU-1,
BR-5, and BR-6 is a surface-water supply system which would utilize
storage volume in the Tocks Island Reservoir allocated to water supply,
and which would withdraw, treat, and distribute this water in the
valley from Bush Kill inlet to East Stroudsburg, serving major growth
areas within the three townships and the Borough of East Stroudsburg.
The outline of the service area would depend on the extent and loca-
tion of population growth, and would be contingent on the difficulty
of distribution into the various potential service areas.
The following summarizes the ground-water deficits by sub-basin and
indicates the location of the population involved:
Ground Water Deficit (mgdl
Sub-Basin By 1990 By 2020
BU-1 1,8 46
BR-5 0.0 4.0
BR-6 2,1 6.6
3.9 15.2
Estimated Service Population 1 1990 2020
Middle Smithfield Township 16,500 40,700
Smithfield Township 12,300 34JOO
Stroud Township 0 5,000
East Stroudsburg Borough 0 21,000
28,800 101^400
Based on withdrawal from Bush Kill Inlet and distribution to Middle
Smithfield and Smithfield Townships in Stage 1: extension to East
Stroudsburg Borough and Stroud Township in Stage 2.
-79-
-------
The development of a surface supply is felt to be essential to meet the
future demands within this valley. The withdrawal of approximately four
mgd from the reservoir would have virtually no effect on the reservoir itself,
since it represents only about 12 acre-feet per day from an impoundment
that is expected to have an average summer storage capacity of 500,000
acre-feet.
Liquid waste disposal
Initially, five alternative sewerage plans were devised and studied,
ranging in degree of regionalization from a system of 116 local community
collection and treatment works to a single network of interceptor sewers
connecting all communities of the study area to a major wastewater treat-
ment plant downstream of Tocks Island Dam.
These five alternative wastewater collection and treatment systems are
shown in Figures 1 through 5 and may be briefly described as follows:
Multiple Small Systems (Alternative I).-- This plan features 116 rela-
tively small systems, each serving a local population concentration, with
wastewater collection and treatment capacity ranging from 0.02 to 5.0 mil-
lion gallons daily. Alternative I represents the historical approach to sewer-
age, with minimum regionalization. This plan would serve a sewered
peal
1).
peak-season population of approximately 673,600 in the year 2020 (Figure
Limited Subregional Systems (Alternative IIK-This plan provides for
some regionalization, with consolidation of many of the small systems
serving local areas into 52 systems, ranging in capacity from 0.02 to 24.0
mgd. The total 2020 population served by these systems would be approxi-
mately 752,000 during peak seasons (Figure 2).
1
In addition to the DWGNRA visitor population (141,500 estimated peak-
day load at full development).
-80-
-------
Subregional Systems (Alternative 111).--This plan provides for consid-
erably more regionalization than Alternative II. It is composed of six sepa-
rate collection and treatment systems with capacities ranging from 3.6 to
2
28.0 mgd . These systems would serve an aggregate peak season population
of 795,500 in the year 2020 (F igure 3).
Regional System from Subregional (Alternative IV).--This plan is ini-
tially the same as Alternative III, with six Subregional systems being
developed through the year 2000. After the year 2000, these subregional
systems would be consolidated to form a single collection system that would
convey all liquid wastes from sewered communities throughout the study
area to a central treatment facility located downstream of Tocks Island
2
Dam . This plant, with a capacity of 90 mgd, would serve a 2020 peak
summer population of 840,500 (Figure4).
Regional System (Alternative V).--This plan would provide at an earlier
date the same system called for after 2000 under Alternative IV, with an
3
ultimate capacity of 90 mgd . This alternative would also serve a 2020 peak
season population of 840,500 (Figure 5).
For comparative purposes, an Alternative VI was developed as a combi-
nation of Alternatives I and III. Alternative I would be used during the first
Phase (1970 to 1980) and then abandoned during the second Phase (1980 to
2000). Alternative III would be implemented during the second and third
Phases.
In addition to the DWGNRA visitor population (141,500 estimated peak-
load at full development).
In addition to the six subregional plants or one regional plant, there would
be 15 very minor facilities serving isolated areas. These 15 facilities would
serve only one percent of the service population, and hence are excluded
gfrom this discussion.
In addition to the one regional plant, there would be 15 very minor facili-
ties serving isolated areas. These 15 facilities would serve only one percent
of the service population and are not elaborated upon.
-81-
-------
Detailed descriptions of each of the alternatives are presented in
Appendix H.
The development of the systems under each alternative has been staged
to correspond with population growth in the study area. None of the alter-
natives could or should be built at one particular time; each plan should be
implemented to meet the demand. Since population growth will not occur at
a constant rate over the 50-year study period, three Phases of systems devel-
opment and construction have been considered as follows:
Phase 1: 1970-1980 (Beginning of major growth period)
Phase 2: 1980-2000 (Period of maximum growth rate)
Phase 3: 2000-2020 (Period of relative increase in permanent
residential population)
The recommended staging of each alternative has also been shown on
Figures 1 through 5. Table IV-16 summarizes the required major system
components for each of the alternatives, when ultimately developed to full
capacity in the year 2020.
The particular wastewater problem within the TIRES area, and a most
difficult obstacle to overcome, is collection, not treatment. Historically,
sewerage systems have been developed following the natural terrain of the
proposed service area. The flow of wastewater in the network of collection
lines normally is by gravity, and the extent of sewerage systems has been
generally limited to natural drainage basins. The prospect of developing a
wastewater collection system to service the TIRES areas, encompassing over
1,000 square miles of relatively rugged terrain, is unique among modern
collection systems.
Since the problem is so unusual, the various alternatives were developed
and evaluated in order to select that alternative or combination of
-82-
-------
TABLE IV-16
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT
Alternative
I
II
III
IV
V
Number of Major
Treatment Plants
116
52
6
1
Miles of Major
Interceptor and
Trunk Sewers
473
535
565
565
Number of
Major Pumping
Stations
196
261
275
275
-83-
-------
alternatives which would prove economically and technically feasible. While
each alternative is intended to stand alone, it is possible that an evolutionary
process, such as discussed under Alternatives IV and VI may occur. With
time, this would mean an increasing degree of regionalization and greater
overall costs resulting from phasing-out of treatment facilities and dupli-
cation of collection system components.
Discussion of Alternatives.-Each of the alternatives represents varying
degrees of advanced planning and co-operative effort. The establishment of a
regional agency to develop the systems and the degree of involvement of
various federal and state agencies will materially affect the type of system
that evolves. For example, while any of the alternatives could be developed
as a Master Plan administered by a regional water pollution control agency,
the first alternative is probably closest to what would evolve with little or no
overall planning, a minimum of outside assistance, and very little inter-
governmental cooperation.
The rationale behind Alternative I is that a wastewater collection and
treatment system would be built to serve each individual pocket of develop-
ment and population growth as the need occurs. The development of such
small systems could lag behind the demand created by the population influx.
Where a regionalized system may anticipate a need prior to actual demands,
the conventional approach covering the same area would probably follow
demand rather than anticipate it. While there is some validity to the argu-
ment that a multiplicity of plants would minimize the effect of effluent
discharge, the cumulative effect of 116 individual treatment facilities
throughout the study area would present a much greater pollutional threat.
While many of these facilities would be of substantial capacity, there is an
inherent danger of poor operation with the smaller treatment facilities. It is
-84-
-------
an established fact that with larger plants greater control can be exerted and
a higher quality of effluent produced. The demand fluctuations and the
shock loadings that occur with any plant can be better handled by a large
facility. The reliability of treatment plants of different sizes is discussed in
Section V.
The detailed description of Alternative I presented in Appendix H out-,
lines the evolution of wastewater collection and treatment systems that can
and will develop if each individual community and political sub-division
attempts to solve its own problem.
While the percentage of the population ultimately served by Alternative
I is substantial, it must be recognized that the 26 percent of the population
not served in the year 2020 represents more than 250,000 people utilizing
on-site disposal systems (exclusive of DWGNRA). This means a large number
of septic tanks and drainage fields, many located in poor soil and probably
contaminating the land and water. The pollutional effects on the ground
water resulting from Alternative I cannot be .overlooked qr minimized.
The cost summary for Alternative I shown in Appendix I reflects
several interesting facts. The r,atio of treatment costs to collection costs is
about 3 to 1. Under all other Alternatives to be discussed, the cost of
treatment will be less than the cost of collection. For the majority of the
small treatment plants proposed, the demand that would exist at the time of
plant construction would be less than one-half of the ultimate design capac-
ity. This inefficiency in plant utilization is conspicuous with such a system
of multiple small plants.
In addition, such a system is not easily adapted to the development
required as growth occurs; a larger, central treatment plant can be built in
stages more readily than can a combination of small plants. The collection
system for small treatment plants, however, will be much more efficient.
-85-
-------
With relatively little pumping necessary, only small lengths of trunk sewers
will be required, and there will be relatively little oversizing of lines. By
contrast, the collection system for more regionalized plants would have
many components with substantial excess capacity initially.
The second Alternative is presented as an intermediate step between
Alternatives I and III. It utilizes the subregional concept in part, and pro-
vides for expansion of the subregional systems as the need occurs. In addi-
tion, those areas where interconnection of collection system components is
relatively costly, will still be served by small individual treatment facilities.
In other words, Alternative II attempts to compromise to obtain the most
desirable features of both individual and subregional systems. While all Alter-
natives are developed in increments, the staging of collection system
components is most efficient under Alternatives I and II. This is particularly
true in Alternative I because the first development stage has been limited to
those areas where future growth is most obvious. Because most of the needs
for service in the TIRES area are anticipated and do not exist now, the
development of systems to serve the future population becomes much more
complex as the analysis attempts to extend collection systems and centralize
treatment processes.
Under Alternative III, the sub-regional concept, the number of major
treatment facilities is reduced to six to decrease the construction, operation,
and maintenance costs of treatment and to exercise a greater degree of
control over effluent quality and protection of the environment. Four of the
sub-regional plants in Alternative III are expanded versions of the limited
subregional plants discussed in Appendix H under Alternative II, while the
remaining two sub-regional plants are combinations of the limited facilities
in Alternative I!. Each collection system still attempts to follow the natural
drainage patterns wherever possible.
-86-
-------
As under Alternative II, the six plants in Alternative III have been
located as close as possible to the regions which they will serve. Each sub-
regional treatment plant would eventually be served by an extensive col-
lection system, portions of which could be developed in stages.
A major shortcoming with such a regionalized system is that develop-
ment does not necessarily occur at a uniform rate throughout the proposed
service areas. There are some remote communities (i.e. not close to a treat-
ment plant) where an immediate need exists for wastewater collection and
treatment. Many of these areas cannot await further development of adja-
cent regions. Therefore, implementation of Alternative III could be more
difficult than I or II because immediate development would necessitate pre-
release of funds. Thus, responsibility for development of such a system must
be assumed by a central agency with large federal and state subsidies to pay
that portion of the initial development which could not otherwise be met by
the local residents and the local economy.
Alternatives IV and V are based on the premise that discharge of even
the most highly treated wastewater to the reservoir or its tributary streams
within the TIRES area is unacceptable. To comply with this premise, all
liquid wastes must be transported from the upper study area and treated
below the Tocks Island Dam. The development of such a collection system
in stages would be extremely difficult. The major wastewater flows will
occur at various points at different times. Some of the longest and most
expensive components of the collection system would have to be built to
interconnect immediate demand areas. The anticipated population growth
along the length of major interceptors, (which normally would be needed to
justify their construction) will probably not occur for many years. Further-
more, the technical complications of such a collection system would include
large-scale pumping facilities and many other additional features, such as
aeration of the raw wastewaters at the major pumping stations.
-87-
-------
Solid waste disposal
As indicated previously in this report, solid waste disposal planning
concentrated on the use of sanitary landfills. The plan, as developed and as
explained in detail in Appendix H, delineates service areas and indicates
suitable generalized locations for landfill operations within each service area.
Although specific disposal sites were not selected, generalized areas for
frhe disposal! sSfes were considered.
The selection of service areas has been affected by the highway network
and by the general topography of the area. Some of the controlling topog-
raphical features are the Delaware River crossings, mountains, and stream
gorges. Four major bridges will provide cross-river access after the comple-
tion of the reservoir project: Portland-Columbia Bridge, Delaware Water Gap
Bridge, Milford-Montague Bridge, and the twin bridges between Port Jervis
and Matamoras. There will be no bridge between the Water Gap and Milford,
a distance of about 35 miles.
Transportation routes and available landfill sites were considered
stronger determinants than State boundaries, existing political divisions, and
other factors which tend to result in a higher total cost of disposal. Inte-
grated service areas, based upon optimum collection and disposal plans, can
probably minimize solid waste disposal costs and thereby present a strong
case for solid waste management.
There are ten service areas that can reasonably dispose of all solid
wastes within their respective areas over the study period. The boundaries of
the service areas are not intended to be precise, and transportation of solid
waste may require hauls of greater than ten miles. The boundary lines
attempt to conform generally with the boundaries of minor political divi-
sions within the TIRES area.
-88-
-------
The service areas are described as follows:
1. Northern Warren: Hardwick Blairstown, and Knowlton Townships
and the greater Portland Borough area in Pennsylvania, also the
Water Gap and Kittatinny sections of the DWGNRA.
2. East-Central Sussex: Aparta, Andover, Lafayette Townships and
the Town of Newton.
3. West-Central Sussex: Stillwater, Fredon, Hampton, and Frankford
Townships and Branchville Borough.
4. North-Western Sussex: Sandyston and Montague Townships, also
the Milford (in part) and the Minisink Section of the DWGNRA,
and part of the solid waste from High Point State Park.
5. West Orange: The Towns of Port Jervis and Deerpark.
6. North-Eastern Pike: Westfall and Milford Townships and the
Boroughs of Matamoras and Milford. There may not be an
acceptable site in this service area; therefore, this area could be
combined with the West Orange Service Area.
7. East-Central Pike: Delaware and Dingman Townships and parts of
Porter, Blooming Grove, and Shohola Townships; and the
Dingmans Creek section of the DWGNRA.
8. Pike and Monroe: Lehman, Middle Smithfield, and (partially)
Porter Townships; and the Bush Kill Creek section of the
DWGNRA.
9. Northern Monroe: Barrett, Price, and Paradise Townships and
Mount Pocono Borough.
10. Southern Monroe: Stroudsburg, East Stroudsburg, and Delaware
Water Gap Boroughs; Smithfield, Stroud, Hamilton, Jackson, and
Pocono Townships.
-89-
-------
V. SELECTION OF MASTER PLANS
In this section, the advantages and disadvantages of the various alter-
native plans are discussed, and reasons are presented for selection of those
plans recommended for implementation.
It is re-emphasized here that this study is not intended to serve as a
basis for immediate construction of facilities. Rather, the goal of this study
is to reveal those broad approaches to problem solutions that merit further
detailed studies. (For proper evaluation of the alternatives the reader must
be cognizant of this fact.) Only after such detailed studies can the construc-
tion phase of plan implementation begin. The discussions and recom-
mendations presented herein have been developed within this context.
-91-
-------
LAND USE
Before the various alternative plans for water supply and waste disposal
are compared, land-use alternatives should be discussed. The TIRES area
might develop in an infinite variety of ways. Wide variations in land-
development policies have been enunciated by the local governments in
planning for their jurisdictions, and substantial differences exist in the re-
quirements for land subdivision in the various townships and counties
comprising the TIRES area. Land-development pressures cannot be accu-
rately defined at this time because the effects of the reservoir and National
Recreation Area are just beginning to be felt. Some of the factors that will
create a demand for land development are improved access highways, in-
creased free time, and the growing trend of second-home ownership. None of
these factors is subject to accurate prediction. Therefore, it would not be
realistic to isolate a specific regional land-use pattern for application to this
study.
It must be emphasized that this study is not designed to develop or to
recommend a specific master plan for future land use. The data on natural
resources in the region, and on past and current trends in use and develop-
ment of these resources-including land-accumulated during this study, will
be important information for community and regional planners. However, it
should be recognized that much additional information and study will be
required to support a valid master plan for future land use in the entire area
covered by this study.
It must be recognized also that legal and institutional constraints will
have to be overcome before any regional land-use plan, once adopted, can be
implemented. This in itself would take years-during which local land-
development activity for the most part will continue without reference to a
regional comprehensive plan.
•32-
-------
As indicated earlier, the Sketch Plan was used as a basis to identify
service areas for developing water supply and liquid waste disposal alterna-
tives. While the Sketch Plan is described as a single "plan", it is in reality a
concept of how the area might or should develop to exploit the region's
recreation and environmental potential without despoiling these character-
istics. TIRES has taken another step, with refined existing land-use infor-
mation from more recent study, supplemented by new population estimates
on which to base the overall feasibility of water supply and waste disposal
plans.
The Sketch Plan does not formally represent State, county, or local
policy. Therefore, there is a further chance for variation from the Plan
relative to land-use patterns. Historically, local zoning has not been com-
pletely effective in the control of land uses, and if this situation prevails in
the TIRES area, the basic assumptions of the Sketch Plan could be easily
invalidated, especially with respect to open space.
For these reasons, it appears necessary and wise to plan water-supply
and waste disposal facilities on the basis of projected, rather than planned,
land use. This is not to condone unwise land-use decisions-It is merely a
recognition that the goal of optimum planning and control of land use in the
Tocks Island Region has not yet been reached, and that protection of public
health and water quality requires consideration of the probable land use,
which may be vastly different from the optimum concept.
This approach is not as pessimistic as it may appear at first glance.
Decisions that will result from this study are dependent only to a limited
degree on the types of land uses that are eventually developed. Many deci-
sions regarding water supply and waste disposal necessarily must await more
detailed engineering and planning studies. In such subsequent studies the
-93-
-------
latest trends in land use planning, control, and development can be taken
into consideration. Hopefully, by the time detailed pre-construction studies
are completed, the development of land-use plans and institutional arrange-
ments for their effective implementation will have progressed substantially
and uniformly throughout the Tocks Island Region.
There are now in existence some controls or constraints on land use.
Some local governments have adopted zoning ordinances and land sub-
division regulations as means for direct control. Indirect controls also exist,
in the form of laws or regulations designed to protect water quality. The
pollution control agencies of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, as
well as the Delaware River Basin Commission, all have active programs to
promote the preservation and enhancement of water quality in the Tocks
Island Region. Water quality standards have been adopted by all of these
jurisdictions, and the standards are being enforced. Meeting these high stan-
dards may make it prohibitively expensive for some land uses that, although
undesirable, would probably otherwise be developed in the region.
There have been expressions of concern that adoption of a generalized
sewerage plan for the region will promote development of land not in accor-
dance with optimum land use. Such concern is based on an assumption that
sewerage systems will be constructed in undeveloped areas, without regard
for a sound land-use plan. This is not generally the case-ordinarily, sewerage
systems cannot be financed until there is a firm commitment of land uses
requiring sewerage. Thus, land development commitment usually precedes
sewerage, and when sewerage systems are installed, the question of land use
generally has already been decided.
There may be exceptions to this generality. For example, a sewer that
crosses undeveloped land to a remote treatment plant may tend to promote
development all along the sewer line. Such a sewer with excess capacity may
-94-
-------
be used to encourage sound land development. Special sewerage financing*
would be required to make such a plan successful. However, even with
special financing of excess sewer capacity, the existence of the excess
capacity would tend to promote development only if connection and service
charges were less expensive than those of the alternatives available to would-
be developers, such as on site disposal systems or local community sewerage
systems. In a case where it is considered to be in the public best interest to
deter connections to a cross-country sewer, it would probably be no more
difficult to deter connections than to deter alternative disposal methods such
as on-site disposal.
In summary, land use in the Tocks Island Region may be beneficially
controlled, in part, by well-planned sewerage systems. It is more likely that
existing land use or land-use commitments will guide the development of
sewerage systems. Actual design and construction of these systems must
await land-use commitments unless special financing is available. To the
extent that the adopted generalized sewerage plan does not conform to
land-use commitments, the plan must be modified for special financing be-
fore construction of the wastewater disposal facilities.
Special financing is defined as financing by a special agency to make up the
difference between actual annual costs and the costs borne by users paying
normal use rates.
-95-
-------
WATER SUPPLY
Surface- and ground-water resources are more than adequate to meet
the projected demands for the region during the next fifty years. These
resources are generally well distributed throughout the region, and supplies
can be developed without the necessity of long-distance transmission facili-
ties. In some cases, however, economics or local preference may dictate
pipelines to a source other than the nearest, even though the latter may be
adequate in quantity and-with proper treatrnent-in quality.
Because of the relative abundance of water in the Tocks Island Region,
the selection of the best plan or plans to meet the projected demands within
the region does not appear to be as urgent or as difficult as the other
problems considered in this study. Development of the available resources
will be needed, but the resources themselves will not be a factor limiting the
economic development of the region as projected through the year 2020,
provided that the quality of the surface and ground waters of the region can
be protected from contamination.
Surface water
Further development of surface-water supplies will likely be the favored
approach for those larger population centers in the region now served by
surface-water supplies. These centers include Port Jervis, N. Y., East
Stroudsburg and Stroudsburg, Pa., and Newton, N. J., which already have
considerable investments in surface-water systems. They also have a popu-
lation base adequate to support the costs of the collection and treatment
necessary to convert surface waters into potable supplies. Such costs are
substantially higher than those for ground water. Moreover, the future popu-
lations of these principal centers may be greater than could be supplied
entirely from nearby ground-water sources. Ground-water sources may,
nevertheless, be used to supplement surface sources in some of these areas.
-96-
-------
Port Jervis.-The City of Port Jervis, situated at the confluence of the
Delaware and Neversink Rivers, is in a most favorable position with respect
to surface-water resources. Should this city's growth and increased demand
for water exceed the limits of its present surface supply, nearby ground-
water sources can be developed to augment the existing supply, or the Never-
sink River or the Delaware River can be developed as a further surface
source. Port Jervis now has an emergency intake on the Neversink River, but
the use of either river as a regular source would necessitate the construction
of a water-filtration plant, a step likely to be more expensive than developing
ground-water sources.
East Stroudsburg.-The Borough of East Stroudsburg is conveniently
located near several streams that could be developed to meet at least part of
its long-range future water demand. These streams include Brodhead Creek
and two of its tributaries, Michael Creek and Marshall Creek. East Strouds-
burg, could also go to the Delaware River for additional water, either di-
rectly from Tocks Island Reservoir or from the regulated river below Tocks
Island Dam. However, a water-filtration plant would be required if any of
these surface-water sources were to be used. Some fringe areas, not conve-
nient to distribution mains of the surface-water system, could probably be
served by local well fields.
Stroudsburg.--The Borough of Stroudsburg is located near sizable
streams that could be developed to provide the additional water supplies to
meet its projected long-range needs. Brodhead Creek forms part of the
eastern boundary of the Borough, and McMichael Creek traverses the
Borough. The drainage area above Stroudsburg of about 325 square miles
would furnish the potential for development of a relatively large supply. As
with East Stroudsburg, the Borough of Stroudsburg is near the Delaware
River and not far from the site of Tocks Island Reservoir, either of which
-97-
-------
can be tapped in the long-range future. Again, utilization of surface-water
sources would require a water-filtration facility. As an alternative measure,
ground water in the area could be developed to serve some of the environs of
Stroudsburg, at least until such time as the Borough's distribution system is
extended to these areas.
Newton.-The Town of Newton, New Jersey, imports water from Lake
Morris, a reservoir in eastern Sussex County on a tributary of the Walkill
River in the Hudson River Basin. The pipeline from the reservoir to the town
runs about eight miles. This surface supply has been in use since about 1896.
During recent severe droughts, it was augmented from emergency sources.
The Newton surface water system can be expanded either by increasing
the diversion from Lake Morris, of by use of water from Paulins Kill. A
Paulins Kill supply system would require a filtration plant. However, prior to
the development of either additional surface water source, ground-water
sources should be thoroughly investigated because of the potential for signif-
icant cost savings.
Other areas.-Areas other than those discussed above have been studied
in this project with respect to surface-water supplies. Most of the surface
sources near these areas are limited in yield, but with the addition of surface
storage reservoirs, they could serve many of the sub-areas of the region well
into the future, either as alternatives or supplements to ground-water
supplies.
The Soil Conservation Service inventory of potential reservoir sites in
the region provides a starting point for further study of surface storage sites.
-98-
-------
Ground water
The study has indicated that sizable well-yields can be developed in
most parts of the Tocks Island Region, provided that the wells are located
and constructed in accordance with modern principles of ground-water
hydrology. Ground water, where adequate, has certain inherent advantages
over surface water. One is that wells can often be located very near the point
of water use, thus obviating the need for long transmission lines. Another
advantage is that ground water usually does not have to be treated as exten-
sively as surface water to make it potable or otherwise suitable for use. A
third is that a smaller area is needed to develop a well system than to
construct a reservoir. A fourth advantage is the relative ease of protecting
wells from contamination, as opposed to protecting surface waters. In addi-
tion, ground-water quality does not vary with seasons as much as does
surface-water quality. All of these factors tend to make ground water signif-
icantly less expensive to develop than surface water. In the TIRES area,
approximate costs of $0.10 and $0.45 per thousand gal Ions can be expected
for development of ground- and surface-water resources, respectively.
Clearly, significant savings can be realized by the development of ground-
water sources where possible.
The historical tendency in community water supply development has
been to develop ground water first. If and when demand for water increases
to the point that it no longer can be met by the yield of available aquifers,
the change is made to surface-water sources. This approach has the advantage
of lower cost per unit of water use during the period of relatively small
systems that cannot take advantage of economies-of-scale. Later, after com-
munity growth, these economies-of-scale tend to offset the higher cost of
surface-water collection and treatment.
-99-
-------
Available information on potential ground-water yields indicates that
the water demands projected for most areas of the region through 2020 can
be met by development of ground water resources. This finding, together
with the low unit cost of ground water, favors ground-water development
wherever possible for communities in the study area.
As mentioned earlier, the Borough of Delaware Water Gap was studied
in some detail as a separate part of this investigation. A new surface-water
system with a reservoir, a filtration plant, and other necessary ancillary
facilities was estimated to cost about $500,000 in 1967. By comparison, the
existing ground-water system could be improved and expanded at a 1967
cost of only $85,000. (Both costs include the present-1967-worth of annual
operating costs.) These estimates and other details of the Delaware Water
Gap water supply investigation are presented in separate reports (ROY F.
WESTON, 1967). The results of this investigation are a good example of the
economy of ground-water development.
Unfortunately, the scope of this study did not permit investigation of
the ground-water potential in all sub-areas in the detail carried out for the
Borough of Delaware Water Gap. For the region as a whole and for most
sub-areas within the region, ground-water yields were estimated to average
approximately 150,000 gpd per square mile. While it should not be inferred
that any specific locality can depend on such yields, the probability remains
high that most communities in the region could develop adequate ground-
water supplies at a cost less than that of an equivalent surface supply.
Before any new surface supply or any expansion of an existing surface
supply is undertaken, the sponsor should carry out a program of detailed
investigation of ground-water availability in and near the area of demand.
Only where ground water is shown to be unavailable in adequate quantities
should a community undertake the more costly surface-water development.
(See Tables IV-14 and IV-15).
-100-
-------
LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL
Cost concept
The costs analyses of each of the six alternative plans for liquid waste
disposal have been computed as part of this investigation. In the present
worth analysis (described later in this section), an attempt has been made to
depart from the conventional practice, in sewerage studies, of considering
only the costs of interception and treatment. All costs of liquid waste dis-
posal, direct and indirect, that could be identified and quantified have been
estimated for each of the alternatives. These estimates are presented in
Appendix I, in terms of capital costs as well as operation and maintenance
costs. All capital costs have been converted to annual costs for an amortiza-
tion period of 40 years and an interest rate of seven percent. The annual
costs resulting from these basic assumptions were subjected to sensitivity
tests using different amortization periods and interest rates. These sensitivity
tests also are described later in this section and in Appendix I.
Summary of capital and annual costs
The capital and annual costs presented in Tables 1-1 through 1-10 in
Appendix I are summarized in Tables V-1 through V-4. These costs cover
only interceptor and trunk lines, major pumping stations, and treatment
plants, and do not include intra-community collection costs. The cost figures
in Table V-3, which are estimates of average annual costs for the TIRES area,
were divided by the estimated number of people that would be served by
each of the Alternatives in each construction period, to obtain per capita
cost estimates. These per capita figures are presented in Table V-4. Details of
the cost analyses are presented in Appendix I.
Tables V-1 and V-2 indicate that Alternative I has the lowest capital
cost requirement. Alternatives II and III have the same approximate
-101-
-------
TABLE V-1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
OF LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
BY CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
Costs, millions of dollars
1970-1980 1980-2000 2000-2020 Total
Alternative I
Alternative II
Alternative III
Alternative IV
Alternative V
Alternative VI
58.9
66.7
77.5
77.5
112.7
58.9
44.6
63.1
51.9
51.9
49.5
78.2
8.1
16.4
27.1
80.0
27.9
78.1
111.6
146.2
156.5
209.4
190.1
215.2
TABLE V-2
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
OF LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
BY CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
Costs, millions of dollars
1970-1980 1980-2000 2000-2020 Total
Alternative I
Alternative II
Alternative III
Alternative IV
Alternative V
Alternative VI
70.6
80.1
93.0
93.0
135.2
70.6
53.5
75.7
62.3
62.3
59.4
93.9
9.7
19.7
32.5
96.0
33.5
93.9
133.8
175.5
187.8
251.3
228.1
258*4
•102-
-------
TABLE V-3
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS FOR
LIQUID WASTE INTERCEPTION AND TREATMENT
(For various assumed construction
grants, by construction periods)
Costs, millions of dollars
System
Alternative 1
Alternative II
Alternative III
Alternative IV
Alternative V
1970-1980
(0%)
4.4
4.0
4.9
4.9
6.7
(30%)
3.8
3.3
4.1
4.1
5.5
(60%)
3.2
2.6
3.3
3.3
4.4
(0%)
10.1
12.3
12.5
12.5
15.8
1981-2000
(30%)
9.2
10.1
10.2
10.2
12.7
(60%)
7.3
7.9
7.8
7.8
9.6
(0%)
14.6
18.1
18.4
21.2
21.2
2001-2020
(30%)
12.0
14.4
15.0
17.1
17.0
(60%)
9.3
11.1
11.6
13.0
12.9
TABLE V-4
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS PER CAPITA
LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
(Based on average number of persons served by
the systems, assuming a 30% construction grant)
System
Cost per Capita per
Construction Period, dollars
Alternative I
Alternative II
Alternative III
Alternative IV
Alternative V
1970-1980
58
50
46
46
59
1981-2000
34
35
28
28
36
2001-2020
23
24
22
25
25
-103-
-------
requirement, while IV and V are significantly more costly to build. Alter-
native VI has the highest overall cost because the facilities built in the first
construction period would be abandoned in the second and third periods,
and new facilities would be required for replacement.
The absolute dollar differences among the Alternatives in annual costs
(as presented in Table V-3) are not as great as the construction cost dif-
ferences, but the same general ranking prevails. This is because treatment
costs are relatively high for Alternatives I and II, as can be seen from Appen-
dix I data. The annual costs of Alternative VI are not shown in the table
because the annual costs of Alternative VI are obviously higher than tho;se of
the other Alternatives, primarily as a result of the amortization costs related
to the required replacements in the second and third periods.
Table V-4 shows a substantial cost advantage for Alternative III. Sub-
stantially more persons would be served by Alternative III than by Alter-
native I, reducing per capita annual costs. The values in this table should be
given most weight in comparing costs of Alternatives since the basis of
comparison, i.e., cost per person served, is common to all Alternatives.
Present worth sensitivity analyses
Because the annual costs of the various alternatives do not take into
account the time value of money, they are difficult to compare with respect
to cost effectiveness. In order to provide easy and direct comparison of two
or more cost series having different outlay patterns over time, it is necessary
to reduce each series to a single value at a given time. For realistic finanical
comparison, the appropriate method of reduction is to discount all costs for
a given alternative over the period in question to a specific time and then to
add them. The resulting sum is the specific-time value of the costs that are
actually to be spread over a significantly long period. If discounted to the
present, the specific-time value is usually referred to as the "present worth"
-104-
-------
of the future costs. In simple terms, the present worth of future costs can be
interpreted as the money that must be invested now at compound interest to
provide the money heeded to pay the future costs as they come due. In this
study, all cost series have been converted to present worth (as of 1970) for
comparison.
As mentioned earlier in this section, the present worth sensitivity
studies attempt to include all identifiable water quality management costs.
Besides the normally included costs of interception and treatment, the study
also includes the costs of: 1) on-site disposal for residents not served by
sewerage systems; 2) dilution water for low-flow augmentation, and 3)
stream quality surveillance and treatment plant monitoring.
Because the interest rate used in discounting affects present worth,
future costs have been discounted at three different interest rates, four, five,
and seven percent. The use of different interest rates provides a test of the
sensitivity of the resulting cost comparisons to changes in the interest rate.
In addition to varying the discount interest rate, a number of other
parameters were varied to ascertain what effect, if any, they had on the
ranking of alternatives. The following listing indicates those parameters and
their respective values which were analyzed:
1. i Population projections: three values were assumed-low, medium,
and high. The medium values are the projections presented in
Section IV of this report, the low and high values were taken as
present population plus 75 percent-and 125 percent, respectively,
of the projected increase.
2. (Cost of on-site disposal: again three values were analyzed-low,
medium, and high (75 percent, 100 percent, and, 125 percent of
medium values).
-105-
-------
3. Replacement interval of sewers: 40 years and 100 years.
4. Replacement interval of pumping stations and treatment works:
40 years.
5. Replacement interval of dilution-water reservoirs: 100 years.
6. Period over which the annual costs were considered and dis-
counted to 1970: 1970 to 2020 and 1970 to infinity.
7. Interest rate: 4, 5, and 7 percent.
A total of ten combinations of the various ranges of the parameters
were investigated. The initial test used basic assumptions and costs as
follows: medium population projections, medium level of on-site disposal
costs, 40-year replacement interval for sewers, pumping stations and treat-
ment works, 100-year replacement interval for dilution water reservoirs,
1970-2020 as the period for which annual costs were considered and dis-
counted to 1970, and an interest rate of 5 percent. Table V-5 presents the
results of the analysis using these basic assumptions and costs.
The other nine tests were compared with this base case. In seven of the
nine, Alternative III had the lowest present worth; in the two tests where it
did not, Alternative I was the lowest. The determining reason in one case was
that low values of on-site disposal costs were assumed; since Alternative I
serves the least number of people by public sewerage systems the assumed
low value of on-site disposal costs was a particularly strong influence. The
other case where Alternative I showed up as least cost involved the basic
assumptions but with a 7 percent present worth discount rate. However, a
subsequent sensitivity check with 7 percent discount rate and assumed high
values for on-site disposal costs indicated Alternative III as the least-cost
choice. As a practical matter, on-site disposal costs are likely to be higher
than the medium values used in the base case, because of indicated un-
suitable soil conditions in many areas and because of increasingly stringent
legislation and enforcement by health authorities.
-106-
-------
TABLE V-5
PRESENT WORTH (1970) OF TOTAL WATER-QUALITY
MANAGEMENT COSTS USING
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS AND COSTS
Alternative Present Worth
millions of dollars
I $332
II 337
III 328
IV 332
V 362
VI 364
-107-
-------
While it cannot, of course, be assumed that the ten cases studied cover
all ranges of possibilities, the results of the cost analyses favor the selection
of Alternative III. Most important, the studies demonstrate that fairly large
changes in assumptions concerning population projections, replacement
intervals, interest rates, etc., do not significantly affect the present-worth
rankings of the Alternatives. Within a relatively wide range of assumptions,
Alternative III remains the most desirable for implementation from a cost
standpoint.
Water quality consideration
The major consideration in the choice of a liquid waste disposal plan
must be protection of the water quality in Tocks Island Reservoir and of the
natural environment of the Tocks Island Region.
Studies have been made of water-quality conditions in the reservoir and
how they would be affected by waste discharges. An analysis to ascerfain
if a significan increase in the eutrophication rate of Tocks Island
Reservoir would be caused by waste discharges from the TIRES area was
made. The study considered:
1. The physical characteristics of the reservoir and its drainage area,
2. Present nutrient concentrations in the river above the reservoir
site,
3. Estimates of total nutrient production, present and future, in the
study area and in the upstream drainage area,
4. The operation and hydromechanics of the reservoir, and
5. Reservoir nutrient levels that would result in nuisance algal
blooms.
The analysis could not be definitive, because of lack of basic data and
information concerning the nutrient cycle in the reservoir. However, enough
information was obtained to conclude that liquid waste from the TIRES area
should be given advanced treatment to remove approximately 95 percent of
-108-
-------
the soluble phosphorus. In addition, nutrient concentrations from the up-
stream drainage area must be reduced to assure protection of the Reservoir.
Alternatives III, IV, and V are clearly superior to Alternatives I and II
in protecting the reservoir and the natural environment. The smaller number
of plants and the larger size of the regional plants increases the reliability of
the overall system. Greater emphasis can be placed on proper engineering
design, construction, and operation. Fully-qualified operators could be
obtained more readily, to run the limited number of larger plants, thus
promoting more reliable operation. Because regional plants tend to be better
built and operated, their reliability of performance will be good. The amount
of time they operate below design standards will be minimal as compared to
the off-standard time of a large number of small plant operations. This factor
is discussed more completely in the systematic analysis of factors other than
costs in a later section of this report.
Alternatives III, IV, and V are more consistent with the principle of
regionalization which is now supported by State pollution control agencies
and the Delaware River Basin Commission. Regionalization provides in-
creased ability to solve water quality problems. It is far easier to monitor and
control the operation of a limited number of major regional plants than of a
large number of small, scattered treatment facilities.
Waste-loading allocations have not been established for the TIRES area,
but water quality standards are in .effect. Extensive s-fream assimila-
tion studies were not conducted, but treatment plants have been
located and cost estimates prepared based upon the general require-
ments of the standards. The DRBC standards state in part:
"Water uses shall be paramount in determining stream quality ob-
jectives which, in turn, shall be the basis for determining effluent
quality requirements."
-109-
-------
To comply with this statement and to recognize that high-quality recreation
waters will be required within the TIRES area, advanced treatment in the
form of 95 percent BOD and soluble phosphorus removal has been assumed
as the required degree of treatment for all waste discharges.
It appears virtually impossible to meet adequately the stream require-
ments and protect the reservoir and environment with either Alternative I or
II, for the reasons cited above. Alternative V offers maximum protection,
but it is doubtful that it could be implemented soon enough. Alternatives 111
and IV have sufficient regionalization to provide adequate protection.
In summary, protection of the reservoir, of stream water quality, and of
the environment would be greatest with Alternative V. Protection would be
somewhat less with Alternatives 111 and IV, and would be at a minimum with
Alternatives I and II. It is doubtful that Alternatives I or II can provide
adequate protection.
Implementation
The alternative master sewerage plans are developed by construction
periods on the assumption that sewerage facilities will be provided in time to
avoid water quality problems. Historically, the converse has been true, i.e.
sewerage systems have been provided after a water quality problem has
become a reality.
Because of this problem-avoidance approach, implementation during
the first construction period, 1970 to 1980, could require major outlays in
advance of growth; therefore, per capita costs are high. The per capita costs
in Table V-4 cover only interception and treatment an approximate value of
$15 per capita must be added for collection.
Pre-spending will be required for each Alternative in the period 1970 to
1980. By the second and third construction periods, 1980 to 2000 and 2000
-no-
-------
to 2020, the systems become self-sustaining because of the increased
population served.
Alternatives I and II have the advantage of relative ease of implemen-
tation. However, this is not to imply that Alternatives III, IV, and V could
not be implemented. Implementation of Alternatives III, IV, or V would be
contingent upon a central agency constructing and operating the interceptors
and major trunk lines and treatment plants. Local communities would pro-
vide intra-community collection and would contract with the central agency
for interception and treatment. It is highly unlikely that local interests could
join together successfully to construct the major facilities called for under
Alternatives III, IV, or V.
Systematic analysis of factors other than cost
In the comparison of alternative solutions for the purpose of arriving at
a decision, cost alone frequently is an inadequate basis. Other factors which
may be either tangible or intangible, must also be considered. The DARE
(Decision Alternative Ratio Evaluation) technique provides a rational ap-
proach to comparison and evaluation of pertinent tangible and intangible
factors. Obviously, no technique of itself can substitute for judgment. What
DARE does accomplish, however, is to present a listing of all factors which
have been considered, judgments of the relative importance of each factor,
and estimates of the relative ability of each alternative to meet the criteria
reflected by the factors. Where the analyst is not a party to the final decision
(as in the case of a consultant preparing facts and recommendations for the
client's decision), such a presentation is helpful to the client in determining
his agreement or disagreement with the proposed solution.
In the present case, five factors were considered sufficiently important
for a comprehensive, balanced evaluation and sufficiently discrete to avoid
significant overlapping or interaction. The five factors are:
-111-
-------
1. Implementation
2. Adaptability
3. Reliability
4. Costs
5. Social Benefits
Each of the five Alternatives can be implemented, but some will be easier
and/or quicker than others. Considerations affecting the relative ease of
implementation are:
a. Public attitudes and reaction.
b. Cooperation of local governments.
c. Institutional and political implications and restraints.
d. Staging of construction.
e. Financial schedules and monetary assistance programs.
f. Cost-sharing among political bodies.
Each of the Alternatives has been designed to meet the presently applicable
and anticipated stream water quality criteria of the Delaware River Basin.
However, it is not unlikely that at some future time the water quality re-
quirements will become more stringent. Consequently, an adequate com-
parison of the Alternatives should contain an evaluation of the adaptability
of each Alternative to respond to the establishment of stricter water quality
requirements. Some of the more critical elements involved in evaluating such
adaptability are:
a. Cost of required modifications.
b. Time required to complete the modifications.
c. Institutional considerations.
Although the facilities involved in each Alternative have been designed to
meet the applicable objectives, each system will probably fail to meet these
objectives from time to time because of unaccounted-for variability in raw
wastewater characteristics or receiving stream water quality, or because of
-I12-
-------
unexpected variation in treatment plant efficiency. This latter variation
could result from equipment failures, inadequate design, degree of auto-
mation, and/or deficiencies in training or performance of operating per-
sonnel.
One significant measure of reliability is the relationship between
treatment plant size and the percentage of time the quality of the treated
effluent will be poorer than the design value. The following equation has
been found to be effective in predicting off-specification time:
T = 22.5 x Q-°-24
where,
T is percent of time the plant fails to meet design standards, and
Q is treatment plant capacity in million gallons per day.
The relative reliability of each wastewater treatment alternative was deter-
mined in the following manner: Random number techniques were used in
conjunction with the above equation to determine whether a given plant was
performing according to design. This was done for each treatment plant in
each alternative, and the fraction of the total wastewater flow missing design
efficiency was calculated for that alternative. The procedure was repeated
100 times, and the results provided a probability distribution for each alter-
native. Application to the five Alternatives is summarized in the following
tabulation.
Percentage of Time 5 Percent or More
of Total Wastewater Flow
Alternative will be Off-Specification
I 99.8
II 70
III 45
IV 45
V 45
-113-
-------
It should be pointed out that the percentage values in this tabulation have
significance only for comparison of the Alternatives, i.e. they are relative
rather than absolute indicators of performance reliability.
The discussion of Water Quality earlier in this section also presents infor-
mation relevant to definition of reliability and to its importance as a basis
for selection of the most favorable Alternative.
The costs of each Alternative have been extensively discussed and
compared in this report, and their importance in decision-making has been
clearly established. Construction costs, per capita annual costs, and present
net worth values all warrant consideration.
Each of the Alternatives will provide certain benefits of a social nature,
such as preservation of aesthetic quality of the Tocks Island Reservoir and of
the general area, contribution to the recreation potential of the region, etc.
These are intangibles and are difficult to measure, yet the extent to which
each Alternative provides such benefits has a bearing on selection of the
approach to be adopted.
The relative importance of each of t hese five factors was determined by
an 18-man panel composed of members of the staff of ROY F. WESTON. It
was originally developed for a regional wastewater treatment investigation
covering an area comparable to the Tocks Island study area. The geo-
graphical extent and type of activities involved in both cases were suffi-
ciently similar to validate the use of these factor ratios or weightings in the
Tocks Island area decision-making process.
The following tabulation represents the average opinion of the panel,
rearranged mathematically to facilitate subsequent calculations.
-114-
-------
Factor Relative Importance
Implementation 23
Adaptability 13
Reliability 28
Cost 20
Social Benefits 16
Since there was a considerable range in the individual opinions on
which these average values were based, two other sets of weightings were
developed to show the effect of extreme rather than average values. These
additional sets were derived, (after statistical evaluation of individual
choices) from the 10 percent probability opinions and the 90 percent proba-
bility opinions.
Factor Relative Importance
Implementation
Adaptability
Reliability
Costs
Social Benefits
The next step in the DARE analysis was to compare each of the five alter-
native approaches to liquid waste disposal for the purpose of estimating their
relative capacity or ability to achieve the desirable effects of each of the five
factors. To facilitate calculation the cumulative value of the 5 alternatives
(for each factor) was set at 100, with the higher values indicating the more
favorable alternative. This evaluation was made by 10 members of the staff
-115-
10 Percent
Probability
19
14
40
25
2
90 Percent
Probability
28
12
22
20
18
-------
of ROY F. WESTON, including all those involved in the major technical and
managerial aspects of this study. The panel's consensus is presented in the
following tabulation:
Alternative
T IT"
Implementation
Adaptability
Reliability
Costs
Social Benefits
The final step was to calculate an overall ranking for each Alternative.
This was done for each alternative by multiplying the value in each factor by
the weighting of that factor and then adding the five products. The results
were as follows:
J_
34
10
7
19
10
!L
28
12
11
20
14
ill
18
26
25
23
23
!¥
12
26
27
19
26
V
8
26
30
19
27
Alternative I
Alternative II
Alternative III
Alternative IV
Alternative V
Average
Factor
Weighting
1,648
1,732
2,280
2,166
2,174
10% Probable
Factor
Weighting
1,561
1,668
2,327
2,199
2,245
90% Probable
Factor
Weighting
1,786
1,846
2,204
2,090
2,074
The consensus indicated Alternative III as the most favorable approach,
whether average, 10 percent probability, or 90 percent probability factor
weightings were used. Again, there was a considerable variation in the indi-
vidual opinions making up the consensus. When the same calculation of the
overall value was repeated for each panel member, the following favorability
situations were indicated:
-116-
-------
Average Factors Weightings - seven favored Alternative III, two
favored Alternative V, and one fa-
vored Alternative IV.
10% Probability Weightings - six favored Alternative III, and two
each favored Alternatives IV and V.
90% Probability Weightings Five favored Alternative 111, two
each favored Alternatives II and IV
and one favored Alternative V.
The overall effect of the DARE analysis is strong support for adoption of
Alternative III as the approach for liquid waste disposal in the TIRES area.
-117-
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Two basic methods of solid waste disposal are considered feasible for
the TIRES area: sanitary landfill and incineration. Composting of solid
wastes was considered, but subsequently eliminated as a practical approach
to the disposal of solid wastes in the study area in the forseeable future.
Incineration would involve limited use of the sanitary landfill method for
residue disposal. Consideration has also been given to the feasibility of
hauling solid wastes out of the TIRES area for final disposal.
As a result of investigation and evaluation of these alternatives, sanitary
landfill within the TIRES area is recommended as the best approach
because:
1. Land areas suitable for use as sanitary landfills are within reason-
able proximity of anticipated population concentrations.
2. The soils, geology, and topography of these areas are such that
properly designed and operated sanitary landfills should not con-
taminate the surface- or ground-water resources.
3. Cost savings of $2.75 per ton to $5.50 per ton can be realized by
Utilizing the sanitary landfill method in preference to incineration.
4. Since land suitable for sanitary landfill is available in sufficient
amounts within reasonable distances of anticipated population
centers, and since the value of the land is no greater than that of
comparable land outside the TIRES area, there is no economic
justification for hauling waste out of the area for final disposal.
This latter approach would incorporate a haulage cost into the
total disposal cost and could be justified only if local landfill areas
were not available at reasonable cost.
-118-
-------
Improper location and operation of sanitary landfills must not be per-
mitted, because of the basic danger of contamination of ground- and sur-
face-water resources and of the overall environment. Areas selected as
sanitary landfill sites should not be subject to flooding or excessive surface
runoff. The results of soil and geologic studies must assure that leachate
from a sanitary landfill does not percolate to ground and surface waters
without proper and adequate natural treatment. To this end, the potential
interaction between landfilled materials and ground and surface waters must
be accurately defined prior to the selection of a site for use as a sanitary
landfill. Detailed topographic, soil, and geologic data should be collected and
analyzed for each potential site. In conjunction with basic data collection
and analysis, surface- and ground-water hydrology and flow patterns will
have to be identified and mapped to ensure against contamination.
The information presented in the previous sections and in the appen-
dices of this report demonstrates clearly that solid waste management policy
must, as one of its primary consideration, be concerned with the acquisition
of enough land to accommodate the disposal of the projected solid waste
production for a long period of time. The methods used in handling the
wastes produced do not change this basic responsibility, because large land
areas are required for disposal, no matter what process method is used. The
incineration method leaves a residue of incinerator ash, unburnable products,
and bulky wastes, which together require less land area for ultimate disposal
than does sanitary landfill of all solid wastes; nevertheless, land requirements
are still significant when incineration is used. Thus, delays in the early
acquisition of adequate land for future solid waste disposal may ultimately
place a community in the position of having to find disposal sites un-
reasonably distant from the area of waste generation. To suggest land
-119-
-------
acquisition on a short-term basis with a view to hauling the residue ulti-
mately to other areas in the future represents a basic flaw in policy.
While proposals being made today for some metropolitan areas to trans-
port waste products by rail to fill strip mines or other unusable ground
appear to be financially feasible, no demonstration of such a practice has
been made, no actual costs are available, and legal and political constraints
exist.
Since solid waste disposal has been found to be manageable under
government supervision, it follows that government should reserve the land
necessary for disposal sites before the impact of economic competition
creates land values or other conditions which interfere with the necessary
acquisitions. Land so reserved and owned can be used by the applicable
government for solid waste disposal or can be leased under appropriate
government contracts to private enterprise for the operation of waste dis-
posal facilities. The decision between private or government operation can be
a matter of local preference, or can be based upon the best cost attainable.
But this freedom of choice does not exist with regard to the ability of
private individuals to acquire and reserve land needed as future disposal sites.
The hope that composting of solid waste will resolve many of the solid
waste disposal problems of today is not yet fulfilled. While the technology is
available and has been demonstrated in pilot experiments, no plant operating
free of nuisance has produced economic figures which compare favorably to
the cost of landfill or incineration. Should composting become wide-spread
and economically justified in the future, land will still be required fof wastes
that cannot be composted.
The present solid waste operations in the TIRES area do not demon-
strate the existence of sufficient governmental regulation and enforcement
action. This implies that further efforts in this area should look toward
-120-
-------
improved laws and administrative techniques to ensure that sound solid
waste disposal practices prevail. Without reasonably uniform policies among
the states involved and the assurance that inspection systems are reasonably
similar, the successful control of solid waste disposal facilities cannot be
anticipated. Public policy should be directed at these areas of the manage-
ment program at an early date to assure that the appropriate practices are
developed along with the growth of the problem.
In summary, the comparison of disposal costs between incineration and
landfill strongly favors disposal of solid waste by landfill within the study
area. This use of land, where land can be recovered for future utilization as is
the case with a sanitary landfill, offers a strong incentive for early detailed
surveys to determine location and availability of the most suitable land for
future landfill sites. Thus, detailed landfill site evaluation and a program of
site acquisition should be undertaken as an essential part of the master plan.
The extent of the land use for the landfill method of solid waste disposal
indicates that short-range economies may be realized but also that they may
lead to higher costs in the long run because of the scarcity of suitable sites.
The detailed studies should cover all the factors significantly influencing land
use so that rational long-range plans can be formulated.
The data-presented in Section IV indicate an estimated total land re-
quirement for sanitary landfill disposal of 11 square miles by the year 2020.
This is subject to certain assumptions; for example, the total land require-
ment is a function of the depth to which the solid wastes will be compacted
to red,uce their volume. Other assumptions, relative to quantity, production,
compaction, and depth of fill, however, do not obviate the need to consider
early acquisition of land for the disposal of solid wastes generated in the
years ahead.
-121-
-------
VI
FIGURES
-123-
-------
FIGURE 1
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
THIS PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED IN PART BY A
DEMONSTRATION GRANT.NUMBER WPD-136,
FROM THE RESEARCH AND TRAINING GRANT
PROGRAM, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION.
-124-
-------
5'S ]U^
" |ss
,ui>t 11 .xi, Xiiui1
FIGURE ]
WASTE-WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE ONE
MULTIPLE SMALL SYSTEMS
LEGEND
E2Si TOCKS ISLAND RESERVOIR
LUSS DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
xT'.'.•:; STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
MAJOR TRUNK AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1970-1980
210 2
=*
SCALE IN MILES
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1980-2000
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 2000-2020
ZONE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
D W CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1970-1980
g(20) CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1980-2000
|(3) CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 2000-2020
INDIVIDUALWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
A (36) CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1970-1980
A (8) CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1980-2000
A (15) CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 2000-2020
• EXISTING PLANTS TO BE REPLACED OR EXPANDED
IN CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1980-2000
(35) TOTAL NUMBER OF PLANTS OF THIS TYPE
D 14 PLANT NUMBER
-125-
-------
I FREL1NGHLJYSEN
PEN NSYLVANlA
NEW JERSEY
FIGURE 2
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
THIS PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED IN PART BY A
DEMONSTRATION GRANT, NUMBER WPD-136,
FROM THE RESEARCH AND TRAINING GRANT
PROGRAM, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION.
-126-
-------
^ / \ ?wr
FIGURE 2
WASTE-WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE TWO
LIMITED SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS
LEGEND
-------
FIGURE 3 /
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
THIS PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED IN PART BY A
DEMONSTRATION GRANT, NUMBER WPD-136,
FROM THE RESEARCH AND TRAINING GRANT
PROGRAM, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION.
-128-
-------
FIGURE 3"
v WASTE-WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE THREE
SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEMS
LEGEND
feffffl TOCKS ISLAND RESERVOIR
ft^Zfi DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
ls££J STUDYAREA BOUNDARY
Q] MATAMORAS WPCP
13 ' MILFORD WPCP
H FLAT B ROOK WPCP
H UPPER BRODHEAD WPCP
EJ LOWER BRODHEAD WPCP
E| PAULINS KILL WPCP
MAJOR TRUNK AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1970-1980
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1980-2000
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 2000-2020
ZONE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
Q CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1970-1980
INDIVIDUALWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
A CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1970-1980
A CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1980-2000
A CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 2000-2020
-129-
-------
FIGURE 4
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
THIS PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED IN PART BY A
DEMONSTRATION GRANT, NUMBER WPD-136,
FROM THE RESEARCH AND TRAINING GRANT
PROGRAM, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION
-130-
-------
•L .'iFc-7
».M,.O, FIGURE 4
\ WASTE-WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE FOUR
REGIONAL SYSTEM,EVOLVED
210 2
=H
SCALE IN MILES
LEGEND
Ei^ra TOCKS ISLAND RESERVOIR
ES£D DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
STUDYAREA BOUNDARY
MATAMORAS WPCP
MILFORD WPCP
CD FLAT BROOK WPCP
El UPPER BRODHEAD WPCP
LOWER BRODHEAD WPCP AND CENTRAL WPCP
El PAULINS KILL WPCP
MAJOR TRUNK AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1970-1980
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1980-2000
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 2000-2020
@— INTERCONNECTION OF SYSTEMS 2000-2020
ZONE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
n CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1970-1980
INDIVIDUALWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
A CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1970-1980
A CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1980-2000
A CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 2000-2020
-131-
-------
-- \'A-•'•-:'••' ' x
FIGURE 5
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
THIS PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED IN PART BY A
DEMONSTRATION GRANT,NUM6ER WPD-136,
FROM THE RESEARCH AND TRAINING GRANT
PROGRAM, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION.
-132-
-------
\^^(.A/W^:^<
-// ^Ife&'S**- -:f Vx-
FIGURE 5
WASTE-WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE FIVE
REGIONAL SYSTEM
LEGEND
i 1 TOCKS ISLAND RESERVOIR
ESS23 DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
r~~1 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
LI COLUMBIA PLANT SITE (ALTERNATE)
• STROUDSBURG PLANT SITE
A TUNNEL C ROSSING
MAJOR TRUNK AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1970-1980
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1980~2000
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 200Q-2020
INDIVIDUAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
A CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1970-1980
A CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 1980-2000
A CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 2000-2020
-133-
-------
TOCKS ISLAND REGION
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
APPENDICES A THROUGH
April 1970 W.O. 256-03
Prepared by
ROY F- WESTON
Envlronmental
Scientists and Engineers
West Chester, Pennsylvania
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix Title Page
A Participants and Their Affiliations A-I
B Land Area Conversion Tables for Population B-l
Allocations
C Existing Development Pattern C-l
D On-Site Liquid Waste Disposal D-l
E Existing Water, Sewerage and Solid Waste
Disposal Systems E-l
F Future Population, Economic Base, Transportation
and Land Use Condition F-l
G Projected Water Supply Demands and Wastewater
Flows for the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area G-l
H Detailed Descriptions of Alternative Plans H-l
I Cost Estimates and Cost-Sensitivity Analysis 1-1
-------
APPENDIX A
PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR AFFILIATIONS
-------
APPENDIX A
PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR AFFILIATIONS
Participants by Agency Affiliations:
Delaware River Basin Commission James F- Wright
Herbert A. Hewlett
C. H. J. Hull
V. Stevens Hastings
Robert V. Everest
Jeffrey A. Grote
Wi11iam C. Dickinson
Economic Development Council for
Northeastern Pennsylvania Leonard W. Ziolkowski
Monroe County Planning and Zoning
Commiss ion Leonard W. Z iol kowski
New Jersey Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Statewide Planning Richard Binetsky
W. L. Phil 1ips
Donald H. Stansfield
New Jersey Department of Conservation and
Economic Development
Bureau of Geology and Topography Kemble Widmer
Division of Water Policy & Supply Robert E. Cyphers, Jr
Robert Hardman
George R. Shanklin
New Jersey Department of Health Alfred H. Fletcher
John H. Morris
New Jersey Department of Transportation
Bureau of Advance Planning £ Programming George E. Thomas
New York Office of Planning Coordination Roger Darby
Henry Eng
Adrian P. Humbert
Otto Mertz
Howard Quinn
New York State Department of Transportation Robert A. Olmsted
Morris C. Kaminsky
A-l
-------
New York State Department of Health
Bureau of Water Resources Services John Harrison
Heinz B. Russelmann
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Community Development R. Otto Amann
Daniel Rogers
Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters......Anthony M. Lunetta
Clifford H. McConnell
Fred S. Oldham
Pennsylvania Department of Highways
Bureau of Advance Planning Joseph R. McMurtry
Pennsylvania State Department of Health Walter Blejwas
Wi11iam Bucciarel1i
Walter N. Fox
Ralph Heister
Therold Krammes
Waiter A. Lyon
Wi11iam B. Middendorf
Kenneth E. Schoener
Harry Steigman
Pennsylvania State Planning Board Alan Goodwin
Mark Heyman
Wi11iam Shellabear
Pennsylvania State University
Agricultural Extension Service Joseph A. Macialek
Agricultural Extension Service, Pike County Joseph L. Staley
Sussex County Planning Board Jules W. Marron, Sr.
locks Island Regional Advisory Council Charles A. Boster
Frank W. Dressier
Thomas Klock
Robert Porter
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Farmers Home Administration Lawrence E. Suydam
Walton J. Kostenbader
Frank Orendo
A-2
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service...,
.Richard W. Akeley
R. M. Davis
Robert H. Fox
Richard H. Marston
Ivan McKeever
Claude J. Price
D. R. Purrington
Gerald Root
Selden L. Tins ley
Ian Walker
Kenneth S. Werkman
Kenneth P. WiIson
U.S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
.Conrad H,
Jasper H,
Lloyd A.
Frank W.
Arthur A,
Bes i nger
Coombes
Duscha
Kelly
Klein
R. Clifford Vrooman
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare
Public Health Service
.Weldon C. Fill
Everett L. MacLeman
Leroy G. Martin
Sylvan C. Martin
Ralph J. Van Derwerker
U.S. Department of Housing £ Urban
Deve1opmen t
U.S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Geological Survey.
.Richard W. Bourbon
Samuel Hawthorn
Robert Mataschek
.Earl J. Anderson
Edward V. Geismar
Lester M. Klashman
.Peter W. Anderson
John E. McCal1
National Park Service Peter DeGel leke
A-3
-------
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
.Thomas H. Cahil1
William K. Davis
John A. DeFi1ippi
Gordon P. Larson
Walter Satterthwaite
Roy F. Weston
Member and Alternates of The Advisory Committee:
R.
C
R.
H.
V.
A.
L.
S.
J.
J.
C.
K.
H.
R.
W. Akeley, R. 0. Amann, E. J. Anderson, P. W. Anderson,
A. Boster, R. W. Bourbon, R. E. Cyphers, Jr., R. Darby,
M. Davis, P. DeGelleke, F. W. Dressier, L. A. Duscha,
Eng, A. H. Fletcher, E. Geismar, A. Goodwin, J. Harrison,
S. Hastings, S. Hawthorn, M. Heyman, H. A. Hewlett,
Humbert, C. H. Hull, M. C. Kaminsky, F. W. Kelly,
M. Klashman, A. A. Kelin, W. J. Kostenbader, W. A. Lyon,
Matuschek, J. E. McCal 1 , C. H. McConnell ,
I. McKeever, 0. Mertz, W. B. Middendorf,
S. Oldham, R. A. Olmsted, F. Orendo,
Martin, R
McMurtry,
Morris, F
Price, H.
Schoener,
Quinn, R. Rogers, G. Root, H. B. Russelmann,
G. R. Shanklin, W. Shellabear, D. H. Stansfield,
Steigman, L. E. Suydam, G. Thomas, S. L. Tins ley,
J. Van Derwerker, R. C. Vrooman, K. Widmer.
Members and Alternates of the Land-Use and Population Task Group:
C. A. Boster, R. W. Bourbon, R. M. Davis, W. K. Davis,
P. DeGelleke, W. C. Dickinson, F. W. Dressier, H. Eng,
R. V. Everest, A. Goodwin, J- A. Grote, S. Hawthorn,
H. Heyman, C. H. J. Hull, A. Humber, M. C. Kaminsky,
T. Klock, W. J. Kostenbader, J. W. Marron, Sr., I. McKeever,
J. R. McMurtry, 0. Mertz, D. R. Purrington, R. A. Olmsted,
D. H. Stansfield, G. Thomas, K. P. Wilson, W. Ziolkowski.
Members and Alternates of the Liquid-Waste Disposal Task Group:
C. H. Besinger, W. Blejwas, C,
T. Cahill, R. M. Davis, J. A.
W. C. Dickinson, F. W. Dressier,
W. Fox, E. Geismar, J. A. Grote,
R. Heister, C. H. J. Hull, F- W.
W. J. Kostenbader, T. Krammes, J
L. G. Martin, I. McKeever, J. H. Morris, H. B. Russelmann,
W. Satterhtwaite, J. L. Staley, L. E. Suydam, I. Walker,
K. W. Werkman, K. Widmer, L. W. Ziolkowski.
A. Boster, R. W. Bourbon,
DeFilippi, P. DeGelleke,
R. V. Everest, R. H. Fox,
J. Harrison, S. Hawthorn,
Kelly, L. Klashman,
L. Macialek, R. H. Martson,
A-4
-------
Members and Alternates of the Solid-Waste Disposal Task Group:
C. H. Besinger. R. Binetsky, C. A. Boster, R. W. Bourbon,
W. Bucciarelli, R. M. Davis, J. A. DeFilippi, P. DeGelleke,
W. C. Dickinson, F. W. Dressier, R. V. Everest, W. Fox,
J. A. Grote, J. Harrison, S. Hawthorn, C. H. J. Hull,
F. W. Kelly, W. J. Kostenbader, G. P. Larson, E. L. MacLeman,
I. McKeever, J. H. Morris, W. L. Phillips, R. Porter,
H. B. Russelmann, L. E. Suydam, I. Walker, K. P. Wilson.
Members and Alternates of the Water-Supply Task Group:
P. W. Anderson, W. Blejwas, C. A. Boster, R. W. Bourbon,
T. Cahill, J. H. Coombes, R. E. Cyphers, Jr., R. M. Davis,
J. A. DeFilippi, P. DeGelleke, W. C. Dickinson, F. W. Dressier,
R. V. Everest, R. H. Fox, W. Fox, E. Geismar, J. A. Grote,
J. Harrison, S. Hawthorn, R. Heister, C. H. J. Hull, F- W. Kelly,
L. Klashman, W. J. Kostenbader, T. Krammes, A. M. Lunetta,
R. H. Marston, L. G. Martin, J. E. McCall, I. McKeever,
J. H. Morris, F. Orendon, H. B. Russelmann, W. Satterthwaite,
L. E. Suydam, I. Walker, K. S. Werkman, K. Widmer, L. W. Ziolkowski
Participants in Special Activities:
Delaware River Basin Commission H. Page Fielding
Seymour P. Gross
Ralph Porges
Monroe County Planning and Zoning Commission Jay Snyder
New Jersey Department of Conservation and
Economic Development
Division of Water Policy 6 Supply Donald J. Kroeck
New Jersey Department of Health Sebastian T. Giallella
James J. Murphy
John Zemlansky
New York State Department of Health William G. Wilkie
Robert J. Caddel1
New York State Department of Transportation William H. Kikillus
Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters Arthur T. Alter
Pennsylvania Department of Health 0. W. Caddy
Samuel D. Heltzenrater
William J. Shaull
A-5
-------
Pennsylvania Department of Highways ....D. Y. Perna
Sussex County Board of Freeholders Denton Quick
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Farmers Home Administration C. L. Morris
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare
Public Health Service ..R. E. Cummings
Wil1iam Gahr
John C. Kennedy
Thomas Sorg
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development George Bal 1
Elayne Rosenberg
U.S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.. .Gi Ibert M. Horwitz
George D. Pence, Jr.
Charles N. Durfor
National Park Service C. Gordon Cummings
Roy F. Weston, Inc Harry Curtin
John K. Kane
James Rohr
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B
TWO SAMPLE LAND AREA CONVERSION TABLES
FOR POPULATION ALLOCATIONS
COMPLETE APPENDIX AVAILABLE
AS OPEN FILE DATA
FROM DRBC
-------
Index
PO-1-1
PO-1-2
PO-1-3
PO-2-1
PO-2-2
PO-2-3
PO-3-l
PO-3-2
PO-3-3
PO-3-1+
PO-3-5
PO-1+-1
PO-1+-2
PO-1+-3
PO-1+-1+
PO-1+-5
Major Drainage
Bas in
Name
Pocono
i
Code
PO
^
Acres
105,1»06
!
'
Sub-
D ra inage
Bas in
No.
1
\
2
\
3
^
1+
\
Total
Acres
35.517
18,1+60
i
f
16,250
\
r
17,191
!
Sub-D ra inage Bas in
D iv s ion
No.
1
2
3
l
2
3
1
2
3
it
5
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Acres
21 , 8jl+
12,5l+i+
1,099
15.851*
2,128
It78
6,181
6,360
1,1+05
2,129
175
692
ll+ ,191+
1,671
101
533
Non-
Usable
Acres
9.920
6,080
256
3A56
1,600
—
896
1,728
1,088
256
-- »
512
2,368
320
...
Net
Usable
Acres
11, 95^
6,k6k
8^3
12,398
528
1+78
5,285
1^,632
317
1,873
175
180
11,826
1,351
101
533
Name
Delawa re
Twp.
Lehman
Twp.
D i ngman
Twp.
D i ngman
Twp .
Delaware
Twp.
Shohola
Twp.
Mi Iford
Twp .
D i ngman
Twp.
Westfal 1
Twp.
Shohol a
Twp .
Mi Iford
Boro
Shohol a
Twp .
Westfal 1
Twp .
Mi Iford
Twp .
Mi Iford
Boro
"lat amoras
Boro
Minor
Gross Area
Acres Sq.Mi.
29,033
31,1+00
36,480
36,14.80
29,033
28,672
7,852
36,480
20,032
28,672
276
28,672
20,032
7,852
275
533
1+5 A
1+9.0
57.0
57.0
1+5.1+
1+1+.8
12.3
57.0
31.3
1+1+.8
0.1+
1+1+.8
31.3
12.3
0.1+
0.8
B-l
-------
Civil Division
Area in
Study Area
Acres Sq.Mi.
29,033
31,14-00
26,833
26,833
29,033
3,299
7,852
26,833
15-599
3-299
276
3,299
15-599
7,852
275
533
14.5. >4-
14-9.0
14.1.0
lt-1.0
14-5,14-
5.1
12.3
14.1.0
2lt.l4.
5-1
0.1+
5-1
214.14.
12.3
0.1+
0.8
i of C.D.
Study Area SDBD
100.0
100.0
71.6
71.6
100.0
H.5
100.00
71.6
77.8
11.5
100.0
11.5
77.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
714.. 8
14-0.9
2.9
14-2.3
7.3
1.0
7^.9
16.9
7.0
10.3
5^-5
0.2
70.9
2k. k
ko.k
100.0
Usable
Acres
17,513
19 , 816
27,269
27,269
17,513
19,972
6,6to
27,269
16 , 320
19,972
276
19,972
16 , 320
6,6l+o
275
533
Name
P ke
\
C o u n t v
In
Total Studv Area
Acres Sq .M i .
3^9.056
i
5^
Acres Sq.Mi .
170,335
r
26*4.9
\
% for
Populat ion
Al locat ion
68.2
32.6
3-1
^5.3
3-0
2.14
79-7'
16.9
1.9
9A
63A '
0.9
71.1
20.9
36.7
100.0
B-2
-------
Index
PO-5-1
PO-5-2
BU-1-1
BU-1-2
BU-1-3
BU-1-4
BU-1-5
BU-1-6
BU-l-T
BU-1-8
BU-2-1
BU-2-2
BU-2-3
BU-2-4
BU-3-1
BU-3-2
Major D ra nage
Bas in
Name
Pocono
Pocono
Bushkil 1
Code
PO
PO
BU
i
Acres
105,406
105,406
106, 166
\
Sub-
D ra inage
Bas in
No.
5
5
1
i
i
2
\
3
3
Total
Acres
18,088
18,088
62,65^
\
21,785
\
21,682
21,682
Sub-Drainage Basin
D i v i s ion
No.
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
l
2
3
4
1
2
Total
Acres
18, 240
394
3,062
14,527
4,692
3,921
19,762
7,888
6,825
2,027
710
11,916
9,072
87
1,375
5,537
Non-
Usable
Acres
320
448
3,840
384'
1,792
8,896
128
3,392
1,637
«. — •
7,936
2,432
87
640
4,966
Net
Usable
Acres
17,920
394
2,615
10,417
4,308
2,129
10,866
7,760
3,433
390
710
3,980
6,640
0
735
571
Name
Deerpa rk
Twp ,
Pt Jervis
City
Smfld.
Twp .
Mid Smfld
Twp.
Barrett
Twp .
Price
Twp .
Porter
Twp.
Greene
Twp.
Blm Grove
Twp.
D i ngman
Twp .
Mid Smfld.
Twp .
Porter
Twp .
Lehman
Twp.
D i ngman
Twp .
D i ngman
Twp.
Porter
Twp .
Minor
Gross Area
Acres Sq.Mi.
43,904
1,799
14,700
33,308
i
33,617
16,256
37,215
37,440
47,488
36,480
33,308
37,215
31,400
36,480
36,480
37,215
68.6
2.8
23.0
52.1
5?. 5
25.4
58.2
58.5
74.2
57.0
52.1
58.2
49.0
57.0
57.0
5S.2
KEY
Pt. Jervis - Port Jervis
Smfld. - Smithfield
Mid Smfld. - Middle Smithfield
Blm Grove - Blooming Grove
B-3
-------
Civ 1 Division
Area In
Study Area
Acres Sq.M i .
jq,926
1.Y99
ll+, TOO
33,308
33,617
16,256
37,215
11,239
6,82l+
26,833
33,308
37,215
31, too
26,833
26,833
37,215
68.6
2.8
23.0
52.1
52.5
25.1+
58.2
17.6
10.7
1+1.0
52.1
58.2
1+9.0
1+1.0
1+1.0
58.2
% of C.D.
Study Area SDBD
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
30.1
U A
71.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
71.6
71.6
100.0
to.o
27.5
23.0
1+2.8
11+.2
26.2
52.1
21.0
11+.1+
5>
0.2
31 A
28.8
0.2
3.6
H+.6
Usable
Acres
1+2,170
1,799
12,37^
26,586
28,821+
9,601+
15,1+17
32,000
30,016
27,269
26,586
15,1+17
19 , 816
27,269
27,269
15,1+17
Name
Orange
N.Y
Orange
N.Y.
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Pike
Pike
Pike
Pike
Monroe
Pike
Pike
Pike
Pike
Pike
County
Total
Acres Sq.M i .
530
530
390
\
,560
,560
,too
3>+9,056
\
390, too
3^9,056
\
829.0
829.0
610.0
\
'
5^5 A
\
610.0
5^5 A
l
In
Study Area
Acres Sq .Mi .
51,01+2
51,01+2
227,998
\
170,335
\
227,998
170,335
\
80.9
80.9
31+7.8
\
261+ . 9
\
3^7.8
261+.9
!
% for
Populat ion
A 1 locat ion
42.6
21.9
21.1
39.3
15. 4
22.2
70.3
21+.2
11.4
1.1+
2.6
25.8
33.5
0
2.7
3-7
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX C
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
Page
List of Tables
List of Figures
Land use • C- 1
New Jersey C- 7
Pennsylvania and New York C- 8
Economi c base C- 10
New Jersey counties C-ll
Pennsylvania counties C-ll
Employment C-19
Unemployment C-19
Income C-19
Local studies C-23
Summary C-23
Existing highway network C-23
Pennsylvania highways C-25
New Jersey highways C-25
Railroads in the Tocks Island study area C-26
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
C-l Seasonal and Year—Round Housing Unit C- 5
Growth 1350-1960, TIRES Area Counties
C-2 Seasonal and Year-Round Occupied Housing C- 6
Units, I960. TIRES Area Counties
C-3 Payrolls, Employment & Establishments C-12
Warren & Sussex Counties 1959 & 1965
C-4 Payrolls, Employment and Establishments C-14
United States, New Jersey and Pennsylvania
1959 and 1965
C-5 Payrolls, Employment & Establishments C-17
Pike & Monroe Counties 1959 & 1965
C-6 County Employment for TIRES Area Counties C-20
C-7 Unemployment, 1960-1965 C-2]
C-8 Wages and Salaries of Covered Employment C-22
for the First Quarter
C-9 1959 Income of Families for Sussex and C-2*»
Warren Counties, New Jersey and Monroe
and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
C-1 Existing Land Use Map
-------
APPENDIX C
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
The Tocks Island area is beginning to emerge as an identifiable
region today. Its history is one of divergent activities of all kinds
associated with early pioneering and land settlement. Its future is
rooted to those historic characteristics and events, but places new
emphasis on the increasing importance of modern life and its recrea-
tional and cultural needs, integrated into a distinct region under
the pervasive influence of the Tocks Island projects.
Land use
The study of existing land uses is one means of analyzing the
emergence of the area and of determining the directions of future
development. The generalized regional land-use map, shown as Figure
C-l, describes the settlement patterns and use of the TIRES area at
the present time. At this regional level, the general identification
of types of land use serves as a statement of the unique character-
istics of the region. By noting the aggregations of development in
urban centers, villages, and other places and by showing the presence
and extent of various uses in these areas, subregional relationships
and historic growth patterns become evident.
By further analysis, the general choices made in locating partic-
ular land uses can be identified. The relationships among transporta-
tion facilities, existing development, and the physical features of
the land, indicate where and why land development did or did not take
place. Supplemented by economic and population studies, conclusions
may be drawn regarding those land uses that will continue to grow,
those that take on new significance, and those areas that are likely
to be developed in the future.
The land-use map focuses on seven major characteristic groupings
including residential, industrial, commercial, resort, recreational,
public (and quasi-public), and agricultural land-use activities. It
takes into account two distinctive qualities of land use: intensive
use (development of land in a built-up sense), and extensive land use
(as characterized by open areas). The land uses of the latter group
are the camps, parks, state forests and gamelands, farms, resort land
holdings, watersheds, and hunting club lands, which require large
areas for their activity and which contribute to the "open space"
quality of the region. They exist as characteristic land uses in
the region and serve as a statement of the area's unique regional
functions. Thus, the present relationship of the TIRES area to other
regions and distant urban areas is clearly suggested by: large tracts
C-1
-------
of land retained to protect water supply; rural land used for farming
and similar purposes; and extensive major resort tracts, game lands,
forests, parks, and camps that provide outdoor recreation opportunities
to nearby metropolitan residents.
These "open space" or low-density uses point to the primary
asset of the region~-natural amenity. Serving a wealth of functions,
from recreational activities and resource utilization to local employ-
ment, their protection and development are of primary importance and
concern to both private and public organizations and individuals.
The forested landscape and other natural resources are principal
assets of the resort, agriculture, housing, sport and other recrea-
tional industries, and, on a much smaller scale, the local mining
and power industries.
Although the presence of these uses is a unique characteristic
of the region, they are, individually, typical uses of rural areas.
Of distinct note, however, are the hunting and fishing club land
holdings. Absent from the TIRES area in New Jersey (where local
farmers open their lands to hunting groups), they are noted in New
York and throughout the Pennsylvania portion of the study area. With
the 26,000-acre Blooming Grove Hunting and Fishing Club dominating
the group, their holdings almost double the broad ownership of state
lands. In Monroe County, several streams are bordered by large fish-
ing club properties that prevent encroachment and possible impairment
by other uses. The incorporation of many of these clubs under state
charters that restrict development uses contributes to their protec-
tion of open space and continuation into the future.
The developed land pattern represents the urbanizing forces in
the region. The commercial category contains retail trade and ser-
vices but excludes recreational and overnight accommodation services,
which appear in the resort group. This attempts to distinguish be-
tween those commercial activities that primarily serve the population
living within the region, and those activities oriented to the region's
function as a recreation and resort area.
The public (and quasi-public) group includes institutions in one
subgroup and watershed functions in the other. Watershed areas for
municipal water supplies and those of utility companies are indicated
and contribute to the open space quality of the area. In the insti-
tutional subgroup, municipal buildings, schools, colleges, fire sta-
tions, cemeteries, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, and the like
are enumerated and offer a measure of the urban character of the
reg ion.
Consideration of the institutional subgroup and the commercial
uses permits a ranking of various developed areas. The presence of
these uses as found in Newton, the Port Jervis-Matamoras area, and
C-2
-------
the Stroudsburgs suggests their status as regional centers. The
limited presence of these uses in places such as Swartswood, Still-
water, Mildrift, Bushkill, Dingmans Ferry, Marshalls Creek, Canadensis,
Cresco, Tannersvi1le, Bartonsvi1le, Analomink, and Brodheadsvi1le
suggest a village-type character.
By comparing these aggregations and noting their development
patterns, villages are characterized by older housing; local centers
are gaining some recent housing and the regional centers are making
noticeable gains in new development. With the presence of commercial
and institutional uses acting as a force of concentration, one may
conclude that the present rise of the regional centers should lead
to their continued growth as urban aggregations.
At the same time, there are opposite trends in commercial develop-
ment which point to the breaking up of the patterns of aggregation.
Major highway routes, particularly in New Jersey, are being subjected to
the development of commercial establishments quite different from those
customarily serving travelers. This growing category of establish-
ments, ranging from supermarkets to automobile dealerships are
oriented to subregional market areas. Because new areas, formerly
remote, are satisfactory for residential development, shopping patterns
and service areas are changing.
The commercial resort uses, because of their significance, have
been given special attention. One subgroup contains hotels, motels,
lodges, and the like, which cater to the tourist population. A second
subgroup designates camps which, while of a quasi-public nature, are
associated with resort activities. The present focus of the resort
industry is in the famous Poconos, where the biggest resorts are con-
centrated. The resorts are found throughout Monroe County with a
total of 190 in the study area. In Pike County the relatively few
resorts are concentrated in Lehman Township, Dingmans Ferry, and
Mil ford Borough with others randomly located off Route 209 as it fol-
lows the Delaware River northward. Other land uses of this type are
found in the Port Jervis area and in the Neversink Valley. There are
few resorts in New Jersey but none as significant as those in Pennsyl-
vania. Camps are widely dispersed throughout the study area, with
most in Pennsylvania. Ranging in area from 100 acres to *»,000 acres,
they may have as many as 700 campers and counselors in daily attendance.
The industrial group consists of all manufacturing, wholesaling,
and extractive industry operations. The heaviest concentrations of
industry are found in Port Jervis and the Stroudsburgs, where the
presence of the railroads has exerted a major influence. Newton is
far less industrialized. Outside of these regional centers, indus-
trial uses are widely dispersed. Somewhat random locations along rail
lines and highways are found in Monroe, Warren, and Sussex Counties
and paralleling the Neversink River in Deerpark Town.
C-3
-------
The residential group indicates urbanization through housing
development and, as such, consists of all permanent and seasonal non-
farm dwellings, whether mobile homes, one-family detached, or multiple-
family units. It should be noted that the individual dwelling, pre-
valent in rural areas, cannot be indicated at the regional scale, and
only the aggregations of residential uses have been shown.
Analysis of this important category was supplemented by a study
of all platted subdivisions in the TIRES area. By going beyond exist-
ing development, a more conclusive indication of the growth trends in
the area is gained. Subdivisions as large as 935 acres (3,500 lots)
were mapped, ranging in densities from 1/8-acre lots to 6 1/2-acre lots
and differing in kind from the year-round residence suburban type to
the second-home recreational type. In all, a total of 237 subdivisions
containing over 58,000 lots were mapped and tabulated.
While some of the subdivisions may never be developed, subdivision
activity exerts a major urbanizing force in itself. Generally, the
medium-density, year-round type development will locate near the re-
gional centers of Newton, Port Jervis, and the Stroudsburgs. This type
is generally seen developing radially along the roads leading from these
centers.
The second-home or recreation-type subdivision was found to be
dispersing throughout the region. Attracted to lake sites and rugged,
scenic areas, these subdivisions represent a trend toward dispersion.
Proximity to existing centers providing services and facilities seems
to be far less a factor than the attraction of areas which lend them-
selves to outdoor recreation. Noting the explosive growth in seasonal
housing units from 1950 to I960 for the counties of the study area
(Table C-l following), the possible dominance of this development type,
especially in Pennsylvania, suggests that patterns of concentrated and
contiguous development close to existing centers may give way to de-
velopment that is scattered. To combat random scattering, the attrac-
tion of lakes may act to bring about systems of lake-side communities
and vi1lages .
The seasonal nature of all housing in the study area was investi-
gated through data from the I960 Census of Housing.^' Table C-2
(''Unpublished housing data found in Table PH-1 , Population and Housing
Characteristics: i960, were used to develop seasonal occupancy infor-
mation. The "other vacant" category of housing units was used to repre-
sent seasonal or second homes because only units not available on the
housing market, comprising all of these units and in the resort areas
the housing units reserved for the occupancy of summer workers, are in-
cluded in this group. Other units that would be included in this group
such as units held vacant because of litigations, the settlement of
estates, or reserved for the use of migratory workers are viewed as in-
significant. Units vacant for other reasons, such as the temporary ab-
sence of the owner (enumerated as occupied), units vacant and unfit for
human habitation or condemned (excluded from the inventory altogether),
and all newly constructed or other units available for sale or rent
(listed as "available vacant") are not included. Finally, where a hous-
ing^unit is found to be occupied at the time of the census by seasonal
residents, wherein the unit is not their usual place of residence, the
unit is enumerated as "other vacant".
-------
TABLE C-l
SEASONAL AND YEAR-ROUND
HOUSING UNIT GROWTH 1950-1960,
TIRES AREA COUNTIES
Percent Increase
Percent Increase
County
Orange
Pike
Monroe
Sussex
Warren
Northampton
Seasonal Housing Units
82.8
136.8
52.2
49.5
33.6
127.1
Year-round Housing Units
2ft.lt
14.1
24,7
43.3
20.7
19.0
Source: Census of Housing: 1950 and I960.
C-5
-------
TABLE C-2
SEASONAL AND YEAR-ROUND
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS, I960,
TIRES AREA COUNTIES
Seasonal
County Housing Units
e 575
2,355
e 5,235
x 3,0*45
n 271
Year-Round
Housing Units
A, 024
1,975
10,359
4,428
1,069
Ratio
Seasonal to
Year-Round
.14
1.19
.51
.69
.25
Orange
Pike
Monroe
Sussex
Warren
Study Area Totals
11,481
21,855
C-6
-------
shows the estimated seasonal and year-round occupied housing units
in the TIRES area for each county except Northampton which was ex-
cluded because it is a very small portion of the study area. The
data show that there are more than half as many seasonal units as
year-round. In Sussex County, the 3,0*»5 seasonal housing units are
considered generally to be second-homes. Although the percentage
of seasonal units in Monroe and Pike used to house seasonal resort
employees is undetermined, most employees are housed in "group
quarters", leaving only a few to occupy seasonal units.
New Jersey.--The sub-areas of the New Jersey region are pre-
dominately rural-farm in character. A vast wooded band follows the
Kittatinny Ridge, paralleled by a broad band of farmland in the eastern
valley. Numerous camps and second-home communities dot lake sites in
the foothills, and urban development follows strip settlement pat-
terns along Routes A6, 9*», 15, and 206. Elsewhere, pockets of develop-
ment are found clustering at local crossroads. Newton is the dominant
center, surrounded by and generally related to a triangle of the local
centers of Blairstown, Branchville, and Sparta.
Twenty-three percent of Warren County and *»3 percent of Sussex
County lie in the study area. A large percentage of this land is
found in the Worthington and Stokes State Forests, High Point and
Swartswood State Parks, and other public land holdings including many
State "Green Acres" acquisitions. Other open lands are used by camps
in Warren and in Sussex Counties, with some camps as large as 400 acres.
Over 50 percent of the land in Warren and 30 percent in Sussex is in
agricultural use. Of the 60 lakes in Sussex and 20 in Warren that
are over five acres in surface area, there are 29 in Sussex and only
two in Warren that have housing developments. Nine lakes are used
by one or more camps, and the others are used for public and private
recreation, power generation, water supply, flood retention, and farm
purposes. Using as an example the Lake Hopatcong development exper-
ience just to the east of the study area, the development potential
of these lakes is clear, and the threat of water pollution under pres-
ent liquid-waste disposal practices is very real.
Typical lot sizes range from as small as 6,000 square feet to
one-acre lots in the lake developments, to as high as three-acre lots
elsewhere. However, with the practice of double-lot purchases in the
smaller lot developments, houses are estimated to be developing at the
rate of two to four units per acre, with one-acre lots typical of many
areas. There is also an occasional two and three-acre lot development.
The vast majority of housing units are the one-family detached type.
The recent apartment developments In Newton, and mobile homes and var-
ious other housing types are present also, but in insignificant
numbers.
C-7
-------
Commercial uses are found in the shopping areas of Newton, Blairs-
town, and Branchville. Elsewhere, they dot state and county roads at
random and form small clusters in places such as Columbia, Hainesburg,
Marksboro, Stillwater, Swartswood, Ross Corner, Lafayette, Culvers Gap,
Hainesville, and Montague. These roadside commercial uses, particularly
the older establishments, have been local-serving in character. Some
are oriented to the traveler trade. Recently commercial development
located along highways has grown sufficiently to compete in sub-
regional markets.
Small industrial areas are found in Newton and Branchville and
in a few instances along Route 3k. Large limestone mining operations
are found to the east of Newton along the Lehigh and Hudson Railroad
line in Sparta and Andover Townships.
Pennsylvania and New York.--Outdoor recreation is the principal
use of most of the TIRES area land in Pennsylvania and New York. The
rugged, forested terrain with swift-running streams and abundant lakes
is the setting for many camps, resorts, recreation communities, hunting
and fishing clubs, and other recreation areas.
Fifty-six percent of the land area in Monroe County and ^9 percent
of Pike lie in the study area, with about ten percent of Orange County
and only one percent of Northampton County. The Delaware State Forest
is the largest of the vast acreages of state forest and game lands.
Additional forested lands include over 1*0,000 acres of hunting and
fishing club lands, eleven separate watershed holdings, sixty-eight
camps, and extensive major resort holdings. In Pike County, agricultural
uses are limited to the flood plain along the Delaware River. In Mon-
roe County, farming is scattered throughout the lower half of the County,
and is the predominating land use in the southern end.
The Stroudsburgs and the Port Jervis - Matamoras area are the
major urban concentrations and are viewed as major centers which create
a developing corridor along Route 209. Local centers along this cor-
ridor are Bushkill, Dingmans Ferry, and the Borough of Milford. The
Stroudsburgs contain a balanced mixture of uses and are developing
radially along Routes 209, M7, 611 and 115. Port Jervis is an old
railroad town containing the yards of the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad.
Its central business district and intensive manufacturing uses crowd
the old city. Recent land development, especially housing, extends
along Routes 209, 97 and k2, far into Deerpark Town.
The Pocono area of Barrett Township constitutes another major
development area. With many established resorts located in the
vicinity, development has resulted in a network of local centers and
villages. Cresco, Mountainhome, Buck Hill Falls, Canadensis, and
Skytop comprise this network, within which commercial and residential
uses are developing along Routes 191, M?, and 390.
C-8
-------
Numerous other villages dot this sub-area. In New York, Cahoonzie
and Cuddlebackville are local centers along the radial development ex-
tending into Deerpark Town. Mil drift on the Delaware River above Mata-
moras and the villages of Dingmans Ferry, Egypt Mills, and Bushkill on
Route 209, comprise the few communities in Pike County. In Monroe
County, besides the villages in the Pocono area, other villages have
developed at the crossroads of the highway system outside the Strouds-
burgs. The travel corridors of U.S. Route 611, Interstate 80, and
Routes 115 and 209 typify the extended radial of routes outward from
the Stroudsburgs along which small communities have grown.
New residential construction is highly active in Monroe and Pike
Counties. A total of 118 subdivisions were tabulated recently in
Monroe County, and 41 in Pike County. Pike County had the largest
subdivisions, totaling over 35,500 lots, and Monroe County's total
is in excess of 13,500 lots. In Monroe County, concentrations of
residential uses are found in the Stroudsburgs and in the Pocono
area. Existing residential development and platted subdivisions
are located within or in proximity to the highway and village cor-
ridor developments mentioned above. A few residential developments
are scattered elsewhere within the County. The typical lot in the
Stroudsburg area ranges from 1/4 to 1/2 acre in size. In the Pocono
area, the 1/2 acre lot is typical; elsewhere, lot sizes range from
1/8 acre to 6 1/2 acres. All residential developments are small to
medium in size, ranging from 2 to 440 acres in total area. The year-
round type is generally found in the Stroudsburgs, while the second-
home or vacation type is prevalent elsewhere.
In Pike County, the predominant type of development is the recre-
ation community. Vacation homes are being built at high rates at
natural and man-made lake sites and are demonstrating the intensive
interest in the outdoor recreation opportunities they offer. Some
projects contain large, open, land holdings of their own. Others
are located in close proximity to state forests and game lands. The
existence of state and hunting club lands has limited the amount of
available land for development to a broad band above and along the
Delaware River. These developments are scattered throughout this band
but are located generally on the slopes and plateau northwest of the
villages of Bushkill, Egypt Mills, and Dingmans Ferry and the Borough
of Milford. The one-third acre lot is typical; however, in grouping
the houses, the gross density of development is much lower.
In Orange County, residential uses are found in and around Port
Jervis, and are extending into Deerpark Town, primarily as strip de-
velopment along Routes 209, 97, and 42. These routes parallel the
Neversink River, Delaware River, and Shingle Kill respectively. A
few lake site developments are evident; the Hawthorne Lake Development
located off Route 6 is the largest. Scattered single residences are
C-9
-------
also found in the Town. Housing construction has been moderate, and
relatively few new homes are seasonal in Deerpark in comparison to
Monroe and Pike Counties.
Most townships have a high ratio of seasonal to year-round hous-
ing units, while the cities and boroughs have a low ratio. The typical
housing unit is the one-family detached dwelling. Mobile homes are
present throughout the region, either on individual lots or in mobile
home courts, and a few apartment buildings are located in the Strouds-
burgs and in Port Jervis.
In the Pennsylvania-New York area, most commercial uses are
situated in the regional centers, local centers, and villages. Visitor-
serving highway commercial uses are spread along Routes 209, 611, and
the ^7-196 route between Stroudsburg and the Pocono area. Highway
commercial uses are developing radially outside the Stroudsburgs and
Port Jervis. The Stroudsburgs contain the largest business district
and is the primary shopping area. The villages in Monroe County pro-
vide the neighborhood or convenience shopping function.
Most industrial areas are located in the regional centers, but are
not limited to these areas. For example, in Orange County, industrial
development extends beyond Port Jervis, far up the Neversink Valley.
A few local industries are found through Pike County on Route 209,
and in Monroe County on the Lackawanna and Western Railroad in Stroud
Township and Barrett Township. Others are located along Routes 611
and 115- Local centers such as Matamoras Borough, Mil ford Borough,
and Delaware Water Gap Borough have a few industries. The majority
of the industries outside the regional and local centers are the
extractive type.
Economic base
The economic base of the TIRES area has been examined on a county
basis rather than watershed basis as in the water and sewerage investi-
gations. Examination of the economy on such a micro-level as small
watersheds would not give a meaningful picture of the present economic
base. A better feel for the economy of the region can be obtained by
examining the figures on a county basis which include the total effects
from smaller areas; significant increases or decreases over a period
of time can be more readily determined. The counties that were examined
were Sussex and Warren in New Jersey, and Pike and Monroe Counties in
Pennsylvania. Orange County, New York, was omitted because such a
small portion of that County is included in the TIRES area; county
economic figures would give the impression of much more economic
activity in the study area than really existed. Furthermore, the
small portion of Orange County that is in the study area is not repre-
sentative of the general economic characteristics of that County.
Northampton County, Pennsylvania, was excluded for the same reasons.
C-10
-------
Among the economic characteristics examined were the number of
employees, payrolls, and total reporting units (as defined below).
The years 1959 and 19&5 were compared for each county to give a gen-
eral picture of the increases or decreases in each classification of
industry. The information was obtained from County Business Patterns,
Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce.
The employment figures were based on the number of employees for
the pay period ending nearest March 15th, either as reported or as
corrected in those cases where reporting was incomplete or inaccurate.
The taxable payroll is the amount of taxable wages paid for covered
employment during the January - March quarter.
!
New Jersey counties.--Table C-3 shows that the totals for the
number of employees, taxable payrolls, and total reporting units in-
creased from 1959 to 19&5 for Warren and Sussex Counties. Although
the increase in number of employees, taxable payrolls, and total re-
porting units is greater for Warren County, the percentage increase
for industry in general is larger for Sussex County.
Table C-4 shows that industrial growth between 1959 and 19&5 is
similar for the United States and New Jersey. The rate of total in-
dustrial growth during this period is much higher for Sussex County
than for either New Jersey or the whole country.
In Warren County, there has been an increase in the number of
employees and the taxable payrolls in almost all industries. One
major exception is wholesale trade, wherein decreases of 2k percent
in the number of employees and 18 percent in taxable payrolls were
recorded. The change in total units reporting between the two years
has been mixed with a 23 percent decrease in agricultural services,
kO percent decrease in mining, a 10 percent decrease in contract
construction, and a 13 percent decrease in wholesale trade; all other
industrial classifications showed an increase in the number of re-
porting units. Relative growth for the total of all industries in
Warren County closely approximates the changes for New Jersey and
the United States.
Thus, except for the wholesale trade industry, the economy of
Warren and Sussex Counties has been growing at a healthy rate. Em-
ployment, taxable payrolls, and the number of reporting units have
all generally increased over the six-year period.
Pennsylvania counties.--Pike and Monroe Counties in Pennsylvania,
as Table C-5 shows, experienced a similar total employment growth
rate between 1959 and 1965. Both are substantially higher than the
United States total for the same period. Although a few small employ-
ment categories in Pike County showed decreases, the interesting point
C-ll
-------
I
N>
TABLE C-3
PAYROLLS, EMPLOYMENT £ ESTABLISHMENTS
WARREN £ SUSSEX COUNTIES 1959 £ 1965
WARREN
Agricultural Services,
Forestry, Fisheries
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation £ Pub.
Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Unclassified
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
22
142
568
10,148
642
691
1,974
336
1,211
33
1959
Taxable
Payrolls
Jan. -March
11
197
548
12,302
710
808
1,451
254
758
19
Total
Reporting
Units
9
5
144
117
52
64
426
89
228
12
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
39 ( 77)2
D
669 ( 17)
11,105 ( 09)
917 ( 42)
53 (-24)
2,776 ( 40)
391 ( 16)
1,661 ( 37)
0
1965
Taxable
Payrolls
Jan. -March'
39 (254)2
D
944 ( 72)
15,496 ( 25)
1,334 ( 87)
668 (-18)
2,299 ( 58)
376 ( 48)
1 ,364 ( 79)
D
Total
Reporting
Units
7 (~23)2
3 (-40)
131 (-10)
122 ( 04)
65 ( 25)
56 (-13)
444 ( 04)
91 ( 02)
263 ( 15)
12 ( 0)
Total
15,767
17,058
1,146
18,114 ( 14) 22,543 ( 32) 1,185 ( 03)
Payrolls in thousands of dollars.
Number in parentheses indicates percent increase or decrease between 1959 and 1965.
D - denotes figures withheld to avoid disclosure of operations of individual reporting units.
Source: County Business Patterns, 1959, 1965, U.S. Department of Commerce.
-------
o
I
SUSSEX
Agricultural Services,
Forestry, Fisheries
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation 6 Pub.
Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Unclassified
Total
TABLE C-3
(continued)
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
39
22?
504
2,514
535
236
1,454
600
873
88
7,070
1959
Taxable
Payrolls
Jan. -March
25
268
496
2,472
461
238
1,109
586
540
97
6,292
Total
Reporting
Units
11
12
130
67
49
33
334
50
155
9
850
Number of
Emp 1 oyees
Mid-March
44 ( 12)2
396 ( 74)
577 ( 14)
2,903 ( 15)
733 ( 37)
199 (-84)
2,051 ( 41)
831 ( 38)
1,402 ( 60)
38 (-57)
9,174 ( 29)
1965
Taxable
Payrolls
Jan. -March'
38 ( 52)2
527 ( 96)
693 ( 39)
3,691 ( 49)
912 ( 97)
251 ( 05)
1,780 ( 60)
968 ( 65)
1,143 (111)
31 (-69)
10,034 ( 59)
Total
Reporting
Units
15 ( 36)2
8 (-44)
180 ( 38)
78 ( 16)
77 ( 57)
40 ( 21)
399 ( 19)
69 ( 38)
225 ( 45)
17 ( 88)
1,108 ( 30)
'Payrolls in thousands of dollars.
^Number in parentheses indicates percent increase or decrease between 1959 and 19&5.
D - denotes figures withheld to avoid disclosure of operations of individual reporting units.
Source: County Business Patterns, 1959, 1965, U.S. Department of Commerce.
-------
TABLE C-4
PAYROLLS, EMPLOYMENT AND ESTABLISHMENTS
UNITED STATES, NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA 1959 AND 1965
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
UNITED STATES
Agricultural Services,
Forestry, Fisheries
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufactur i ng
Transportation and
Publ ic Uti 1 i ties
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Unclassified
Total
110
705
2,498
16,206
2,920
3,092
7,743
2,505
5,795
274
41,903
,388
,242
,457
,932
,063
,243
,908
,432
,905
,939
,940
1959
Taxabl e
Payrol Is
Jan .-March'
79
920
2,823
19,671
3,562
3,864
5,711
2,632
4,561
212
44,079
,659
,071
,519
,581
,335
,865
,112
,730
,573
,154
,557
Total
Report! ng
Units
23
31
301
290
120
280
1,074
292
814
.- 59
3,302
,441
,801
,604
,902
,169
,984
,215
,478
,730
,228
,563
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
152
599
2,823
17,595
3,218
3,434
8,963
3,014
7,709
231
47,743
,420( 38)2
,328(-84)
,519( 13) 4
,093( 08)26
,709( 10) 4
,925( 11) 5
,742( 15) 7
,243( 20) 3
,154( 33) 7
,709(-16)
,277( 13)60
1965
Taxable
Payrol Is
Jan .-March*
I26,463(
943, 743 (
,091,886(
,005,596(
,869S224(
,262,275(
,855,798(
,821,574(
,373,155(
58)2
02)
44)
32)
36)
36)
37)
45)
61)
185,357(-13)
,535,046(
37)
Total
Reporting
Units
29,285(24)2
29,114(91)
319,250(06)
298,930(02)
128,659(07)
303,510(08)
1,083,206(01)
325,243(11)
935,797(14)
68,605(15)
3,521,554(06)
Payrolls in Thousands of dollars.
Number in parentheses indicates percent increase or decrease between 1959 to 1965.
SOURCE: County Business Patterns 1959, 1965-
-------
o
I
vn
TABLE C-4
(continued)
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
2,648
3,303
79,848
782,080
115,178
100,257
245,583
83,990
190,225
7,110
1,610,372
1959
Taxable
Payrolls
Jan. -March
2,026
4,326
100,733
988,443
142,765
134,743
198,127
91,892
157,152
6,230
1,826,596
Total
Reporting
Units
796
139
12,742
13,767
4,257
8,354
37,788
10,502
27,176
1,574
1 1 7 , 1 48
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
3,470(31)2
3,537(07)
94,445(18)
813,852(04)
131,308(14)
125,878(25)
310,271(26)
98,977(17)
256,943(35)
7,552(06)
1,846,235(14)
1965
Taxable
Payrol Is
Jan. -March'
3,062(51)2
5,314(22)
148,880(47)
259,383(27)
202,324(41)
205,714(52)
288,224(45)
126,899(38)
248,312(58)
8,106(30)
2,496,218(36)
Total
Reporting
Units
904 ( 13)
I47( 05)
12,918( 01)
14,036( 01)
4,701( 10)
9,767( 16)
38,021(0.6)
11,337( 07)
32, 700 ( 20)
2,106( 33)
126,729( 08)
NEW JERSEY
Agricultural Services,
Forestry, Fisheries
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation and
Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Unclassified
Total
Payrolls in Thousands of dollars.
Number in parentheses indicates percent increase or decrease between 1959 to 19&5.
SOURCE: County Business Patterns 1959, 1965.
-------
o
TABLE C-4
(conti nued)
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
3,822
67,909
143,034
1,393,359
191,393
198,194
492,358
144,455
390,686
15,170
3,025,785
1959
Taxable
Payrolls
Jan. -March
2,535
83,881
164,367
1,643,999
234,184
257,382
353,944
150,590
284,337
13,593
3,194,123
Total
Report! ng
Units
896
2,804
18,566
18,649
7,772
16,356
66,068
14,111
49,399
2,994
197,839
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
5,880( 53)2
45,072(-44)
142,784(-01)
1,462,294( 04) 2
192,523( 03)
194,476(-02)
520,685( 05)
160,610( 11)
474,453( 21)
10,794(-29)
3,214,57K 06) 4
1965
Taxable
Payrol Is
Jan .-March'
5,263(107)2
68,170(-19)
204,532( 24)
,098,175( 27)
292,34o( 24)
291,417( 13)
432,117( 22)
197,075( 30)
416,827( 46)
8,929(-35)
,014,795( 25)
Total
Reporting
Units
1,077( 20)2
2,l85(-23)
17,945(-04)
18,518( 01)
7,825( 01)
16,65S( 01)
62,890(-05)
I4,509( 02)
52,492( 06)
2,949(-02)
197,039(-10)
PENNSYLVANIA
Agricultural Services,
Forestry, Fisheries
Min i ng
Contract Construction
Manufactur ing
Transportation and
Public Uti1ities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Unclass ified
Total
Payrolls in Thousands of dollars.
Number in parentheses indicates percent increase or decrease between 1959 to 1965.
-------
TABLE C-5
PAYROLLS, EMPLOYMENT £ ESTABLISHMENTS
PIKE 6 MONROE COUNTIES 1959 £ 1965
PIKE
Agricultural Services,
Forestry, Fisheries
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation and
Publ ic Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Unclassified
Total
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
D
None
155
87
62
26
208
110
415
D
1,080
1959
Taxable
Payrolls
Jan. -March
D
None
128
66
49
33
144
84
474
D
964
Total
Reporting
Units
1
None
35
16
12
9
62
19
82
2
240
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
D
None
223 ( 43)2
157 ( 80)
57 (-09)
33 ( 26)
206 (-01)
107 (-03)
544 ( 3D
D
1,372 ( 27)
1965
Taxable
Payrolls j
Jan. -March
D
None
259 (102)2
142 (115)
58 ( 18)
33 ( 0)
147 ( 02)
124 ( 47)
638 ( 34)
D
1,443 (.49)
Total
Reporting
Units
3 (2.00)
None
29 ( ID2
17 ( 06)
13 ( 08)
6 (-44)
61 (-02)
25 ( 3D
86 ( 04)
1 (-50)
251 ( 04)
'Payrolls in thousands of dollars.
Number in parentheses indicates percent increase or decrease between 1959 to 1965.
D - denotes figures withheld to avoid disclosure of operations of individual reporting units
Source: County Business Patterns, 1959, 1965-
-------
o
I
TABLE C-5
(cont i nued)
1959
Number of Taxable Total
MONROE
Agricultural Services,
Forestry, Fisheries
M in ing
Contract Construction
Manufactur i ng
Transportation and
Publ ic Util ities
Wholesale Trade
Reta i 1 Trade
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate
Services
Unclass i f ied
Total
Employees
Mid-March
14
16
547
3,550
401
439
1,588
225
1,960
50
8,790
Payrolls
Jan .-March
12
16
394
3,223
412
479
964
172
1,263
37
6,972
Reporting
Units
3
3
134
86
44
44
3D
47
253
9
934
Number of
Employees
Mid-March
86
25
705
4,466
331
300
2,010
297
2,653
16
10,889
( 514)2
( 56)
( 28)
( 41)
( -18)
( -32)
( 26)
( 32)
( 35)
(-312)
( 23)
1965
Taxable
Payrol Is
Jan .-March
70
28
815
5,093
439
366
1,493
272
2,108
5
10,689
( 483)2
( 75)
( 106)
( 58)
( 10)
( -34)
( 54)
( 58)
( 66)
(-740)
( 53)
Total
Report! ng
Uni ts
11 (266) 2
3 ( 0)
158 ( 17)
89 ( 03)
38 (-14)
40 (-10)
319 ( 02)
58 ( 23)
310 ( 22)
6 (-/»4)
1,032 ( 10)
Payrolls in thousands of dollars.
Number in parentheses indicates percent increase or decrease between 1959 to 1965.
D - dentoes figures withheld to avoid disclosure of operations of individual reporting units.
Source: County Business Patterns, 1959, 1965.
-------
was the substantial increases in the number of employees and payrolls
between the two years in manufacturing, contract construction, and
services.
To offset the steady industrial growth in Monroe County, there
was a 32 percent decrease in the number of employees in the wholesale
trade and a 3^ percent decrease in its taxable payroll. Although the
percentage of employees, taxable payroll, and total reporting units
in "unclassified industries" has decreased, this is not necessarily
significant because these industries may have been classified in
1965 as one of the standard industry groups (i.e. agricultural ser-
vices, mining, manufacturing, etc.)
Employment.—Although the figures for employment are for only
the March 15th" payroll period, they indicate the basic pattern of
distribution of employment by industry. Table C-6 shows the annual
number of persons employed covered by state unemployment compensation
insurance for the counties. Although Pike and Wayne Counties have
the smallest number of people under "covered" employment, they have
also undergone the greatest increase in employment between the years
I960 and 1966, with an average of 1,688 additional persons employed
each year. Monroe County had an average of 997 additional persons
employed each year. Between I960 and 1966 Warren employed 665 addi-
tional persons per year and Sussex County employed 115 additional
persons per year.
Unemp1pyment.—Unemployment in the study area has been decreasing
at a greater rate than the United States' general rate. As Table C~7
shows, only Sussex County had a greater percentage of the labor force
unemployed than did the United States in 1965- The figures for Pike
County also include Wayne County because the analysis was made there
on a Labor Market Area basis. Although the numbers unemployed for
the Honesdale - Matamoras area for the years I960 through 1965 are high,
the percentage unemployed may be considered as representative of Pike
County.
With the opening of the DWGNRA and the expected growth in such
businesses as restaurants, motor vehicle service stations, motels,
lodges, and other tourist establishments, the unemployment rate may
continue to decline. It must be mentioned, however, that the antic-
ipated increase in the number of recreational and tourist establish-
ments may intensify seasonal fluctuations in the employment and un-
emp1oymen t ra tes.
j_ncome.--ln the four-county area, as Table C-8 shows, there were
$32,872,ITl3 paid in wages and salaries in the first quarter of 1961.
In 1965 this increased by $9,^52,393 to $42,325,206. Sussex County
increased the most in wages and salaries paid during this period. Al-
though wages and salaries in Pike County increased by the smallest
C-19
-------
TABLE C-6
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT FOR TIRES AREA COUNTIES
COUNTY NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED
I960 1966
Warren 2^,08^0 28,000^
Sussex 18,5H(1) 19,2000(2)
Pike and Wayne 3,169^ 13,300^)
Monroe 15,51? 21,500(3)
Source:
(])u.S. Census, I960
(2)
N.J. Division of Employment Security
Manipower Pi 1emma, Economic Development Council of
Northeastern Pennsylvania, April 1967.
C-20
-------
TABLE C-7
UNEMPLOYMENT, 1960-1965
NUMBER AND PERCENT UNEMPLOYED BY
AREA SELECTED YEAR
I960 1962 1963 196** 1965 1966
'Warren County
percent 5.5 6.2 6.5 4.7 3-5 3-1
number 1,500 1,700 1,800 1,300 1,000 900
* 'Sussex County
percent 6.7 5-7 5.8 5-3 4.7 4.0
number 1,100 1,000 1,100 1,000 9,000 8,000
(2)
v 'Honesdale-Matamoras
(Wayne £ Pike Counties)
percent 5-7 6.4 7.2 5.3 3.8
number 800 900 1,000 700 500
(2)
v 'Stroudsburg
(Monroe County)
percent 5.3 4.1 4.0 3.0 2.9
number 1,000 800 800 600 600
^'United States
percent 5.6 - - 5.2 4.6 4.0
number 3,931,000 - 3,456,000 -
Source:
'N.J. Division of Employment Security
Pennsylvania Statistical Abstract, Pennsylvania Department of
Internal Affai rs, 1967
^'pocket Data Book, U.S.A. 1967, U.S. Bureau of the Census
C-21
-------
TABLE C-8
WAGES AND SALARIES OF
COVERED EMPLOYMENT
FOR THE FIRST QUARTER
Warren
^Sussex
(2>Pika
Monroe
Total
1961
$ 17,729,194
6,690,619
546,000
7,907,000
$ 32,872,813
1965
$ 22,291,767
8,759,439
924,000
10,350,000
$ 42,325,206
1961-65
( increase)
$ 4,562,573
2,068,820
378,000
2,443,000
$ 9,452,393
Source:
'N.J. Division of Employment Security, 1961 and 1965
(2)
^Pennsylvania Statistical Abstract, Pennsylvania Department of
Internal Affairs," 1962 and 1967
C-22
-------
total, they increased at the greatest rate, almost doubling during
the four-year period. Table C~9 shows the family income distribution
of the population by counties.
Local studies.--A number of studies have been completed on a
township, borough, and county level which have sections that deal with
the economic conditions of the individual communities. These reports
draw upon some of the same basic data shown above in combination with
localized I960 U.S. Census data. They are useful as reference for a
better understanding of the recent economic climate of the communities,
The reports generally indicate that the communities have a fairly
healthy economic base, are encouraged to attract more industry, and
have a favorable potential for doing so. Most also recognize the
potential impact of the DWGNRA on the economy of their communities
and see with cautious hope the influx of tourist dollars as a good
trend. A fear of being buried beneath unattractive advertising de-
vices and marginal "tourist traps", together with the loss of the
rural character of the communities is often expressed.
Summary.--Although the counties in the TIRES area are presently
in a good economic position, there is not a stable, broad economic
basis on which to build. Employment is increasing and unemployment
decreasing at greater rates than the national trends. The number of
manufacturing establishments reporting in the TIRES area has shown
a greater percentage increase between 1959 and 1965 than the United
States average. The median family income of the TIRES area counties
was generally lower than the $5,660 of the United States average for
1959- Only Sussex County had a higher median family income ($5,860)
than the national average. The number of people employed in the TIRES
area counties is generally highest in manufacturing and the retail
operations. The lowest number of persons employed in any industrial
classification is characteristically in agricultural services. Em-
ployment in the tourist and vacation industry is not currently large
enough to have an impact on the region's economy.
Existing highway network
The unique location of the study area within the northeast region
of the United States and the kinds of activities which compose the
area's economic base are significant determinants of the past and pres-
ent condition of the transportation facilities. Allentown-Bethlehem,
Scranton-WiIkes-Barre, Philadelphia and New York City are among the
nearby urban centers which contribute portions of their population to
the recreation and tourist industry of the TIRES area. Of prime
importance to the area is, therefore, the transportation network
which permits the flow of traffic from these urban centers. Manu-
facturing, another important activity in portions of the study area,
is also dependent on good transportation.
C-23
-------
o
I
FAMILY INCOME
Al1 FamF1ies
Under $1 ,000
1,000 - 1,999
2,000 - 2,999
3,000 - 3,999
4,000 - 4,999
5,000 - 5,999
6,000 - 6,999
7,000 - 7,999
8,000 - 8,999
9,000 - 9,999
10,000 -14,999
15,000 -24,999
25,000+
TABLE C-9
1959 INCOME OF FAMILIES FOR SUSSEX AND WARREN COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY
AND MONROE AND PIKE COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA
SUSSEX COUNTY
12,774
505
701
762
1,257
1,544
1,881
1,392
1,134
961
603
1,375
518
141
Median Family Income $ 5,860
SOURCE: U.S. Census,
WARREN COUNTY
16,778
585
900
1,242
1,932
2,490
2,427
1,980
1,621
1,077
693
1,373
328
130
$ 5,511
MONROE COUNTY
10,464
489
691
943
1 ,402
1,576
1,415
1,209
790
549
380
712
243
65
$ 5,093
PIKE COUNTY
2,654
121
217
302
402
327
378
243
218
160
73
175
23
15
$ 4,872
-------
Highway travel is the prime means of transportation within the
region. The existing highways are typically two-lane paved roads.
Problems of parking inadequacies and traffic congestion are charac-
teristic of the small communities in the area, together with rural
hazards of sight distance, poor drainage, and unstable shoulders.
Figure C-l shows major, local, state, and federal highways which
serve the region.
It is more difficult to move within the TIRES area than it is
to reach it. Highway and road improvements are necessary that will
facilitate the movement of traffic between the various sections of
the area as well as provide access roads from metropolitan centers.
The existing highway situation is not static, and must be con-
sidered in conjunction with the proposed road improvements and recom-
mended new highways. A subsequent section of this report reviews
currently proposed major highway improvements.
Pennsylvania highways.—Almost all of the major highways in the
Pennsylvania portion of the TIRES region intersect in or near the
Stroudsburg area. During the summer tourist season these highways
often become congested with high volumes of traffic. The major high-
way arterials include U.S. 209 paralleling the Delaware River from
East Stroudsburg northeast to Matamoras, U.S. 6 from Mil ford north-
west to Lake Wailenpaupack, and U.S. 611 from Mt. Bethel along the
Delaware River to the Stroudsburg area and then northwest to Mount
Pocono.
Interstate 80 is a new limited-access arterial from the North-
east Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike east to East Stroudsburg,
and onward toward New York. Among the main state roads in the area
are Route 402 from Marshal Is Corner north to U.S. 6 at Lake Wailen-
paupack, Route 191 from the Stroudsburg area northwest to the Pocono
Mountains, Route kk~/ from Analomink north to Canadensis and then
into the mountains, Route 715 from McMichaels north to Henryville,
and Route 3^ from Analomink northwest to Pocono Manor. Route 9^*0
is the main access road from the Northeast Extension of the Pennsyl-
vania Turnpike to the lakes area in the Poconos in Monroe County.
Route 390 intersects with Route bkj at Canadensis in Barrett Town-
ship; then goes northward outside of the TIRES area to Interstate 8A.
An extensive network of minor state and local roads tie all the
small village centers and resorts to the major state and national
highway network.
New Jersey highways.--The highways in the New Jersey portion of
the TIRES area are undergoing congestion problems because of seasonal
traffic similar to that which has plagued the Pennsylvania side.
C-25
-------
Newton, the largest community in the TIRES area in New Jersey,
is at the intersection of State Route 9^ and U.S. 206. The major
traffic arterials in New Jersey are Interstate 80 from the Delaware
Water Gap south through Columbia, and U.S. 206 from Newton northwest
to Montague. The state highways in the area include Route 9^'from
Columbia northeast to Newton and Route 23 from Port Jervis, New York,
south to Colesville. Among the important secondary roads in the area
are Route 52) from Port Jervis south to Blairstown and Route 519 from
Newton north to Beemerville. As in Pennsylvania, an extensive network
of local and county roads tie in with the state system.
Rai1 roads in the Jocks Island study area
The TIRES area is served by two mainline railroad corridors.
Limited passenger service is offered to the southern portion of the
region by the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad. This line provides service
from New York to Scranton and points west on what was formerly the
railroad's mainline. Stops within the region are at Blairstown,
New Jersey and East Stroudsburg, Cresco, and Pocono Summit in Pennsyl-
vania. Interstates 80 and 81E roughly parallel the route of the
railroad. In the northern part of the study area, the former main-
line of the Erie Railroad from New York City to Binghamton, New York
and points west to Chicago, follows the Delaware River from Port
Jervis to Lackawaxen and then continues west through Narrowsburg
and Hancock, New York. No passenger service is offered on this line
west of Port Jervis.
In the past both of these railroads provided frequent passenger
service from New York to Buffalo with connections to points west.
The mainlines of both railroads were constructed to carry high vol-
umes of passenger traffic and still remain major freight routes be-
tween New York City and the west. The use of high-speed arterial
highways apparently reduced much of the demand for passenger train
service that had existed in the study area.
In the southeastern part of the study area, Sussex County has
commuter service between Netcong, Dover, and New York, and elec-
trified commuter trains are operated by the Erie-Lackawanna east
of Dover through Morris County to Newark and Hoboken, where rapid
transit connections to New York City are available. In addition
to the rail corridors from New York and the west, an important
freight line, the Lehigh and Hudson Railway, connecting Easton with
New England by way of Maybrook and Poughkeepsie, New York, passes
through the eastern fringe of the study area. This route also con-
nects with the Pennsylvania Railroad-Erie Lackawanna freight line
from Stroudsburg to Trenton.
C-26
-------
In addition to the main freight routes, several branch lines
are operated in the eastern part of the study area. The Erie-Lack-
awanna Sussex branch, from Netcong to Branchville, formerly provided
commuter service to New York City. The New York and Susquehanna
Railroad also provides limited freight service in the eastern and
the southeastern part of the study area. This line is the last of
severa.1 '1 ines wh.ich operated between New York City and the anthra-
cite coal region of Pennsylvania.
C-27
-------
MO1
PEN NSYLVANI A
NEW JERSEY
FIGURE C-l
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
THIS PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED IN PART BY A
DEMONSTRATION GRANT, NUMBER WPD-136,
FROM THE RESEARCH AND TRAINING GRANT
PROGRAM, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION.
C-28
-------
FIGURE C-l
EXISTING LANDUSE MAP
LEGEND
STUDY A RE A BOUNDARY
RESIDENTIAL
PERMANENT AND SEASONAL
'//////////. SUBDIVISIONS
RESORTS
HOTELS, MOTELS, LO DGES
•:*£•:•: CAMPS
XFA RESORT LANT, HOLDINGS
COMMERCIAL
INDUST R I AL
PUBLIC AND QUASI- PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS AND MUNICIPAL
WATE RSHED AREAS
RECREATIONAL
STATE FO R E ST, G AM E L A N DS, PARK S
HUNTING AND FISHING CLUB
HOLDINGS
RURAL
AIRPORT
C-29
-------
APPENDIX D
ON-SITE LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX D
ON-SITE LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL
Page
List of Tables
Soi Is of the study area D- 1
Sui tab!1i ty of land for on-si te waste disposal D- 2
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
D-l Soil Limitations for On-site Liquid-Waste D-4
Disposal Systems
D-2 Limitations of Soils for On-site Sewage D~5
Disposal in Study Area
-------
APPENDIX D
ON-SITE LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL
Soils of the study area.—The soils of the Pennsylvania section
of the study area have been formed largely by glacial action; soil
depths range from deep to shallow. The soils are generally better
drained on sloping ground. Drainage is poor on the flatlands.
There are two types of glacial materials evident in Pennsylvania:
1. glacial till, composed of sand, silt, clay, and rock
fragments set down by the melting ice.
2. glacial outwash, composed generally of sorted sands
and gravels deposited by the melting waters of the
glaciers as these waters flowed from the ice mass.
A third type of soil is also evident which has been formed from
residual material of the parent rock. These areas have also been
glaciated, but the effects of the ice action are not as significant
as the weathering of the parent rock.
The most significant soil association groups in Monroe and Pike
Counties, as described briefly by the Soil Conservation Service in
open-file data, are as follows:
Name
Westfield - Culvers - Oquaga
Oquaga— Culvers - Morris
Chenango - Barbour - Basher
Culvers - Cattaraugus - Morris
Wurtsboro - Mardin - Swartswood
Lords town - Manlius - Oquaga
Brief Description
Shallow to deep soil on reddish -
acid glacial till of medium textures
Shallow to deep soils in reddish -
brown acid glacial till of medium
textures
Deep soils from alluvial outwash
of varying textures
Deep soils, well-drained to poorly
drained, from till of medium textures
Deep soils to moderately deep, well-
drained to moderately well-drained,
from grayish till of medium textures
Moderately deep, well-drained soils
on gently sloping to steep uplands
in thin till mainly of gray colors.
D-l
-------
The New Jersey soils have been less affected by glaciation and
result more from weathering of the parent rock materials (limestones
and shales). The soils are characterized by sandy and gravelly ter-
races, with evidences of limestone and other rock outcrops. Drainage
of the soils is variable, and again depends to a degree on slope.
The most prominent soil groups in the New Jersey area, with
brief descriptions, are as follows:
Name ^L'ALAeAc-rJ-PJ--l2-n-
Chatfield and Oquaga rocky loams Deep to shallow soils, abundant
with stones, boulders, and rock
outcrops
Marksboro gravelly loam Upland, deep soils, slightly acid,
may be full of stones and boulders
V/assair and Tounsburry loams Medium to high lime content soils
with abundant blocks of rock
Wassair loam Shallow limestone soils with blocks
of rock
Within the Orange County, New York portion of the study area,
the Swartswood - Wurtsboro soil association is the most prevalent.
It is a strongly acid, stony soil developed from glacial till derived
from sandstones. The second largest soil association group is the
Otisville, which is acid, wel1-drained, and stony; it is derived
from coarse glacial gravels. The third, and smallest group, is the
Basher - Holly Association, also acid but not stony; it is moderately-
to poorly-drained and is derived from silty or sandy alluvium.
S_u i tab! 1 i ty_ _of_J_and_ for on-si te_ wa^te^d i sposa 1 .--In order to
investigate and determine the suitability of land within the study
area for on-site liquid-waste disposal, available soils data were
collected, organized, and analyzed. These data varied in form, de-
tail, and coverage throughout the study area, but were generally in
the form of aerial photographs and maps displaying the various soil
types and classifications. The source of these data was the Soil
Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.
Detailed soil maps were not available for the entire study area.
Certain areas had no coverage at all, while other areas, although not
mapped in detail, had been generally evaluated with soil types placed
into large soils-association groups.
Although the data were inconsistent in format and areal coverage,
it was used in this study because it appeared reliable in whatever
form presented, and a generalized soil evaluation could be made. The
generalized evaluation was considered adequate for the scope of this
D-2
-------
study. Because of the high degree of variation in soil character-
istics between any two locations, the final evaluation of a soil's
ability to accept on-site liquid waste disposal must be made at the
specific site in question.
The SCS has evaluated each of the soils or soil classes relative
to their ability to accept on-site liquid-waste disposal. The soils
are distributed among three classes: slight problems to be expected,
moderate problems to be expected, and severe problems to be expected
with on-site disposal. The degree of problem to be expected, whether
slight, moderate, or severe, is based on soil permeability rate, depth
to bedrock, seasonal highwater table, slope, stoniness, and flooding.
The following table, D-l » summarizes the general limits of the various
parameters considered.
Each of the more than one hundred soil types was put into one
of the three classifications, plotted on maps or on aerial photo-
graphs, and measured to ascertain the area in each group. Because the
original soils data were presented on a county basis, they were plotted
and tabulated on a county basis as well as for the study area as a
whole. Table D-2 summarizes for each county and for the entire study
area the approximate number of square miles and the approximate per-
cent of the area of each county wherein slight, moderate and severe
problems might be anticipated with on-site, liquid-waste disposal.
In reviewing the data in the table, it is quite obvious that
there are large areas which cannot handle high population densities
with on-site liquid-waste disposal. Since these studies show that
approximately eighty percent of the study area will encounter po-
tentially severe problems with septic tank-type systems, the con-
cern for future sewage problems in the area is validated.
In the preparation of the master plan for sewerage facilities
that follows, the above critical areas were closely scrutinized and
considered. Unless areas were expected to be kept as open space or
in low density development, every attempt was made to incorporate
them into a community or regional system for collection and treatment
of sewage.
As is discussed in the report, a basic assumption was made that
areas with potential future population densities greater than two to
three persons per acre should be incorporated in a sewerage system.
Historically, sewerage systems have been economically feasible at
greater densities. For those areas where it was not economically
feasible to provide sewerage, large-lot zoning or other controls
(e.g., State Health Department regulations) should be employed to
keep population densities below these limits. For areas of low pop-
ulation densities, tile fields can be constructed sufficiently large
to function properly since sewage flows from such areas are not normally
great enough to seriously threaten ground or surface water with con-
tami nat ion.
D-3
-------
TABLE D-l
SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR ON-SITE LIQUID-WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
ion
Soi1 permeabi1i ty
rate
2
Depth to bedrock
Seasonal high-
water table
Slope
Ston i ness
Flood i ng
More than I'Vhr
More than 5'
More than V be-
low surface
0-8 percent
Stony
None
Moderate
0.63 to
Severe
3' to 5
Less than .63"/hr.
Less than 3
1-1/2' to V Less than 1-1/2'
below sur- below surface
face
8-15 per-
cent
Seldom
15+ percent
Very stony Extremely stony
to stony land
Occasional to
frequent
Possible pollution hazard to surface water and ground water
supplies where permeability rates are rapid.
2
Creviced, shattered, or dissolved passageways in limestone
bedrock may not adequately filter effluent and present a
pollut ion problem.
^Slopes greater than 15 percent have severe limitations be-
cause unfiltered effluent may surface on the downhill slope.
D-4
-------
TABLE D-2
LIMITATIONS OF SOILS
FOR ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL IN STUDY AREA
Civil Division
Monroe County
Pike County
Sussex County
Warren County
Orange County
TIRES Area
Area ,
sc| .mi 1 es
0
67.2
296.3
24.1
12.it
236.6
19-1
54.3
153.9
5.7
11.4
67.9
L imi tat ion
SI ight
Moderate
Severe
SI ight
Moderate
Severe
SI ight
Moderate
Severe
Slight
Moderate
Severe
Percent
of total area
0
18.4
81.6
8.8
4.5
86.7
8.4
23.9
67.7
6.8
14.4
79.8
(Soils data not available in comparable form)
60.4
52.2
795.3
SIight
Moderate
Severe
6.0
15.1
78.9
Based on partial data
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E
EXISTING WATER, SEWERAGE AND
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
E-l Existing Major Public Systems
-------
APPENDIX E
EXISTING WATER, SEWERAGE AND
SOLID V/ASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Prior to the formulation of alternative water and waste-disposal
systems to serve the future population of the TIRES area, complete
inventories of existing systems were compiled. The data for the
inventories was obtained primarily from the respective State Health
Department records. Major facilities, which could be expanded to serve
future needs, were field inspected; however, as will be pointed out
subsequently, these were few in number. The complete results of the
inventories for water and sewerage systems are available as open file data;
they are shown graphically on Figure E-l.
Within the TIRES area, there are 32 water systems (public and
private) serving a peak summer population of approximately 66,000.
Twenty-six of the 32 rely on ground water from springs or wells for
supply, three utilize surface water, and the remaining three utilize
a combination of surface and ground water sources.
The majority of the water systems are exceptionally small with
delivery capacities less than 200,000 gallons per day. These systems
were not considered in this present study except to note that distri-
bution facilities did exist. Delivery capacities of this low order
of magnitude correspond to service populations of 1,000 to 1,500 and,
therefore, would have little impact on supplying future populations.
Further, it was found that the very small systems did not have
a high degree of reliability. In most cases, facilities were very
old and barely functioning. The facilities had been installed with
little or no engineering analysis and design, and were planned by
''rules of thumb" criteria.
There are, however, three systems which have a potential for
modification, expansion, and inclusion in the water supply plans form-
ulated herein: the East Stroudsburg, Stroudsburg, and Newton systems.
The East Stroudsburg treatment facilities are new and include aera-
tion, flocculation, coagulation, filtration, and chlorination; the
capacity of the treatment plant is 2.0 million gallons a day (mgd).
The Stroudsburg and Newton facilities serve significant populations
(12,500 and 7,700 in the summer, respectively), but would require ex-
tensive renovation and modification prior to inclusion in any type
of regional system.
There are 28 sewage treatment facilities in the TIRES area as
shown on Figure E-l . Municipal systems presently serve East Stroudsburg,
Stroudsburg. Newton, and Port Jerviswith total primary and secondary treat-
ment capacities of 7.7 mgd. In each of the four plants, secondary, treatment
is provided by trickling filters. Although no data were collected on BOD
E-l
-------
removals, it was assumed that 80% removal could be accomplished by eacrrof
the four plants.
in addition to the four municipal systems, there are ly private
systems serving resorts, camps, clubs, and schools. These facilities
are primarily package plants with small capacities (less than 100,000
gpd) and, in most cases, are not providing adequate treatment.
At the time the inventory was taken, there were five private in-
dustrial waste treatment facilities in the TIRES area.
In this study, small private sewage or industrial waste treatment
facilities were not analyzed in detail (as with the small water systems)
except to note that collection and treatment facilities existed. As
is demonstrated in the report, future growth in the TIRES area will
require treatment capacities of up to 90 mgd; based upon this magnitude
and the contribution existing small systems might make to the total
treatment requirement, it did not appear advisable to spend time try-
ing to incorporate them into the various sewerage system alternatives.
Also, because a basic premise of a high degree of treatment (including
tertiary treatment for effluent polishing and nutrient removal) was
assumed herein, it is very doubtful that any of the small facilities
are capable of producing treated effluents of comparable high quality.
The four large municipal systems, however, were studied more close-
ly because they have significant treatment capacity, are not very old,
and are presently providing acceptable secondary treatment. It was
assumed that these plants could operate until their design capacities
were met with the addition of tertiary treatment facilities for ef-
fluent polishing and nutrient removal.
The East Stroudsburg plant has a capacity of 1 mgd and provides
primary and secondary clarification and two-stage trickling filtration.
It contains a comminutor, chlorine feed facilities and contact tank,
sludge digestion, and sludge drying beds. The effluent discharges to
the Brodhead Creek. The Stroudsburg plant also has a design capacity
of 1 mgd, employs the same processes and facilities as the East
Stroudsburg plant and also discharges its effluent to the Brodhead.
The Stroudsburg plant is about 15 years old and the East Stroudsburg
facility is only about 5 years old.
The Newton plant is designed for 0.7 mgd and discharges to Moore's
Brook; the brook eventually carries the effluent to the Paul ins Kill.
The Port Jervis treatment facility is owned and operated by the New York
City Department of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity under a court
ruling as compensation for upstream diversionary rights; it has a
design capacity of 5 mgd. Both of these facilities employ the same
unit treatment processes employed in the East Stroudsburg and Strouds-
burg plants.
E-2
-------
Solid waste disposal in the TIRES area is handled almost exclu-
sively by open dumps and sanitary landfills. The one exception is a
teepee type incinerator serving the Borough of Newton.
A survey of the study area indicated a general lack of regulation
and control of on-premise refuse storage and refuse collection. Evi-
dence of the inadequacy of refuse storage in developed and undeveloped
areas can be seen by the frequency of storage of refuse in 55-gallon
drums, the burning of refuse, and the promiscious dumping on vacant
lots. These poor environmental health practices contribute to mounting
problems of air pollution, nuisance, and community health.
Through a survey of the study area it was determined that there
is a combination of municipal and contracted garbage and rubbish
collection. In some areas the municipal service is limited to the
collection of garbage only and the rubbish is privately contracted.
Collection is provided by the municipality or by contract in
the following:
New Jersey New York Pennsy1vania
Newton Port Jervis Matamoras Boro. Mt. Pocono Boro.
Mil ford Boro. Barrett Twp.
East Stroudsburg Boro.
Delaware Water Gap Boro.
In the rest of the study area individual residential dwellings,
commercial, or industrial enterprises must seek their own private
collector or transport their garbage to a disposal area.
In the past, collection service has tended to follow a pattern.
As a rural community becomes urbanized, disposal of garbage and
refuse by the individual householder proved difficult. A municipal
garbage collection service was instituted and eventually extended
to collect other refuse when the community became more densely pop-
ulated. Under conditions of acclerated growth, however, the need
for a complete collection and disposal service is immediate in prac-
tical ly al1 instances.
Seasonal residential dwelling units and weekend residents have
special refuse collection problems. One current practice is to
carry the garbage back to the permanent dwelling in the urbanized
area where it is collected, but all too often the garbage is de-
posited along the road or in a state roadside rest area. Some of
the larger seasonal developments, through community organizations,
have contract collection.
Figure E-l shows the general location of public dumps, private
dumps, public sanitary landfills, and private sanitary landfills.
E-3
-------
The classification of a site as a dump or a landfill was done by subjective
observation during January 1968; this report recognizes that a temporary
poor practice may be corrected.
The Township of Sparta, Sussex County, New Jersey, acquired
during 19&7 a sanitary landfill site capable of serving virtually
all of the surrounding area. This site can provide a long-term
solution to the problem.
The cooperative East Stroudsburg Borough, Stroudsburg Borough,
and Stroud Township sanitary landfill site for the disposal of
refuse and garbage was established in 1961. The 20 acre landfill
site is located south of the Interstate 80 bridge over the Brodhead
Creek in East Stroudsburg. The facility is operated jointly by the
three communities through a Board comprised of 3 members; one for
each community. Each community contributes funds to this Board
in proportion to their respective populations.
Cover material at the East Stroudsburg Sanitary Landfill site
has been expended, thereby making it necessary to relocate the
landfill. In addition, a leachate problem has developed. The
Board has gone through the process of trying to find another loca-
tion that is acceptable to the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
Preliminary investigation of the "Brislin site" -which is located
on the western edge of Stroud Township indicates that the site is
very suitable, but has a potential useful life of only about seven
years.
E-4
-------
HO"1'
FIGURE E-l
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
THIS PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED IN PART BY A
DEMONSTRATION GRANT, NUMBER WPD-136,
FROM THE RESEARCH AND TRAINING GRANT
PROGRAM, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION.
-------
FIGURE E-1
EXISTING MAJOR PUBLIC SYSTEMS
LEGEND
EI73 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
F=l SEWERAGE SYSTEM SERVICE AREA
• WATER SYSTEM
A WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
% SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
-------
APPENDIX F
FUTURE POPULATION, ECONOMIC BASE, TRANSPORTATION,
AND LAND USE CONDITIONS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX F
FUTURE POPULATION, ECONOMIC BASE, TRANSPORTATION,
AND LAND USE CONDITIONS
Page
List of Tables
List of Figures
Population Forecasts ................................... F- •
Prior studies
Nathan Associates' estimates ...................... F~ ]
Raymond and May estimates ......................... F- 4
Pennsylvania Department of Highways' estimates.... F- 4
Pennsylvania State Planning Board estimates ....... F- 4
Orange County Data Book ........................... F- 9
Local projections ................................. F~ °
Forecasts .............................................. F~ 9
Introduction ...................................... F- 9
Methodology ....................................... F-13
Projections of total peak summer population ....... F-14
Seasonal and permanent population and housing ..... F-22
Future Economic Activities ............................. F-27
Future Transportation Systems .......................... F-37
Planned highway improvements ........................... F-37
Pennsylvania highways ............................. F-37
New Jersey highways ............................... F-39
New York h i ghways ........... . ..................... F-41
Traffic in the TIRES area .............................. F-41
Future Land Use ........................................ F-43
Comprehensive land use studies ......................... F-43
State and uti 1 ity lands ........................... F-44
Other open space. .... ............................. F-45
Existing development .............................. F-45
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Recommended future development F-45
Rural F-45
Future land use considerations F-46
Effectuation F-46
-------
Table No.
LIST OF TABLES
Title Page
F- 1 Gross Estimates of Population Growth and F- 2
Housing Construction in the Four Counties
Most Affected by DWGNRA Development,
1960-1975 and 1975-1985
F- 2 Pennsylvania Department of Highways Popu- F- 5
lation Projections for Sussex County,
New Jersey
F- 3 Pennsylvania Department of Highways Popu- F- 6
lation Projections for Warren County,
New Jersey
F- 4 Pennsylvania Department of Highways Popu- p_ 7
lation Projections for Monroe County,
Pennsylvania
F- 5 Pennsylvania Department of Highways Popu- F- 8
lation Projections for Pike County,
Pennsylvania
F- 6 Monroe and Pike County and Pennsylvania F-10
Populations I960, 1965, 1966
F- 7 Summary of Prior Population Projections F-ll
for TIRES Area
'" ° Seasonal and Permanent Population in Tocks F-12
Island Counties
F- 9 Adjusted Historical Population Data: F-15
New Jersey and New York Minor Civil
D5vi sions
F-10 Adjusted Historical Population Data: F-16
Pennsylvania Minor Civil Divisions
F-ll Peak Season Population Projections by F-19
Minor Civil Division
F-12 Peak Season Population Projections by F-21
Drainage Basins
F-13
Peak Season Population Density Projections F-23
by Minor Civi1 Division
F-14 Peak Season Population Density Projections f~24
by Drainage Basins
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(cont inued)
Table No. Title Page
F-15 Estimated Percent of Total Housing in F-25
Seasonal Use
F-16 1985 Regional Economy by County F-28
F-17 Estimated Number of Establishments F-29
Supported by DWGNRA Visitors
F-18 i960 Employment and Employment Per Capita F-30
in the Tourism and Vacation Industry of
Each County
F-19 I960 Employment and Employment Per Capita F-32
in the Tourism and Vacation Industry in
the Area of Each County in the Study Area
F-20 I960 Employment and Employment Per Capita F-33
in the Tourism and Vacation Industry for
the U.S. and Selected Areas
F-21 Number and Per Capita Employment in the F-34
Tourist and Recreation Industry of the
Tocks Island Area
F-22 Selected Employment per Establishment in F-35
the Tourism and Vacation Industry in the
Tocks Island Counties 19&3
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
F~ 1 Future Land Use
-------
APPENDIX F
FUTURE POPULATION, ECONOMIC BASE, TRANSPORTATION,
AND LAND USE CONDITIONS
POPULATION FORECASTS
Prior stud ies
The two major prior studies concerning population forecasts for
the TIRES area are "Potential Impact of the Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area" by Robert R. Nathan Associates (1965) and
"A Sketch Plan for the Tocks Island Region", completed November, 1966,
by Raymond and May Associates (1966). In addition there are several
local, county, and state planning reports and file data which contain
population estimates for Minor Civil Divisions within the TIRES area.
Most of these reports deal only with estimates of the permanent, year-
round population and make no mention of summer residents and visitors.
Nathan Associates ' es t imates.--The Nathan Associates have made
1985 population estimates for the Pennsylvania and New Jersey counties
in the study area. Their study focuses on metropolitan spread and
improved highway access as the two most significant elements in the
population growth of the TIRES area. The conclusions of their popu-
lation study and projections are given in Table F-l. A wide range of
estimates are given reflecting various inputs. Column II shows 1975
projections made by Temple University and are included in the Nathan
report. Column III provides two estimates of the number of housing
units which would be built between I960 and 1975- They are based on
two assumptions; the lower estimate is derived by applying the I960
occupancy rates to the projected population growth. The higher
figures were obtained by assuming the average annual level of dwelling
unit construction between 1950 and I960 would be maintained throughout
the I960 - 1975 period. The higher figure includes estimates of con-
struction of vacation as well as year-round homes.
The estimated 1985 population given in Column IV is based on re-
corded lots in active subdivision. It assumes that two-thirds of
these lots will have houses built on them between I960 and 1985- The
middle and high estimates consider what may happen if more land is
brought under subdivision, or if the ratio of two lots per house is
reduced. Column V is the number of new houses that are estimated to
be constructed between I960 and 1985 based on the 1950 - I960 rate.
Column VI is the difference between Column V and Column III. It
assumes a possible phasing of housing construction over the next 25
year period.
The Nathan Associates' estimates, due to the scope of their study,
are largely based on historical trends, and are not designed to accur-
ately assess the impact of DWGNRA on the surrounding communities and
counties. Although subdivision and building rates were included in
the estimates, the subdivision activity in the area has been extensive
F-l
-------
TABLE F-l
GROSS ESTIMATES OF POPULATION GROWTH
AND HOUSING CONSTRUCTION IN THE FOUR
COUNTIES MOST AFFECTED BY DWGNRA
DEVELOPMENT, 1960-1975 AND 1975-1985
County
I960
Popu1 at ion
P rejected
1975
Popu1 at ion1
Estimated Housing
Construct ion
(No. of Units)
PennsyIvania
P i ke
9,200
11,100-13,500
650
Monroe
39,600
50,900-60,^00
3,^00
8,200
New Jersey
Warren
63,200
78,200-80,900
k,500-5,
6,300
Sussex
^9,200
72,000-73,700
6,700-7,200
11,500
Four-County Total
161,200
212,200
22.8,500
15,250
16,800
27,^00
Sources for Column M: for Pike and Monroe Counties, Pennsylvania Stale Planning Board, The_P_ojiu_l at ion of PennsyIvania, June 1, 1963; and for Warren
and Sussex Counties, State of New Jersey, Division of State and Regional Planning, PopulaTTon Project ions for'New Jersey Counties.
Source: Division of State and Regional Planning Projection, Op. Cit.
^Source: The 1985 Sussex County projections are from Alvin E. Gershen Associates, Su^sex^ Countjy New Jej-sey. Mas ter Plan Series Report No. 1, May I9&?.
The highest range estimates and the dwelling unit c6nstruction figures derived from them (see text) represent an outside maximum based on assumptions
^not entirely relevant to this study. They are presented for illustrative purposes only and distinguished by parentheses.
Computed difference between Column V and the higher range estimates in Column III.
Un'uss so designated above, all
estimates ore derived by Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc., on the basis of assumptions discussed in the text.
F-2
-------
Estimated Total Estimated Estimated Housing
19o5 Housing Construction Construction
Population 1960-1985 1975-19854
IV V VI
i6,4oo 5,000 3,600
18,000 7,800 6,4oo
27,000 14,300 12,900
63,000 13,700 5,500
T5,ooo 21,500 13,300
85,000 24,000 15,800
90,ooo2 16,000 9,700
126,000 20,000 13,700
158,000 30,000 23,700
133,ooo3 15,000 3,500
287,ooo3 60,000 48,500
(75l,000)3 (196,000) (184,500)
302,4oo 49,700 18,900
506,000 109,300 78,500
(1,021,000) (364,300) (233,500)
F-3
-------
since the estimates were prepared. Therefore, some of their assumptions,
such as 50 percent of new construction will be for vacation use in
1985, will require testing and analysis if and when proper data is
obtained. Little mention was made of the unique characteristics or
attractions of each county and their consequent effect on the economic
development of the county.
-.-. Raymond and MaY 0966) Sketch Plan
is predomTnlftely concerned with potential physical development in the
TIRES area. No complete study of future population was made although
some generalized estimates were ventured. The report indicates that
the region's year-round population is expected to increase over four
times during the next 35 years.
There were no estimates made of the summer population in the two
New Jersey counties. (The portion of Orange County, New York, that
is within the TIRES area was not included in the scope of the Raymond
and May Sketch Plan). As the report states, these population projec-
tions should be considered only as very broad estimates.
Pennsylvania Department of Highways' estimates .--The Advanced
Planning Division of the Pennsylvania Department of Highways has made
population projections for the year 1990 for the MCD's in Pennsylvania
and New Jersey that are within the TIRES area. The figures (unofficial
file data) are based on ratio-extrapolation methods and were used to
evaluate possible highway needs for the study area. Population projec-
tions for the various MCD's within the counties located in the TIRES
area are given in the following tables (Nos . f-2 to F-5) •
Pennsylvania State Planning Board estimates .--Annual 1y . the Penn-
sylvania State Planning Board estimates population by county and city.
Although these figures do not include the New Jersey counties, they
do present a useful picture of estimated current population of the
two Pennsylvania counties in the TIRES area. The current report states:
"These estimates are based on birth and death statistics
maintained by the Pennsylvania Department of Health and
an estimate of the total population of the State made
by the U. S. Bureau of the Census. The method employed
assumes that changes in the number of births and deaths
in a sub-area of the State reflect changes (due to births,
deaths, and migration) in the population of that sub-area.
Given the current vital statistics and an estimate for
the total population of the State, it is possible to cal-
culate each sub-area's share of the State total. Because
a three-year moving average is used, final estimates for
a given year are available after termination of the fol-
lowing year. Thus, in 1967, final estimates are made for
1966 by producing the trend observed between the last cen-
sus (I960) and the final estimate for 1965."
F-4
-------
TABLE F-2
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR
SUSSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Minor Civil
D ivis ion(s )
Byram
Sparta
Hardyston
Vernon
Wantage
Sandyston
Frankf ord
Lafayette
Hampton
Sti 1 Iwater
Fredon
Green
Andover
Total
1990
Popul at ion
(Summer)
78,750
90,860
8^,310
21)., 770
57,290
21 ,910
36,170
12,700
13,570
IP, 320
9,280
9,860
89,900
5^-7,690
1990
V i s i tors
(per year)
118,200
136,350
126,000
37,200
85,950
33,000
5M50
18,900
19,650
27,300
13,950
1 5 , 700
13^,700
821 ,050
Notes: 1. Approximately i|0 percent of total population are summer
res idents.
2. Byran Township includes Hopatcong and Stanhope Boroughs.
3. Sparta Township includes Ogdenburg Boroughs.
IK Hardyston Township includes Franklin Township and Hamburg
Boro.
5. Wantage Township includes Sussex Boro.
6. Sandyston Township includes Montague Township.
7. Frankford Township includes Branchville Borough.
8. Stillwater Township includes Wallpack Township.
9. Andover Township includes Andover Boro and Newton Boro.
Source: Advanced Planning Division of the Pennsylvania Department of
Hi ghways.
F-5
-------
TABLE F3
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR
WARREN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Minor Civil
D i v i s ion( s )
Independence
Al lamachy
Liberty
White
Oxford
Hope
Frel inghuysen
Hardwick
Blai rstown
Knowl ton
1990
Popul at ion
(Summer)
18,630
2,660
7,9^0
17,8^0
1 1 1 , 7^0
2,280
2,320
1 ,200
^,930
3,960
1990
Vi si tors
(per year)
27,900
3,900
11 ,850
26,550
95,750
3,^50
3,^50
1,830
7,500
6,000
Total 1 73,500 I85,i+8o
Notes: 1. Approximately 10 percent of total population are summer
res idents.
2. Independence Township includes Hadkettstown Borough.
3. Liberty Township includes Mansfield Township.
k. White Township includes Belvidere Boro and Harmony
Townsh ip.
5. Hardwick Township includes Pahaquarry Township.
6. Oxford Township includes Washington Township, Washington
Boro, Franklin Township, Greenwich Township, Pohatong
Township, Alpha Boro, Lopatoncong Township, and Phillips-
burg Boro.
Source: Advanced Planning Division of the Pennsylvania Department of
Hi ghways.
F-6
-------
TABLE F-4
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR
MONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Minor Civil
D ivis ion(s )
Polk Twp.
Eld red Twp.
Chestnut Hill Twp.
Ross Twp.
Tobyhanna Twp.
Coolbaugh Twp.
Mount Pocono Boro.
Barrett Twp.
Paradise Twp.
Price Twp.
M. Smithfield Twp.
Hami 1 ton Twp .
Jackson Twp.
Pocono Twp.
Stroud Twp.
Stroudsburg Area
D. Water Gap Boro.
Smithfield Twp.
1990
Popul at ion
( Summer)
3,240
2,800
4,720
2,1)- TO
710
6,1+00
2,185
7,170
2,935
335
3,150
3,050
2,675
1,910
20,870
35,570
1,450
11,265
1990
Vi s i tors
(per year)
1 ,600
1 ,400
7,050
3,750
1,050
9,600
3,300
10,800
4,500
1 ,200
4,800
4,650
4,050
2,850
31,300
53,400
2,250
I6,8oo
Total
116,720
165,950
Notes: 1. Approximately 33 percent of the total population are summer
res idents.
2. Stroudsburg Township includes Stroudsburg, Arlington Heights,
Pocono Boro. and East Stroudsburg Boroughs.
Source: Advanced Planning Division of the Pennsylvania Department of
Hi ghways.
F-7
-------
TABLE p-5
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR
PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Minor Civil 1990 1990
Divis ion(i) Population Vi si tors
(Summer) (per year)
Lackawaxen Twp. U,l85 2,100
Palmyra Twp. 2,565 3,750
Blooming Grove Twp. 1,615 2,^00
Greene Twp. 3,100 ^,650
Shohola Twp. 1,625 2,1+00
Westfall Twp. 11 ,1+15 17,250
Porter Twp. 205 270
Milford Boro. 7,715 11,550
Delaware Twp. 2,125 3,150
Lehman Twp. 1,270 1,950
Total 35,820 l4.
Notes: 1. Approximately 66 percent of the total population are summer
res i dents.
2. Westfall Township includes Matamoras Borough.
3. Milford Township includes Dingman Township and Milford
Boroughs.
Source: Advanced Planning Division of the Pennsylvania Department of
H i ghways.
F-8
-------
These figures (see Table F-6) reveal that the populations of the
two TIRES counties are growing at a greater rate than the state popu-
lation. Between I960 and 19&5 tne population of Monroe County has
increased ten percent and Pike County eight percent, while Pennsylvania
increased only 2 percent. Between 1965 and 1966 both Monroe and Pike
Counties' population increased two percent, but the State population
increased only O.^t percent. It is important to note that these figures
are for permanent residents only.
.-- — This publication shows the results of
a 1967 special county population census by the U. S. Bureau of the Cen-
sus. During the period 1960-196?, the population of the Town of Deerpark
increased by 1,021 persons, from 2,777 to 3,798 (+36.8 percent); the
City of Port Jervis decreased by 667 persons from 9,268 to 8,601
(-7.2 percent); and Orange County's total population increased from
183,73^ persons to 209, Hi (+13.8 percent).
Local projections .--Several local comprehensive plans and plann-
ing reports, other than those reviewed above, include estimates of
future population. Again, these projections do not include second-
home owners or tourists.
Table F-7 summarizes the various estimates made, in some of the
local reports. Since a variety of methods were used, the various
projections are probably not comparable with each other.
Forecasts
J_n_trpduct ion. --Because of its proximity to the several metropoli-
tan areas, and because of the magnitude of the proposed recreational
facilities, the study area is expected to be a major location of rapid
population growth in the northeastern United States.
The population trends in the counties included within the influ-
ence of the DV/GNRA already begin to show indications of the intense demand
expected to develop. Table F~8 shows the gains in seasonal and perm-
anent population that each of the principal counties experienced
between 1950 and I960.
Interestingly, Sussex County, New Jersey, the closest to the
urban axis, has experienced an extremely rapid increase in permanent
as well as seasonal population. This high rate of increase in perma-
nent population is unusual, since the county has traditionally been
a resort and vacation area. There is, however, evidence that the
trend toward permanence is intensifying. Although it is not yet clear
what the characteristics of the new permanent population will be, there
is little doubt that the County is entering a period of intense res-
idential development. This development will have implications not
only for the residential character of Sussex County but also for the
housing demand which can be expected in the neighboring counties in
Pennsylvania. As Sussex County becomes more developed, recreation
demand can be expected to spill into Pennsylvania at an increasing
rate.
F-9
-------
TABLE F-6
MONROE AND PIKE COUNTY AND PENNSYLVANIA POPULATIONS
I960, 1965, 1966
County
Monroe
Percent
Increase
Pike
Percent
I ncrease
Pennsylvania
Percent
Increase
I960
Census
39,567
9,158
11,319,366
July 1, 1965
Final
43,700
10
9,900
8
n.583,0001
2
July 1, 1966
Provfs ional
44,600
2
10,000
2
1,637,900
Estimate by U. S. Bureau of the Census
Source: Pennsylvania State Planning Board
F-10
-------
TABLE F-7
SUMMARY OF PRIOR POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR TIRES AREA
MONROE
E. STROUDSBURG
STROUD TOWNSHIP
BARRETT TOWNSHIP
PIKE
SUSSEX
WARREN 72
-n ORANGE
— DEERPARK
SOURCE:
A. Raymond and May
1970
7200-7500
8553°
2935°
,700- 85, 000 F
235,000E
Associ ates ,
50,
11,
72,
78,
Town of
1975
900-60,
100-13,
000-73,
200-80,
270,
6,
4oo
500
700
900
G
G
G
1980
63
7500-85008
13380C
3815°
87,200-125
G
000 E
oooA
Deerpark,
B. Candeub, Cabot, and Associates, Comprehens i
C. Candeub, Cabot, and Associates, Land
0. Bellante and Clauss Inc., Comprehens
E. The Port of New
F. Herbert H. Smith
G. Robert R. Nathan
on i ts Surround i
York Author!
Assoc i ates ,
Associ ates ,
ng Commun i t i
ty, The
Warren
Potent!
Use PI
ve
an
310
Devel opmen t
PI
16
133
,000'
90
,OOOE
1985 1990
,000-85,000
,400-27,000
,000-287,000G
134, ooo- 160, ooo F
,000-158,000°
4oo,oooc
Plan, Part 2, 1967.
an for the Borough
for Stroud
i ve Plan for
Next Twenty
County
Devel
al Impact
of
Barrett
Township,
Towns hi p,
of East Stroudsburg, 1963.
1966.
1962.
Years, 1966.
opment PI
an, 1964.
the Delaware Water
Gap National Recreation Area
es, 1966".
-------
SEASONAL AND
TOCKS
TABLE F8
PERMANENT POPULATION
ISLAND COUNTIES
IN
County
Sussex
Warren
Pike
Monroe
Orange
Permanent
34,423
54,374
8,425
33,773
152,255
1950
Seasonal
Total
Permanent
28,896
5,564
11,108
16,948
24,604
63,319
59,938
19,533
50,721
176,859
49,255
63,220
9,158
39,567
183,734
I960
Seasonal
Total
40,024
5,384
25,148
24,448
40,688
89,279
68,604
34,306
64,015
224,422
Note: Permanent population is the resident population enumerated in April
of the censal year.
Seasonal population is estimated at 4 persons per seasonal dwelling
uni t.
Sources: Permanent population, U.S. Census of Population. Seasonal population,
U.S. Census of Housing. Seasonal dwellings are defined in 1950 as the
sum of: (1) seasonal units; and (2) nonseasonal , not dilapidated unit
that are not for rent or sale in I960; seasonal dwellings are defined
as the sum of: (1) seasonal units, (2) units held for occasional use,
and (3) units held for other use.
F-12
-------
Thus far, the important trends in the Pennsylvania counties are
predominantly in seasonal housing. The seasonal housing stock in-
creased 127 percent in Pike County and kB.k percent in Monroe County
from 1950 to I960 while, at the same time, the increase in permanent
population in Pike was 8.7 percent and 17.2 percent in Monroe.
Since I960 and the introduction of the Tocks Island and DWGNRA
projects, every indication points to the intensification of the de-
velopment rates. Subdivision recordings and assessed valuation have
steadily increased in all MCD's.
Although these general growth trends are obvious, the ill-defined
nature of the second-home market, and of recreation demand in general,
make projection of future population in the Tocks Island area extremely
difficult. Previous attempts were noted in an earlier section of this
report, and the underlying methodologies were outlined. It was immediately
obvious that even the best approach was little more than a rule of thumb
estimate owing to the special character of the area.
In an area so complex, there is no justification for the assump-
tions which underlie traditional projection methods. "Linear'1 growth
assumptions or semi-log techniques, for example, can produce unreason-
able conclusions in many cases. As an illustration of this, if Del-
aware Township were to grow in the future as it did between 1950 and
I960, its population would increase from 2,399 in I960 to ^,^07 in
2020. If the 1960-1966 growth rate were to persist, however, the 2020
population of the Township would be 1,135,051. This drastic difference
in growth rates is typical of the nature of the growth processes which
are now acting in the study area and is a major reason why traditional
techniques were found to be lacking.
Other projection methods, such as the component method using co-
hort-survival were considered, but quickly dismissed in view of their
data requirements and analytic properties. The cohort-survival tech-
nique, for example, requires that estimates of future age-sex-specific
migration rates be supplied. In the TIRES area, migration rates, not
birth and death rates, are the crucial considerations. An independent
estimate of these rates required by age and sex, would almost obviate
the need for population projections and would be extremely difficult
and inaccurate.
Methodology.—The inability of existing population projection tech-
niques"Tb reflect the rapid changes in growth rate that are expected
in the TIRES area led to the development of a new projection method.
This approach is an attempt to go beyond the simple extension of past
trends by introducing a self-correcting, or feedback, mechanism into
the population projections.
In the new system, initial assumptions are made and stated pre-
cisely; in conjunction with historical data, they are then used to
construct a first stage projection. As soon as new information is
introduced to the system (e.g. a new population census) the initial
F-13
-------
assumptions are re-evaluated, and an improved second stage projec-
tion is generated. This process of continual re-evaluation should
continue into the future.
The initial assumptions which must be made are denoted as
decision variables, and are of two major types. The first type
concerns maximum rate of growth and the second, timing of development.
The expected growth in each area is classified with respect to mag-
nitude as high, moderate or low and with respect to time as early,
average or late. On the basis of these two decision variables and
historical data, projections are made, internal consistency checks
provided to insure that the growth in each area is related to the
growth around it, and a formal feedback mechanism is initiated.
The fundamental tool in the technique is a modification of the
logistic curve, a flattened s-shaped curve which is bounded from
above and below. This curve has the ability to reflect rapid rates
of growth, but it does not have the undesirable property of allowing
these rates to continue unchecked indefinitely. Rather, it embodies
the reasonable assumption that growth rates will initially increase,
reach a peak, and then begin to decline slowly. The logistic curve
has been found to reflect, with reasonable precision, the growth of
population in other areas.
It should be noted that the final projection method which is
presented here was chosen from among four approaches that were de-
veloped on the basis of the logistic curve. The other three were
rejected because of the large number of necessary assumptions and of
their inflexibility to the rapid changes in growth rate which are
expected in the TIRES area.
Projections of total pea_k summer popuJatJj3ru--The primary objec-
tive of the population projections was to estimate peak summer pop-
ulation in the sub-drainage basins. Therefore, the estimates include
the total of permanent population, seasonal population, and transient
population.
Although the geographic area of primary interest was the sub-
drainage basin, initial projections on the basis of this unit were
impossible because of the lack of data. Consequently, projections
were made using the minor civil divisions (MCD's) for which published
data are more readily available. Once MCD estimates had been obtained,
these were assembled to give projections by sub-drainage basin. If
an MCD lay within more than one sub-basin, the MCD population was
allocated among sub-basins on the basis of the distribution of the
MCD's usable land acres (see Appendix B).
The first step in obtaining MCD population projections was to
assemble the required historical data in the form of estimates of
I960 and 1966 peak summer populations. These are presented in Tables
F-9 and F-10, listed by minor civil division.
F-14
-------
TABLE F-9
ADJUSTED HISTORICAL POPULATION DATA:
NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK MINOR CIVIL DIVISIONS
County Mi nor C i y i 1 Pi visions^
ORANGE Deerpark
Greenvi1le
Mt. Hope
Port Jervis Ci ty
SUSSEX Andover Twp.
Branchville Borough
Frankford Twp.
Fredon Twp.
Hampton Twp.
Lafayette Twp.
Montague Twp.
Newton
Sandys ton Twp.
Sparta Twp.
Sti1Iwater Twp.
WARREN Blairs town Twp.
Frelinghuysen Twp.
Hardwick Twp.
Knowlton Twp.
TOTAL
Permanent'
Population
I960
2,777
890
2,291
9,268
2,177
963
2,170
804
M74
1,100
879
6,563
1,019
6,717
1,339
1,797
845
370
1,442
Peak
Popul
I960
4,299
1,293
3,069
9,528
3,340
1 ,004
4,751
1,096
2,242
1,141
1,399
6,692
4,204
10,610
9,447
2,123
1,018
546
1,727
Summer
ation
1966
6,500
1,710
3,450
9,740
3,475
1,190
6,610
1,755
4,100
1,610
2,260
8,000
5,265
14,450
11,675
3,000
1,900
1 ,200
2,300
44,585
69,529 90,190
Notes: U.S. Census, April I960
See text for method of estimation by consultant.
F-15
-------
TABLE F-10
ADJUSTED HISTORICAL POPULATION DATA;
PENNSYLVANIA MINOR CIVIL DIVISIONS
Cou[n_ty_
PIKE
MONROE
_ ___C_n/_i_l_^_i_v_i_s ioji
Blooming Grove Twp.
Delaware Twp.
Dingman Twp.
Greene Twp.
Lehman Twp.
Matamoras Borough
Mi 1 ford Borough
Mi 1 ford Twp.
Porter Twp.
Shohola Twp.
Westfal 1 Twp.
Barrett Twp.
Chestnut Hi 1 1 Twp.
Coolbaugh Twp.
Delaware V/ater Gap Borough
East Stroudsburg Borough
Hami 1 ton Twp.
Jackson Twp.
Middle Smithfield Twp.
Mt. Pocono Borough
Paradise Twp.
Pocono Twp.
Price Twp.
Ross Twp.
Smithfield Twp.
Stroud Twp.
Stroudsburg Borough
Tobyhanna Twp.
Tunkhannock Twp.
Permanent'
Populat ion
I960
Peak Summer
Population^
I960 1966
424
549
382
793
318
2,08?
1 ,198
386
51
413
838
2,395
1,572
1,912
gh 554
7,674
2,405
878
1,03^
935
982
1,474
258
803
1,887
5,452
6,070
1,073
214
1 ,260
2,336
1,117
2,409
2,541
2,223
1,414
834
687
1,860
1,476
5,231
2,859
2,828
589
7,966
3,849
1,978
3,493
1,359
2,406
2,543
479
844
4,221
7,611
6,242
3,270
439
1,966
3,259
1,592
3,066
3,394
2,621
1,700
910
774
2,749
2,082
6,255
4,099
3,745
8,770
4,437
3,008
5,683
1,556
3,518
3,100
642
1,295
5,030
8,927
6,700
5,149
827
TOTAL
45,016
76,364 97,654
Notes: 'u.S. Census, April I960.
See text for method of estimation by consultant.
F-16
-------
The I960 seasonal population figures were estimated for each
MCD on the basis of the following procedure:
1. The total number of sound and deteriorating units with
plumbing was determined from the U. S. Census of Hous-
i ng.
2. Available vacant and other vacant units were added to
find total vacant units; owner occupied and renter
occupied dwellings were added to find total occupied
dwel1 ings.
3. Dilapidated housing was distributed proportionately
among occupied and vacant housing.
A. Ninety-five percent of occupied housing was assumed to
have plumbing.
5. The total number of occupied units with plumbing was
determined by taking 95 percent of occupied units and
subtracting the estimated dilapidated occupied units.
6. Occupied units with plumbing were subtracted from total
units with plumbing, to find vacant units with plumbing.
7- Units with plumbing were distributed proportionately be-
tween available vacant and other vacant units.
8. Other vacant housing with plumbing was considered to
have an average household size of four persons; other
vacant housing without plumbing was considered as hav-
ing an average household size of one person.
The 1966 estimates for Sussex and Warren Counties were taken from
work prepared by the DRBC and are based on building permit records.
In Pike County, the first method used for 19t>6 estimates was
somewhat different. Since building permits were not available, esti-
mates were based on scattered data such as occasional special cen-
suses, electric meters, or the rate of subdivision recording. These
disparate sources were inadequate, however, for an estimate for Mon-
roe County. Therefore, a new method was devised for Monroe County
and eventually generalized for Pike. The ratio of I960 total popula-
tion to assessed valuation was applied to 19&6 assessed valuations
and the resultant population was found to correspond very closely to
other independent estimates supplied by the DRBC. As can be seen from
Table F~10, this method provided reasonable estimates; the greater
population in Monroe County MCD's can be easily understood in light
of the recent subdivision activity noted in that County.
In most cases, no explicit treatment is given to summer camp and
resort population for two reasons. First, data is available only for
F-17
-------
1966 and a very inaccurate method of adjustment would have to be de-
vised if the 1950 and I960 figures were to be adjusted accordingly.
Secondly, though camp population, etc., are presently important^parts
of the population in many townships, their relative importance is ex-
pected to decline in the next 20 years. Much of the land now occupied
by camps may be developed with housing or other intensive uses, and
camps may be driven away from the main development areas.
Resorts, while expected to grow, will assume a small portion of
the total population. Furthermore, it is felt that the logistic curve
has the property of growing at a rate which should incorporate many of
the concommitant conditions of resident (permanent and seasonal) pop-
ulation such as an increased number of resorts. However, in MCD's
where resorts were thought to be especially important sectors of po-
tential growth, the input figures were adjusted accordingly, to re-
flect their impact.
The second step in the projection procedure was to establish
values for the two decision variables defined earlier in this section.
The values for the magnitude of rate of growth were based on the ex-
pected growth of the New York metropolitan area, the expected demand
for recreation, and the particular physical and economic characteristics
of each MCD. The second decision variable, timing, was based on the
assumption that growth would spread westward from the New York City
and the northern New Jersey area and that this westward spread would
be modified by less intense influences from existing population and
recreation centers.
The two decision variables were used together with the historical
data, to generate logistic curves for each MCD. Actually, a first set
of curves used 1950-1960 growth data, a second set 1950-1966 data, and
a third set 1960-1966 data. Because the last set was by far the most
reasonable, it was selected as the final forecast set.
The forecasts based on the 1960-1^66 growth trends are presented
in Tables F~'l and F"12. It should be noted that the population esti-
mates in Table F-ll are for the total minor civil divisions which, in
some cases, extend well beyond the geographical limits of the study
area.
The general patterns of development reflected in these projections
follow intuitive expectations rather closely. The grov/th in New Jersey
is most rapid and many MCD's begin to experience declining growth rates
well before the end of the projection period (2020). The increases
in Sussex County exceed those in Warren County, though by the end of
the period the gap is beginning to narrow.
The population growth in Pennsylvania begins more slowly, but by
the middle of the study period the MCD's there are experiencing very
high growth rates. Only a few of the Pennsylvania MCD's are exper-
iencing significant declines in rate at the end of the period. In-
creases around Stroudsburg and, in particular, in Stroud, Middle
F-18
-------
TABLE F-ll
PEAK SEASON POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY
MINOR CIVIL DIVISION1
(Exclusive of DWGNRA)
Townshi p
County or Borough
Pike Blooming Grove Twp.
Delaware Twp.
Dingman Twp.
Greene Twp.
Lehman Twp.
Matamoras Boro
Mi 1 ford Boro
Mi Iford Twp.
Porter Twp.
Shohola Twp.
Westfal 1 Twp.
Sub-Total :
Monroe Barrett Twp.
Chestnut Hi 11 Twp.
Coolbaugh Twp.
E. Stroudsburg Boro
Hami 1 ton Twp.
Jackson Twp.
M. Smi'thfield Twp.
Mt. Pocono Boro
Paradise Twp.
Pocono Twp.
P r i ce Twp .
Ross Twp.
Smithfield Twp.
Stroud Twp.
Stroudsburg Boro
Tobyhanna Twp.
Tunkhannock Twp.
Sub-Total :
Orange Deerpark
Greenvi 1 le
Mt. Hope
Port Jervis
Sub-Total :
Year
1970
3,100
4,600
2,300
3,900
4,500
3,100
2,000
1 ,000
900
4,000
2,900
32,300
7,500
5,800
4,900
9,600
5,100
4,500
9,000
1 ,800
5,100
3,800
900
1,900
8,000
10,500
7,300
7,900
1,500
95,100
9,200
2,200
3,900
10,000
25,300
1980
7,200
7,700
4,400
6,200
7,800
4,100
2,800
1,200
1,100
8,300
5,600
56,400"
10,500
10,700
8,300
11,600
6,800
9,500
20,500
2,300
10,100
5,500
1,500
3,900
14,300
14,200
8,600
16,700
4,800
TslTSbo
15,000
3,800
4,800
10,400
34,000
1990
15,800
11,600
8,300
9,800
12,900
5,200
3,500
1 ,400
1 ,400
15,400
10,000
95,300
14,600
17,300
13,100
13,800
8,900
17,400
36,900
3,000
18,100
8,000
2,700
7,500
23,800
19,200
10,100
28,400
11 ,600
254,400
19,000
5,900
5,700
10,800
41,400
2000
30,600
15,200
14,300
14,900
20,100
6,400
4,300
1,700
1,700
25,000
16,400
150,600
19,800
24,000
19,200
16,200
11,700
26,400
51,300
4,000
27,900
11,300
4,700
13,000
35,400
25,500
11 ,800
38,400
18,900
359,500
20,900
8,700
6,700
11,300
47, 61)0
2010
49,200
17,800
21,800
21 ,900
28,700
7,600
5,000
2,000
2,100
34,400
23,700
214,200
26,100
29,000
25,700
18,900
15,200
33,600
59,400
5,100
36,800
15,600
7,900
19,500
46,300
33,300
13,700
44,100
22,700
453,400
21 ,600
11,700
7,700
11,700
52,700
2020
65,300
19,300
29,200
30,700
37,500
8,600
5,500
2,400
2,500
41 ,200
30,300
272,500
33,400
32,100
31 ,600
21,700
19,500
37,700
62,900
6,700
42,900
20,700
12,600
25,300
55,800
42,600
15,800
46,700
24,100
532,100
21 ,800
14,400
8,600
12,100
56,900
F-19
-------
TABLE Pll
(continued)
PEAK SEASON POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY
MINOR CIVIL DIVISION1
(Exclusive of DWGNRA)
County
Sussex
Sub-Total
Warren
Sub-Total
Towns h i p
or Borough
Andover Twp.
Branchvi 1 le Boro
Frankford Twp.
Fredon Twp.
Hampton Twp.
Lafayette Twp.
Montague Twp.
Newton
Sandys ton Twp.
Sparta Twp.
Sti 1 1 water Twp.
:
Blai rs town Twp.
Frel inghuysen Twp.
Hardwick Twp.
Know! ton Twp.
Year
7
1
9
2
7
2
3
9
6
19
14
S3
4
3
2
3
13
1970
,400
,400
,000
,800
,100
,300
,600
,400
,500
,300
,300
,100
,200
,400
,500
,000
,100
1980
22,000
1,900
15,300
6,300
16,200
4,200
8,100
12,600
9,800
31 ,800
20,800
149,000
7,600
8,900
8,500
5,100
30,100
33
2
22
11
24
7
14
15
13
46
28
221
12
15
15
8
51
1990
,500
,600
,800
,900
,400
,300
,700
,700
,900
,100
,900
,800
,200
,500
,600
,200
,500
36
3
29
17
28
11
20
18
18
58
37
281
17
19
18
11
~ee
2000
,900
,300
,300
,700
,100
,100
,900
,500
,600
,900
,800
,100
,100
,100
,600
,900
,700
37
4
33
21
29
14
24
20
23
67
46
324
21
20
19
15
76"
2010
,500
,100
,700
,700
,300
,900
,600
,800
,300
,900
,500
,300
,000
,400
,300
,900
,600
2020
37,700
4,900
3^,300
23,600
29,600
17,800
26,200
22,400
27,500
73,300
54,100
353,400
23,400
20,800
19,400
19,300
82,900
TOTALS:
248,900 429,300 664,400 905,500 1,121 ,200 1,297,800
Values in this Table represent populations in the entire area of the minor
civil division even though part of that area (with its population) may
actually lie outside of the TIRES area.
Because of its small size and population base, the Borough of Delaware Water
bap >s combined w,th Smithfield Township for purposes of projecting popula-
tion and demands for water supply and waste disposal.
F-20
-------
TABLE M2
Drainage Basin
PO-1
PO-2
PO-3
PO-4
PO-5
Sub-Total:
NE-1
NE-2
Sub-Total :
FL-1
FL-2
Sub-Total:
BU-1
BU-2
BU-3
Sub-Total:
BR-1
BR-2
BR-3
BR-4
BR-5
BR-6
Sub-Total:
CH-1
Sub-Total:
Kl-l
Sub-Total:
PA-1
PA-2
PA-3
PA-4
Sub-Total:
PEAK SEASON POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY
DRAINAGE BASINS
(Exclusive of DWGNRA)
Year
1970
4,600
1,300
2,900
6,200
6,100
21 ,100
15,200
1,100
16,300
8,000
200
8,200
8,500
2,000
2,700
13,200
11,700
10,400
15,000
11,400
16,100
11,400
76,000
3,800
3,800
600
600
4,600
9,300
10,500
29,800
54,200
1980
7,900
2,400
4,300
9,400
8,700
32,700
20,600
2,400
23,000
12,900
400
13,300
16,100
3,400
4,700
24,200
19,700
15,000
24,200
17,600
22,900
19,700
119,100
5,100
5,100
1 ,000
1 ,000
8,900
19,000
17,300
52,400
97,600
1990
12,400
4,500
6,400
14,200
10,500
48,000
25,900
4,400
30,300
19,500
700
20,200
27,500
5,700
7,400
40,600
31 ,600
21 ,400
37,700
26,700
32,100
31,500
181 ,000
6,900
6,900
1 ,600
1 ,600
14,700
31 ,000
24,600
76,300
146,600
2000
17,400
7,500
9,200
20,400
11 ,300
65,800
29,900
6,300
36,200
26,400
1 ,000
27,400
40,000
8,500
10,900
59,400
45,200
29,300
54,400
39,200
42,800
43,400
254,300
9,100
9,100
2,400
2,400
20,000
39,300
30,800
95,000
185,100
2010
22,200
11,300
12,100
27,300
11,700
84,600
32,500
7,400
39,900
32,500
1 ,200
33,700
51,500
11 ,800
14,600
77,900
57,200
37,500
71 ,600
55,400
53,700
52,600
328,000
1 1 , 800
1 1 .800
3,200
3,200
24,200
44,700
36,100
108,100
213,100
2020
26,300
1 4 , 800
14,800
33,400
1 1 ,900
101 ,200
34,100
7,900
42,000
37,300
1 ,200
38,500
61 ,300
14,900
18,200
94,400
66,300
45,900
87,400
75,200
64,000
58,900
397,700
15,200
15,200
3,900
3,900
27,100
48,400
40,500
116,600
232,600
TOTALS:
193,400 316,000 475,200 639,700 792,200 925,500
F-21
-------
Smithfield, and Smithfield Townships, are most rapid. The Pocono
Lakes area also experiences significant population growth.
The Mew York MCD's are the slowest to begin growth and most of
them are still increasing at their maximum rates of growth at the end
of the period.
To evaluate further the population growth of each MCD in relation
to its neighbors, the population estimates were translated into popu-
lation densities on the basis of net usable acres of land (see Appendix
B) . These densities, presented in Tables F-13 and F-14 are not to be
considered as development densities but, rather, are meant to reflect
only the gross density of population at peak usage. The densities on
the New Jersey side are generally the highest, as might be expected.
Pennsylvania densities decline with distance from the DWGNRA, although
the area around the Pocono Lakes has a significant level of development
by 2020. The Stroudsburg area shows the most intense development in
Pennsylvania. The New York area, other than Port Jervis, shows the
lowest level of development.
Seasonal and permanent population and housing.--A final consid-
eration was to provide some indication of the proportion of population
that will be seasonal in each of the counties. The estimates are
analytically independent of the peak season forecasts and are pre-
sented in Table F-15-
The discussion presented herein is primarily based on recent
surveys by the DRBC. Because this survey information and all previous
source data on the permanent-seasonal split is in terms of housing
units rather than persons, the presentation herein is also in terms
of housing units.
The Nathan report, on the basis of past trends, indicates that
the ratio of seasonal to permanent housing in the area will be one-
to-one. In light of the recent data collected by the DRBC, this ratio
requires adjustment. The increase in retirement communities and in
commutation from Sussex County, together with the continued large
percentage of homes being built for all-weather use, indicates that
the percentage of seasonal homes in Sussex County to be expected by
1990 would be no more than 35 percent; by the year 2020 this percent-
age should decline to 25 percent.
In Warren County, recreation demand has grov/n rather slowly.
However, with the construction of Interstate 80 and the completion
of the DWGNRA, a rapid surge in recreational growth can be expected.
The accessibility provided by I-(30, however, will make this area com-
petitive with most of Sussex County as a commuter residence. For
this reason, the early surge in recreational demand will level off as
more and more people choose Warren County for permanent residence.
Pike and Monroe Counties are expected to be predominantly seas-
onal areas for the extent of the projection period. They will absorb
F-22
-------
TABLE p.13
PEAK SEASON POPULATION DENSITY PORJECTIONS BY MINOR CIVIL DIVISION
(Exclusive of DWGNRA; Persons Per Acre)
Pike
Monroe
Orange
Sussex
Warren
Township
or Borough
Blooming Grove Twp,
Delaware Twp.
Dingman Twp.
Greene Twp.
Lehman Twp.
Matamoras Boro
Mi Iford Boro
Mi 1 ford Twp.
Porter Twp.
Shohola Twp.
Westfall Twp.
BarrettTwp.
Chestnut Hill Twp.
Coolbaugh Twp.
E. Stroudsburg Boro
Hamilton Twp.
Jackson Twp.
M. Smithfield Twp.
Mt. Pocono Boro
Paradise Twp.
Pocono Twp.
Price Twp.
Ross Twp.
Smithfield Twp.1
Stroud Twp.
Stroudsburg Boro
Tobyhanna Twp.
Tunkhannock Twp.
Deerpark
Green vi 1 le
Mt. Hope
Port Jervis
Andover Twp.
Branchville Boro
Frankford Twp.
Fredon Twp.
Hampton Twp.
Lafayette Twp.
Montague Twp.
Newton
Sandyston Twp.
Sparta Twp.
Sti 1 Iwater Twp.
Blai rstown Twp.
Frel i nghuysen Twp.
Hardwick Twp.
Knowl ton Twp.
1966
0.065
0.186
0.058
0.095
0.171
4.917
6.181
0.1J7
0.050
0.137
0.127
0.217
0.180
0.185
5.491
0.181
0.218
0.213
0.742
0.269
0.143
0.066
0.088
0.471
0.449
5.836
0.168
0.038
0.152
0.085
0.211
5.414
0.270
3-419
0.317
0.149
0.268
0.137
0.150
4.166
0.598
0.591
0.666
0.153
0.126
0.106
0.152
197Q
0.101
0.254
0.082
0.121
0.227
5-753
7.351
0.149
0.056
0.201
0.178
0.258
0.253
0.244
6.034
0.209
0.327
0.340
0.850
0.389
0.174
0.089
0.128
0.644
0.526
6.358
0.259
0.070
0.216
0.112
0.236
5-532
0.574
4.033
0.432
0.236
0.464
0.192
0.238
4.914
0.743
0.788
0.816
0.213
0.227
0.224
0.201
1980
0.239
o.44o
0.162
0.194
0.393
7.672
10.011
0.177
0.071
0.414
0.341
0.364
0.469
0.409
7.244
0.277
0.690
0.770
1.112
0.775
0.256
0.159
0.265
1.158
0.717
7-518
0.548
0.221
0.351
0.188
0.291
5-772
1.711
5.516
0.737
0.537
1.063
0.360
0.538
6.539
1.112
1.299
1.190
0.387
0.595
0.753
0.339
1990
0.525
0.661*
o.30it
0.304
0.651
9.834
12.897
0.211
0.088
0.773
0.613
0.505
0.760
0.649
8.617
0.365
1.265
1.386
1.452
1.386
0.370
0.281
0.512
1.921
0.966
8.835
0.932
0.534
0.445
0.298
0.350
6.013
2.607
7.338
1.094
1.017
1.598
0.620
0.980
8.178
1.582
1.885
1.649
0.623
1.031
1.380
0.54o
2000
1.018
0.870
0.522
0.465
1.012
12.077
15.697
0.251
0.109
1.252
1.002
0.686
1.053
0.952
10.148
0.478
1.920
1.927
1.892
2.137
0.524
0.487
0.889
2.862
1.284
10.314
1.258
0.867
0.488
0.437
0.411
6.256
2.868
9.444
1.407
1.515
1.839
0.949
1.391
9.644
2.116
2.407
2.157
0.871
1.277
1.644
0.789
2010
1.639
1.016
0.798
0.684
1.449
14.213
18.130
0.299
0.133
1.721
1.450
0.906
1.274
1.277
11.818
0.621
2.437
2.234
2.456
2.819
0.722
0.820
1-333
3-785
1.676
11.950
1.445
1.045
0.505
0.587
0.471
6.500
2.918
11.714
1.622
1.849
1.914
1.274
1-635
10.818
2.650
2.777
2.654
1.069
1.362
1.707
1.050
2020
2.174
1.102
1.070
0.958
1.893
16.089
20.052
0-355
0.160
2.062
1.854
1.160
1.407
1.568
13.598
0.800
2.740
2.366
3-175
3-287
0.960
1.315
1.725
4.510
2.143
13.732
1.530
1.107
0.511
0.721
0.527
6.744
2.927
13-983
1.745
2.012
1-935
1.523
1.745
11.681
3.120
2.997
3.089
1.195
1.386
1.720
1-277
•"•Includes Borough of Delaware Water Gap.
F-23
-------
TABLE F-14
PEAK SEASON POPULATION DENSITY PROJECTIONS BY DRAINAGE BASINS
(Exclusive of DWGNRA; Persons Per Acre)
Drainage Basin
1966
1970
PO-I
PO-2
PO-3
PO-4
PO-5
NE-1
NE-2
FL-1
FL-2
BU-1
BU-2
BU-3
BR-I
BR-2
BR-3
BR-4
BR-5
BR-6
CH-1
Kl-l
PA-1
PA-2
PA-3
PA-4
.0462
.0610
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
.3381
.0888
.2370
.4963
.4895
1.2839
.0680
.6210
.0106
6.4768 £
.6069
.1490
.2003
.9019
.8712
1.1779
.9164
1.3625
.8689
.3277
8.5436 £
.4585
.1257
.2889
.6162
.6106
.5156
.1076
.7986
.0168
>.4768
.8470
.1979
.2692
.1665
.0379
.4972
.1413
.6130
.1378
.3814
.5436
.7942
.2449
.4324
.9454
.8659
2.0646
.2434
1.2908
.0380
6.4768
1.6123
.3447
.4652
1.9681
1.4965
2.4177
1.7624
2.2885
1.9717
.5140
8.5436
1.2413
.4495
.6420
1 .4225
1 .0450
2.5901
.4438
1.9472
.0693
6.4768
2.7485
.5672
.7439
3.1607
2.1458
3.7694
2.6721
3.2068
3-1537
.6869
8.5436
1.7393
.7543
.9152
2.0445
1.1336
2.9879
.6293
2.6426
.0982
6.4768
4.0046
.8540
1.0892
4.5239
2.9267
5.4415
3.9208
4.2761
4.3425
.9080
8.5436
2.2194
1.1268
1.2127
2.7281
1.1732
3-2456
.7401
3.2505
.1155
6.4768
5.1503
1.1755
1.4638
5-7169
3.7468
7.1624
5.5390
5.3661
5.2586
1.1837
8.5436
2.6318
1.4848
1.4785
3.3395
1.1934
3.4073
.7899
3.7298
.1233
6.4768
6.1281
1 .4905
1 .8174
6.6261
4.5862
8.7401
7.5191
6.4013
5.8887
1.5171
8.5436
.1032
.1639
.2397
.3190
.3878
.3219
.6501
.7965
2.1886
.4583
-9274
1.0467
2.9836
.8925
1 .9014
1 .7252
5-2394
1.4681
3.1016
2.4568
7-6333
2.0028
3.9340
3.0837
9-4966
2.4218
4.4666
3.6141
10.8062
2.7070
4.8357
4.0527
n.6597
-------
TABLE F-15
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF TOTAL HOUSING IN SEASONAL USE
County
Sussex
Warren
Pike
Monroe
Orange
I9601
40.8
20.2
54.4
33.6
12.5
1990
35.0
40.0
60.0
45.0
50.0
2020
25.0
45.0
60.0
50.0
50.0
lBased on Tables F-9 and F-10.
F-25
-------
much of the recreational demand that is now being satisfied in Sussex.
Pike County will remain relatively isolated from the large surges of
permanent population that are expected in the TIRES area if present
transportation plans are followed. Consequently, the percent of
seasonal population will be sustained at a high level. Monroe, how-
ever, will experience an impact from the existence of 1-80 and, as
a result, the percentage of seasonal population should level off at
a lower level than is expected in Pike County.
Orange County will be influenced by Sullivan County to the north,
a major recreation area, and by the reservoir to the south. It
should reach a high level of seasonal population toward the middle
of the projection period and sustain this percentage.
F-26
-------
FUTURE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
The economic activities of the TIRES area have been projected
to the year 2000 in this study. This was done on a county-wide basis,
using the same four counties that were previously discussed in the
section regarding the present economy. The projections assumed that
the impact of the DWGMRA began to take effect between 1959 and 1965.
This is a reasonable assumption because the proposal for constructing
the Tocks Island dam was announced as early as I960 by the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and land values subsequently began a marked rise.
Using, data obtained from County Busjness Patterns, industrial
classifications were studied for changes through the six-year period
between 1959 and 1965. Annual changes were calculated for employment,
payrolls, and the number of units, and projections made. The annual
changes were used to yield the changes which will occur between 19&5
and 1935. The changes during this 20-year period were added to the
1965 figures to yield estimates of employment, payrolls, and number
of units in 1985. In some cases where the estimates were most unusual,
adjustments were made using information from local, county, and state
reports and statistics. Resulting projections for 1985 employment,
payrolls, and number of units for ten industrial classifications are
given in Table F-16.
Future employment in the tourist and vacation industry was more
intensely studied because of the specialized activities created by
the DWGNRA. Projections are made for the five key counties and their
areas in the TIRES area. Robert R. Nathan Associates (1965) did a
similar study in the counties adjoining DWGMRA on the number of
establishments that could be supported by DWGIJRA visitors. Their
estimates are based on estimated visits and expenditures and are
presented in Table F-17-
The method used in the TIRES examined the total growth potential
of the TIRES area, not just the potential establishments generated
by the DWGHRA. Employment in the tourism and vacation industries
of the TIRES area was examined by using a ratio-projection method.
The number of persons employed in eating and drinking establishments,
personal services, and entertainment and vacation classifications
were obtained from the I960 U. S. Census for each county within the
TIRES area. These three classifications are considered to comprise
the tourism and vacation industries. The number employed in each
classification was then divided by the I960 population (the same
was done for the total of the five counties) yielding employment per
capita ratios for the tourism and vacation activities in the counties.
These data are shown in Table F-18.
The I960 population of each county was obtained from U. S. Cen-
sus data and the percentage of that population within the TIRES area
was calculated. This percentage was then multiplied by the number
of people employed in the three classifications for each county to
F-27
-------
WARREN
TABLEF-16
1985 REGIONAL ECONOMY BY COUNTY
SUSSEX
PIKE
ib
oo
Agr icu 1 ture
M i n i ng
Construct ion
Manufactur ing
Transp.Ut i 1 i t ies
Wholesa le
Retai 1
Fi nance, 1 nsurance
Serv ice
Unclass if ied
1985 TOTALS:
1965 TOTALS:
Net Change:
No. of
Employees
90
-
1005
14,295
1833
500
5,442
559
3,161
_
25,937
18,000 _
7,937
Payrol Is
119
-
2264
26142
3414
600
5,125
782
3,384
40,826 1
22,000 1
18,826
U n i ts
5
2
88
138
108
43
504
98
379
1 r
15
,315
,000
315
No. of
Emp 1 oyees
60
100
820
4,199
1,572
230
4,04]
1 ,600
3,165
I r\
ko
16,187
9,000
f ' II
7,187
Payrol 1
81
850
1,3^9
7,754
2,442
294
2,000
2,241
6,168
33
23,507
. 10,000_
13,507
s Un i ts
20
3
-S
226
114
170
55
622
132
458
19
2,301
1 ,000__
1,301
M/-. /^f
NO . or
Employees
449
390
91
66
1,350
120
587
~
2,3^5
1.300
1,045
Payrol Is
695
395
88
50
1,300
257
1,184
-
3,039
1 ,4oo
1,639
U n i t s
9
52
50
16
9
200
4o
99
5
287
251__
36
No. of
Emp 1 oysss
150
r- O
58
1,341
7,519
425
200
3,150
517
2,800
15
17,885
1 0 , 900
7,985
. •
Pavr r\ 1 1 c
' a y f L> 1 1 b
200
68
1,761
11,326
500
300
3 ,-256
605
3,000
20
23,079
10,600
12,479
1 1 n I -f- f
units
25
3
83
99
50
28
3^5
94
350
5
1,358
1 ,000
358
Source: Consultant's projection
-------
TABLE F-17
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS
SUPPORTED BY DWGNRA VISITORS
FOOD
Restaurants AO - 80
Grocery Stores 2 - 3
LODGING
Transient 50 - 95
TRANSPORTATION
Motor vehicle service stations 25 - 50
MISCELLANEOUS 35 - 60
Source: Robert R. Nathan Associates (1965)
F-29
-------
TABLE F-18
I960 EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT PER CAPITA IN THE TOURISM
AND VACATION INDUSTRY OF EACH COUNTY
Employment
Other
Employment Per Capita
Other
-n
CO
0
COUNTY
Pike
Monroe
Sussex
Warren
Orange
Total
Source:
Ea t i ng &
Dr i nki nq
120
522
5l+0
725
1,719
3,626
sic 58
County Bus
Personal
Serv ices
210
1,447
306
553
2,000
4,516
SIC 72
iness Patterns
Enterta i n &
Recreat ion
41
104
77
109
4ii
742
SIC 79
78
TOTAL
371
2,073
923
1,387
4,130
8,884
1960
Popu lat ion
9,158
39,567
49,255
63,220
183,734
344,425
Eat ing 8=
Dr i nk i nq
.01310
.01319
.01 102
.01150
.00935
.01052
Persona 1
Serv ices
.02293
.0357
.00624
.00877
.01088
.01311
Enterta i n &
Recreat ion
.00447
.00262
.00157
. oo l 73
.00223
.00215
TOTAL
.04051
.05239
.01883
.02201
.02248
.02597
Consultant's Calculations
-------
obtain the number employed in the TIRES area. This assumes that the
percent of those employed in the tourism industry of the watershed
area of each county will be the same as the percentage of the total
tourism employment of each county. Ratios of per capita employment
were then calculated and are shown in Table F-19.
Using I960 U. S. Census data, employment in the tourism and
vacation industries and ratios of per capita employment were then
calculated for (1) the United States , (2) Sullivan County, New York,
(3) Greenbrier County, West Virginia2, (k) Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
and (5) the tri-state area including Pennsylvania, New Jersey and
New York. These data are presented in Table F-20. The TIRES area
could then be compared to the vacation industry in the other areas.
It was assumed, when the DWGiIRA was fully operational, the level of
tourism employment in the TIRES counties would be brought to a level
comparable to these other areas.
Table F~2l shows the projections of employment in the tourism
and vacation industries of the TIRES area from 1970 to 2000, assuming
that Tocks Island tourism will reach the economic maturity now present
in the various other tourist areas. Utilizing estimates of the future
populations at ten-year intervals, several projections were made based
on different assumptions; the TIRES area employment in the vacation
industry (a) would by 2000 reach the level of current vacation industry
employment equal to Sullivan County, New York (the large and established
Catskills resort area that characterizes now what the Tocks Island Re-
gion will likely become), (b) would by 1990 reach a level of current
vacation industry employment equal to Greenbrier County, West Virginia,
and (c) would by 1990 reach a level of current vacation industry
employment equal to an average between Cape Cod, Massachusetts and
Greenbrier County, West Virginia.
Table F-22 shows the number of people employed in the recreation
industry of the TIRES counties, the number of tourism and vacation
oriented establishments, and the average number employed in each
type of establishment. It is assumed that the number employed per
establishment wi11 be the same for both the five-county area and the
TIRES area. Thus, per establishment in the watershed area, there
are approximately 4.33 persons employed in eating and drinking es-
tablishments; 3.2 persons employed in personal services; and 3.96
persons employed in entertainment and recreation.
The number of tourist and vacation establishments will continue
to grow but, after 1985, at a slower rate. Employment and income of
the recreation-based industries is expected to level off. The up-
ward spiral ing population of the (Jew York and Philadelphia metropolitan
'Data obtained from Regional Science Research Institute
2lbid.
F-31
-------
TABLE p-19
I960 EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT PER CAPITA IN THE TOURISM
AND VACATION INDUSTRY IN THE AREA OF EACH COUNTY IN THE
STUDY AREA
TIRES Area
of Each
County
Pike
Monroe
Sussex
•n Warren
L
ro
Orange
TOTAL
Empl oyment
Eating &
Drinking
76
^07
162
36
^
715
Other
Personal
Serv ices
132
1,129
92
28
ho
1 ,k2]
.Entertain &
Recreat i on
25
81
23
5
8
1^2
TOTAL
23^
1,617
277
69
82
2,279
)96o
Popu 1 at i on
5,809
30,998
15,025
3,572
12,363
67,767
Employment
Eating &
Dr i nki ng
.01308
.01312
.01028
.01007
.00275
.01055
Per Caoi ta
Other
Persona 1
Serv i ccs
.02272
.036^2
.00612
.00783
.00323
.02096
Entertain &
Recreat ion
.00^30
.00261
.00153
.00139
.001 1J
.00209
TOTAL
.01*028
.05216
.018^3
.01931
.00663
.03362
Source: Consultant's Calculations
-------
TABLE F-20
I960 EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT PER CAPITA IN THE TOURISM
AND VACATION INDUSTRY FOR THE U.S. AND SELECTED AREAS
I
CO
Employment
Employment Per Capita
Other
Other
U.S. Total
Su 1 1 ivan
Co., N.Y.
Greenbr ier
Co., W. Va.
Cape Cod
Tri-State*
Total
Eating &
Dr i nki nq
1 ,802,000
561
279
757
470,027
Personal
Services
1 ,942,000
1,97^
1,274
1,027
652,117
Entertain & TOTAL
Recreat ion
502,879 4,247,000
154 2,689
108 1,661
208 1 , 992
106-57^ 1,228,718
I960
Popu lat i on
179,323,000
45,272
34,446
70,286
34,168,192
Eat ing &
Dr i nki nq
.01004
.01239
.00809
.01077
.01375
Persona 1
Serv ices
.01088
.04355
.03698
.01461
.01908
Entertain &
Recreation
.00280
.00340
.00313
.00295
.0031 1
TOTAL
.02367
.05939
.04822
.02834
.03596
Source: Consultant's Calculations
;VNew York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania
-------
TABLE F-21
NUMBER AND PER CAPITA EMPLOYMENT IN THE TOURIST AND RECREATION
INDUSTRY OF THE TOCKS ISLAND AREA
Permanent Population
Estimates of TIRES area
TIRES area
A. Per Capita Tourist
Employment1
Number Employed
B. Per Capita Tourist
Employment2
Number Employed
"Tl
i
w c. Per Capita Tourist
Employment3
Number Employed
1970
156,700
.03877
6,075
.03842
6,020
.03512
5,503
1£80
259,800
.04392
11, 4io
.04322
11,228
.03662
9,513
_1£90
366,300
.04907
17,974
.04822
17,662
.03828
14,021
2000
482 , 800
.05422
26,177
0.5302
25,598
.03978
19,205
•"-Per capita recreation employment level of Sullivan Co., N.Y. by 2010.
2Per capita recreation employment level of Greenbrier Co., W.Va. by 1990.
3Per capita recreation employment level of average between Greenbrier and Cape Cod by 1990.
-------
TABLE F-22
SELECTED EMPLOYMENT PER ESTABLISHMENT
IN THE TOURISM AND VACATION INDUSTRY
IN THE TOCKS ISLAND COUNTIES
1963
No. Employed
Percent of Total
No. Employed
No. of Establishments
No. Employed per
Establishment
Eating
and Personal
Dri nking Service
.42
4.33
5,372
3.20
Entertai nment
and
Recreation Total
10,690
.50
1,678
.08
213
100
2,925
3.96
3.65
Source: 1963 Census of Business
F-35
-------
areas will assure that the number of new tourist facilities will con-
tinue to increase, although the visitor capacity of the DWGNRA itself
is 1imited.
The data presented in the previous tables illustrates alternative
levels of resort-based employment as the TIRES area grows in response
to DWGNRA as compared with the relationships that exist in current
major resort counties. It is clear that the opening of DWGNRA will
produce a substantial region-wide effect on the resort and recreation
facilities throughout the TIRES counties. The magnitude of growth
is still largely conjectural because the impact is just beginning to
be felt, and local land use patterns and economic policies are still
in the formative stages.
F-36
-------
FUTURE TRANSPORTAT I ON SYSTEMS
PJarmed _hjghway improvements
Numerous new highways and improvements of old roads are proposed
for the counties of the DV/GNRA region. Inventoried below are pro-
posals compiled from various sources; some complimentary, some con-
tradictory.
The significance of a properly placed highway network in the
TIRES area cannot be understated. If the livelihood of the region
is to depend upon the tourist trade from neighboring metropolitan
areas, it must be readily accessible to auto traffic from these centers
Highway transportation will be the most important mode of travel
throughout the TIRES area. Realizing that the present highway sys-
tem will not be able to accommodate the projected traffic volumes after
the National Recreation Area is opened, state and local governments
of the area have proposed plans for highway improvements well before
the actual need. A summary of the planned highway improvements tenta-
tively programmed for the TIRES area follows.
Pennsylvania highways.--The Pennsylvania Department of Highways
Six-Year Impro_vemcnt_ Program evolved from suggestions by state legis-
lators, local government officials, planning commissions, motor clubs,
industry, quasi-public bodies, local citizens, and the District Office
of the Pennsylvania Highway Department.
The program includes the following major proposals:
1. Relocate 24.8 miles of Route 209 and 6 in Pike County
and 12.7 miles of Route 209 in Monroe County.
2. Reconstruct 5-5 miles of Routes 490 and 423 from
Tobyhanna (Monroe County) to Wayne County, as a
24-ft. wide road.
3. Reconstruct 3 miles of Route If)' from fit. Pocono
(Monroe County) to \7ayne County, as a 22-ft. wide
road .
The program also proposes many minor road improvements (tree remov-
als, bridge improvements, signalization. etc.) for Pike and Monroe
Counties, principally to enhance highway safety.
The Bureau of Advance Planning of the Pennsylvania Department
of Highways in a special report, "Highway Impact Study-Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area," presents recommendations for
future highways based on evaluation of present land development po-
tential, current travel patterns, and levels of service for those
Pennsylvania highways affected by D'JGHPA.
F-37
-------
By 1990 the Bureau proposes:
]. Widening of 6 miles of Routes 45061 and 461-E, from
Route 209 to Coolbaugh, to 2k feet.
2. Construction of a new 16-mile, 2-lane road (on a
4-lane realignment) from Route 15 at Windgap to
Portland.
3. Widening of 14 miles of Routes 940, 191 and 44?,
from Route 611 at Mt. Pocono to the intersection
of Routes 44? and 209, to 48 feet.
4. Addition of two lanes to 16 miles of Interstate
Route 80, from Interstate Route 81-E to the Delaware
River (16 miles).
Raymond and May Associates (1966) undertook a study of the high-
way system in the TIRES area; recommendations in their report included:
1. Construct a highway in Pike County from Dingmans Ferry
to Porters Lake, and then southwest to connect with
the Pocono resorts and Route I-31E. Toward Monroe
County, it would feed traffic to Interstate Routes 81-E
and 80.
2. Construct a by-pass on Route 209 around the Strouds-
burg urban area.
3. Construct five interchanges on Route 1-84; two of which
are of critical importance: an interchange between
Matamoras and Mil ford and one west of Mil ford. Three
additional interchanges are planned for the western por-
tion of Pike County, but further investigations should
be conducted particularly with reference to a possible
interchange to be located at Lords Valley.
4. Construct a connecting link between Routes 1-84 and
I-80 in the western part of the two-county area similar
to the linkage provided by Route 209.
5. Route 423 should be improved and extended to become
a final link in a loop system of highways around Pike
and Monroe Counties.
6. A re-statement of recommendations of the Joint Plann-
ing Commission of Lehigh-Northampton Counties:
a) Relocation of U. S. Route 611 as a vital con-
necting link from the south to Interstate 80.
F-38
-------
b) Construct a Slate Belt Expressway to improve
access between Windgap and Portland that would
permit convenient travel to the fJational Rec-
reation Area and Interstate 80.
The Pennsylvania State Planning Board report "Regional Develop-
ment Reconnaissance for Region 3" (Wayne, Pike, and Monroe Counties)"
contains a brief section on highway needs and transportation planning.
The report notes that Interstates 80 and 84 will provide access to
both ends of the Tocks Island Recreation Area.
Interstate 81-E, paralleling U. S. Route 611, will even-
tually connect Scranton with Interstate 80, and to com-
plete the Region's interstate network will be Interstate
84 which enters the state at Matamoras and crosses central
Pike and the southern tip of Wayne. U. S. Route 209, wind-
ing along the Delaware from Stroudsburg to Matamoras will
have to be relocated when the reservoir is created. In-
terest in recreation and scenic highways has spurred ef-
forts to revive the 25-year old Pocono Mountains Memorial
Parkway idea.
This report also contains a summary of other new highways and
improvement to old roads previously mentioned.
In addition to highway improvements required for access to and
from and movement within the overall TIRES area, several local studies
have been conducted at the township level on ways to improve traffic
patterns, and to discourage through traffic from traveling on township
roads. These reports were reviewed for this study but are not summarized
herein due to their limited importance.
New Jersey highways.--Several studies have been conducted which
include proposals for Sussex and Warren Counties. In Raymond and May
Associates (1966), the following were recommended:
1. Construct a new parkway The Foothills Highway, to
extend from Interstate 34 in New York to Interstate
80 in New Jersey.
2. Construct the Wai pack Parkway from Interstate 80 to
Wai pack Bend to handle recreational traffic.
3. Construct an East-West Highway from Route 23 at Frank-
lin to Sparta, Newton, and Wai pack that could be used
as an alternate route to Interstate 80 and Wai pack
Parkway.
4. Construct a Montague Highway from south of Montague
to Route 23 near 1-84 as an access highway to the
Interstate system and the National Recreation Area.
F-39
-------
5. Relocate Route 206 from 1-80 north to Milford, Penn-
sylvania to provide a major bypass to the east of
Newton and access to Namanock, Tom Quick, and Flat-
brook sites in DWGNRA.
6. Improve State Route 23 from Franklin to Route 1-8*4.
As an expressway, it would provide a major distri-
bution function for recreational sites and the re-
gion at large.
7. Improve State Route 15 from Lake Hopatcong to U. S.
Route 206 to serve as an alternative for westbound
traffic using Route 1-80.
8. Widen State Route 94 to serve as a northeast-southwest
distribution 1 ink.
The New Jersey Transportation Department outlined a "New Jersey
Draft Highway Network" that is very similar to Raymond and May's plan.
It is not yet an official program of the Department. Differences with
the "Sketch Plan" exist on the finer poin'ts such as precisely where two
roads should merge. Projects included are the following:
1. Widen State Route 94 from Columbia to Newton.
2. Widen U. S. Route 46.
3. Construct sections of the Foothills Highway from
State Route 206 north to State Route 23 at 1-84.
4. Tie-in the south end of the Foothills Highway from
State Route 69.
5- Construct a freeway from State Route 206 north to
94, east of Newton.
6. Relocate State Route 23 as a freeway and a Sparta-
V/oodport bypass.
7. Reconstruct State Route 23 into a freeway.
In the ^^5^^.^oj£n^_J'£ajT5£gj^t^i£n^^a_nd_^ij^cu 1 ation Summary, it
is noted that by 1975 the following projects a re" To be "TTnde r t a ke n :
1. Dualize Route 206.
2. Widen Route 94.
3. Improve Routes 15 and 23 since they are anticipated
to become major feeder highways once the Interstate
80 interchange is opened.
F-40
-------
4. Complete Interstate 80 early in the 1970's.
5. Construct four interchanges on Interstate 80 in
Warren County at County Routes 517, 519, 521
and at Columbia in Knowlton Township.
6. Widen Route 94 to four lanes.
7- Construct the locks Island Parkway to provide
access to recreational sites along the Delaware
River .
-..' — 'n tne "Town °f Deerpark Development Plan,11
Raymond and May associates recommended the following:
1. Reconstruct Route 209 from Port Jervis north to
Sullivan County, generally following the abandoned
Ontario and Western rail bed.
2. Redesign the interchange of 1-84 and New Jersey
Route 23 and New York Route 6.
3. Construct a highway along the abandoned Delaware
and Hudson Canal bed, and tied-in with the Dela-
ware Feeder Route and the redesigned interchange
at 1-34.
J_r a ffjJLJ n J- n ^ -J ' Ji^JL ^f? a
The various attractions within the DWGNRA will be tremendous
generators of highway traffic. The Master Plan for DWGNRA offers
a detailed inventory of all the roads by which these various recrea-
tion areas can be reached. The Plan notes that:
•'...in the original Plan the estimated annual visitation
will be 10.5 million with a design load of 141,000 by
1975- Both of these estimates were based on a pre-
liminary survey type analysis of the carrying capacity
of the recreation area with the assumption that the
recreation demand generated within the service area
of the project is far in excess of the potential supply
of this area."
The Bureau of Advanced Planning of the Pennsylvania Department
of Highways estimates that by I9p0 there will be approximately
16,600,000 annual visitors. Approximately 55 percent will come from
metropolitan areas of New York and New Jersey, about 25 percent from
the Philadelphia-Trenton area, 12 percent from less populated areas,
and 8 percent from counties contiguous with the DWGNRA. The Bureau of
Advanced Planning adds:
F-41
-------
"It is anticipated the majority of the visitors will drive
by private automobile to the DWGNRA, spend a few hours
and return home on the same day. The activities, needs,
expenditures, and tastes for a daily visit by a typical
family will be quite different from those of the two-week
resort client or the summer season resident. As a re-
sult, the highway facilities serving the DWGNRA should
be planned and designed for this type of visitation."
Although the highways of the TIRES region are inadequate to
facilitate movement of the projected volumes of traffic, several
plans for needed improvements have been completed. These highway
plans have been proposed on regional, county and local levels in
anticipation of the onslaught of seasonal tourist visitors.
implementation of all levels of these highway plans is essential
The prosperity and preservation of the rural character of the local
areas can best be perpetuated by moving the projected large volumes
of tourist traffic with as few obstacles as possible. For optimum
development of the region, all highway plans should be closely coor-
dinated to the extent possible with all existing comprehensive land
use plans.
It was beyond the scope of this study to formulate additional
highway programs. Rather, existing proposals were reviewed and
evaluated and their effects on the location of population centers
was taken into consideration.
F-42
-------
FUTURE LAND USE
C_om£T_eh en_s i v e 1a rid _u s e_ s tud ies
Planning future land use in the TIRES area emerged as essentially
a government process in I960 when the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
completed their report regarding flood control on the Delaware River
and its tributaries.
Few counties and MCD's in the region had begun comprehensive
plans prior to the announcement of the proposal for the dam and Nation-
al Recreaction Area. None were able to take into consideration the
impact this recreational facility would have upon their communities.
Because the chief purpose of this report is a feasiblity study
on establishing long-range utility needs and services, no exhaustive
study was made on optimum future use of the land. In this study, the
Raymond and May (19&6) Sketch Plan was updated to conform more real-
istically to current land use and recent subdivision activity. How-
ever, the basic Sketch Plan with its underlying assumptions was adopted
for this study in the preparation of utilities' plans.
The Raymond and May Associates (19&6) recommend an extensive
system of open space to preserve the quantity and quality of forests
and natural features in the TIRES area. Open space serves as a sig-
nificant force in defining and giving form to development areas, and
can be achieved on both the regional and community scale. The Raymond
and May Associates' discussion of their system includes:
!11. Waterways form the skeleton of the open space system;
thus, regulation of all waterways and control of their
shores are essential to retain the natural values of
the area. The National Recreation Area will pre-
serve and enhance a portion of the Delaware River.
Under utility company control, development at Lake
Wailenpaupack is regulated. If to these major water-
ways were added regulation of the numerous streams,
creeks, and lakes, a large part of a regional system
of open space could be established.
2. Expand publicly owned land in the Region. Under the
Green Acres program, New Jersey has already acted in
this direction and only limited further acquisitions
by the State are recommended at this time. Current
plans for expansion of the present large State hold-
ings, such as High Point State Park, Stokes State
Forest and Swartswood State Park, would increase the
amount of publicly owned land in the Jersey portion
of the Region to about 75 square miles (or 15% of
the New Jersey portion of the Regional area).
F-43
-------
3. Solidify and interconnect present State holdings.
The State of Pennsylvania has acquired open space
areas throughout the State under its Project 70
program. It now controls over 200 square miles
(or about 18 percent) of the total land area in
Pike and Monroe Counties.
It is suggested that in selected areas these forests,
game lands and parks be gradually extended to provide
continuity and preserve the integrity and value of ex-
isting publich holdings. Such expansion need not
necessarily involve much developable land; indeed, un-
buildable ridges, gorges, and swamps could provide the
links between many existing State areas. Within the
present holdings there are many small pockets of build-
able land accessible only by roads through State lands.
In instances where these pockets already adjoin exist-
ing highways, their development will only increase traffic
through State property. Careful planning of roads can
therefore act as a deterrent to further development and
to spread of high density, seasonal residences of sub-
standard qual i ty ,':
The proposed open space system would almost double the amount of
open space in the Pennsylvania sector. The basic components of the
system include: 1) the DWGNRA; 2) existing state forests and game
lands; and 3) unbuildable ridges, gorges, swamps, and lands bordering
streams and rivers. Although the proposed open space system is dis-
tributed throughout Pike and Monroe Counties, the fact that the major
state and anticipated Federal holdings are located in the northern
portion of the region results in a large share of the conservation
areas being located in Pike County. Monroe County is now, and is
likely to continue to be, the more dominant location for commercial,
recreation, and other urban activities not only for the Pennsylvania
areas but for the entire region.
In view of the existing large state parks and the topographic
character of the remaining area, only a few extensions of open space,
in addition to those already contemplated, are proposed for the New
Jersey sector of the region. However, it is proposed that measures
be undertaken to limit urban development in much of the agricultural
areas which lie between community developments in Sussex and Warren
Counties.
_.._ state parks in the TIRES area are
few in number but large in size. On the New Jersey side of the River
are High Point State Park and Stokes State Forest; the Pennsylvania
side includes Tobyhanna, Delaware, Big Pocono, and Promised Land State
Parks. Utility lands are included in the state land category because
they^function in much the same manner as state-owned open space. The
utility lands in the region are predominantly watershed areas for near-
by cities and towns.
F-44
-------
0_ther open_ space. --Other lands that should remain as open space
include childrens' camps, resort holdings, gun clubs, and other private
and semi-private agents. The number of camps, clubs, and resorts have
been increasing in recent years and will probably continue to do so
as the TIRES area becomes more vacation-oriented. These private and
semi-private uses added to the D'/Gi-IRA, the recommended open space, and
the state park and utility lands, complete the vast network of open
space that is interlaced throughout tlie entire TIRES area.
Existing development .--Areas that are presently developed are
expected to be the nost densely settled in the future. The. urban-
ized centers of Strounsburc, Port Jervis, and Newton are expected
to become three primary regional centers. These will continue to
function as regional centers because of their location, political
importance, and establ ished economy. There are eight other proposed
regional centers on a somewhat smaller scale; they are Sussex,
Branchvi 1 1 e, Blairstown Columbia, and Montague in New Jersey and
Dingman's Ferry, Bushkill and Mil ford in Pennsylvania. Third-level
settlements or rural town centers are identified as areas which would
have from 200 to 300 houses. Typical areas include Hope, Stillwatcir.
Balesville, Swartswood, fiidd 1 ev i 1 le , Haincsburg, Colcsville Layton,
Beenerville and Lafayette in New Jersey and Sunset Lake, and Bushkill
Falls in Pennsylvania.
These developed areas will include a variety of land uses. The
primary urban centers will include government centers, a high propor-
tion of the region's service activities, a large hospital, a branch
of trie state university, and large, industrial and commercial centers.
The land uses in the secondary regional centers will depend upon de-
mand and support for the facilities. The third-level settlements
should have a uniquely rural character with sites for gift, craft,
and antique shops, and quality restaurants. The density range of all
of those areas is estimated to be over six persons per acre.
Recommended future dcve
The expansion of existing development is recommended for the
regional centers. These areas have the capability to expand their
population since they already have functioning utility systems ser-
vicing their population and an established economy. Other areas
recommended for development are located by lakes, new highways, and
scenic areas. The major resorts and recreation areas, such as
Pocono Manor, Buck Hill Falls, Swartswood Lake, Camel back Mountain.
High Point State Park, Stokes State Forest, and the D"GNRA, will
also be major attractions for future development. These areas, as
recommended for future development, are expected to have a density
average; of A to 6 persons per acre.
Rural. --Most of the land in the TIRES area will likely remain
rural'."" This land will continue to be occupied by farms, forests,
and scattered one-family dwellings. Although the land will not be
F-45
-------
intensively used, it will always offer the opportunity for new sub-
divisions, resorts, and industries to be built. For the preservation
of aesthetic and historic values in the region, care should be taken
to insure that rural land remains rural.
Future land__use cons_ider_a_t_i_ons_
In order to formulate realistic alternative systems for water
supply and waste disposal, the Sketch Plan was adopted as the basis
for future land use in the area. However, realizing that the Sketch
Plan is only intended to be a generalized concept of how future land
uses should be directed, it was updated and future land uses more
specifically defined; its underlying premises and assumptions were
accepted.
The considerations used to more specifically define the future
land uses have already been discussed and included: a study of ex-
isting land use, proposed highway improvements, review of local land
use studies, and population projections. With these as additional
inputs and v/ith the basic Sketch Plan assumptions maintained, future
land use area boundaries were adjusted. The results are presented
as Figure F~l•
Effectual ion.--Prerequisite upon the implementation of any land
use pTarTTs the""support of local citizens. Zoning and subdivision
controls are necessary to prevent poor development but do little to
encourage planned development. The electorate should encourage the
public officials who are responsible for such plans to adopt them.
The public officials in turn have the responsibility of keeping the
local citizenry informed of the various stages of any plan. Close
liaison is necessary for feedback between local public agencies and
citizens. Coordination of all public agencies is necessary. The
locations of roads, utilities, and public open space all help to
influence private development. All financial and legal tools for
the effectuation of the plans should be carefully explored, and
regional cooperation with neighboring communities and the state and
federal governments is essential for organized and meaningful im-
plementat ion.
State and federal open space programs are a successful device
for maintaining land in a rural and wooded state. The TIRES area
is large enough to support more public forests and open space re-
serves. Selected areas in these open space preserves could be used
for hunting, camping, hiking, or leased for resorts. The majority
of this land should be left in a forested condition which would pre-
serve the rural integrity of the National Recreation Area.
The design and location of new highways, be they local, state,
or federal roads, are powerful determinants of land development. The
large volume of tourist traffic is sure to generate strip commercial
development along the highways; poorly designed and uncontrolled
commercial establishments would completely devastate the rural im-
pression that motorists want and should receive. New highways can also
-------
serve the purpose of ''opening up" areas that are desirable for develop-
ment, but that otherwise may remain inaccessible.
Urban renewal, currently in progress in Stroudsburg and recom-
mended for Port Jervis, can be a tool for successfully revitalizing
the larger urbanized areas within the Region. The deteriorating por-
tions of these cities could be reconstructed and oriented toward
recreation and vacation industries. Codes for building, fire, plumb-
ing and sanitary regulations should all be strictly enforced to bring
about optimum development. Joint authorities with members from both
private and public organizations could finance and control all neces-
sary utilities and facilities. Certain semi-nub]ic resorts and open
space preserves could also be maintained through such an authority.
An area-wide authority (a composite of local and state governments
and federal departments in the region) could plan and administer in a
coherent, regionally oriented manner. This authority, a possible
subdivision of the DRBC or a non-profit organization controlled by
local municipalities (for example, TIRAC), could be given broad powers
to tax and to condemn land to preserve open space. Various departments
of state government might be encouraged to purchase or lease land in the
TIRES area and preserve it as open space.
Easements could be purchased, leased, or rented to provide
scenic views and maintain utility lines. Scout and other resident
canps should be encouraged as a way of keeping land in a predominantly
wooded state.
All legal and financial tools for implementing good development
and preserving open space should be utilized in order to guarantee
the right of future generations to enjoy the DWG!IRA and its surround-
ina area.
F-47
-------
FIGURE F-l
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
THIS PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED IN PART Bf A
DEMONSTRATION GRANT, NUMBER WPO-136,
FROM THE RESEARCH AND TRAINING GRANT
PROGRAM, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION
F-48
-------
FIGURE F-l
FUTURE LAND USE
LEGEND
TOCKS ISLAND RESERVOIR
i::,.' •::,] DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
~1 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
^^M EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
•H?W RECOMMENDED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
RECORDED SUB DIVISIONS
RURAL
•HRnffiV ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE AREAS
STATE AND UTILITIES
..-'---;. OTHER OPEN
AIRPORT
F-49
-------
APPENDIX G
PROJECTED WATER-SUPPLY DEMANDS
AND
WASTEWATER FLOWS
FOR THE
DELAWARE WATER GAP
NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
-------
o
z
LU
o
o
0
NATL. PARK SERVICE NO.
1
2
5
1*
5
6
9
8
T
10
11
12
11*
15
13
16
17
18
UJ
£
t/i
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
NJ
PA
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS AND SEWAGE FLOWS
FOR
DWGNRA PARK SITES
PEAK POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
SITE
BUSHKILL CREEK SECTIOh
Upland Developments
Tocks 1 si and
Poxono
Bushki 1 1 Creek
HILL FARM SECTION
Upland Developments
Lehman
Egypt Mills
High Knob
DINGMANS CREEK SECTION
Upland Developments
Adams Creek
Dingmans Creek
Hornbecks Creek
GROUP CAMP SECTION
Upland Developments
Dry B'rook
Conashaugh Creek
SILVER SPRING SECTION
Upland Developments
Indian Point
MILFORD SECTION
Tom Quick
M i 1 1 ev i 1 1 e
The Cl iffs
MINI SINK SECTION
Upland Developments
Mi nisink
Namanock
Sandyston
PICNIC
Sites
90
70
280
970
550
560
10
750
12
830
2l*0
14-20
30
14-50
570
550
1*10
890
1 ,000
People
(U/S1te)
360
280
1 ,120
3,880
1 ,1*00
2,21*0
lt-0
3,000
1*8
3,320
960
1,680
120
1 ,800
2,280
2,200
1,640
3,560
It, 000
BEACHES
People
150
2,000
600
7,100
900
80
80
5,000
5,ooo
10,000
8,000
13,000
CAMP
Sites
100
270
1*00
100
10
600
70
20
20
200
50
270
350
800
People
(U/Site)
1*00
1 ,080
l,6oo
bQO
1*0
2.UOO
280
80
80
800
200
1 ,080
1 ,1*00
3,200
BOATING
Boats
10
580
215
30
15
1*0
280
180
15
15
80
320
500
1*10
Peopl e
OTHER
( Surplus
People)
|1*0
1,365
580
i*,590
150
(-260)
(-320)
20
(-80)
112
(-1,270)
(-1,070)
1 ,200
(-80)
(-80)
250
135
1 ,025
(-220)
(-1,525)
(-175)
(-1,380)
2,810
(-2,770)
Note:
LUNCH FACIL.
15 Lunch Facilities
142,000 Peo c 9>5QO peo/Facil.
at 1* GPCD = 38,000 Gal/Day/Facil.
G-1
-------
N.P.S.
Peak
Des i gn
Load
People
1 ,050
1,645
k ,780
8,1+70
3J50
2,380
320
60
5,320
160
9J50
1 ,070
] ,200
80
80
2,730
455
5,775
8,140
10,675
1 ,225
8,260
6,370
17,430
SEWAGE
40 Gal /Car/Day
Gal Ions/Day
42,000
65,800
191 ,200
338,800
126,000
95,200
12,800
2, ItOO
212, 800
6,4oo
366,000
1+2 , 800
1+8,000
3,200
3,200
109,200
18,200
23 i , ooo
325,600
1+27 , 000
1+9 , ooo
330,1+00
254,800
697,200
PICNIC
20 GPCO
GPD
7,200
5,600
22 , tOO
77 , 600
28,000
1+1+.800
800
60,000
960
66,1+00
19,200
33 , 600
2,1+00
36,000
1+5,600
44,ooo
32,800
71 ,200
80,000
G.P.C.D.
WATER SUPPLY DEMANDS
BATHING
10 GPCD
GPD
1 ,500
20,000
6,000
7 1 , ooo
9,000
800
800
50 , ooo
50 , ooo
1 00 , 000
80,000
130,000
CAMPS
50 GPCD
GPD
20,000
51+ , ooo
80,000
20,000
2,000
1 20 , 000
1 1+ , 000
i+,ooo
l+.OOO
1+0,000
1 0 , 000
51+ , ooo
70,000
1 60 , 000
BOATING
10 GPBD
GPD
100
5,800
2,150
300
150
1+00
2,800
1 ,800
150
150
800
3,200
5,000
1+, 100
-OTHER
Surplus
Peopl e
At Avg.
Rate
21 .0 GPCD
2,91+0
28,665
1 2 , 1 80
96,390
3,150
1+20
2,352
25,200
5,250
2,835
21,525
59,010
LUNCH
FACIL.
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
TOTAL
G.P.D.
31,740
34,265
11+6,580
217,790
1 1 1 , 1 50
66,950
8,300
1,370
1 80 , 000
3,712
178,200
1+1+ , 000
25,200
1+.950
4,950
78,850
16,035
145,525
190,800
1 82 , ooo
70,000
1 50 , 800
173,210
1+ 1 2 , 1 00
G-2
-------
o
z
Ul
a
0
0
z
UJ
o
i
flc
UJ
0.
jj
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
PA
31
UJ
|__
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
'NJ
NJ
WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS AND SEWAGE FLOW
FOR
"~
DWGNRA PARK SITES
SITE
FLATBROOK PENINSULA SI
Upland Developments
Bevans
Shapnack
Wai Ipack Bend
Little Point
Wai Ipack
KITTATINNY SECTION
Upland Developments
Ti 1 Iman Creek
Flatbrook
Buttermi 1 k
St il Iwater
Vancampens
Cal no
Dutch Mine
DELAWARE WATER GAP SE
-------
r. o r n OTHER
N.P.S.
Peak
Des ign
Load
People
4,585
60
105
1,540
240
1,365
5,635
2,205
6,510
1,565
214-0
7,962
I ,260
35
5,325
2,915
1 It- 1 , 522
SEWAGE
lt-0 Gal/C«r/D«y
Gal Ions/Day
I83,lt-00
2,14-00
14-, 200
61 ,600
9,600
5lt-, 600
225,14-00
88,200
260,14-00
62,600
9,600
318,14-80
50,14-00
1 ,400
213, ooo
I i 6 , 600
_5_,66o,88o
WATER SUPPLY DEMANDS Surplus
™ — • — — — ' ' rSOp 1 C
PICNIC
20 GPCD
GPD
3 1 , 600
8,4oo
4,8oo
14,14-00
1 0 , 400
14-0,000
lo,4oo
20,800
5,600
26,400
3,6oo
16,000
33,600
904 , 560
BATHING
10 GPCD
GPD
_
3,700
10,000,
9,000
64,000
2,100
2,000
45 , ooo
11 ,000
665,900
CAMPS
50 GPCD
GP»
80,000
52,200
_
-
1 84 , ooo
50 , ooo
23,200
18,200
116, 000
58,000
70 , ooo
1 ,305,400
BOATING
10 GPBD
GPD
200
300
2,300
200
100
100
800
_
600
100
3 1 . 600
At Avg.
Rate
21 .0 GPCD
29-, 505
5,040
1^,385
12,831
735
65,625
25,935
413.973
LUNCH
FACIL.
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
570 . 000
=5.66 MGD
TOTAL
G.P.D.
141 ,105
8,600
5, 100
72 , 600
5,24o
58,500
233, 100
113,585
122,800
81,731
20,200
225,400
73,200
835
151,625
97,535
1,889,633
Note: LUNCH FACIL.
15 Lunch Faci 1 it ies
142,000 Peo
15 "9
,500 Peo/Facil .
at It- GPCD = 38,000 Gal/Day/Facil.
G-4
-------
APPENDIX H
DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX H
DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Page
List of Tables
Water Supply Systems H- 1
Ground water supply H- 1
Surface water development H- 8
BU-1 (Bushkill-1) H- 9
Brodhead Creek-5 (BR-5) H-10
Brodhead Creek-6 (BR-6) H-14
Route 209 valley water supply system H-16
Liquid Waste Disposal Systems H-19
Brief descriptions of Alternatives H-19
Alternative I - Multiple Small Systems H-19
Alternative II - Limited Sub-Regional Systems H-19
Alternative III - Sub-Regional Systems H-19
Alternative IV - Regional System, Evolved.. H-19
Alternative V - Regional System H-19
Alternative VI H~19
Alternative I - Multiple Small Systems H-21
Description of Alternative I H-21
Alternative II - Limited Sub-Regional Systems H~26
Description of Alternative II ^-26
Matamoras Area System H-26
Mi 1 ford-Montague area H-28
Pocono Plateau area H-29
Barrett Township - Paradise Township area H-31
Lower Brodhead area H-32
Paul ins Kill area H-34
Flat Brook area H-36
Snydersvi 1 le area H-37
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(cont inued)
Page
Alternative III - Sub-Regional Systems H-42
Description of Alternative III H-42
Sub-regional wastewater treatment system No. 1
Matamoras - Orange County area H-42
Sub-regional wastewater treatment system No. 2
Milford area H-43
Sub-regional wastewater system No. 3 ~ Flat
Brook area H-47
Sub-regional wastewater system No. k - Upper
Brodhead area H-51
Sub-regional wastewater treatment system No. 6
Paul ins Kill area H-53
Alternative IV - Regional System, Evolved H-56
Description of Alternative IV H-56
Alternative V - Regional System H-57
Description of Alternative V H-57
Description of System H-57
Waste discharges from boats H-61
Solid Waste Disposal H-64
Introduction H-64
Type of disposal system H-64
Formulation of service zones H-65
Analysis of potential landfill sites H-68
State regulatory measures H-71
TIRES solid waste program recommendations H-72
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
H- 1 Characteristics of Major Wells H- 3
H- 2 Estimated Ground Water Yield Versus H- 4
Future Total Water Demand
H- 3 Average Potential Well Yields of H- 7
Geologic Formations in the Tocks
Island Region
H- 4 Cost Analysis-Alternative--Well Fields H-ll
and Transmission
H- 5 Cost Comparison of Supplementary H-13
Water Supply
H- 6 Annual Cost Comparison of Alternatives H-15
C and D
H- 7 Water Pollution Control Plants, Design H-23
Populations and Plant Capacities -
Alternative I
H- 8 Water Pollution Control Plants, Design H-38
Populations and Plant Capacities -
Alternative 11
H- 9 Water Pollution Control Plants - Systems H-40
Development Summary - Alternative II
H-10 Water Pollution Control Plants, Design H-44
Populations and Plant Capacities -
Alternative I I I
H-ll Summary of System Components - Alternative H-46
III - Sub-Regional System No. 1
H-12 Summary of System Components - Alternative H-48
III - Sub-Regional System No. 2
H-13 Summary of System Components - Alternative H-50
III - Sub-Regional System No. 3
H-14 Summary of System Components - Alternative H-52
III - Sub-Regional System No. b
H-15 Summary of System Components - Alternative H-54
III - Sub-Regional System No. 5
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table No. Title Page
H-16 Summary of System Components - Alternative H-55
111 - Sub-Regional System No. 6
H-17 Summary of System Components - H-62
Alternative V
H-18 Soil Limitations for Sanitary Landfills H-70
-------
APPENDIX H
DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
The existing water supply systems described in Appendix E wi 1 1
be capable of supplying only a small fraction of the future water
demands in the TIRES area. The existing 32 public and private water
supply systems presently serve a peak summer population of 66,000
with an average daily demand of 8.3 MGD. By 1980, the summer average
daily water demand in the study area will exceed 4l MGD, and by the
year 2020 almost a million people will require 139 million gallons
a day.
This does not mean, however, that all existing facilities are
obsolete. On the contrary, the four major systems in the study area,
serving Stroudsburg, East Stroudsburg, Newton and Port Jervis all
provide a high quality supply at a reasonsable cost within their
service areas. A limited increase in all four of these systems is
possible, either by increasing surface water sources or supplemental
ground water development.
The growth expected in the study area during the next 50 years
necessitates a thorough evaluation of water supply potential and
systems development on a regional scale, rather than consideration
of minor modifications to each localized system. Several of the
major communities in the TIRES area, faced with increasing water
demands, have undertaken studies of their own systems. While the
conclusions reached in each of these studies are valid for the re-
spective community, only rarely do they take into consideration the
water demand which will exist beyond the political boundaries of the
community sponsoring the study.
The detailed study of individual water supply systems is beyond
the scope of TIRES. Peak water supply demands have been presented
on both sub-basin and minor civil subdivision bases, but the analysis
performed herein places greater emphasis on water supply demand by
watershed .
G^rourid^ wa_te_r_ j u p_p_l y
As a general rule, the utilization of ground water for water
supply is the most economical solution for relatively small local-
ized systems. This is contingent on the quality and quantity of
water in the available aquifers being satisfactory. Surface water use
requires an impoundment structure, land area for the reservoir, treat-
ment, and transmission. The various geological formations present in the TIRES
area indicate excellent capacities as aquifers. Based on this information, the
H-l
-------
first assumption made in the analysis of water supply was to make maximum utiliza-
tion of ground water potential .
The initial step in the process of evaluating this ground water
potential in the TIRES area included the study of over 3,000 existing
wells in the Tri-State area. The work done by the New Jersey Depart-
ment of Geology alone consisted of collecting and analyzing data for
over 1,700 wells in the sections of Sussex and Warren Counties that
fall within the TIRES study area. The data compiled on the existing
wells in Pennsylvania and New York were much more fragmentary, and
needed information was developed both by research of State records
and field effort. Of the total 3,000 wells reviewed for the TIRES
area, roughly half were located in the New Jersey section and the
remaining portion divided between Pennsylvania and New York.
Over 80 percent of the data studied included wells meeting the
domestic-use classification (normally less than 100 ft. deep with a
supply of 6 gpm or less). It was felt that many of these small wells
do not represent the potential of the aquifers in the study area.
Therefore, onlv the major wells were included in the inventory of
existing wells. A major well was defined as having a yield in excess of 30 gpm
and a depth of over 100 ft. A total of 338 such wells have been located within
the study area, and the number indicated on the drawing corresponds with the
well inventory. Because of the limited areal extent of some aquifers, the wells
are generally grouped in similar lithologic order.
Based on the tabulation of major wells, depth versus yield plots
were made for each formational or rock type grouping in order to de-
termine the maximum, minimum, and average depth and yield for the
formations. In some cases where well yields appeared substantially
lower than those in adjoining areas in the same formations, the loca-
tions were studied to determine whether the low yields were a func-
tion of well location or rock type. As can be seen in table H-l,
the average depth in the rock wells are half or less than the optimum
depth for availability of maximum water supply. This fact is important
in estimating the average potential yield of the future wells discussed
in the later section.
Having evaluated the existing ground water development, each sub-
basin was next studied in terms of future water requirements for winter
and summer usage in the years 1990 and 2020. These requirements were
than expressed on the basis of mgd per square mile for each sub-basin
area. These are shown on table H~2.
The ground water potential for each sub-drainage basin was eval-
uated in terms of recharge capacity versus future demands. A major
concern of this portion of the work was the amount of recharge water
necessary to maintain the various aquifers that comprise the ground
water network. At the present time there has not been a quantitative
H-2
-------
TABLE H-l
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR WELLS
Aqu i f er
DC
Dp
Dh
Dsl
Ds
Sb
SS
Om
OGc
P9
Unc
Depth
Max imum M
1,800
400
918
350
315
316
160
500
521
300
369
(feet)
In imum
40
38
59
50
54
47
100
50
40
35
46
Average
204.8
165.3
229.8
129.2
132.5
149.3
124.6
204.9
168.2
154.3
111.9
Yield
Maximum
200+
60
140
150
100
450
50
220
815
800
733
(gpm)
Average
50.8
36.2
45.1
50.1
48.6
62.6
38.3
55.2
103.2
168.5
102.1
Number
of
Wells
102
8
43
36
15
16
3
45
33
8
29
(Based on inventory of major wells which includes only those wells having yields
of 30 gpm or more.)
H-3
-------
Table H-2
TOCKS ISLAND REGION ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
ESTIMATED GROUND-WATER YIELD
VERSUS
FUTURE TOTAL WATER DEMAND (MEDIUM PROJECTION)
(EXCLUSIVE OF DWGNRA)
Estimated Yield of
Future Water Demand (MGD)
Sub~Bas i n
(i)
PO-l
PO-2
PO-3
po-4
PO-5
NE-1
NE-2
FL-1
FL-2
BU-1
BU-2
BU-3
BR-1
BR-2
BR-3
BR-4
BR-5
BR-6
CH-1
Kl-l
PA-1
PA-2
PA-3
PA-4
Area
(Sq. Miles)
(2)
55-5
28.8
25.lt
26.9
28.3
62.3
ll.lt
67.6
lit. 8
98.0
34.0
33-9
65.8
48.8
47.9
69.2
28.9
30.5
26.4
29.4
37.0
25^8
75.6
DX i b L i uy i-t
January
IGPM!
(3T
1,097
365
265
770
105
1,123
830
894
287
365
170
45
730
1,127
1,715
1,027
325
450
550
130
125
590
309
7,893
a 1 y ^ n\~ i i -i
1968 x
(MGD)
' / 1 \~—
(4)
1.58
0.53
0.38
1.11
0.15
1.62
1.20
1.29
0.41
0.53
0.24
0.06
1.05
1.62
2.47
1.48
0.47
0.65
0.79
0.19
0.18
0.85
0.44
11.37
Winter
50$
0.85
0.30
0.45
0.95
0.70
1.75
0.30
1.30
0.05
1.85
o.4o
0.50
2.15
1.72
1.21
2.15
2.15
0.50
0.10
1.00
2.10
1.65
5-15
1990
Summer
{6'
1.70
0.60
0.90
1.90
i.4o
3.50
0.60
2.60
0.10
3.70
0.80
1.00
4.30
2.90
3.44
2.43
4.30
4.40
1.00
0.20
2.00
4.20
3.30
10.30
Winter
70$
2.73
1.57
1-57
3-50
1.26
3-57
0.84
3-92
0.14
6.44
1.89
6.92
4.83
6.16
5.00
6.70
6.15
1.61
0.42
2.87
5-11
4.27
12.25
2020
Summer
3-90
2.20
2.20
5.00
1.80
5.10
1.20
5.60
0.20
9.20
2.20
2.70
9-90
6.90
8.79
7.16
9.60
3.90
2.30
0.60
4.10
7.30
6.10
17-50
TOTAL
1,009.6
30.72
61.57
91.26
130.14.5
Based on relatively short-term pumping tests and other yield data for existing wells. Yield estimates probably would be reduced if wells were pump-tested con-
tinuously for long periods during a prolonged drought.
Maximum estimate represents ground-water recharge at 0.75 MGD/Sq, Mi ., derived from Parker et^c^_. (1964), multiplied by the area of the sub-basin.
In the absence of specific sub-basin recharge data, a factor of 20 percent of the generalized basin estimate,. 0.75 MGD/Sq. Mi ., is assumed for all sub-basins.
This factor appears to be conservative, and need not be refined except for sub-basins For which the calculated ground-water yield is marginal or inadequate
when compared with demand .
Column 14 minus Column 8, rounded to nearest tenth, except for BU-1, BR-4, BR-5, BR-6.
Indicated deficit may be reduced or eliminated by refinement of the projected 2020 demand, as shown in Column 8, or of the estimated design ground-water
yield, as shown in Column 14. Any residual deficit possibly can be made up by transfer of ground water from adjoining sub-basins.
Total ground -water development is not feasible because of relative locations of demand centers and potential well fields.
These indicated deficits will probably have to be met by surface water supplies; total deficit approximately 15.20 MGD.
H-4
-------
Demand per Square Mile
(MGD/Sq. Hi.)
Winter
~T9T~
0.015
0.010
0.018
0.035
0.025
0.028
0.026
0.019
0.003
0.019
0.012
0.015
0.033
0.030
0.036
0.018
0.074
0.070
0.019
0.003
0.027
0.056
o.o64
0.068
1990
Summer
'-• (10)
0.030
0.020
0.035
0.070
0.050
0.056
0.053
0.039
0.007
0.038
0.023
0.030
0.065
0.059
0.072
0.035
0.149
0.141
0.038
0.007
0.054
0.112
0.128
0.136
Winter
(11)
0.049
0.055
0.062
0.1JO
0.044
0.057
0.074
0.058
0.010
0.066
0.045
0.056
0.105
0.099
0.130
0.070
0.232
0.202
0.061
0.014
0.078
0.137
0.165
0.162
2020
Summer
U2)
0.070
0.078
0.088
0.186
0.064
0.082
0.105
0.083
o.oi4
0.094
0.065
0.080
0.150
0.141
0.180
0.103
0.331
0.288
0.087
0.020
0.111
0.195
0.236
0.231
Estimates of Potential
Ground-Water Yields, HGD
Max i mum2 Des ign3
in. 63
21.60
19.05
20.18
21.23
1*6.73
8.55
50.70
11.10
73.50
25 • 50
25.1*3
49-35
36.60
35-93
51.90
21.68
22.88
19.80
22.05
27.75
28.05
19-35
56.70
8.33
4.32
3.81
it. 03
4.25
9-35
1.71
10.14
2.22
Ik.706
5.10
5.08
9.87
7.32
7-19
10.38s
5-77
4.57s
3-96
4.41
5.54
5.61
3.87
11.34
Ground-Water
Surplus (+) or
Deficit (-),
2020, HGD4
031
(+) "*A
(+) 2.1
(+) 1.6
(+) 2A
(+) ois
(+) ^.5
(+) 2.0^
(+) 2.9
(+) 2.4
0.0
(+) 0.4
(+) 1.6s
0.0
(-) 4.o7
(+) I!T
(+) 3.8
(-) i;?5
(-) 2.2
(-) 6.2=
H-5
-------
recharge study in the Upper Delaware River Basin. The closest com-
parative study, cited by Parker et_ aJL_ (1964), was made in the Pomperaug
Basin of Connecticut, where the ground water recharge potential was
calculated at 0.75 mgd per square mile. There are definite similar-
ities between the Pomperaug Basin and the TIRES area. Both areas
were glaciated and both areas have a somewhat similar rock type with
similar structural deformation causing shears and faults in the rock.
Therefore in order to preserve existing hydrologic expression, and
prevent substantial drawdown of the water table, 20 percent of the
0.75 rngd per square mile figure was estimated as the usable withdrawal
of ground water per square mile for the TIRES area. Table H-2 shows
the summary by sub-basin of potential ground water yields, with the
usable yield being compared with the peak summer demand for each sub-
bas in.
The preliminary comparison of these figures indicated that the
future water requirements from all but eight of the sub-basins might
be satisfied by utilizing only ground water sources. In the eight
sub-basins where the future demands will not be entirely satisfied
by ground water, various alternatives were considered. Special hy-
drologic conditions in five of the sub-basins indicate that addi-
tional quantities of water can be withdrawn from the aquifers without
significantly lowering the water table or reducing streamflow. In
one case, (PO-4) , very significant deposits of highly permeable sand
and gravel exist. In another sub-basin, (PA-4), highly soluble lime-
stones are found, which create high recharge zones, due to solution
channels and secondary porosity.
Each sub-basin was correlated with the geological formations
to determine which major formations were located within it.
For each respective formation, the average potential yield of major
wells was estimated, under the assumption that each of these major
wells would be properly located and drilled to optimum depth. These
average yield values are shown in Table H~3 by formation.
Next, each sub-basin was examined in detail, and potential well
fields were generally located. These well field locations were then
checked against the pattern of future land use, and supply versus
future demand balanced by development stage. For water supply plan-
ning, stage 1 includes the demand increase from 1970 thru 1990, and
stage 2, 1990 thru the end of the study period (2020). Where ground
water will be both adequate and convenient, the future water demand in
mgd for each sub-basin is assumed to be met by the required number of
wells in the respective aquifers present in the sub-basin area. This
tabulation, for the two study periods in question, is available as open
file data from DRBC. For example, in sub-basin PO-1 covering an area of over
55 square miles, a future summer population of over 12,000 by the year
1990 will create a water demand of some 1.7 million gallons a day.
This demand could be met by drilling 10 large wells in the Catskill
formation in ten different well fields, and one well in the Hamilton
formation. In the second stage of the development, seven more wells
H-6
-------
TABLE H-3
AVERAGE POTENTIAL WELL YIELDS
OF
GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS
IN THE TOCKS ISLAND REGION
Symbol Geologic Formation Potential Yield, gpm
Unc Valley bottom glacial deposits 350+
DC Catsklll 200
Dp Portage 100
Dh Hamilton - Mahantango only 100
Dsl Onondaga 150, 75-250
Esopus 75
Orlskany 100-250
DS Helderberg 100
Sb Bloomsburg 200
Ss Shawungunk 50
On Martlnsburg 100
Ofrc Carbonates (except Jacksonburg) 300
P& Gneisses 75
H-7
-------
could be drilled in the Catskill formation and two more in the Hamil-
ton formation. This will give an estimated total potential yield of
some 5.3 million gallons a day by the year 2020, more than adequate
for the summer water demand of 3-9 mgd created by the 26,000 people
in the area. In this particular sub-basin, the well fields are dis-
tributed throughout the area and are near the expected future develop-
ment areas. However, because the population will be fairly well
spread throughout the area, extensive distribution lines will be re-
quired. In addition, some of the fields are in remote and undeveloped
areas and will require power transmission to the fields.
This same type of detailed analysis was performed for each sub-basin area.
The wells required during the first stage ( 1970- to 1990), will be constructed
throughout the period and will not be built at any one given time. Generalized
well field locations are shown in lieu of specific well sites. Any field could
be relocated if future land use development differs from the projected pattern,
or if it is desirable to provide a more uniform distribution of ground water with-
drawal in the latter portion of the first development period. The same thing
is true of ground water development in the second development phase.
As each sub-basin was analyzed, the estimated usable ground water
potential shown in Table H~2 was evaluated to determine whether or
not it represented the developable ground water potential for the sub-
basin. In some cases this value was found to be misleading. In one
sub-basin, BR~5, either the transfer of surplus ground water from
adjacent basins or surface water development will be necessary. In
two other sub-basins, BU-1 and BR-6, potential well fields are too
remote from future populations, and additional sources will be re-
qu i red .
The water supply requirements within the DWGNRA are relatively
small compared with those outside the Recreation Area. As the water
requirements for the various activity areas were studied, it became
apparent that the required water supply for virtually all these areas
could be met by the construction of two domestic type wells per area.
At major park sites where larger yields will be required, the geology
was examined to determine the feasibility of more extensive ground
water development. In every case there appeared to be sufficient
capability to supply the entire requirement from ground water sources.
Many park sites, because of their close proximity to each other, could
logically be supplied from a common source, for economy of installation
and operation. It will also be possible in some areas, such as the
park sites adjacent to Milford Borough or around Bushkill Inlet, to
develop water supply systems in conjunction with community systems.
For those areas where the estimates of potential ground water
yield indicate that it will not be adequate for future summer demand,
a study of supplemental water supply has been made. The amount of the
H-8
-------
deficit in each sub-basin was estimated, and the probable locations
of major future population concentrations in each sub-basin were ex-
amined. While the analysis varied with each deficit area, three basic
alternatives were considered.
a. The possibility of developing v/el 1 fields in adjacent
sub-drainage basins with a surplus of ground water
potential, and transmitting it into the deficit basin,
was considered. Here the major cost of water supply
development would be for transmission between sub-
basins rather than for well-field development.
b. Development of surface impoundments within the sub-
drainage basin area was considered. Potential sites
for dam structures were taken from the North Atlantic
Region Watershed Inventory and watershed work plans
developed by the Soil Conservation Service. Many
of the potential dam sites considered by the SCS are
primarily for the purpose of flood control, and had
to be evaluated quantitatively as to their feasibility
for water supply impoundments. Only a very limited
number of the sites located within the study area
were considered for surface water development, and
each one of these would require further study before
it was finally selected as a multi-purpose reservoir
s i te.
c. A major portion of the storage volume in the locks
Island Reservoir has been allocated for future water
supply. As many of the major growth areas lie within
a few miles of the reservoir, consideration was given
to withdrawal, treatment, and transmission from the
reservoir to the populated areas.
Since each sub-basin was analyzed separately, the comparison be-
tween alternatives will be described by each sub-basin.
BU-1 (Bushki11-1).--For this sub-basin, the estimated ad-
ditional dema~hTTTT.in?g~cr~by the year 1990 and k.6 mgd by the year
2020. While the initial evaluation of total ground water potential
for the sub-basin indicated some 1^.7 mgd, a study of the suh-basin
itself indicated that the potential well fields were too far removed
from the future population centers. Most of the upper part of this
sub-basin, which is underlain by the high yielding Catskill formation,
is expected to be very sparsely populated through our study period.
Much of the land in this area is State game land or private hunting
and fishing clubs, and will probably remain so for many years. Most
of the growth anticipated within the sub-basin will occur in the valley
along the route near Bushki11 Inlet, adjacent to the reservoir and
the National Recreation Area. Formations which underlie this portion
of the sub-basin are much poorer aquifers.
H-9
-------
To meet the deficit water supply demand, two alternatives were
considered. Alternative 1 was based on the development of well
fields in the upper sub-basin (State game lands) and transmission
down the valley of Big Bushkill Creek to the junction of U. S. 209
near Bushkill Inlet. Alternative 2 was based on withdrawal from
locks island Reservoir at Bushkill Inlet, pumping to an elevated
raw water storage facility in the valley (elevation 600), and treat-
ment. Other distribution and storage costs were felt to be equal.
The following table H-1* is a cost comparison between the two alter-
natives .
The supplementary water supply required, on which the cost com-
parison is based, is equal to approximately 50 percent of the total
sub-basin demand for the two study periods. This assumes that the
population creating this portion of the demand will be readily avail-
able to a valley distribution system. It neglects the effect of Well
Field No. 8 in the unconsolidated deposits near Bushkill Inlet, as-
suming that this will be utilized by park facilities in the area.
While a combination system, utilizing both surface water withdrawal
from the reservoir and limited ground water development, is possible,
this assumption had to be made to give a quantitative cost comparison.
This comparison indicates that the development and utilization of sur-
face water supply from the reservoir is cheaper both in terms of capi-
tal cost and annual cost, even including the very high operation and
maintenance cost associated with a treatment plant.
It can be seen that the major cost element in the construction
and development of well fields in the upper sub-basin is the cost of
transmission, and the annual cost is greater in Stage 1, based on
the assumption that the required transmission lines would be construc-
ted during the first phase of construction. The utilization of well
fields closer to the valley, or the possible stage development of
the transmission facilities might greatly reduce both the capital
cost and the annual cost for well field development. However, it
is felt that the available ground water resources in the upper por-
tion of the sub-basin immediately adjacent to the Route 209 valley
will be utilized by residents in those areas, and the Route 209
valley residents must choose between long range transmission of
ground water sources, or treatment and transmission of reservoir
water.
Brodhead Creek-5 (BR~5).—This sub-basin, covering an area
of a little less than 29 square miles, will be the most densely popu-
lated sub-basin within the entire study area. By the year 1990, the
summer population is expected to reach over 32,000 people with the water
demand in excess of 4.3 million gallons per day. By the year 2020, this
population will double to 64,000 people and the demand will increase to
9-6 million gallons per day. The sub-basin is comprised of the most
densely populated areas of East Stroudsburg Borough, Smithfield Town-
ship, Stroud Township, and small parts of Middle Smithfield Township
H-10
-------
Item
Stage 1—1970-1990
Well Construction
Power
Water Transmission
Storage, Ground Tanks
Pumping (Over Ridgeline)
Sub-Total
Stage 2—1990-2020
Well Construction
Storage, Additional
Pumping, Additional Station
Sub-Total
TOTAL
Stage 1—1970-1990
Intake Structure
Pump Station (300' TDH)
Transmission to
Raw Water Reservoir
Raw Water Reservoi r
Treatment Plant
Sub-Total
Stage 2—1990-2020
Pump Station No. 2
Transmission - 2nd F.M.
Treatment
Increase to 4.6 mgd
Sub-Total
TOTAL
Units
Wei Is
Miles
Miles
mgd
HP
Wells
mgd
HP
HP
Ft.
Cu. Yd.
mgd
HP
Ft.
mgd
ALTERNATIVE
No. of
Units
7
8
17
1.8
135
10
2.8
210
TABLE |-|_4
BUSHKILL-1 (BU-1)
COST ANALYSIS
ONE—WELL FIELDS AND TRANSMISSION
Capital Cost,
thousands of dollars
Per Unit Total
30 210
65 520
111 1,887
100 180
110
2,907
30 300
100 280
145
725
3,632
Annual Cost,
Stage 1
Amort i zat 1 on
0 and M of Wei Is
Power
Stage 2
Amortization
0 and M of Wei Is
Power
do) 1 ars
= $169,478.00
8,400.00
35,000,00
15,000,00
$227,878.00
= $ 42,200.00
12,000.00
50,000.00
20,000.00
$124,000.00
$352,078.00 by 1991
ALTERNATIVE TWO— RESERVOI R WITHDRAWAL AND TREATMENT
1
135
8,000
24,000
1.8
210
8,000
2.8
L.S. 50
110
0 .021 168
87
410 738
1,153
145
0 .021 168
350 980
1,293
2,445
Stage 1
Amort i zat i on
0 and M - 1.18 mgd
Chemicals 500.00/Mo. x
Malts 900.00/Mo. x
Labor and OP 35,000 .00/Yr ,
5,000.00/Yr,
Power (Pump Only)
Stage 2
Amortization
0 and M at 4.6 mgd
104,000. 00/Yr. at 4.6 mgd
104,000 - 56,800
Power (Pump Only)
= $ 64,300.00
12)
^1= 56,800.00
15,000.00
$136.100.00
= $ 75,500.00
47,200.00 Incr.
20,000.00
$142,700.00
$278,000.00 by 1991
-------
and Stroudsburg Borough. Upper portions of the sub-basin are under-
lined by the Catskill Formation, but most of the more densely popu-
lated regions will occur in the suburban areas surrounding the two
Stroudsburgs, which is underlain by the Hamilton Formation. These
formations will be adequate to meet the demand through the first phase of de-
velopment and a portion of the second, but that an auxiliary water supply
source must be developed during the second phase.
The capacity of the auxiliary supply required is estimated at
4 million gallons per day. Four possibilities were considered to meet
this additional supply.
a. Construction of a small reservoir on Michael Creek in
Price and Middle Smithfield Townships.
b. Increased diversion from Brodhead Creek by the Strouds-
burg system.
c. Diversion of water from the Tocks Island Reservoir
via the Route 209 Valley Transmission Line.
d. Transmission of water from Upper Basin (Price Township),
using surplus ground water potential.
The small reservoir site on Michael Creek would not be satisfac-
tory as a major surface water impoundment site. At present, Michael
Creek is diverted to feed into the East Stroudsburg Reservoir located
on Sambo Creek.
The second alternative, increasing the diversion from Brodhead
Creek into the Stroudsburg system to supply future Stroudsburg and
suburban-area requirements, might satisfy a portion of the future de-
mand, even as much as two million gallons per day. However, this
partial answer would apply to only the western portion of sub-basin
BR-5, and would not satisfy the total demand without a new impoundment
structure, treatment plant, and other major distribution components.
The third possibility considered increasing the treatment plant
capacity of the facilities proposed in sub-basin BU-1 from *4.6 million
gallons per day by 2020 to 8.6 million gallons per day. Table H"5
outlines the cost estimate of this concept, including expansion of the
intake structure, transmission of raw water to the plant reservoir, in-
crease in plant capacity, and transmission down the valley of Route 209
to the service area of sub-basin BR-5. The cost comparison is presented
both in terms of capital cost and annual cost.
The fourth possibility, tapping the ground water resources in
the upper sub-basin and transmission down the valley of the Brodhead
into sub-basin BR-5 was also considered. Under this plan, two well
fields in sub-basin BU-1 and two well fields in sub-basin BR-k, which
H-12
-------
TABLE1 H-5
COST COMPARISON OF
SUPPLEMENTARY WATER SUPPLY
CONSTRUCTION COST - ALTERNATIVE C
Expansion
Pump Station $ 1^5,000.00
Transmission ^0,000.00
Plant 1,150,000.00
Sub-Total $ 1,335,000.00
Transmission Down the Valley
Pi pel ine $ 1,110,000.00
Pump Stations ^50,000.00
Sub-Total $ 1,560,000.00
TOTAL $ 2,895,000.00
CONSTRUCTION COST - ALTERNATIVE D
2 Wei Is $ ij-20,000.00
Power Supply 390,000.00
Transmission 2,330,000.00
TOTAL $ 3,1^0,000.00
H-13
-------
are not required for the water demand of those sub-basins, would be
utilized. Major transmission lines down the Brodhead Valley would
be the most expensive component in developing this water supply source.
The cost estimate for this alternative is also shown in table H.-5.
The capital costs of the two alternatives are fairly close. The
annual costs shown in Table H-6 indicate that the development of the
remote well fields in the adjacent sub-basins and transmission would
be slightly less. However, in light of the analysis of sub-basin BR-6,
the use of water from the Tocks Island Reservoir will be slightly
more favorable a concept, and the cost will be reduced as the expense
of transmission facilities is shared between BR-6 and BR-5-
Brodhead Creek-6 (BR-6) .--This sub-basin will be the second
most densely populated region within the TIRES area by the end of the
study period, with an average density of some 3.36 persons per acre.
The population is expected to exceed 31,500 by the summer period of
1990, creating a water demand of over b.k million gallons per day.
This population will almost double by the year 2020 to some 58,900
people, with a total demand of 8.9 million gallons per day. The sub-
basin includes over 30 percent of the area of East Stroudsburg Borough,
approximately ^5 percent of Middle Smithfield Township, 37 percent of
Smithfield Township, and a small portion of Stroudsburg Borough. More
important, it includes the Brodhead Creek Valley at its confluence with
the Delaware River, and the Marshal Is Creek - U. S. 209 valley as far
as Echo Lake.
In the preliminary analysis, it was proposed that a major portion
of the future water demand be met by the development of 13 large wells
in the Catskill Formation portion of the basin. This area represents
only 25 percent of the total sub-basin. Development at this intensity
would mean an average withdrawal of some ^57>000 gallons per square
mile per day, which is substantially in excess of the assumed (or es-
timated) safe limit of 150,000 gallons per square mile per day.
Thus, the initial estimate of ground water potential was felt
to be an overestimate for this sub-basin. Geological correlation
within the sub-basin indicated a potential development of five major
wells at 200 gallons per minute in the Catskill Formation in the
upper portion of the sub-basin. Population development will occur
here, but most of the intense development will be in the valley along
Highway U. S. 209 and in the lower sub-basin surrounding East Strouds-
burg. The formation present throughout most of this area is the
Hamilton, with a potential for only comparatively low-yield wells
(100 gallons per minute or less). Geologic analysis indicates only
six wells at 100 gallons per minute can be developed in this area.
This yields a total sub-basin ground water withdrawal of 600 gallons
per minute or 0.85 million gallons per day. This is an average sub-
basin ground water yield of 75,000 gallons per day per square mile.
H-14
-------
TABLE H-6
ANNUAL COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES C AND D
Alternative C
Increase withdrawal from Tocks Island Reservoir,
Treatment, and Transmission to BR-5 during stage 2
Capital Cost 2.895 Mi 11
Amortization (5% - kO Yr. CRF = 0.0583)
(0.0535) (2,895,000.00) $169,000.00
0 and M
8.6 mgd Cap.
Chem. 2,300. 00/md ) ,
Filter 2,000.00/md)
Labor and OP 85,000 + 10,000
k.6 mgd Cap. = $10^ , 000 . 00 /Y r .
Increased 0 and M
Transmission (Power and Maint.)
5 at 30,000.00
Estm. 300 HP Eachl
= $ 51,600.00/Yr.
= 95,000.00
$lU6,600.00/Yr.
$ 1*2,600. uO
Alternati ve D
Develop remote well fields in BR-k and BU-1, transmission
to BR-5 during stage 2 __
Capi tal Cost 3.1^0 Mill
(0.0583) (3,1^0,ooo.oo)
0 and M (k-Z of Wei Is)
(0.0k) (U20,000.00)
Power
Ik Wells at 5,000.00/Well/Yr.
Selected
$183,000.00
16,800.00
70,000.00
$269,800.00
Total Annual Cost
$301,000.00
-------
This limit is substantially lower than the average ground water
recharge potential used in other parts in the TIRES area, but is felt
to be a more realistic estimate for this sub-basin.
The deficit for sub-basin BR-6 is as follows:
Yea r Water Demand (mgd) _ Def icU (mgd)
Summer W Summer Winter
1990 k.k 2.15 2.1 0
2020 8.9 7.10 6.6 k. 8
Three alternatives were considered to meet this deficit:
a. Tapping additional ground water resources in unde-
veloped portions of other basins and transport this
high quality water into the deficit area of BR-6.
This alternative appeared to be slightly more eco-
nomical for the adjacent basin BR-5.
b. Increasing the capacity of withdrawal and treatment
facilities from Bushkill Inlet at Tocks Island Reser-
voir which would be used to supplement the supply in
the adjacent sub-basin, BU-1. This would require
transmission down U. S. 209 and Marshal Is Creek to
the growth areas, a method which proved slightly
more expensive in the analysis of sub-basin BR-5.
c. Creating two reservoirs within sub-basin BR-6 for
water supply only, at the SCS sites, with capacity
limited to the deficit, and with one or both of the
impoundments expanded during phase 2.
A cost analysis of these three alternatives indicated that the
development of the combined surface water withdrawal and treatment
facility in conjunction with the adjacent sub-basin BU-1 is the most
economical solution to the water supply demands in basin BR-6. With
the cost of transmission of Tocks Island Reservoir water into this
sub-basin area being justified by this demand, the incremental cost
to distribute water even further into the adjacent sub-basin BR-5
becomes substantially less than that estimated in the previous anal-
ysis for BR-5. The following section will describe how a regional
water supply treatment and distribution system can serve all three
of these deficit sub-basins.
Route 209 valley water supply _sy£tern.- -The existing East
Stroudsburg Water Supply System is assumed to be adequate to meet the
needs of the Borough thru the year 1990. However, the growth in the
adjacent townships will far exceed the capacity of this surface water
supply. By that time, the total water demand in the surrounding
H-16
-------
drainage basins of BR-5, BR-6, and BU-1 will exceed 12.k MGD. Most
of this demand will occur in a fairly limited area from East Strouds-
burg to Bushkill inlet, and will not be uniformly distributed
throughout the basins.
Therefore, the total estimated ground water resources cannot be
developed, and must be limited to approximately 7 to 8 MGD. This
ground water usage may be even less if the population density is
greater than expected in the poorer geologic formations, such as
the Hamilton. With an estimated reliable yield of 1.5 MGD from the
East Stroudsburg system, a deficit of approximately 3.9 MGD will
exist by 1990, located primarily in Smithfield and Middle Smithfield
Townships and throughout the valley surrounding U.S. Route 209 from
East Stroudsburg northeast to the National Park limits.
To meet this future deficit, a central water supply system is
proposed. This water supply distribution system is a result of the
analysis of deficit water supply in sub-basins BU-1, BR-5, and BR-6.
It would utilize storage volume in the Tocks Island Reservoir al-
located to water supply, and would withdraw, treat, and distribute
this water in the valley from BushkMl Inlet to East Stroudsburg.
The following summarizes the water supply deficits by sub-basin
and indicates the location of the population creating this deficit.
Sub-Basi n Water Deficit (mgd)
By 1990 By 2020
BU-1 1.8 k.6
BR-5 0 *».0
BR-6 2.1 6.6
3-9 15.2
Estimated Service Population 1990 2020
Middle Smithfield Township 16,500 1*0,700
Smithfield Township 12,300 3^,700
Stroud Township 0 5,000
East Stroudsburg Borough 0_ 21 ,000
28,800^ 101,1*00
Based on widthdrawal from Bushkill Inlet and distribution
to Middle Smithfield and Smithfield Townships in stage 1;
extension to East Stroudsburg Borough and Stroud Township
in stage 2.
H-17
-------
The development of a surface supply is felt to be essential to
meet the future demands within this valley. The withdrawal of some
four mgd from the reservoir would have virtually no effect on the
reservoir itself, since it represents only some 12 acre-feet per day
from an impoundment that has an average summer storage capacity of
500,000 acre feet. In the event that some of the anticipated well
fields located in sub-basins BR-1 and BR-2 do not produce the yield
expected, the withdrawal and treatment capacity required by this
plant might well exceed the 15,000,000 gallons per day demand esti-
mated by 2020. However, the high cost of transmission decreases the
advantage of surface water utilization beyond a 10 to 12 mile range
of this impoundment.
Since the underlying principle in the development of all water
supply systems is to provide maximum utilization of water resources,
both surface and ground water, the final system serving the Strouds-
burg and the surrounding townships should be a network of transmission
lines supplied by the available well fields and the proposed Route 209
valley water supply treatment plant.
H-18
-------
LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Brief descriptions of alternatives
The five alternative wastewater collection and treatment sys-
tems studied are shown on Figures ] thru 5 and may be described
briefly as follows.
Alternative I - Multiple Small Systems.--This alternative in-
eludes 116 individual water pollution control plants, ranging in
size from 0.02 to 5-0 mgd. These would serve each population con-
centration within the study area as it developed, and would minimize
the extent of collection systems. By the end of our study period in
the year 2020, approximately 76 percent of the peak summer population
would be included in the service areas.
Alternative II - Limited Sub-Regional Systems.--This alterna-
tive includes 52 treatment plants, ranging in size from 0.02 to 24.0
mgd. It is generally a combination of Alternatives I and III and in-
cludes eight limited sub-regional systems, with 44 smaller treatment
plants serving less concentrated development areas. By the year 2020,
approximately 84 percent of the peak summer population would be served.
Alternative III - Sub-Regional Systems.--This alternative services
six sub-regional areas with six plants; ultimate treatment plant capa-
cities range from 3.6 to 28.0 mgd. By 2020, nearly 88 percent of the
peak summer population within the study area would be served. (In
addition to the six sub-regional plants, there are 15 very minor facil-
ities serving isolated areas. These 15 facilities only serve about
one percent of the service population and so are not elaborated upon
herein.)
Alternative IV - Regional System, Evolved.--This is basically
Alternative III developed through the year 2000, with total regional-
ization, by interconnection of collection systems and centralized
treatment occurring during the final development phase.
Alternative V -_ Regional System.--This alternative provides all
treatment at one plant located below the reservoir. Flows to this
plant would include the wastewaters from the Paul ins Kill drainage
basin. Alternate plant sites at the mouth of the Brodhead Creek or
the Paul ins Kill, as shown on Figure 5 would require pumping through
the Delaware Water Gap. An ultimate plant capacity of approximately
90 mgd would provide treatment for over 91 percent of the peak summer
population by the year 2020. (In addition to the one regional plant,
there are 15 very minor facilities serving isolated areas. These 15
facilities only serve about one percent of the service population
and so are not elaborated upon herein.)
Alternative VI.--For comparative purposes, this Alternative
was developed by combining I and III. Alternative I would be con-
structed during the first stage and then abandoned during the
H-19
-------
second stage.
th i rd stages.
Alternative III would be built during the second and
The development of the systems under each alternative has been
staged to correspond with population growth in the study area. None
of the four alternatives could or should be built at one time, but
rather would grow to meet the demand as it occurred. Since population
growth will not occur at a constant rate over the 50 year study period,
three periods of systems development and construction have been con-
si dered.
Phase 1: 1970-1980 (Beginning of major growth period)
Phase 2: 1980-2000 (Period of maximum growth rate)
Phase 3: 2000-2020 (Period of relative increase in perm-
anent residential population)
The recommended staging of each alternative has also been shown
on Figures 1 through 5.
H-20
-------
Alternative I - Multiple Small Systems
Description of Alternative I.--The rationale behind Alternative I
is that a wastewater collection and treatment system is built to
serve each individual pocket of development and population growth
as the need occurs.
There are six small communities which have an immediate need
for wastewater collection and treatment systems. These communities
are expected to have a total peak summer population of 23,000 by
the year 1975. These communities are the boroughs of Matamoras,
Milford, and Mt. Pocono in Pennsylvania, the borough of Branchville
in New Jersey, Barrett Township in Pennsylvania, and the northern
section of Stroud Township bordering on the communities of Strouds-
burg and East Stroudsburg.
Within Barrett Township, the small community of Buck Hill Falls
is already served by a small package plant, and the adjacent commun-
ities of Cresco, Mountain Home and Canadensis, are in urgent need of
collection and treatment facilities. This township system, if de-
veloped, should include the service area of Buck Hill Falls when the
small package plant reached its design life.
The suburban communities surrounding the Stroudsburgs have been
experiencing extensive urbanization within the last few years, and
this growth phase will continue and accelerate within the near future.
The two existing public systems are not capable of handling this ad-
ditional burden; therefore, under Alternative I, an additional plant
should be built early in Phase 1 to serve the northern suburban areas.
Within the latter half of Phase 1, the study area will begin to
feel the first major impact resulting from the development of the DWGNRA
With the opening of the Recreation Area scheduled for the late 1970's,
and ultimate development anticipated by 1985, required service facil-
ities must be constructed prior to 1980. Under Alternative I, facil-
ities serving the Recreation Area will not service residents outside
the Recreation Area limits. This results in the construction of 16
"zone"(') systems and 33 individual facility plants serving the Rec-
reation Area. These ^9 treatment facilities will serve the 10,500,000
annual visitors, most of whom will utilize the facilities during the
3 to k month summer period. With a maximum daily summer occupancy
of approximately 1^1,500 people, the wastewater collection and treat-
ment facilities provided must have a total capacity of 5-7 mgd.
The average daily demand on each of the 49 treatment facilities
would be less than design capacity, and the period of use would prob-
ably not exceed k months per year. This kind of operation requires a
large staff of skilled personnel during the summer periods.
A Zone System in Alternative I is defined as one that serves sev-
eral areas as opposed to a single service area.
H-21
-------
Outside of the DWGNRA, a number of smaller communities will be
experiencing increased development during the years 1975 to 1980. This
growth will create the need for construction of some 13 zone plants
in the balance of the study area outside the DWGNRA during the latter
half of construction Phase 1. The 13 plants will have an aggregate
service population of 118,000 by 1985, and should increase in capacity
by the year 2020 to serve over 255,000 people. Several of these plants
have significant capacity; the largest is located near the community
of Marshall's Creek in Smithfield Township and will have an ultimate
design capacity of 5 mgd.
During the 35 year growth period from 1985 to 2020, the 13 sys-
tems will more than double their capacity. They represent those por-
tions of the study area which will feel the first real impact of ac-
celerated growth, and which will become the future population centers
within the study area.
The four existing public systems serving Stroudsburg, East Strouds-
burg, Newton, and Port Jervis would require no modification during
Phase 1.
During Phase 2, from the years 1980 to 2000, the study area will
be undergoing its period of maximum rate of growth. Most of the larg-
er water pollution control plants required to meet this demand will
have already been constructed during Phase 1. Therefore, during Phase
2, it will be necessary to expand the capacities of the 2k existing
treatment plants outside the DWGNRA and develop a number of new facil-
ities. New development includes 16 zone systems and 11 small systems
and plants. During this phase, it will be necessary to replace the
existing Stroudsburg plant, provide for major expansion of the exist-
ing East Stroudsburg plant and system, replace the Newton plant, and
expand the existing Port Jervis plant.
The 16 "zone:l plants to be constructed during construction of
Phase 2 will be relatively small in size, ranging in ultimate capacity
from 0.2 to 2.5 mgd. The ultimate service population of the 16 plants
will be approximately 167,000 people. The 11 small systems will have
an aggregate treatment capacity to serve over 29,000 people by the
year 2020. The k existing treatment plants which will be expanded
or replaced during this construction phase will represent an aggre-
gate service population of over 95,000 by the year 2020.
During Phase 3, an additional k zone systems and 12 small sys-
tems will have to be built. In terms of population served, they rep-
resent a total of 40,000 people.
Table H~7 presents a summary of relevant data for Alternative 1.
H-22
-------
TABLE H-7
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
DESIGN POPULATI.ONS AND PLANT CAPACITIES
ALTERNATIVE I
Construction Phase One (1970-1980)
Plant Community or
No. Area Served
Peak Summer Service Population
1975 1985 2000 2020
Design Capacity by Construction Period (MGD)
Phase I Phase 2 Phase 3
1970-1980 1980-2000 2000-2020
CO
One-A Immediate Needs (1970-1975]
1 Matamoras Boro
2 Mil ford Boro
3 Mt. Pocono Boro
k Barrett Twp.
5 North Stroud Twp.
& Branchville Boro
Sub-Totals:
One-B (1975-1980)
7 "Mill Brook"
8 Montague
9 "Little Flat Brook"
10 Marshalls Creek
11 Parad ise Twp.
12 "Lower Pocono Creek1
13 "Culvers Lake"
Ik Balesville
15 "Paul ins Kill Lake"
16 "Swartswood Lake"
17 Blairs town #L
18 Hainesburg
19 Columbia
Sub-Totals: 118,000 198,500 25^,500
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
3,600
2,1*00
2,000
8,900
5,000
1,700
23,600
kjOO
3,500
2,700
12,000
7,000
2,300
32 , 200
3,000
6,000
8,000
20,000
Ik , 000
6,000
12 , 000
5,000
12,000
12 , 000
16,000
2,000
2,000
6,koo
^,300
lj-,000
20,000
10 , 000
6,000
50,700
5,500
11,000
13,000
ko ; 000
30,000
11,000
16,000
6,000
1^,000
17,000
25,000
5,000
5,000
8,600
7,500
6,700
30,000
15,000
9,000
76 , 800
8,000
15,000
18,000
50,000
1*3 , 000
15,000
20,000
7,500
16,000
20 , 000
30,000
6,000
6,000
20-35 16 "Zone" Plants
pi us
36-68 33 Individual Plants
1^1,500 llil,500 1 la, 500
0.5
o.k
0.3
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.8
2.0
l.k
0.6
1.2
0.5
1.2
1.2
1.6
0.2
0.2
5-7
0.7
2.0
1.0
.6
0.6
1.1
1-3
k.o
3-0
1.1
1.6
0.6
0.5
5-7
0.9
0.8
0.7
3.0
1.5
0.8
1-5
1.8
5
0
4.3
1.5
2.0
0.8
1.6
2.0
3.0
0.6
0.6
5.7
-------
TABLE H-7
(corrt i nued)
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
DESIGN POPULATIONS AND PLANT CAPACITIES
ALTERNATIVE I
Construction Phase Two (1980-2000)
Design Capacity by Construction Period (MGD)
Plant
No.
69
70
71* 1
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
8l
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
Community or Peak Summer Service Population
Area Served 1975
"Zone" Plants
"Nevers ink Val 1 ey"
"Del aware Val 1 ey"
"Mongaup Val 1 ey"
"Saw Kil 1"
"Raymond Kill"
"Conashaugh"
"D;ngmans Creek"
"Hornbecks Creek"
"Toms Creek"
"Little Bushkil 1 Creek"
"Upper Pocono Creek"
Hami 1 ton Twp.
Lafayette Twp.
Still water Twp. jjQ.
Blairstown f
Minis i nk Hills
Middle Smithfield Twp. #1
Sub-Totals :
Individual Plants
Dingmans Twp. jfi
Bossardvi 1 le
Say lorsburg
Brodheadsvi 1 le
Delaware Water Gap
Ross Corner
Sparta Twp. #L
Crandon Lakes
Hardwick Twp. jj&.
Sub-Totals:
Existing Plants - Expansion or
Stroudsburg 8,000
East Stroudsburg 10,500
Port Jervis 10,200
Newton 11,000
1985
6,
4,
000
000
2,000
1,
3,
5,
3,
3,
5,
8,
4,
2,
5,
2,
4,
2,
60,
i,
i,
2,
3,
1,
1,
1,
12,
500
000
200
000
000
000
000
000
000
500
000
000
000
OOP
200
000
000
500
000
500
000
500
000
500
000
2000
8
5
2
3
12
1
8
5
4
7
18
7
5
15
6
6
4
117
2
1
5
4
2
2
1
1
19
,500
,000
,500
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,200
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,500
700
,400
2020
9
7
4
5
20
2
10
7
8
10
25
9
7
25
10
8
6
172
4
1
7
5
2
2
1
2
1
27
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,500
,000
,000
,000
,000
,500
,000
,500
,000
,000
,500
,500
,500
,000
,000
;ooo
Phase 2
1980-2000
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0
0
0.
0,
0,
0
0
0
0
0
• 9
• 5
• 3
• 3
.2
.1
,8
.5
.4
.7
.8
.7
.5
5
.6
.6
.4
.2
.2
.5
.5
.3
.3
. L-1
.2
.1
Phase 3
2000-2020
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.9
.7
.4
• 5
.0
.2
.0
.7
.8
.0
• 5
.9
.8
• 5
.0
.8
.6
A
.i
.1
.0
.3
.3
.2
.2
.1
Reconstruction
9,
12,
12,
12,
0002
0002
0002
0002
15
20
14
21
,0002
,0002
,0002
,OOQ2
20
30
15
28-
,800£
,7002
, 200?
,4002
2,
3,
1.
^
.1
.1
.6
.0
9
3
1
?
.1
.1
.e
_ o
Sub-Totals:
39,700 U-j.ooo 70,000 95,100
-------
n:
rl>
Ol
TABLE H-.7
(cont i nued)
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
DESIGN POPULATIONS AND PLANT CAPACITIES
ALTERNATIVE I
Construction Phase Three (2000-2020)
Design Capacity by Construction Period (MGD)
Plant
No.
99
100
101
102
103
IQlf
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
H5
116
Communi ty or
Area Served
"Zone" Plants
Porter Twp.
Middle Smithfield Twp.
Ana lorn ink
"McMichels Creek"
Sub-Total s :
Individual Plants
Town of Deer park
West Fall Township
Dingman Twp. $2
Middle Smithfield Twp.
Price Twp.
Scots Run
"Pocono Manor"
Frankford Twp.
Sparta Twp. $2
Sti 1 1 water Twp. %2
Hardwick Twp. $£
Dingman Twp. $5
Del aware Twp.
Pocono Twp.
Sub-Total s :
Totals:3
Peak Summer Service Population
2000
3,000
$2 3,000
5,000
2,000
13,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
f> 1,000
500
500
2,000
1,000
1,000
1,500
2,000
TOO
1,500
1,500
19,200
63,300 267,4-00 487,800
2020
5,000
5,000
7,000
3,000
20 , 000
2,000
3,000
3,500
2,000
700
1,000
3,000
1,500
1,500
2,000
2,500
1,000
2,000
2,000
27,700
673,600
Phase 3
2000-2020
0-5
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1*
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0-3
0.1
0.2
0.2
1 Outside TIRES.
2 Including Suburban Areas.
3 Not including l4l,500 from DWGNRA.
-------
A1 te rna t i ve II - Limited Sub-Regional j_ys_tems_
Description of Al ternatj_ve_l_l_.--I n Alternative I, 116 water pol-
lution control plants would be built within the study area by the year
2020. Alternative III (to be discussed in the next section) is based
on a sub-regional concept, and the number of major treatment plants
in the study area would be reduced from 116 to 6. Alternative II is
presented as an intermediate step between Alternatives I and III. It
utilizes the sub-regional concept in part and provides for expansion
of the sub-regional systems as the need occurs. In addition, those
areas where the interconnection of collection systems is relatively
costly will still be served by small, individual treatment facilities.
The most difficult question in the formulation of Alternative II
was in deciding how far to extend the major trunk lines and intercep-
tors for the limited sub-regional plants. The basic assumption was
made to extend the lines only as far as the anticipated population
densities would be continuous or relatively easy to interconnect.
Those sub-drainage basins, or portions thereof, where interconnection
of lines was not warranted would be served by the smaller systems.
Within the National Recreation Area, clusters of recreational sites
which are relatively isolated both from each other and development
outside the DWGNRA, would also be treated by individual plants.
The major components of Alternative II are eight limited sub-
regional systems as shown in Figure 2. The water pollution control
plants at Matamoras, Milford, Barrett Township, and Paradise Township
would be built initially in Phase 1 and expanded in Phase 2. Two of
the plants (Lower Brodhead and Paul ins Kill) would be built initially
in Phase 1 and expanded in Phases 2 and 3- The final two sub-regional
plants (located at Flatbrook and Snydersvi1le) would be built ini-
tially during Phase 2 and expanded during Phase 3-
The eight limited sub-regional plants would have a total peak
summer service population of approximately 721,000 by the year 2020.
This represents about 81 percent of the total service population under
Alternative II. The eight are relatively large systems, with two of
the plants ultimately serving over 200,000 people each. A significant
factor is that the limited sub-regional systems serve not only adjacent
townships and counties but will extend their lines across state i
boundaries.
Several of the limited sub-regional plants also represent a co-
operative effort by the National Recreation Area and the communities
that border it; approximately 6^4,000 park occupants will utilize two
of the eight plants. This represents over kS percent of the total
demand from the park area.
Matamoras Area System.--This system services the northern
region of the study area, including Matamoras Borough, portions of
Westfall Township in Pennsylvania, portions of Montague Township in
H-26
-------
New Jersey, the city of Port Jervis, New York, and the adjacent su-
burban communities in the Towns of Deer Park, Mt. Hope, and Greene-
vine. The initial stage of construction and development of the sys-
tem excludes the demand of the Port Jervis area, since the existing
public system should continue to function unti1 sometime after 1985.
During the second phase of construction, additional growth in the
surrounding communities would be added to the plant. This would bring
the total design capacity of the Matamoras plant to approximately
5.** mgd by the year 2020.
The development of a wastewater treatment system for the Port
Jervis-Town of Deer Pa'rk area in Orange County raises two major
questions. First, how much will growth in this area be influenced
by the development of the National Recreation Area and the construc-
tion of the reservoir? The population projections developed in this
study give much weight to the relative influence of the DWGNRA. The
projections indicate that the population for the year 2020 is ex- i
pected to be greater than 22,000 people in Town of Deer Park. It is
reasonable to assume that the bulk of this growth will occur in the
valleys of the Delaware River, the Neversink River, and the Shingle
Kill. Under Alternative II, it is assumed that the bulk of the
future population growth would be distributed between these three
sub-drainage basins, and the population density in the balance of
the Town of Deer Park would still be so widely dispersed as to pro-
hibit the collection and combined treatment of wastewaters. It is
for this reason that two small plants, the Neversink Valley plant
and the Shingle Kill plant are planned for development under construc-
tion Phase 2. The construction of these systems must be regarded as
entirely dependent on the population growth within the Town of Deer
Park, and their exact location and growth would be contingent o!n the
population distribution within the two areas.
The second question raised in Orange County is the possible in-
corporation of the City of Port Jervis plant in a limited sub-regional
system. The existing trickling filter plant at Port Jervis, while
capable of serving the future demands of the city and some of its su-
burban communities, is not capable of serving as the nucleus for such
a sub-regional system. Nor would it be practical to consider adding
the loads from such potential growth communities as Matamoras and
Montague Township to the existing plant's influent. This assumption
is based on the high degree of treatment required and the inability
of trickling filter plants to meet the requirements. It was for this
reason that a new treatment plant across the Delaware River at Mata-
moras is planned under Alternative II.
The community of Matamoras should build a sewerage system and
water pollution control plant now, and it should be designed to sus-
tain the growth which this community and its surrounding area will
undergo within the next 20 years. In addition to the initial demand
of Matamoras Borough and the adjacent portions of Westfall Township,
the first stage of this plant should also include capacity for the
H-27
-------
early growth in the Millbrook sub-drainage basins of Montague Township
and some of the suburban area surrounding Port Jervis. These compo-
nent flows would be pumped across the new Interstate Highway 85 bridge
and would discharge into the plant which would be situated at the south
end of the Borough. Additional portions of Westfall Township in Penn-
sylvania, including the community of Millrift, and the upper Delaware
Valley north of Port Jervis will eventually be served by the Matamoras
Plant, but not until development warrants construction of those in-
crements of interceptor.
A final consideration under this system is whether construction
of a separate treatment plant at Matamoras is justified in lieu of
pumping the collected raw sewage south to the proposed treatment plant
at Milford. It would be possible to construct a large force main a-
long the right-of-way of Interstate Highway 8't and continue down the
route of existing Highway U.S. 209 to the Milford plant site, a dis-
tance of almost 7 miles. For the range of expected flows at the pro-
posed Matamoras plant, the pumping operation would prove slightly less
expensive both in terms of first cost and operation, than the separate
treatment facility. However, since the Milford plant would be situ-
ated within the National Recreation Area and will be adjacent to sev-
eral large recreational areas within the DWGNRA, it was felt that
placing this additional burden of over 5 mgd on the plant was not
warranted.
Mi 1 ford-Montague area.--The construction of a water pollu-
tion control plant south of the borough of Milford, and the develop-
ment of .a sub-regional system to serve both the Pennsylvania and the
New Jersey environs, including DWGNRA areas, has sound economic and
technical bases. Within a radius of six and one half miles of the pro-
posed plant site there will be 6 major recreation areas with a total
peak summer population of over 60,000 occupants served by the year
1985.
Development in the region outside of the DWGNRA limits will also
be extensive, with the adjacent community of Milford expected to grow
from its present population of 1,700 people to over 5,000 people in
the peak summer period of 2020. The smaller communities across the
river in New Jersey, such as Millville and Montague, will also under-
go rapid growth as the park develops. This portion of Montague Town-
ship will be choice real estate, and is expected to have a summer peak
population of over 15,000 people by the year 2020. The large majority
of these people will be within the service area of this sub-regional
system. Their wastewaters will be collected at the eastern end of
the Delaware River bridge, and there combined with the flow pumped
north along the New Jersey edge of the reservoir from the park areas
of Sandyston, Namanock and Minisink. The combined flow will then cross
the Delaware River bridge in a gravity line to the plant site. This
total cumulative flow from the New Jersey area during maximum occu-
pancy of the Recreation Area in the summer months will reach an aver-
age daily rate of some 2.3 million gallons. The major portion of this
H-28
-------
flow, some 1.7 million gallons per day, will be generated by the DWGNRA
facilities which, of course, will be in use only during the summer.
This is an indication of how great a demand fluctuation must be con-
sidered in the detailed engineering design of this particular treatment
plant.
The variation in wastewater flow rate becomes an even greater
problem when the Pennsylvania service areas are added. The total flow
in this sub-regional system and plant by the year 2020 would reach a
peak of over 5-5 mgd. Of this total demand, some 2.4,mgd would be
produced by the 60,000 park occupants in the nearby sites. The remain-
ing 3-1 mgd would be generated by the permanent and summer residents
in the adjacent portions of Dingman, Milford and West Fall Townships
in Pennsylvania, as well as the Borough of Milford, and the portion of
Montague Township previously mentioned.
With essentially no flows from the DWGNRA facilities during the
winter months, the flow of the plant would decrease to probably less
than 2 mgd. Therefore, the plant must, in effect, be a plant within
a plant. That is, it must be designed in parallel units which can
provide the same treatment process for greatly reduced flows, without
sacrificing degree of treatment efficiency.
The major trunk lines and interceptors within the DWGNRA would
probably shut-down during the 7 or 8 winter months. Since the flow
of wastewaters from the New Jersey area across the bridge would be
by gravity, a fluctuating pumping rate can be avoided. With intel-
ligent planning and design, the plant and its collection system could
grow as the area grew and meet the demand as it occurred rather than
anticipating it too far in advance. The construction of trunk sewers
back into the inland plateau regions of Milford Township would be
feasible within 10 to 15 years, during construction Phase 2, but would
not be a part of the initial construction and systems developments.
Pocono Plateau area.--The development which will occur on
the Pocono Plateau in Pennsylvania in the Townships of Lehman, Delaware,
and Dingman, will not be serviced by any of the eight sub-regional
plants. The interconnection of service areas along the face of the
Plateau, whether .the wastewaters flow north to the Milford Plant, or
south to a similar plant in the Bushkill inlet area, is not felt to be
justifiable under Alternative II.
The National Recreation Area facilities from Lehman (National
Park Site No. k) north to Indian Point (N.P.S. No. 12), will have a total
peak capacity of over 26,000 people. However, these park areas are
spread along 15 miles of rugged mountain terrain. The park occupants
will be distributed between 9 waterside sites, situated at elevation
^»10, and 21 upland camping and picnic sites, at elevations ^00 feet
higher. Most of these areas will represent small concentrations of
people, with the exception of the Dingman's Creek area. Almost all
of these facilities are grouped in clusters around the inlets of 7
H-29
-------
small creeks which drain from the Plateau down the face of the escarp-
ment. The interconnection of the wastewater collection systems for
these isolated clusters, even utilizing the right-of-way of the pro-
posed realigned highway U.S. 209, would involve a great deal of pumping
and major trunk line construction to justify the advantage of more cent-
ra 1 i zed treatment.
Present development patterns indicate that the anticipated future
land use of the inland Pocono Plateau for summer homes will be quite
extensive. In many of the small drainage basins such as Little Bushkill
Creek, Toms Creek, Hornbeck Creek, Dingmans Creek, Raymondski11 , and
Sawkill, the summer populations will grow from little or nothing at
the present time to several thousand people by the year 1985- As this
growth occurs, it is advisable to combine the wastewaters collected
from these homes with the park facilities confined within each respec-
tive sub-drainage basin. Projected population figures for the year 1985
estimate a peak load of 8,000 people within service area limits in seven
sub-basin areas, increasing to over 53,000 people by 2020, with the
extension of collection lines up the stream vallies. Combined with the
park population of over 26,000, this represents a total peak summer
population of almost 80,000 people in the Pocono Plateau area by 2020.
This is a significant number of people within the study area, and
poses a very real pollution hazard to these small streams. Since each
stream is the nucleus of recreational clusters within the DWGNRA, it
is essential that the inland basin be protected from pollution.
Under this Alternative, five joint facilities are proposed to
combine treatment for Recreation Area occupants with residents outside
the DWGNRA: small plants would serve isolated recreation sites. Since
upland development is virtually non-existent at the present time, (and
probably will lag behind DWGNRA development) the initial plant capacities
for the joint facilities will be designed primarily for DWGNRA demand.
The future extension of trunk sewers up the drainage basin of each
small creek must be correlated with the growth of each area and will
vary with each line.
Where major DWGNRA facilities are located adjacent to the reser-
voir, the treatment facilities necessary for the immediate cluster
of recreation areas will be built at or about elevation A^O, the
anticipated high water elevation of the reservoir. Where the recrea-
tion facilities to be served are primarily upland development and lie
along the upper plateau, the treatment facilities will lie further
inland on the creek, and their effluent will discharge to the creek
rather than to the reservoir.
The proposed joint treatment facilities required for this plateau
area are shown as plants 9 through 13 on Figure 2. Tables H-8 and
H-9 also provide a listing of facilities, including demand, capacity,
and population served, both initial and ultimate, for each small plant
si te.
H-30
-------
Barrett Township - Paradise Township area.--Separate collec-
tion and treatment systems were considered for the areas of Barrett
Township, Paradise Township, and the Borough of Mt. Pocono under Al-
ternative I. In Alternative II, the systems serving several small
communities in Barrett Township and the future growth area in the upper
Brodhead drainage basin remain the same as in Alternative I.
This cluster of small communities, including Buck Hill Falls,
Mountain Home, Cresco, and Canadensis should be a priority area for
liquid waste disposal within the study area. These communities, and
their related recreational development facilities, had a permanent
population of some 2,^00 people in I960. Estimated peak summer pop-
ulations for 1966 is over 6,000 people within the Township. By the
year 2020, this number will climb to over 33,000 summer residents.
A system to serve this priority area is shown on Figure 2 with
a proposed combined treatment facility located south of the community
of Canadensis on the Brodhead Creek. This plant would have an initial
design capacity of 1.2 mgd and would be expanded under construction
Phase 2 to a capacity of 3 mgd.
The community of Mt. Pocono Borough has a present population
slightly over 1,000 and an estimated peak summer population of over
2,600 by 1985; the community is experiencing extensive problems with
its present on-site disposal systems. A feasibility study completed
late in 1965 recommended that a system be designed to serve the central
region of the Borough initially, with ultimate plans to serve the en-
tire borough and surrounding developments.
A question raised in the feasibility report was whether or not
the wastewaters from this community should be combined with the flows
from present and future growth areas in adjacent Paradise Township.
The combination of treatment facilities from Mt. Pocono Borough with
any of the adjacent communities (particularly those surrounding Swift-
water in Pocono Township or the community of Paradise Valley in Para-
dise Township) will involve 2 to 3 miles of trunk sewer which will
travel through what are now undeveloped areas. However, based on long
range population projections, Paradise Township is expected to grow
to a peak summer population of over 43,000 people by the year 2020.
Recognizing this growth factor, it is felt that a combined treatment
facility could be developed in this Alternative with a plant located
northwest of Henryville, adjacent to the Paradise Creek.
This facility would treat the wastewaters from Mt. Pocono Borough,
the development areas along U.S. Highway 611, the community of Swift-
water, existing pockets of small developments surrounding that area,
the communities along State Highway 9^0 to the west of Swiftwater, and
virtually all the future development in Paradise Township. Development
in this general area is spotty at present; however, building a waste-
water system along the main access routes and within the main drainage
basins will adequately serve this prime recreational area.
H-31
-------
A single, sub-regional plant system to serve the communities of
Barrett, Paradise and Price Townships, as well as the community of
Mt. Pocono Borough does not appear to be practical under this Alter-
native. Although an immediate need exists, the combination of the
wastewaters by interceptors paralleling the two major streams in the
area, Paradise Creek and the Brodhead Creek, and combined treatment
at a plant site at the southern end of Price Township does not appear
desirable under this Alternative.
Lower Brodhead area.--The Stroudsburg-East Stroudsburg
area lends itself readily to the development of a single sub-regional
system. Under Alternative II, such a system is proposed, but the
network of trunk and sub-trunk sewers is not as extensive as will be
discussed under Alternative III. Several possible plant sites are
available. It would appear that the most desirable site is in the
region of the confluence of the Brodhead Creek and the Delaware River.
The plant could be located to the south and east of the community of
Minisink Hills, and would occupy a presently vacant tract of land.
One of the initial components to be built would be an interceptor
running down the valley from the Bushkill inlet area to Marshall's
Creek. This line would serve the DWGNRA developments around the inlet
and the extensive commercial and residential development taking place
in this valley. The fact that this service region is a prime recrea-
tional and commercial area is demonstrated by the present construction
of new motels and hotels along U.S. 209. This interceptor, after run-
ning 5~l/2 miles from the inlet to the community of Marshall's Creek,
would then turn south down the valley of Marshall's Creek for another
3-1/2 miles to the plant site. At the junction point of Marshall's
Creek, the wastewater flow would be augmented by smaller lines running
down Pennsylvania Highway ^02 and from the west along U.S. 209. De-
velopment in the upper drainage basin of Marshall's Creek could be
discouraged by limiting construction of sewer lines to 1-1/2 or 2
miles above the community. This stream valley is one of the areas
recommended for reservation as "open space," and would be an excellent
site for a reservoir, necessary to augment future water demands.
The community of Stroudsburg is presently served by a 1 mgd
trickling filter plant, located at the eastern edge of the Borough
adjacent to Brodhead Creek. This plant, initially constructed in
1937, was severely damaged by floods in 1955, and has undergone ex-
tensive modernization. While the treatment capacity of the plant has
not been increased, the maintenance and operation afforded this facil-
ity indicates that it can continue to carry the burden of the municipal
wastewaters from the borough for some time.
South of the Stroudsburg plant and across the Brodhead Creek on
the south side of Interstate Highway 80, is the treatment facility
which serves the Borough of East Stroudsburg. This plant was put into
operation in 1961 and is already near its design capacity. The origi-
nal design capacity of 1 mgd was felt to be capable of handling the
demands of the Borough from some time. However, enlargement of the
H-32
-------
Borough by the addition of several areas in Smithfield Township has
increased the average daily flow to this plant to over I mgd. Good
operation and maintenance have minimized the problems resulting from
this plant, but it is recognized that it must be supplemented by addi-
tional treatment capacity in the near future.
Because of their limited land areas, neither plant lends itself
readily to significant expansion in the future. Since the Boroughs of
Stroudsburg and East Stroudsburg anticipate a total future population
of some 38,000 by 2020, it is obvious that the existing facilities can-
not meet the future demands. With the development of a sub-regional
system, both of the existing systems would be integrated into the
larger system as the present plant capacities are reached.
As shown on Figure 2, an interceptor would run down the Brodhead
Creek passing both plant sites. In this way, both plants would continue
to operate at their maximum loading during Phase 1 while the overflow
was diverted and carried on to the larger treatment plant further
downstream. As the areas around the Boroughs developed, the lines
serving them would discharge directly into the new .interceptor. In
this way, key areas such as the Industrial Park to the north of East
Stroudsburg and portions of Stroud Township could be served immediately.
The two existing plants would be abandoned during Phase 2 and the flows
to the plants diverted into the interceptor.
The community of Delaware Water Gap would also be included in the
initial service area. However, further extension of lines up the
valley of Cherry Creek is not planned under this Alternative. The
lower or eastern region of the valley would remain undeveloped, and
only rural residential development should be encouraged.
The trunk line running parallel to U.S. Highway 611 down the
valley of the Pocono Creek, serving Pocono, Jackson, and the upper
reaches of Stroud Township, would not be part of the first construction
phase, but would be developed during the second and third stages. Some
reaches of the upper Pocono basin will eventually be served by small
systems as isolated development occurs.
The treatment capacity required at the various stages of growth
for the lower Brodhead Plant and the development of system components
is shown in Tables H-8 and H-9-
The population projections discussed earlier indicate that the
boroughs of Stroudsburg, East Stroudsburg and Delaware Water Gap and
the related suburban communities of Stroud and Smithfield Townships
will grow from their I960 resident population of less than 22,000 to
well over 57,000 by the summer of 1985. With adjacent Middle Smith-
field increasing to over 28,000 within the same period, the potential
wastewater loading would be almost 8.6 mgd within a 6 mile radius of
the plant. The bulk of this flow would be served by the proposed sys-
tem, with the two existing plants continuing to handle a portion of
the load until Phase 2.
H-33
-------
The flow from portions of Smithfield, Middle Smithfield, and Stroud
Townships as well as Delaware Water Gap Borough and some DWGNRA sites
is estimated at ^.5 mgd by 1985. Thus, the capacity of the proposed
Lower Brodhead sub-regional plant must be capable of increasing from
less than 1 mgd (1975) to over h mgd within 10 years (1985), increasing
again to almost 7 mgd as the two existing plants are phased out, and ul-
timately handling 22 mgd by the year 2020.
Paul ins KiJ1 area.--The gently rolling hills and pleasant
valleys that form the"dTaTnage basin of the Paul ins Kill make this
area unique in many respects. Covering over 112,000 acres, most of
which would be ideal for residential and recreational development, it
is the largest single sub-drainage basin within the study area. It
also possesses the greatest potential for development, particularly
of a permanent nature. The terrain is different in character from
the plateaus and steep valleys of Pennsylvania to the west, and also
from those portions of New Jersey which lie beyond the Appalachian
ridge. The 16 lakes which line the valley provide an ideal nucleus
for recreational development. With its many natural assets, plus
a good road system, the area possesses a large potential for future
population growth. The present summer population is less than ^0,000
people; by the year 1985 the peak summer population is expected to in-
crease to over 122,000 people. This will not represent the maximum
holding capacity of the basin, and its future growth should continue
at a rate higher than the balance of the study area.
Future anticipated growth warrants a single, sub-regional system.
However, extensive development is not present now. Isolated areas of
development do exist and have immediate but minor needs for liquid
waste disposal. The Borough of Newton is the major community within
the drainage area and is presently served by a 1 mgd plant. As recently
as 1966 this plant underwent extensive revision and modernization.
Although its total capacity has not been increased, it is expected
that it will be able to meet the limited growth within the Borough
for the next 20 years. It cannot, however, carry the burden of the
extensive growth anticipated in the immediate area surrounding the
Borough. Again, it is necessary to complement, and eventually inte-
grate, the existing system components.
Under Alternative I I, an extensive sub-regional system is pro-
posed to serve the entire Paul ins Kill drainage basin. Obviously,
there will be some components of the system that will be inefficient
initially and there will be large trunk lines and interceptors which
will carry the collected wastewaters through areas which are not yet
developed.
If the concept of sub-regional system is discarded, and individual
systems are provided for such communities as Branchville, Swartswood,
Blairstown and Columbia, it is felt that an optimum solution will not
be effected. From the most recent data on permanent and summer home
building, it appears that the entire valley will develop. Therefore,
H-34
-------
development of a sub-regional system for the Paul ins Kill would rep-
resent intelligent planning for an anticipated future need, and
eventually would serve nearly everyone who will live within the valley.
The components of the system would be developed in stages; the
first main interceptor, paralleling the Paul ins Kill and running from
the upper sub-basin some 23 miles south to the area of Columbia, would
be one of the first required steps. Actually, a wastewater collection
system to serve the Paul ins Kill area should begin at the northeast
corner of the drainage basin in the area of Culvers Lake. This prime
growth area, already experiencing extensive recreational development,
will undergo even greater growth in the future. The nearby community
of Branchville, lying to the south and east on Route 206, is expected
to grow from a present day permanent population of less than 1,000 to
a recreational and residential center of almost 5,000 by 2020. The
township of Frankford, in which Culvers Lake, Lake Owassa, and
Branchville are located, will reach a total peak summer population of
some 41,000 by the year 1985. The entire upper valley paralleling U.S.
206 will experience growth in the very near future. This then should
be one of the first major service areas of the collection system and
should be served in the initial stage of construction.
Approximately 10 miles south of Branchville lies the borough of
Newton with a I960 resident population of 6,563 and a 1966 peak summer
population of over 8,300. Considering this seasonal growth, the ex-
isting Borough facilities are adequate. Population projections for
the Borough indicate large gains within the next 20 years with increases
of peak summer population to 14,000 by 1985. By 2020, the population
in the Borough will be over 22,000. If this growth occurs as expected
it will surpass the capacity of the existing Borough treatment facilities.
Certain of the new lines constructed under Alternative II would
be integrated with the existing collection system, but most of them
would by-pass the existing lines and drain to a low point at the north
end of the borough. At this point, a force main would pump the col-
lected wastewaters north, paralleling U.S. 206, over the ridge line.
The line would then flow by gravity into the valley of the Paul ins
Kill, joining with the large trunk sewer from the Culvers Lake -
Branchville area. A third line, running from the Lake Mohawk area
to the southeast, and through the communities of Lafayette and Ross
Corner would be added at the same point. The development of this
third component paralleling State Highway 15 should occur during
the second construction Phase.
From the junction point of these three lines, the main intercep-
tor would run to the southwest down the valley, paralleling the Paul ins
Kill.
Most of the present growth and much of the anticipated future
growth lies close to the center of the valley, and so the components
of the system draining the facilities around Swartswood Lake, Paul ins
H-35
-------
Kill Lake and the communities of Stillwater, Middlevi1le, Blairstown,
Hainesburg, and Columbia would all be built as part of the first stage
of construction. The several components of lines running back into
the hills to serve the lakes, camp areas, and summer homes, should
not be built until the demand for each line was sufficient to warrant
it.
The sub-regional water pollution control plant would be located
to the northeast of Columbia, near an existing, small reservoir. The
design of the plant should include an effluent discharge lin'e running
below the existing reservoir into the Paul ins Kill.
This sub-system, and its various stages of growth, are shown on
Figure 2.
Flat Brook area.--The construction of a single sub-regional
water pollution control collection system to serve the DWGNRA facili-
ties on the Flat Brook Peninsula and those which line the Flat Brook
inlet, as well as the residential development within the drainage
basin of the Little Flat Brook to the north, does not appear desirable
in this Alternative II. The interconnection of lines between the
widely dispersed facilities which will lie along the edge of the Penin-
sula and the face of the Kittatinny Ridge would have a high initial
construction cost, and would present operating and maintenance problems,
While no high-lift pumping would be necessary to service any of the
individual areas, extensive low-lift pumping facilities would still
be requi red.
The advantage gained in the combined treatment of the wastewaters
would be lost by the deterimental effect of a large plant located near
Peters Valley, at the Upper end of the Flat Brook inlet. A plant with
the required peak capacity of over 3-6 mgd would discharge this efflu-
ent to the inlet. Since this Flat Brook inlet is shallow at its upper
end, and the flow of the two streams running into it is relatively low
during the summer periods, effective effluent dispersal would be dif-
ficult. A smaller treatment plant, to handle only the wastewaters from
the Little Flat Brook basin, could be constructed further up this
Little Flat Brook Creek; the effects of this plant would be only 60
percent of the BOD loading to the stream from a combined facility.
Thus, under Alternative II, a sub-regional plant is proposed to
serve the heart of Sandyston Township, with a trunk interceptor
roughly paralleling the Little Flat Brook Creek, running south through
the communities of Hainesville and Layton, to the Peters Valley area.
By 1985, the peak population to be served by this and several other
small sub-trunk sewers would be approximately 8,000 people, increasing
to 22,000 by 2020. The plant would be constructed in the area of
Peters Valley outside the limits of the DWGNRA and far enough up-
stream in the Little Flat Brook to provide adequate aeration and efflu-
ent dispersion. The development of these facilities would be indepen-
dent of the Recreation Area demands.
H-36
-------
Those recreation areas along the Flat Brook Peninsula which can
be combined and treated as a group are also shown on Figure 2. Across
the inlet on the face of the Kittatinny Ridge, a number of facilities
at the waters edge will be combined and will include upland develop-
ments and camp sites.
A further consideration for those facilities which line the in-
let is the dilutional capacity of the wide shallow inlet and the effect
of multiple small effluent discharges. As long as the degree of treat-
ment can be kept high and the facilities carefully operated, water
quality can be protected. These plants are also shown on Figure 2.
For those isolated upland developments located along the south
end of the Kittatinny Mountain, in what was formerly Pahaquarry Town-
ship, individual treatment facilities appear to be the most desirable
solution under this Alternative II, as well as all other alternatives.
Snydersville area.—Along the sub-drainage basin of the Mc-
Michael's Creek, running from eastern Chestnut Hill Township through
Hamilton Township, there are several small communities which could
be served by small systems such as those proposed under Alternative I,
or might combine their systems, as shown under this Alternative. It
is unlikely that development within this sub-basin would be sufficiently
intense to warrant inclusion in the Lower Brodhead Plant under this
Alternative.
In order to protect the lower reaches of the stream, which runs
through Stroud Township, systems should be developed to serve these
communities by the second construction phase with a planned service
population of 30,000 people by the year 2020. A plant would be located
in the vicinity of Snydersville, adjacent to the McMichael's Creek.
The extent of the system and development staging is shown on Figure
2 and pertinent data presented in Tables H-8 and H-9.
H-37
-------
TABLE H-£
PI ant
No.
lit--ij
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
DESIGN POPULATIONS AND PLANT CAPACITIES
ALTERNATIVE II
Commun i t y or Area Served
I
OJ
00
1
2
3
14-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Limited Sub-Regional Plants
Matamoras
Mil ford
Barrett Township
Paradise Township
"Lower Brodhead"
"Paul ins Kill"
"Flatbrook"
Snydersv i 1 1 e
DWGNRA - Joint Facilities
"Raymonds Kil 1"
"Dingmans Creek"
"Hornbecks Creek"
"Toms Creek"
"Little Bushkil 1"
DWGNRA Only
Sub-Total s :
Individual or Combined Small Plants
Sub-Tota 1 s :
Peak Summer Service
Populat ion
Design Capacity By
Construction Period (MGD)
1985
18,000
70,000
12,000
15,000
^3,000
85,000
8,000
251,000
14-, 900
1^,800
6,800
3, kOO
k,koo
51,200
2000
U2 , 000
82 , 000
18,000
30,000
1314- , ooo
157,000
17,000
15,000
14-95,000
12 , 000
18,800
9,300
8,^00
10,14-00
51,200
2020
5*4- , ooo
91,000
30,000
*4-5,000
2lU , 000
230,000
22,000
30,000
716,000
18, too
22,800
12,300
11,14-00
1*4- ,14-00
51,200
Phase 1
1970-1980
2.0
3^
1.2
1.5
IK 2
9-0
21.3
0.3
0.7
0.14-
0.2
0.3
2.2
Phase 2
1980-2000
5A
5-5
3.0
^.5
1*4-. 0
16.0
1.7
1.5
51.6
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.3
2.2
Phase 3
2000-2020
5.^
5-5
3.0
IK 5
22.0
2U.O
2.2
3-0
69.6
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1-3
2.2
85-, 500 110,100 130,500
IK!
9.0
9.0
-------
TABLE H-8
(cont inued)
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
DESIGN POPULATIONS AND PLANT CAPACITIES
ALTERNATIVE I I
Additional Small Plants
43
44
45
46
47
T 48
CO
* 49
50
51
52
"Nevers ink 'Val
"Shingle Ki 11"
"Porters Lake"
Bossardvi 1 le
Price Township
"Pocono"
Hampton Townsh
Dingman Townsh
ley"
ip
ip
Town of Deer Park
Middle Smithfi
eld
Sub-Totals:
8,500
2,000
3,000
1,500
3,000
2,500
5,000
25,500
9,000
3,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
4,000
7,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
47,000
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
3.5
0.9
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.5
o.4
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.5
4.7
TOTALS:
336,500 630,600
,500
25.4
64.1
83-3
-------
TABLE K-9
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE I I
Peak Summer Service
Plant
No.
1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1U-1*2
1*3
i*ii
1*5
1*6
1*7
1*8
1*9
50
51
52
Community or Area Served
Matamoras
Mi Iford
Barrett Township
Paradi se Township
"Lower Brodhead"
"Paul ins Ki 11"
"Flatbrook"
Snydersv i 1 1 e
"Raymonds Kill"
"Dingmans Creek"
"Hornbecks Creek"
"Toms Creek"
"Little Bushki 1 1"
DWGNRA (Smal 1 Plants)
"Neversi nk Va 1 ley"
"Shingle Ki 1 1"
Porter Township
Bossardvi 1 le
Price Township
"Pocono"
Hampton Township
Dingman Township
Town of Deer Park
Middle Smi thf ield
Popu 1 at ion
Di str i but ion
DWGNRA
Outside
DWGNRA
Outside
DWGNRA
Outside
DWGNRA
Outside
DWGNRA
Outside
DWGNRA
Outside
DWGNRA
Outside
TOTALS :^
TOTALS:^2'
Popu 1 at ion
18,000
60,000
10,000
12,000
15 , ooo
1*,000
39,000
85 , ooo
8,000
3,1*00
1,500
12 , 800
2,000
5,300
1,500
2,1*00
1,000
2,1*00
2,000
51,200
336,500
195,000
2000
1*2,000
60,000
22,000
18,000
30 , ooo
1*,000
130 , ooo
157,000
17,000
15,000
3,1*00
8,600
12,800
6,000
5,300
1*,000
2,1*00
6,000
2,1*00
8,000
51,200
8,500
2,000
3,000
1,500
3,000
2,500
5,000
630,600
1*89,100
2020_
51*, ooo
60,000
31,000
30,000
1*5,000
1*,000
210 , 000
230,000
22,000
30,000
3,1*00
15,000
12,800
10,000
5,300
7,000
2,1*00
9,000
2,1*00
12,000
51,200
9,000
3,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
1*,000
7,000
5,000
2,000
5,000
893,500
752,000
(1)
(2)
Including 141,500 from DWGNRA
Not including 11*1,500 from DWGNRA
-H40-
-------
Col lection System
Ma ]or
Phase One
27
22
7
9
30
ItO
6
5
5
5
6
1
3
1
J
20
Sewer Lines
Phase Two
8
13
3
6
30
80
7
15
6
It
,
5
3
0
8
it
3
2
It
5
2
(Mi les)
Phase Three
1
20
20
2
9
2
2
0
1
1
0
It
1
1
1
Phase One
11
25
2
3
15
Uo
5
1
2
2
It
3
3
3
10
Pump Stations
Phase Two
2
5
0
2
6
9
2
It
2
2
1
0
2
0
6
3
1
2
3
*
2
Phase Three
It
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
195
212 66 129 58
-H41-
-------
Alternative III - Sub-Regional Systems
Description of AlternativeL_M_j_.—Under Alternative III, the num-
ber of treatment facilities is* reduced to six in order to reduce the
construction, operation, and maintenance costs of treatment and to ex-
ercise a greater degree of control over effluent quality and protection
of the environment.^') Four of the sub-regional plants in Alternative
III are expanded versions of the limited sub-regional plants discussed
under Alternative II, and the other two sub-regional plants are com-
binations of the limited facilities in Alternative II. Each collec-
tion system still attempts to follow the natural drainage patterns
wherever possible.
As under Alternative II, the six plants in Alternative III have
been located as closely as possible to the regions which they will
serve. Each sub-regional treatment plant will eventually be served
by an extensive collection system, portions of which can be developed
in stages. However, because of the widely diversified demand in some
areas, the staging of collection system construction will be much
more difficult under this Alternative.
Three of the six plants will discharge their effluent directly
to the reservoir, and one will discharge into the head waters of the
Upper Brodhead Creek.
Sub-regional wastewater treatment system No. 1 - Matamoras -
Orange County area.--This sub-regional treatment facility would be lo-
cated southeast of Matamoras Borough, on what was formerly the airport
runway and adjacent to Interstate Highway 8^». The system would serve
that portion of Orange County, New York in the study area, the drain-
age basin of Mill Brook in Montague Township, New Jersey, and that
portion of West Fall Township in Pennsylvania which drains into the
Delaware River from Matamoras Borough north to Mi 11 rift.
Under Alternative III, this sub-regional system extends its ser-
vice area into the upper reaches of the Town of Deer Park in Orange
County and collects from those areas which were served under Alternative
II by the two small plants identified as the Neversink Valley and
Shingle Kill plants. In order to accomplish this, an interceptor
would run from the upper reaches of the Neversink Valley near the
Orange County line, south to the junction of the Basher Kill and then
continue down the valley to Port Jervis. This would serve all of the
eastern section of the Town of Deer Park.
In the western portion of the Township, another interceptor would
run from the small community of Rio down the drainage basin of the
Shingle Kill to the Delaware River Valley. There it would b.e joined
In addition to the six sub-regional plants, there are 15 very minor
facilities serving isolated areas. These 15 facilities only serve
about one percent of the service population and so are not elaborated
upon herein.
H-42
-------
by a smaller line running from the Mongaup Valley down the Delaware
and another crossing the Delaware from several small drainage basins
in West Fall Township of Pennsylvania. The combined flows would run
south paralleling New York State Highway 97, through the City of Port
Jervis and across the bridge to Matamoras.
As mentioned previously, Port Jervis is presently served by its
own collection system and treatment plant. Under this Alternative,
consideration was given to utilizing this plant as the nucleus for
the sub-regional system. However, preliminary investigation indicated
that this plant was not capable of providing the desired capacity of
the future regional system and indicated that a new plant must be
constructed. Therefore, it is again assumed that the existing plant
will eventually be phased out and integrated into the Matamoras sub-
regional system.
The system is shown graphically in Figure 3. As shown in Tables
H-10 and hH 1, the system will represent an aggregate of 24 miles of
major trunk and interceptor lines and 68 miles of smaller sewer con-
struction. The system will also involve a number of 1ift stations,
ten of which will be located along the main interceptor and twelve
smaller lift stations on the smaller lines.
The water pollution control plant capacity necessary to ultimately
serve this entire area, including the demands of Port Jervis City, will
be approximately 7 mgd by the year 2020. Like other plant operations,
the demand on the plant will be constantly increasing during the de-
sign life, but the relative increases will be much less than for many
of the other sub-regional plants. The fluctuation between winter and
summer demands will also be less because population growth influx in
the area is expected to be of a more permanent nature. For this rea-
son, the major construction effort for both the collection system and
the treatment plant would be necessary under the first two construction
phases.
Sub-regional wastewater treatment system No. 2 Milford
area.--The sub-regional water pollution control plant would be lo-
cated south of the Borough of Milford, Pennsylvania, east of the junc-
tion of U.S. Highways 6 and 206, and north of the Delaware River bridge
crossing. The system would serve the Delaware Water Gap National Rec-
reation Area facilities on the Pennsylvania side of the reservoir from
Lehman (N.P.S.NO.A, Hill Farm Section) north to Milford and in New
Jersey from Sandyston (N.P.S.NO.18, Minisink Section) north to Mill-
ville. Included also in the service area are the sub-drainage basins
of the 7 small streams which drain the Pocono Plateau in Pennsylvania
in the Townships of Lehman, Delaware, Dingman, and Milford. In addi-
tion, the Borough of Milford in Pennsylvania and the western portion
of Montague Township in New Jersey are included.
Under Alternative II, a plant at Milford was proposed to serve
National Recreation Area sites and the Pennsylvania and New Jersey
H-43
-------
TABLE H-10
Sub-Reg iona1
Plant
No.
1
Name
Matamoras -
Orange County
Mi Iford
Flatbrook
Upper
Brodhead
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
DESIGN POPULATIONS AND PLANT CAPACITIES
ALTERNATIVE I I I
Servi ce Area
Port Jervis City and
Town of Deerpark,
N.Y. ; Mi 11 Brook
Bas in, N. J. ; West
Fal1 Twp., Penna.
DWGNRA Faci1ities
in Penna. and N.J. ;
Lehman, Delaware,
Dingman and MiIford
Twps., Penna; Mon-
tague Twp., N.J.
DWGNRA Faci1 ities
in N.J. ; Little
Flat Brook and
F1 at Brook Bas i ns,
N.J.
Barrett, Price,
Paradise Twps. and
Mt. Pocono Boro in
Penna.
Peak Summer Service
Population
198520002020
35,000 55,000 70,000
Design Capacity by
Construction Period (MGD)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
1970-1980 1980-2000 2000-2020
118,000 170,000 190,000
43,000 50,000 55,000
30,000 75,000 110,000
3.5
2.i
3.0
5-5
11.6
3.1
7.5
7-0
13.6
3-6
11.0
Lower
Brodhead
Lower Brodhead Creek,
Pocono Creek and
McMichel Creek Basins
in Monroe Co., Penna.
),ooo 170,000 280,000
6.0
17.0
28.0
-------
n:
1
Cn
Sub-Reg iona1
Plant
No.
Name
Paul ins Kill
Individual Facilities (4)
pi us
Isolated DWGNRA Sites (ll)
TOTALS:
1
TOTALS:'
TABLE H-1O
(cont inued)
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS
DESIGN POPULATIONS AND PLANT CAPACITIES
ALTERNATIVE I I I
Service Area
Pauli ns Kill Bas in in
Warren and Sussex
County, N.J.
Sub-Tota1s:
Peak Summer Service
Popu1 at ion
1985
2000
2020
95,000 160,000 220,000
38i,ooo
4,800 7,800 12,000
385,800 687,800 937,000
244,300 546,300 795,500
Design Capacity by
Construction Period (MGD)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
1970-1980 1980-2000 2000-202
9-5
,000 925,000 33.0
0.2
33.2
16.0
60.7
0.5
61.2
24.0
87.2
0.9
1.1
^Including l4l,500 from DWGNRA
"Not including l4l,500 from DWGNRA
-------
TABLE H-ll
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
ALTERNATIVE ! I I
SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEM NO. 1
Major Sewer Lines
Treatment Plant
Average Daily
IE
1
CN
Construct ion
Stage
Phase One
(1970-1980)
Phase Two
(1980-2000)
Phase Three
(2000-2020)
Serv ice
Popul at ion
55,000
(1985)
55,000
(2000)
70,000
( 2020)
(Miles)
Trunk Sub-Trunk
10 20
10 35
4 13
Pump Stations
Major Minor
5 k-
k- 6
I 2
F low
W i nter
2.2
(1985)
5.0
(2000)
5.0
(2020)
(MGD)
Summer
5-5
(1985)
5-5
( 2000)
7.0
( 2020)
TOTAL
2k-
68
10
12
-------
communities within a 6 mile radius of the Borough of Milford. The
extension of lines was limited to drainage basins that could be served
primarily by gravity lines with relatively little pumping effort.
Under Alternative III, the same service areas are included; however,
a large trunk line running from the south along the face of the Pocono
Plateau is added. This line would be comprised of a series of force
mains and gravity lines. Several alternative routes for such a trunk
line have been evaluated, but it was determined that, with the reloca-
tion of U.S. Highway 209 onto the Plateau, the most economical solution
would be to build the trunk line and the pumping stations within the
right of way of the relocated highway. This would necessitate close
planning and coordination with the construction of the road.
This main trunk line would be over 17 miles long and would col-
lect the wastewaters from most of Lehman Township, Delaware Township,
and Dingman Township. The steeply eroded terrain which typifies the
edge of the escarpment dictates alternating gravity lines and force
mains. If the line were placed in the excavated right of way of the
relocated U.S. 209, the cost of excavation and placement would be min-
imized. Some of the most difficult connections would be the lines
which run to the National Recreation Area sites situated at the water
edge, several hundred feet below the elevation of the proposed trunk
line. The wastewaters from these sites must be pumped back up the
steep drainage courses of the small streams on which they are situated;
wherever possible, this should be done by utilizing the shoulders of
proposed access roads.
Along the 17 mile length of this main trunk line, 27 DWGNRA centers
would be served, representing a total peak population of over 26,000
people. Although this represents a significant portion of the demand
flow initially, the use of this line by people outside the DWGNRA
would eventually exceed the Recreation Area demands. It is estimated
that in 1985 some 25,000 people will occupy the inland drainage basins
which will connect to this trunk line. By the year 2020, the develop-
ment of summer homes and recreational facilities on the inland Pocono
Plateau will increase this number to over 61,000 people during the
summer period. Thus the maximum, average daily flow which this component
of the system must ultimately carry is over 7 mgd, with over 6 mgd
generated by residents outside the DWGNRA.
The capacity of the plant at Milford would be U mgd by the year
2020. This will serve a population of over 190,000 people, some
84,000 of which will be within the National Recreation Area.
Sub-regional wastewater system No. 3 ~ Flat Brook area.--
The sub-regional treatment facility for this system would be located
at the confluence of Flat Brook and Little Flat Brook Creeks, near
the community of Peters Valley in Sandyston Township, New Jersey.
The system would serve the southern section of the DWGNRA on the New
Jersey side of the reservoir along the Kittatinny Mountain ridge and
the Flat Brook Peninsula (National Recreation Area sites N.P.S. Nos.
H-47
-------
TABLE H-12
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
ALTERNATIVE I I I
SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEM NO. 2
Major Sewer Lines
Treatment Plant
Average Daily
1
CO
Construct ion
Stage
Phase One
(1970-1980)
Phase Two
(1980-2000)
Phase Three
(2000-2020)
Service
Popul at ion
118,000
(1985)
170,000
(2000)
190,000
( 2020)
Trunk
30
25
5
(Miles)
Sub-Trunk
15
10
3
Pump Stations
Major Minor
25 1+1
5 4
3 3
Flow
W i nter
2.5
(1985)
1+.8
(2000)
7.0
( 2020)
(MGD)
Summer
8.6
(1985)
11.6
(2000)
13.6
( 2020)
TOTAL
60
28
33
-------
19 through 30). Outside DWGNRA, the Little Flat Brook and Flat Brook
drainage basins would be served.
The development of a sub-regional system to serve the combined
demand flows from the proposed service areas presents several problems.
The most difficult of these Is the location of a plant. The first site
considered was at the far end of the Kittatinny Ridge near the DWGNRA
site of Vancampers. The location of a large treatment plant ih this
area, however, met with objection from the National Park Service, and
so a second site at the upper end of the Flat Brook Inlet was chosen.
The development of a collection system to serve the various pop-
ulation centers is relatively easy. The DWGNRA facilities and the
residential areas outside the DWGNRA will have little interconnection.
All flows from the DWGNRA areas will flow from the south, while resi-
dential wastewaters in the upper drainage area of the Little Flat
Brook would flow by gravity south to the plant site. The lines col-
lecting from the DWGNRA facilities along the Flat Brook Inlet, on the
Flat Brook Peninsula, and from the recreation area of Calno (N.P.S. 29)
will include over 45 miles of sewer. Of this, more than 50% will be
force main. To accomplish this collection, 64 pumping stations will
be required. Although this is a large number of stations, the pump-
ing problem is not as difficult as along the Pocono Plateau in Penn-
sylvania. This is because the changes in elevation that must be over-
come are relatively small. Many of the force mains required will be
in the 3" to 6" diameter size, with average daily flows varying from
14 to over 100 gpm. It should be noted that only the DWGNRA facilities
will require a major pumping effort to collect its wastewaters. Out-
side the Recreation Area, little pumping is required.
Development outside the DWGNRA will probably be confined almost
exclusively to the narrow valley stretching between the communities
of Hainesville and Layton. Most of the permanent and summer residen-
tial development in Sandyston Township is expected to be confined to
this area.
The Flat Brook Creek drains from Stokes State Forest and High
Point State Park, and is not expected to experience extensive growth
in permanent population. Summer demands will probably increase as
State camping facilities are expanded and new recreational facili-
ties are developed to compliment the National Recreation Area. How-
ever, this will represent a relatively small portion of the demand
flow in this sub-regional system. Both areas could be served by
gravity lines running to the plant site near Peters Valley.
As can be seen in Table H-13, the service population for sub-
regional system No. 3 wi11 not increase radically during its 40 year
service life. This is because most of the service area is within the
National Recreation Area. The flows at the plant, however, will vary
greatly with seasons, since in the winter months the DWGNRA flow will
decrease to zero, and almost all components of the collection system
H-49
-------
TABLE H-13
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
ALTERNATIVE I I I
SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEM NO. ^
Major Sewer Lines
Treatment Plant
Average Daily
I
1
Oi
0
Construct ion
Stage
Phase One
(1970-1980)
Phase Two
(1980-2000)
Phase Three
(2000-2020)
Servi ce
Populat ion
)+3 , ooo
(1985)
50,000
(2000)
55,000
( 2020)
Trunk
17
1
0
(Miles)
Sub-Trunk
35
3
l
Pump
Major
17
0
0
Stat ions
Minor
Vf
3
0
Flow
W inter
0.7
(1985)
1.2
(2000)
1.5
(2020)
(MGD)
Summer
2. If
(1985)
3.1
(2000)
3.6
( 2020)
TOTAL
18
39
17
50
-------
south of the plant will be shut down. The population served will
increase from less than 7,000 in the winter of 1985 to over ^3,000
in the summer. During the summer of 1985, the DWGNRA demand will be
over 58 percent of the total treatment plant capacity required, but
by the summer of 2020 this proportion will be reduced to 39 percent.
Sub-regional wastewater system No. k - Upper Brodhead area.--
The treatment facility would be located at the confluence of the
Brodhead and Analomink Creeks in the northwestern corner of Stroud
Township. The sub-regional system would serve all of Barrett, Price
and Paradise Townships, Mount Pocono Borough, and the northern fringe
of Pocono Township.
This sub-regional system is basically a combination of the two
smaller systems described under Alternative II as the Barrett Town-
ship and the Paradise Township limited sub-regional systems. Under
Alternative III, the plant is moved downstream to the confluence of
the two creeks. It also represents a slightly expanded service area.
The major modification of this Alternative III would be the con-
struction of a gravity interceptor from the Canadensis area in Barrett
Township south along the course of Brodhead Creek. This line, over 7~
1/2 miles in length, would pass through what is now undeveloped coun-
try. Sufficient gradient exists to make gravity flow possible. The
road which parallels the stream bed could be of limited use as a
possible right-of-way.
The population served by this sub-regional system would be slightly
greater than Alternative II initially, with some 30,000 summer resi-
dents within the service area in 1985. By the year 2020, however, the
number of people would be significantly greater with approximately
110,000 served. This is due primarily to the additional development
in Price Township and eastern and southern Paradise Township which
would probably occur in the final construction stage.
Although this area is not near the National Recreation Area, the
fluctuation in flows between winter and summer at the plant will still
be large. This is because the region will remain essentially a recrea-
tion area for many years to come, and will experience a large influx
of summer residents. In Table H-14, it can be seen that most of the
building of the system components would occur during the first con-
struction phase prior to 1985, with only the treatment facility going
through expansion phases in the future.
Sub-regional wastewater treatment system No. 5 - Lower
Brodhead area.--The water pollution control plant would be located at
the confFuence of the Brodhead Creek and the Delaware River near
Minisink Hills, Pennsylvania. The sub-regional system would serve
Pocono, Jackson, Hamilton, Stroud, Smithfield, and Middle Smithfield
Townships, the Boroughs of Stroudsburg, East Stroudsburg and Dela-
ware Water Gap, plus some DWGNRA facilities in Pennsylvania. The
eastern most portion of Chestnut Hill Township would also be served.
H-51
-------
TABLE H-14
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
ALTERNATIVE I I i
SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEM NO. k
I
I
Major Sewer Lines
Treatment Plant
Average Da ily
Construct ion
Stage
Phase One
(1970-1980)
Phase Two
(1980-2000)
Phase Three
(2000-2020)
Serv ice
Popul at ion
30,000
(1985)
75,000
( 2000)
110,000
(2020)
(Miles)
Trunk Sub-Trunk
17 15
3 8
0 3
Pump
Major
2
0
0
Stat ions
Minor
3
l
0
Flow (
Winter
1.2
(1985)
3-0
(2000)
5-0
(2020)
MGD)
Summer
3.0
(1985)
7-5
(2000)
11.0
(2020)
TOTAL
20
26
2
-------
This system would be essentially a combination of the two smaller
systems described under Alternative II as the Lower Brodhead and
Snydersville systems as well as several other small systems. The
major difference under this Alternative is that the development along
the entire length of McMichael's Creek drainage basin, reaching from
the Stroudsburgs through Hamilton Township and into the upper sub-
basin in Chestnut Hill Township would be served.
The addition of these service areas will increase the required
plant capacity of the Lower Brodhead Plant to almost 28 mgd by 2020.
The initial demand values will be 3.0 mgd in the winter of 1985 and
6.0 mgd in the summer.
The required collection system would grow during each of the con-
struction phases with the bulk of the development occurring during the
first and second phases.
As can be seen in Table H-15 nearly 50 percent of the lines and
lift stations must be built during the initial construction phase
prior to 1980, although only some 60,000 of the ultimate service pop-
ulation of 280,000 people will be present by the year 1985-
Sub-regional wastewater treatment system Mo. 6 - Paul ins
Kill area.—The plant would be located at the junction of the Paul ins
Kill and the Delaware River, east of Columbia, New Jersey. This sub-
regional system would serve all of Frankford, Hampton, Lafayette,
Stillwater, Hardwick, Blairstown, and Knowlton Townships, plus the
Borough of Newton in New Jersey. Portions of Sparta, Andover, Fredon,
and Frelinghuysen Townships would also be served.
The sub-regional system considered for the Paul ins Kill drainage
basin under Alternative III is identical to that considered under
Alternative II except that a slightly greater service area can be ex-
pected at earlier stages of development. Ultimately, the same sys-
tem would be developed. One minor consideration, not discussed pre-
viously under Alternative II, is the extension of a line across the
Delaware River from the Columbia Treatment Plant site into a limited
area of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. This is included under
construction Phase 3 as a possible extension of service area and would
add another estimated 10,000 people to the ultimate service population.
H-53
-------
TABLE H-15
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
ALTERNATIVE I I I
SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEM NO. 5
Ol
Major Sewer Lines
Treatment Plant
Average Daily
Construct i on
Stage
Phase One
(1970-1980)
Phase Two
(1980-2000)
Phase Three
(2000-2020)
Servi ce
Popul at ion
60,000
(1985)
170,000
( 2000)
280,000
(2020)
Trunk
25
15
12
(Miles)
Sub-Trunk
20
30
5
Pump
Major
10
7
5
Stat ions
Minor
6
k
3
Flow
Wi nter
3-0
(1985)
-9.0
(2000)
20.0
(2020)
(MGD)
Summer
6.0
(1985)
17.0
(2000)
28.0
(2020)
TOTAL
55
22
13
-------
TABLE H-16
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
ALTERNATIVE I I I
SUB-REGIONAL SYSTEM NO. 6
en
Oi
Major Sewer Lines
Treatment Plant
Average Da i]y
Construct ion
Stage
Phase One
(1970-1980)
Phase Two
(1980-2000)
Phase Three
(2000-2020)
Servi ce
Popul at ion
95,000
(1985)
160 ,-ooo
(2000)
220,000
(2020)
Trunk
20
15
5
(Miles)
Sub-Trunk
25
65
15
Pump
Major
18
k
0
Stat ions
Minor
22
5
1
Fl ow
Winter
k.O
(1985)
10.0
(2000)
17.0
( 2020)
(MGD)
Summer
9-5
(1985)
16.0
(2000)
24.0
(2020)
TOTAL
105
22
28
-------
Alternative IV - Regional System, Evolved
Description of Alternative IV.--This Alternative is based on the
assumption that Alternative III is built through construction Phase 2.
Then the six sub-regional systems would be joined to form a single re-
gional system. The central treatment plant site would be below the
dam, actually an expanded sub-regional plant No. 5-
The major modifications required to interconnect the sub-regional
collection systems, shown on Figure 4> would be as follows:
a. Force main from Matamoras to Mi I ford.
b. Force main from Peters Valley (Flatbrook Basin) to
Sandyston.
c. Enlargement of system from Sandyston to Mil ford to
accomodate Flatbrook Basin flow; or, construction
of a tunnel crossing below the Reservoir at Sandyston.
d. Enlargement of Pocono Interceptor and reversal of
flow to allow collection of total flow from upper
study area south to Lehman.
e. Interconnection of Pocono Interceptor with trunk line
through Marshal Is Creek, and enlargement of all main
trunk lines and pump stations.
f. Gravity trunk from sub-regional plant site No. k south
to upper reaches of sub-regional system No. 5, and en-
largement of the trunk line to the plant.
g. Large force main from Columbia (Paul ins Kill Basin)
north through Water Gap to central treatment plant site.
The incorporation of most of these modifications are discussed
under Alternative V. The most significant difference in Alternative
IV is that the treatment facilities at five of the six sub-regional
plants, amounting to over 43 mgd by 2000, will be abandoned during
the third Phase of construction.
H-56
-------
Alternative V - Regional System
Description of Alternative V.--Under Alternative V, the assumption
was made that discharge of even the most highly treated wastewaters to
the reservoir or its tributary streams within the TIRES area is un-
acceptable and, therefore, all liquid wastes must be carried and treated
at some point below the locks Island Dam.
Description of System.--The collection system that would serve
Westfall Township, Port Jervis, the Town of Deer Park, Matamoras, and
upper Montague Township will be the same as that described under sub-
regional system No. 1, Alternative III. It would have the same staging
of construction. At the south end of the Borough of Matamoras, which
has been considered as the site for the water pollution control plant
in Alternative III, a pumping station would be built. From here the
collected wastewaters would be pumped south to the Borough of Mil ford
some five and a half miles, utilizing the right-of-way of Interstate
Highway 84. Because of the variability of flow rates from this upper
region (requiring a pumping capacity of less than one mgd to over seven-
teen mgd during the study period) three force mains of varying sizes
would be used to carry the wastewaters south to Mil ford. If the lines
are placed in the shoulder of the Interstate highway, they would be
relatively inaccessible, and so all three might logically be placed
together in the same trench. Although the largest line would not be
used for ten years, it would be easier than excavating again and placing
an additional line in the future.
As can be seen from Figure 5, the development of Alternative V
can almost be regarded as the interconnection of the six sub-regional
plants of Alternative III, discussed under Alternative IV. With a
cummulative flow south to the central plant site, however, many sys-
tem components which previously had been small would now be oversized
to accommodate the future flows from the upper regions of the study
area. One such component would be the main gravity trunk sewer through
the Borough of Mil ford, into which the force main from Matamoras would
discharge. The lift station required at the east end of the Borough
to carry the wastewaters across the creek would also be significantly
increased. However, the nine miles of major trunk sewer in Milford,
Dingman, and Westfall Townships which drain to this point would remain
the same as in Alternative III.
The collection system required in Montague Township on the east
side of the reservoir would also remain the same as in Alternative III.
All lines would discharge into a sump at the New Jersey end of the
Delaware River bridge, and then flow by gravity to the Milford pumping
station. The only difference would be that the DWGNRA sites south of
Montague would not be pumped north but rather would flow south towards
Sandyston. Thus, the cumulative flow to the Milford pumping station,
located at the site of what had previously been described as the Mil-
ford Water Pollution Control plant (Alternative III), would range from
less than three million gallons a day in the winter of 1985 to almost
twelve million gallons a day by the summer of 2020.
H-57
-------
The lines which would be required to carry the collected waste-
waters from the Milford pump station up onto the Pocono Plateau, then
southwest along the Plateau to the Bushkill inlet (22 miles), and then
to the plant site 10 miles further down the valley, would be a major
component of the system. First construction would require pumping
from the Milford Relay Station (elevation A^5') south a distance of al-
most five miles along the plateau, to an elevation of approximately
1,000'. This first increment would require three additional pumping
stations as large as the one at Milford. The possibility of skirting
along the edge of the reservoir was studied and ruled out since large
rock outcrops and the sheer face of the escarpment rising from the
water's edge present^almost insurmountable natural barriers: A path
could be cut along the face of the cliff, but in doing so the natural
beauty would be destroyed. The possibility of running the main trunk
sewer under water was also considered and discarded, because of both
technical and economic weaknesses. An analysis of this concept is
'discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
As in Alternative III, smaller interceptors running from the small
inland drainage basins would join the main line on the Plateau at the
crossing of each stream valley. Each one of these low points at stream
valleys will require another lifting effort, although the static head
would be small. Again, the flows from the inland basins would be sup-
plemented by the discharge of wastewaters from the National Recreation
Area sites located along the plateau. Since the route of the trunk
line under Alternative V is the same as that under Alternative III, most
of the upland DWGNRA sites can still flow by gravity to the main sewer.
However, the pumping problem facing the recreation sites located along
the water's edge must still be overcome.
The wastewaters from residential and DWGNRA sites in New Jersey
substantially alter the cumulative flow total. At this point, a choice
in method of collection had to be made. A collection system to service
the National Recreation Area sites on the eastern (New Jersey) side of
the reservoir could be developed in one of two ways. The densely pop-
ulated sites of Sandyston, Namanock, and Minisink will have a summer
population of about 3(3,000. The wastewaters from these areas can; be
collected and pumped north along the reservoir to a 'point adjacent to
the community of Montague Township, as described under Alternative III.
This flow could also be reversed and flow south to the N.P.S. site of
Sandyston and at that point, cross the river in a reinforced concrete
tunnel below the reservoir, to a point near Dingmans Ferry. 'Since the
three recreation areas lie albng the water's edge immediately adjacent
to such a tunnel, there is logic to this approach.
1 The collection system serving the lower DWGNRA sites in New Jersey
and in the Little Flat Brook basin of Sandyston Township (described
under Alternative I I I as sub-regional system No. 3) could also be col-
lected to this point. This would be accomplished by a force main and
gravity line from Peters Valley north over the ridge. It had been
considered to interconnect this sub-regional system by pumping to the
H-58
-------
east and then to the south, and connect at Culvers Gap with the inter-
ceptor that will form a part of the Paul ins Kill system. This would
have Involved a static lift of 480 feet and a total length of line of
over four miles instead of the two and one half miles required to inter-
connect with Sandyston.
With the addition of this wastewater flow (varying from 0.7 mgd
in the winter of 1985 to 3.6 mgd by the summer of 2020), the total sum-
mer flow at Sandyston by 2020 will be about 4.9 mgd, of which 2.7 mgd
will be from DWGNRA sites and 2.2 mgd from outside of DWGNRA.
Referring back to the description of the Pocono Plateau trunk line,
the total flow from the upper study area will amount to an average daily
summer flow of almost 14 mgd by 2020; this flow will reach a, point on
the Plateau just west of Dingmans Ferry. Therefore, a choice must be
made between collecting north along the New Jersey edge of the reservoir,
crossing the bridge, and pumping this additional 4.9 mgd south in the
main trunk sewer to the Dingmans Ferry area, or collecting south, cross-
ing in the tunnel, and pumping up the plateau to the same point. Based
upon cost comparisons, and other factors, the tunnel crossing was
selected.
The ability of the utility tunnel to provide a crossing for other
utility lines should be kept in mind. Although the first costs are
slightly greater for the tunnel, the multiple purpose aspects of the
tunnel crossing and the desire to minimize travel time of wastewaters
in the collection system are felt to outweigh the slight savings.
Therefore, the tunnel crossing was selected as the best method of con-
necting the sub-systems under this Alternative.
It should be mentioned here that in addition to these two methods
of connecting sub-regional system No. 3, (Flatbrook), other ways of
collecting wastewaters from the sub-basin, peninsula and face of
the ridge were considered. One approach would involve collecting
aU wastewaters to the southern most end of the Flat Brook peninsula,
and crossing the reservoir in a tunnel to the Bushkill inlet area.
This would, also involve the crossing of the Flat Brook inlet with an
underwater line from the "Kittatinny" areas. The degree of difficulty
and higher first cost of this type of system indicate it is not the
most efficient .solution. :
The possibility of tunneling through the Kittatinny Mountain was
also considered in lieu of connection with any of the northern or
western reaches of the system. The flow would be collected to the
southernmost extremity, and there a tunnel would be drilled through
the ridge, connecting it with the Paul ins Kill interceptor. Prelimi-
nary geological investigation, cost analysis, and practical evaluation
of the approach have excluded it from further consideration.
Whatever method is selected to connect the wastewater system of
the Flatbrook environs with the main system, either by adding it to the
H-59
-------
flow crossing the bridge at Milford or crossing the reservoir indepen-
dently in a tunnel at Dingmans Ferry, the total cumulative summer flow
in the Pocono trunk at the crossing of Dingmans Creek will ultimately
be over 19 mgd. The pumping effort required to lift the combined flow
from the tunnel and the park sites at Dingmans Ferry to this juncture
will require another significant pumping effort, with over a mile of
dual force main and three lift stations necessary. By the time the
trunk reaches the Bushkill inlet, 14 miles further south, another 5 mgd
will ultimately be added by the sub-drainage basins in Delaware and
Lehman Townships, giving a total demand variation at a point north
of Big Bushkill Creek of 4 to 2k mgd between the summer of,1985 and
2020.
From this point, the main trunk would carry down the valley,
(roughly paralleling Route U.S. 29), from Bushkill inlet to the com-
munity of Marshal Is Creek. It should utilize where possible the bed
of an abandoned railroad track as a right-of-way. Along the valley,
the flow will be augmented by the development of Middle Smithfield
Township and additional flows from smaller interceptors extending up
the Bushkill and Marshal Is Creeks. Winding down the valley of Mar-
shal Is Creek to the plant site, this trunk line would deliver a flow
of wastewater to the plant varying between 5-5 mgd in the winter of
1985 to 32 mgd in the summer of 2020.
This portion of the collection system under Alternative V rep-
resents a major component. The trunk sewer would run a total of over
37.5 miles, from Matamoras to Minisink Hills. The length of time the
wastewaters would remain in the lines or wet wells could amount to
several days under the most unfavorable conditions, and the initial
construction cost alone would run over twenty-six million dollars.
While the population served would vary from 250,000 to 400,000 during
peak summer periods, it would drop off to 50,000 to 150,000 during
winter months.
Under Alternatives IV and V, the wastewaters from several major
drainage basins must be carried to the regional plant. Since the plant
is situated at the terminus of the Brodhead Creek, the collection sys-
tem serving this part of the watershed will not be as difficult to
develop as the trunk sewers skirting the periphery of the reservoir.
The upper sub-basin covering Barrett, Price and Paradise Townships will
have the same collection system described under Alternative I I I as Sub-
Regional System No. 4. An additional interceptor would continue from
the confluence of the Paradise and Brodhead Creeks down the Lower Brod-
head to the plant site. This two miles of new line and seven miles of
enlarged line would carry 11 mgd from the upper section and would be
added to 22 mgd input through the lower section, giving a total flow to
the plant of over 33 mgd by 2020.
The collection system described under Alternative III for the
Paul ins Kill area would remain the same under this Alternative except
that the collected wastewaters would be pumped north from Columbia
H-60
-------
through the Delaware Water Gap to the central plant site. As an alter-
nate plant site, the area northeast of Columbia was considered but would
require significantly greater volumes of wastewater being pumped. In
either case, the building of a force main through the Gap would be a
very difficult problem. It should consist of three force mains, ranging
in sizes from 14 inches to 5*t inches in diameter, laid in the shoulder
of Interstate Highway 80, and carried across the Delaware River on the
super-structure of the highway bridge. The distance traveled, from a
pump station near Columbia to the plant site, would be over 3^,000 feet
but the static head to be overcome would be relatively small.
The largest component of cost for this connection would be the
placement of the lines. If placed in one large trench at the same time,
the extensive rock excavation, trenching, rebuilding of the roadbed, and
the river crossing would cost approximately $150.00 per foot. This would
give a total capital cost of almost six million dollars to pump the
wastewaters from the Paul ins Kill to the regional plant site.
The ultimate demand flow represents service to 83^,000 summer resi-
dents outside the DWGNRA and 138,000 DWGNRA occupants during peak summer
periods. The total anticipated service population of 970,000 people rep-
resents almost 3}% of the summer population present in the study area in
the year 2020.
Waste discharges from boats
The danger of pollution from the small boats which will use the
reservoir for recreational purposes during the summer months is an
important waste disposal consideration. The pollution caused by these
water craft varies with location, periods of usage, number of vessels,
and type of water body. A variety of studies, however, have shown that
the discharge of wastes from water craft causes a significant degree of
pollution in receiving streams and lakes.
Various pollution control mechanisms are available for water craft.
For small vessels, such as those that.would use the reservoir, a holding
tank of some type would probably be the most effective mechanism. A
holding tank is a closed container for retaining sewage until it can be
emptied, usually into on-shore sewage receiving facilities.
The advantages of the holding tank are many. However, there is
one major obstacle that must be overcome. Adequate shore facilities
to receive, treat, and dispose of the waste from vessel holding tanks
are generally not available at existing recreation areas. In each of
the alternative systems proposed for liquid waste collection and dis-
posal within the National Recreation Area, the extension of collection
facilities to boat marinas has been considered. The wastes from the
water craft holding tanks could be discharged to a central collection
tank at each launching area, and pumped to the nearest component of
the collection system. By providing collection facilities at each
marina location, and by strict enforcement of existing and proposed
H-61
-------
TABLE H-17
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
ALTERNATIVE V
rc
I
NO
Construct ion
Stage
PHASE ONE
(1970-1980)
PHASE TWO
(1980-2000)
PHASE THREE
(2000-2020)
Average
Serv ice
Popul at ion1
ij-15,000
(1985)
705,000
(2000)
970,000
(2020)
Major Sewer
Trunk
Ik-0
75
30
L ines (mi les )
Sub-Trunk
130
150
^0
Pump
Major
80
25
10
Stat ions
Minor
125
25
10
Treatment
Average Dai 1 y
Wi nter
(1985)
31
(2000)
53
(2020)
Plant
Flow(MGD)
S umme r
33
(1985)
62
(2000)
- 89
(2020)
TOTAL
2^5
320
115
160
1 Includes 1^1,500 from DWGNRA.
-------
state standards to prohibit discharges from vessels, this source of
pollution can be virtually eliminated from the locks Island Reservoir
Other methods for pollution control, such as chemical toilets,
are much more difficult to regulate than the holding tank concept.
Therefore, consideration should be given to prohibiting the use of
other disposal methods besides holding tanks.
In order to insure protection of the reservoir from pollution
by boat discharges, it is necessary that adequate inspection and
policing be provided. Furthermore, as pointed out above, it is
critical that waste-receiving facilities be conveniently located
at each boat launch site or marina.
H-63
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Introduction
The study of solid waste disposal herein was directed towards
general predictions of solid waste quantities, formulation of service
areas, identification of potential solid waste disposal methods, and
preliminary location of solid waste disposal areas. The prime con-
sideration in studies of potential disposal sites and methods was the
protection of ground and surface water quality.
Type of disposal system
Various attempts have been made to compare the costs of operating
sanitary landfills to the cost of burning rubbish in properly designed
incinerators. Landfill costs range from $0.75 to $4.50 per ton of
waste, depending upon the character of the soil and the ability to
provide adequate cover for a suitable sanitary operation. Incinerator
studies indicate cost ranges from $3-50 to $10.00 per ton for disposal
in a modern incinerator plant. The operating cost of future inciner-
ators can be expected to increase as a result of air pollution control
requirements now being imposed on incinerator plants. The equipment
which will be used in the future will reflect both increased capital
investment and increased annual operating costs neither of which can
be determined at this time.
It is clear that under difficult landfill conditions, and even
under situations where long distance hauling is required, that
properly regulated landfill operations can be conducted at great
savings over incineration. It must also be considered, when estab-
lishing incineration as a practice for a community, that the dis-
posal of noncombustible materials not consumed in the incinerator
still requires land disposal sites. Depending upon the character
of the waste generated in an area, from 15 to 25 percent of the
total waste incinerated will require land disposal. Increased use
of aluminum cans, non-refundable bottles, and other packaging ma-
terials will substantially increase the materials which cannot be
disposed of by incineration.
In addition, a substantial quantity of bulky waste material will
develop in the Tocks Island area. Included in this category are
junked automobiles, large household appliances, bulky furniture,
matresses, springs and some unburnable types of wastes produced
from small industries. Under certain economic conditions associated
with large metropolitan areas, the material components are econom-
ically salvagable. These materials cannot be economically salvaged
in areas distant from large industrial centers. The precise quan-
tities to be expected in relation to population cannot be determined
from any data available at this time. In considering the reserva-
tion of land for the future the safest course of action now would
be to consider that bulky materials will be handled in landfill
H-64
-------
sites. In the event that new technologies develop or that economic
changes take place which would permit the salvage of such items, the
land included for reservation would simply represent a safety factor
in the assumptions which have been made for the ultimate land re-
qui rement.
Because of the expected nature of solid wastes in the TIRES
area and because of significantly lower costs, disposal by sanitary
landfill was determined to be the best solution. Landfill operations
can be located and properly operated such that ground and surface
waters are not contaminated. Furthermore, studies indicate that
there is sufficient land available within reasonable distances to
allow efficient operation of landfills. Finally, landfill opera-
tions are easily adaptable to the anticipated seasonal variation
in waste loads in the TIRES area.
Formulation of service zones
Population and therefore the generation of solid wastes are
not evenly distributed over the study area now and will not be in
the future according to the population projections. The two major
population centers will be the regional center of Newton in the
Paul ins Kill drainage basin and the regional center of the Strouds-
burgs in the Brodhead drainage basin. Other population centers in
decreasing order of magnitude are: that section of Pike County in
the study area, that part of Orange County in the study area, and
that part of northern Warren County in the study area.
Because of the uneven distribution of population in the study
area, for the purpose of preliminary analysis in the solid wastes
study, several approaches had to be studied to resolve the unbalanced
distribution of population. This population distribution had to
be further analyzed against consideration of solid waste generated
by the DWGNRA. The standard factors used herein for determining
solid waste service zones are present and future transportation
systems, and the proximity to potential final disposal areas.
A cursory investigation of the General Development Plan for
the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area indicates five major
areas where solid waste will be generated:
1. Milford Section: Montague Township, Sussex County,
Milford, and Westfall Township,
Pike County.
2. Minisink Section: Sandyston and Montague Townships,
Sussex County.
3. Dingmans Creek Station: Lehman and Delaware Townships,
Pike County.
H-65
-------
1*. Bushkill Creek Station: Middle Smithfield Township,
Monroe County and Lehman
Township, Pike County.
5. Kittatinny Section: Blairstown, Hardwick Townships,
in Warren County and Stillwater
Township in Sussex County.
Three of the five major areas are at the northern end of the
DWGNRA. While the solid waste from the Recreation Area seems to
be concentrated in one general area, compared to the solid waste
from the regional centers it will not be significant. The National
Park Service has indicated a preference towards contracting with
private collectors to dispose of solid waste from within the DWGNRA.
(If private collectors are not available there may be an opportunity
to utilize soils with moderate limitations in some sections of the
DWGNRA for a landfill operation.) Private collectors should be en-
couraged to take advantage of this economic opportunity rather than
having the National Park Service seek their own solution.
There are ten service areas that can reasonably dispose of all
solid wastes within their area at this time. The boundaries of the
service areas are not intended to be precise and transportation of
the solid waste may require hauls of greater than ten miles. The
boundary lines attempt to conform with the boundaries of minor
political divisions within the drainage area of the Tocks Island
Region Environmental Study.
The service areas are described as follows:
1. Northern Warren - Hardwick, Blairstown, and Knowlton
Townships and the greater Portland Borough area in
Pennsylvania; also the Water Gap and Kittatinny
sections of the DWGNRA.
2. East-Central Sussex - Sparta, Andover, Lafayette
Townships and the Town of Newton.
3. West-Central Sussex - Stillwater, Fredon, Hampton,
Frankford Townships and Branchville Borough.
k. North-Western Sussex - Sandyston and Montague Town-
ships; also the Milford Section (in part) and the
Minisink Section of the DWGNRA; and part of the
solid waste from High Point State Park.
5. West Orange - The Towns of Port Jervis and Deerpark.
6. North-Eastern Pike - Westfall and Milford Townships
and the Boroughs of Matamoras and Milford. There
may not be an acceptable site in this service area;
therefore, this area could be combined with the West
Orange Service Area.
H-66
-------
7- East-Central Pike - Delaware and Dingman Townships
and part of Porter, Blooming Grove and Shohola
Townships; and the Dingman's Creek section of the
DWGNRA.
8. Pike and Monroe - Lehman, Middle Smithfield, and
part of Porter Townships; and the Bushkill Creek
section of the DWGNRA.
9. Northern Monroe - Barrett, Price, Paradise Town-
ships and Mount Pocono Borough.
10. Southern Monroe - Stroudsburg, East Stroudsburg,
and Delaware Water Gap Borough; Smithfield, Stroud,
Hamilton, Jackson, and Pocono Townships.
Solid waste generation and disposal has less of a relationship
to drainage basins than water supply and liquid waste collection and
treatment. Solid waste may be readily transported into or out of
given drainage basins but, at this time, there is no significant
quantity of solid waste being transported into the study area for
disposal and the total quantity of waste going out can be neglected.
Political boundaries may be significant when the collection
and/or disposal of solid waste is handled by local governmental
units. Private collectors and private disposal sites can and do ac-
cept solid wastes from other political subdivisions and other states.
Waste management is ultimately the responsibility of govern-
ment and the environment can be protected if the public is willing
to bear the costs. The uncertain factor is the desire of government
to cope with the wastes of society. This is the key element that
will determine environmental quality. The open, rural townships
that make up the majority of the land area in the TIRES have not,
as yet, been faced with the significant solid waste volumes that
face urban and suburban regions; however, the projected future
growth will generate significant volumes.
The study has not gathered data on, and has not made analysis
of, governmental organization for waste management in the TIRES
region, nor has the study directly examined in detail the efficiency
of present procedures. This task was not within the scope of the
assignment, that is, the protection of water quality. However, it
is common knowledge that various waste handling and disposal activities
are spread among many different units and levels of government each
functioning at different degrees of effectiveness.
There are in each service area suitable areas for landfill op-
erations. Specific, limited sites are not recommended.
H-67
-------
The choice of service areas has been affected by the type of
highway network available in the area and by topography of the area.
Some of the controlling features are the Delaware River crossings,
mountains, and stream gorges. There will be four major bridges for
cross-river access after the completion of the reservoir project:
Portland-Columbia Bridge, Delaware Water Gap Bridge, Mi 1 ford-Montague
Bridge, and the two bridges between Port Jervis and Matamoras. There
will not be a bridge between the Water Gap and Milford, a distance
of some 35 miles.
Culvers Gap provides access between Sandyston Township and the
rest of Sussex County, but it would be more reasonable to minimize
the transportation of solid waste and locate a landfill site in
M6ntague or Sandyston Townships. The stream gorges and large land
ownership patterns in Pike County have discouraged the full develop-
ment of a primary and secondary road system. Easy movement parallel
to the Delaware River is provided only by Rt. 209 (relocated).
Transportation routes and available landfill sites act as
stronger determinants than the State boundaries and existing political
divisions and other factors that can result in a higher total cost
of disposal. Integrated service areas, based upon optimum collec-
tion and disposal plans, can probably minimize solid waste disposal
costs and thereby present a strong case for solid waste management.
Analysis of potential landfill sites
A preliminary investigation of potential landfill sites was
made through an examination of topography, geology, and soil limita-
tions for sanitary landfills in the area. The principal reason for
this investigation was to determine possible or probable ground
water pollution from a sanitary landfill method of solid waste dis-
posal. This study assumes that trash and garbage is no longer
dumped into surface water bodies or onto flood plains causing ob-
vious pollution of the water resources.
A properly located and managed sanitary landfill will not cause
the pollution of wells and underground water supplies through leach-
ing (contamination drainage from refuse).
There are, therefore, two significant aspects influencing the
potential for a sanitary landfill site:
1. the effect of leachate on the ground water resources,
and
2. the availability of soil cover. Proper cover reduces
the possibility of health hazards and can keep the
site from becoming a blight on the landscape. Land-
fill areas that have been adequately compacted and
covered can be used for parking areas, parks, recrea-
tion areas, industrial sites, and many other valuable
H.-68
-------
uses. The land may be more valuable because of its
level, finished condition than before the landfill
operation started.
The United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service has developed soil limitations criteria for sanitary land-
fills. Factors considered in rating the limitations for use are
seasonal high water table, permeability, slope, depth to bedrock,
stoniness, surface texture, and flood hazard. Additional costs of
operation are involved to overcome each limitation on any given
site, and thereby afford protection to the ground water and to pre-
vent a health hazard. The following table from the Soil Conserva-
tion Service lists these limiting factors and indicates the degree
of limitation applied to each characteristic of the limitation. The
one giving the highest degree of limitation is used to rate the soil
as slight, moderate, or severe.
The presence of a soil survey for most of the region simplified
the task of evaluating conditions. Two exceptions are northern
Monre County, Pennsylvania and Orange County, New York. Soils inter-
pretations are useful for determining the suitability of sites for
a specific use and predicting the type and degree of problems likely
to be encountered. They are also helpful in determining the kind
and amount of additional on-site investigations that might be needed,
thereby permitting adequate soil investigation at minimum cost.
It should be cautioned that suitability ratings, degrees of
limitations, and other interpretations are based on the typical soil
in each mapping unit. At any specific location on the property,
actual conditions may differ from the survey information. On-site
investigations will be needed before actual site selections are
made. The decision as to whether areas will be used for a specific
purpose, regardless of the soil limitations, is not within the scope
of this report. Although the areas of suitable soil are presented
in this concept plan, they do not indicate specific sites.
In summary, the following general specifications were considered
in the final location of a landfill site:
1. Site should be in areas in which surface run-off and
ground water will not be affected by contamination.
2. Presently unusable areas such as quarries and gravel
pits can be used if protected so that ground water
contamination will not occur.
3. The site should be reasonably accessible without un-
due costs for access roads.
k. Suitable soil conditions and depths to bedrock should
be reviewed for economics in operating the disposal
s i te.
H-69
-------
TABLE H-18
SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR SANITARY LANDFILLS
Degree of Limitation
Limiting Factor
Slight
Moderate
Severe
Depth of seasonal
high water table
Permeabi1ity
Slope
Depth to bedrock2
Stoniness
Surface soil
texture
Flood hazard
3
Deeper than ^'
below surface
1-1/2' to V below
surface
More than .63"/hr. ,20"/hr. to ,63"/hr.
0-8 percent 8-15 percent
3 to 5'
Very stony
More than 5'
Nonstony to
stony
Sand, loamy
sands, sandy
loams, loams
silt loams
Seldom
Silt, clay loam
Occasional
Less than 1-1/2'
below surface
Less than .20"/hr.
15+ percent
Less than 3'
Extremely stony
to rubble land
Si 1ty clay loam,
clay, muck , peat
Frequent
Seasonal high water table will prevent proper landfill operations during
certain seasons and seepage can cause contaminated liquids to flow out
on the lower banks.
2This is depth to hard unrippable bedrock, and on-site investigation should
be made to determine actual depth to bedrock.
s is an estimate of dominate condition, and on-site investigation to
determine actual overflow frequency should be made.
H-70
-------
5. The availability of cover material for depressed sites
which are to be filled should be studied for these lo-
cations. However, due consideration should be given
to the fact that with modern equipment, earth-moving
and transportation of cover material does not unduly
influence the cost of waste disposal in landfill sites.
State regulatory measures
The disposal of refuse is regulated by statutory authority in
New .Jersey,. New York and Pennsylvania. In addition to the statutory
authority enacted by the States, there are general prohibitions
against the disposal of solid waste along highways, on specific lands,
or into the waters of the States. Specific application of regulations
may arise from the disposal of solid waste material into the classified
waters of the State or from air pollution at an open dump, an improperly
operated incinerator, or stench from an open dump. The Departments of
Agriculture in the three States prohibit almost al1 feeding of un-
pasteurized garbage to hogs and poultry. This regulation has curtailed
garbage disposal by hog feeding.
In substance, the three States' regulations require that all
refuse disposal areas--private and municipal—are to be operated
as sanitary landfills. Regulations prohibit the burning of refuse
at such sites, discourage salvaging, and require the following:
1. A limited working face at'the landfill.
2. Compacting and covering with six inches of cover
material daily.
3. Covering with two feet of compacted cover mater-
ial as final grade is reached.
A. Effective control of rodents, flies, and other
insects.
5. Fencing to confine litter.
6. Year-round approach and access road.
7. Approval of new sites by health authorities.
Subject to State regulation, solid waste collection and disposal
services and related regulation are a local responsibility. Gener-
ally in the three States the County and Municipal enabling legisla-
tion contains provisions authorizing units of local government to
enact local laws, ordinances, or rules and regulations pertaining
to solid waste collection and disposal.
Local regulations may prohibit practices which endanger health
or property or which result in nuisances. Such regulations may also
H-71
-------
control private collectors in the interest of satisfactory collec-
tion and disposal service. This authority usually means the regu-
lation of all or some of the following: use of any lands for dumps,
the collection of garbage, the storage of refuse on town highways,
and the control of smoke or gases. In addition, most government
levels can provide for municipal refuse services and a basic public
works organization. Such services may be financed by special ser-
vice charges or from general revenue.
The TIRES area has examples of all the above. This study has
not extensively inquired into all of these levels of local powers
and responsibilities, but did ascertain where regulations are in ef-
fect that apply to existing disposal methods and sites. Regulations
have been more extensively developed in the Newton-Sparta, Strouds-
burgs, and Port Jervis regional centers than in the rural townships.
TIRES solid waste program recommendations
This report presents general recommendations designed to im-
prove refuse collection and disposal practices in the study area,
to relieve individual municipalities of the problems associated
with the operation of their own disposal sites, to achieve sub-
stantial savings in refuse disposal costs, and to reduce water pol-
lution, health, sanitation, and air pollution problems. The plan
and recommendations are based upon proven refuse disposal methods
and newer developments are reviewed for potential future utility.
Except for privately owned and operated facilities that are
not controlled by municipal boundaries, there is a tendency for
each community to have its own solid waste disposal facility.
Unnecessary duplication of equipment and personnel usually results
from this practice and many poor operations occur because the
municipalities cannot afford to equip, staff, and run them properly.
The latter condition has occurred in the study area with the ex-
ception of the Sparta Landfill and the Stroudsburg-East Strouds-
burg-Stroud Township Landfill.
It is therefore recommended, based upon the service areas,
that Joint Regional Refuse Disposal Districts be created to offer
service to every municipality in the study area. Within each ser-
vice area, one or more landfills should be operated so that refuse
from the service area's population centers can be hauled directly
to the landfill site with a maximum travel of about eight to ten
miles. In addition, each municipality within a Joint Regional
Refuse Disposal District should adopt a uniform ordinance to assure
adequate storage, collection, and disposal of refuse.
The individual municipalities would decide to provide municipal
collection or allow private collectors, or a combination of both.
Each municipality should require disposal at one of the Joint Re-
gional Refuse Disposal District sites by contract refuse collectors
and by residents if personal disposal is permitted.
H-72
-------
Rural areas present a special problem because of the high cost
of collection. Refuse Collection Stations equipped with approxi-
mately eight cubic yard bulk-storage containers or compactor-trailers
(one or more as needed) should be strategically located. A person
can then dispose of his own refuse in a sanitary manner. The
compactor-trailers are simple enough for anyone to operate. It will
probably be desirable to construct simple ramps at these stations
so that refuse may be unloaded directly from trucks and cars.
Logical locations such as crossroads can serve as Collection Stations
One of the main advantages of this method of rural refuse col-
lection is the ability to expand or reduce the amount of service
(number of Collection Stations or containers) as the demand changes
with the seasons. Summer residents and weekenders will dispose of
refuse even if the method of disposal is unsatisfactory. When a
peak flow of refuse is anticipated, an additional collection can
be made.
Bulk storage containers might also be located where personal
refuse disposal is high, such as at schools, recreation areas, and
remote business places. One of the best locations is the highway
rest stop where containers could serve the litter conscious visitor
who will use the facility if provided.
Refuse Collection Stations should only be a temporary expedient
until the density of residential development reaches a sufficient
level for house to house collection.
Because there is no easy method of determining who is disposing
of rubbish at a Collection Station, or who exactly should be charged,
each municipality serviced by a Collection Station should be respon-
sible for the collection and placement of refuse from within its
boundaries in the container or containers provided at the Collection
Station. The municipality or contractor should service each Collec-
tion Station at least twice weekly, more often during the vacation
season, transporting the refuse to a specific sanitary landfill.
Equipment is available that makes it possible to collect refuse
in large quantities from sparsely populated areas where service by
standard refuse collection equipment and a municipal or regional
landfill operation are not economically justified. The on-site ser-
vicing of large capacity containers makes it possible to collect
refuse with a minimum expenditure of time and personnel resources.
Refuse Collection Stations could be located in all or part of
the following municipalities in the study area:
NEW JERSEY
Sussex County
Montague Township
Sandyston Township
H-73
-------
Warren County
Hardwick Township
Blairstown Township
Frelinghuysen Township
Knowlton Township
PENNSYLVANIA
Monroe County
Price Township
Middle Smithfield Township
Paradise Township
Pocono Township
Coolbaugh Township
Tobyhanna Township
Tunkhannock Township
Chestnuthill Township
Jackson Township
Ross Township
Hamilton Township
Pike County
V/est Fall Township
Dingman Township
Shohola Township
Blooming Grove Township
Green Tov/nship
Porter Township
Delaware Township
Lehman Township
Based on average costs for collection and disposal of waste pro-
duction in suburban type communities, the following information may
be utilized to determine annual per capita costs whether accomplished
totally by governmental operations or through contracts to private
operators for collection and disposal.
1. Average persons per home 3.5
2. Annual collection costs per home $20 to $35 per year
3. Average home generation 2.5 tons per year
4. Average disposal cost - landfill $0.75 to $4.50 per ton
5. Average disposal cost - modern
incineration $6.00 to $10 per ton
H-74
-------
APPENDIX I
COST ESTIMATES AND COST-SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX I
COST ESTIMATES AND COST-SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
Page
List of Tables
Capital costs I- 1
Annual costs |- 1
Debt-service contingency costs I- 2
Water supply |- 2
Capital costs I- 5
Annual costs I- 5
Liquid-waste disposal I- 5
Capital costs I- 6
Annual costs I- 6
Dilution costs I- 6
Water-quality surveillance costs 1-18
Onsi te disposal costs 1-18
Present worth I -21
Sensitivity analyses 1-23
Basic assumptions 1-23
Solid-Waste Disposal 1-28
Capital Costs I-29
Annual Costs 1-29
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
1-1 Capital Costs of Water Supply Systems I- 3
1-2 Estimated Average Annual Costs of Water I- A
Supply Development
1-3 Estimated Capital Cost for Wastewater I- 7
Collection and Treatment Alternative
I—Multiple Small Systems
1-4 Estimated Capital Cost for Wastewater I- 8
Collection and Treatment Alternative
I(--Limited Subregional Systems
1-5 Estimated Capital Cost for Wastewater I- 9
Collection and Treatment Alternative
I I I--Subregional Systems
1-6 Estimated Capital Cost for Wastewater I-10
Collection and Treatment Alternative
!V--Subregional Systems Until 2000;
Then One Regional System
1-7 Estimated Capital Cost for Wastewater I-11
Collection and Treatment Alternative
V--Regional System
1-8 Estimated Average Annual Cost for I-12
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Alternative (--Multiple Small Systems
1-9 Estimated Average Annual Cost for 1-13
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Alternative I(--Limited Subregional
Systems
1-10 Estimated Average Annual Cost for I-\k
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Alternative I I I--Subregional Systems
1-11 Estimated Average Annual Cost for 1-15
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Alternative IV--Subregional Systems
Until 2000; Then One Regional System
1-12 Estimated Average Annual Cost for 1-16
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Alternative V--Regional System
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table No. Title Page
I-13 Estimated Average Annual Costs Allocated [-17
to DWGNRA for Wastewater Collection and
Treatment
I-1A Estimated Costs for Dilution of Treated |-19
Effluents
1-15 Stream Water Quality Surveillance Costs, |-20
1970 to 2020
1-16 Onsite Disposal Costs, 1970 to 2020 |-22
1-17 Present Worth of Water Quality Maintenance |-2k
Costs for Alternative Sewerage Plans,
1970 to 2020
1-18 Comparison of Water Quality Maintenance 1-25
Costs for Different Assumed Parameters
1-19 Estimated Capital Costs for Solid-Waste [-29
Disposal by Sanitary Landfill
1-20 Estimated Average Annual Costs for Solid- |-29
Waste Disposal by Sanitary Landfill
-------
APPENDIX |
COST ESTIMATES AND COST-SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
This appendix contains capital and annual cost estimates for
the various systems Investigated for water supply and waste disposal
In the Tocks Island Region. To facilitate comparison of alternative
plans for those systems for which alternatives have been studied,
all costs for such alternatives have been converted to present worth
(as of 1970). The unit costs used in this study represent average
costs prevailing in 1968 and 1969.
Capital costs
Capital costs have been derived for all alternatives studied and
for various construction periods assuming staged development. The
water-supply costs are presented for two construction periods, from
1970 to 1990 and from 1990 to 2020. Three construction periods were
assumed for sewerage alternatives, 1970 to 1980, 1980 to 2000, and
2000 to 2020. For solid-waste disposal, the periods considered were
from 1970 to 1990, and 1990 to 2020.
Major facilities, as listed in the tables included in this ap-
pendix, were tabulated individually by construction period. To allow
consideration of potential economies of scale, unit costs reflecting
relative capacities for the facilities were then applied. A subtotal
cost was obtained for each period, and a construction contingency of
15 percent was added to arrive at the value shown as "Total Construc-
tion Cost." An additional 20 percent of the total construction cost
was then taken as an estimate of the "Associated Costs" to cover such
Items as purchase of land and rights-of-way, engineering design, sur-
veying, construction supervision, legal fees, and bonding costs. The
total construction costs and associated costs were added to produce
the estimated "Total Project Cost."
The capital costs for water supply and waste disposal systems
are presented in various tables included in this appendix.
Annual costs
Average annual costs have been estimated to cover four components:
1) debt service, which is taken herein to include payments of principal
and interest; 2) operation and maintenance of treatment facilities—
labor, supplies, chemicals, electric power, etc.; 3) operation and main-
tenance of booster stations and sewer lines-labor, electric power, etc.;
and 4) administration. These average costs are presented in various
tables for each construction period used in the analyses.
It is realistic to assume that all facilities scheduled for a
given construction period will not be built at one time. Rather,
construction will be spread over the entire period. Annual costs will
1-1
-------
not be constant over a construction period, but will increase with
time as bonds are sold to finance construction and as facilities are
completed and require operation and maintenance. However, for simp-
lification, it was assumed that construction would be at a constant
rate during any one phase. Thus, at the beginning of a construction
period, no capital costs would have been incurred for facilities to
be built during that period. At the end of the period, all capital
costs would have been incurred. The cumulative capital outlays be-
tween the two points were assumed to increase at a constant rate.
In the basic computation of annual costs, debt-service costs
were derived assuming an interest rate of seven percent and an amorti-
zation period of 40 years. It was also assumed that water works and
wastewater treatment facilities would require replacement every kO
years. Storage reservoirs, where necessary to provide dry-weather
streamflows adequate for dilution of treated effluents, were assumed
to have a useful life of 100 years.
Debt-service contingency costs.—To the annual debt-service
costs(payments of principalandinterest), a surcharge of 25 per-
cent was added to cover contingencies not accounted for elsewhere.
Such contingency costs are frequently included in customer rates
charged by utilities to meet requirements of financing institutions.
The annual costs presented in various tables in this appendix in-
clude this 25 percent surcharge.
The basic assumptions of interest rates, amortization periods,
and other factors have been subjected to sensitivity tests to de-
termine the effect of significant changes in these factors on the
relative costs of alternative systems. These sensitivity tests
are discussed later in this appendix.
Average water and wastewater flow r;ates were determined for
each construction period, and unit costs reflecting economies of
scale were applied to obtain estimates of annual costs for pumping
and treatment in both water-supply and waste-treatment systems.
In each case, the debt-service, pumping, and treatment costs were
added to obtain a subtotal cost. Then an administrative cost of
20 percent of the subtotal was added to obtain a total annual cost
for the system for each year of the construction period.
Water supply
The cost estimates for proposed water-supply systems to serve
the Tocks Island Region are presented in Tables 1-1 and 1-2. Table
|-1 shows the total capital outlays for each of several categories
of facilities for the two construction periods, from 1970 to 1990,
and from 1990 to 2020. This table is based on an assumption that
ground water will be developed to meet practically all water-supply
demands in the region in the period 1970 through 2020.
1-2
-------
I
GO
TABLE |-1
CAPITAL COSTS OF WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
Cost in millions of dollars'1
Development
Period
(1)
Ground Water
Stage 1
1970-1990
Stage 2
1990-2020
Subtotal
Surface Water
Stage 1
1970-1990
Stage 2
1990-2020
Subtotal
Well
Fields
7-5
6.3
13-8
Wi thdrawal
0.7
1 .0
1.7
Power
Supply
~T3T
2.3
0.0
2.3
Treatment
1 .2
2.3
3.5
Transmission
Faci 1 i ties
(4)
20.6
0.9
21.5
3.1
1.8
4.9
Storage
Fac i 1 i t ies
(5)
5-9
6.7
12.6
0.4
1 .1
1.5
Subtotal
(6)
36.3
13.9
50.2
5.4
6.2
11.6
Construct ion
Cont ingency
(15 percent)
(7)
5.5
2.1
7.6
0.8
0.9
1.7
Total
Construct i-on
Cost
(8)
41.8
16.0
57.8
6.2
7.1
13.3
Associated
Costs
(20 percent)
(9)
8.4
3.2
11.6
1.3
1 .4
2.7
Total
Projec
Cost
50.2
19.2
69.4
7.5
8.5
16.0
TOTAL
15.5
5.8
26.4
14.1
61.8
9.3
71.1
14.3
85.4
•Based on average unit costs prevailing in 1968 and 1969.
-------
TABLE 1 -2
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS OF WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT
Annual cost in millions of dollars
Ground Water Development
Development
Period
(U
1970-1990
1990-2020
Additional
Total"
Debt
Service
(2)
2.38
3.26
5.6/»
Ope rat ion
and
Maintenance
(3)
0.30
0.25
0.55
Power
(V
0.58
0.4?
1.05
Subtotal
(5)
3.26
3.98
7.2k
Debt
Service
(6)
0.352
0.750
1.102
Surface Water Development
Operation
and
Maintenance
(7)
0.088
0.077
0.165
Power
(B)
0.210
0.030
0.2l»0
Subtotal
(9)
0.650
0.857
1.507
Total
do)
3.910
^.837
8.7^7
Total costs shown for second development period include continuing annual costs for facilities constructed
during first construction period.
-------
The indicated outlays for surface-water development represent
only that area In Pennsylvania along existing Route 209 between
East Stroudsburg and the boundary of the National Recreation Area.
Table 1-2 presents estimates of average annual costs for water-
supply development In the Tocks Island Region from 1970 to 2020.
These annual costs are shown for both ground water and surface water
development. They are shown also for the two development periods
used in the analysis. The costs of the facilities constructed and
operated during the second construction period, 1990 to 2020, will
be in addition to the continuing annual costs of those water-supply
facilities built during the first period and remaining in service
during the second period. Thus, the total costs shown in the last
line of Table 1 -2 cover the facilities constructed during both
periods.
Capital costs.—As shown In Table 1-1, it is estimated that
capital expenditures of $69.k million for ground water development
and $16.0 million for surface water development would be necessary
to meet the projected demands for the period to 2020. The sum of
these two amounts, $85.^ million, represents the minimum cost, as-
suming full advantage is taken of the generally abundant ground water
resources in the region. However, if the decision is made, for
whatever reason, to develop more surface supplies and fewer ground
water supplies, the total capital costs will probably be greater.
For example, in a separate study reported elsewhere, it was shown
that a surface water supply adequate to meet the 2020 needs of the
Borough of Delaware Water Gap would cost $2A,200 per year, whereas
an adequate ground water supply would cost only $^,300 per year.
Annual costs.—The annual costs for water supply, as shown in
Table 1-2, are estimated to average about $3.9 million during the
period from 1970 to 1990. This average annual amount would be ex-
pected to approximate the actual annual cost for the year 1980, in
the middle of the 20-year period. The actual cost would be less
than the average amount for those years preceding 1980, and greater
for years after 1980.
The costs shown in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 are those estimated for
public and semi-public water-supply systems. The semi-public sys-
tems would include those providing water for private developments
that serve the public, such as resorts, hotels, motels, and shopping
centers. Private wells serving single households or small commer-
cial enterprises, such as automobile service stations and restaurants,
are not included.
Liquid-waste disposal
Estimates of costs for disposal of liquid wastes in the Tocks
Island Region are presented in Tables |,-3 through |-I8. The estimates
given include capital outlays, average annual costs, and present
worth (as of 1970).
[-5
-------
Capita] costs.--For the five alternative sewerage plans studied,
capital outTays have been derived for each of three construction
periods covering the next half-century. The first period covers the
decade from 1970 to 1980, the second period is from 1980 to 2000, and
the third is from 2000 to 2020.
Table 1-3 presents estimates of capital costs for sewerage alter-
native I, which calls for 116 small local wastewater treatment plants.
Similar estimates of capital outlays for the other four alternatives
investigated are shown in Tables j-^4 through |-7- In these tables,
capital costs are shown separately for the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area and the rest of the study area.
All sewerage alternatives are based on an assumption of a high
degree of wastewater treatment, including 95 percent removal of bio-
chemical oxygen demand and removal of substantially all phosphates.
The costs listed in Tables 1-3 through I -? do not include intracom-
munity sewerage costs, nor do these tables show the costs of facili-
ties needed for dilution of treated effluents.
Annual costs.—The capital outlays for the five sewerage alterna-
tives have been converted into estimated average annual costs. The
results are presented in Tables |-8 through | -12. These tables show,
for each alternative plan, the average annual costs for each of the
three development periods. The annual costs are categorized as
1) debt service; 2) treatment; 3) pumping, and A) administration.
These costs are shown first for the assumption that no Federal or
State grant would be available to help defray the cost to the users
of the sewerage facilities. Next, in recognition of established
financial assistance programs, the costs to the users are shown after
taking into account reductions by grants of 30 and 60 percent, re-
spectively, of the total capital outlays.
The annual costs of sewerage alternatives for the second develop-
ment period include debt service costs remaining from the first period.
Similarly, the annual costs shown for the third period include debt
service on capital outlays from both the first and second periods.
The cost estimates in Tables 1-8 through 1-12 do not include those
costs allocated to the National Recreation Area.
Table 1-13 presents estimates of average annual costs allocated
to the DWGNRA for the five alternative sewerage schemes and for the
three development periods.
Pi 1ut ion costs
Even for the assumed high degree of treatment, the quality of
water in the streams receiving the treated effluents will depend on
the amount of dilution by clean water in the streams. For some al-
ternative sewerage schemes studied, the effluent from many treatment
plants would be discharged to streams not having sufficient stream-
flow at all times to provide adequate dilution. Therefore, in order
1-6
-------
TABLE |-3
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE I—MULTIPLE SMALL SYSTEMS
Cost in millions of dollars
Development
Period
(1)
1970 to 1980
Non-DWGNRA
DWGNRA
1980 to 2000
Non-DWGNRA
2000 to 2020
Non-DWGNRA
Treatment
Plants
(2)
25.6
7.5
22.5
5.5
Sewer
Lines*
13T
12.7
3.2
14.9
1.3
Pumping
Stations
(4)
1.1
1.1
1.4
0.2
Subtotal
(5)
39.4
11.8
38.8
7.0
Construction
Cont ingency
(15 percent)
(6)
5.9
1.8
5.8
1.1
Total
Construction
Cost
(7)
45.3
13.6
44.6
8.1
Associated
Cost
(8)
9.0
2.7
8.9
1.6
Total
Project
Cost
(9)
54.3
16.3
53.5
9-7
TOTAL
61.1
32.
3.8
97.0
14.6
111.6
22.2
133.8
*Costs of intra-community sewers are not included.
-------
TABLE 1-4
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE II—LIMITED SUBREGIONAL SYSTEMS
Cost in millions of dollars
Development
Period
(U
1970 to 1980
Non-DWGNRA
DWGNRA
1980 to 2000
Non-DWGNRA
2000 to 2020
Non-DWGNRA
TOTAL
Treatment
Plants
(2)
11.2
5.9
24.6
7.8
49.5
Sewer
Lines*
22.0
7.4
26.5
6.1
62.0
Pumping
Stations
(4)
8.4
3.1
3.8
0.4
15,7
Subtotal
(5)
41.6
16.4
54.9
14.3
127.2
Construct ion
Contingency
(15 percent)
f6)
6.2
2.5
8.2
2.1
19.0
Total
Construction
Cost
(7)
47.8
18.9
63.1
16.4
146.2
Associated
Cost
(8)
9.6
3.8
12.6
3.3
29.3
Total
Project
Cost
(9)
57.4
22.7
75-7
19.7
175.5
*Costs of intra-community sewers are not included.
-------
TABLE I -5
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE III —SUBREGIONAL SYSTEMS
Cost in millions of dollars
-o
Development
Period
(1)
1970 to 1980
Non-DWGNRA
DWGNRA
1980 to 2000
Non-DWGNRA
2000 to 2020
Non-DWGNRA
TOTAL
Treatment
Plants
(2)
14.9
2.4
14.7
14.5
46.5
Sewer
Lines*
(3)
24.8
9.2
26.2
7-2
67.4
Pumping
Stations
(4)
9.5
6.6
4.2
1.9
22.2
Subtotal
(5)
49.2
18.2
45.1
23.6
136.1
Construction
Contingency
(15 percent)
(6)
7.4
2.7
6.8
3.5
20.4
Total
Construction
Cost
(7)
56.6
20.9
51.9
27.1
156.5
Associated
Cost
(8)
11.3
4.2
10.4
5.4
31.3
Total
Project
Cost
(9)
67.9
25.1
62.3
32.5
187.8
"Costs of intra-community sewers are not included.
-------
TABLE |-6
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE IV--SUBREGIONAL SYSTEMS UNTIL 2000; THEN ONE REGIONAL SYSTEM
Cost in millions of dollars
Development
Period
(1)
1970 to 1980
Non-DWGNRA
DWGNRA
1980 to 2000
Non-DWGNRA
2000 to 2020
Non-DWGNRA
DWGNRA
Treatment
Plants
(2)
14.9
2. A
14.7
23-7
1.3
Sewer
Lines*
24.8
9.2
26.2
31.2
4.0
Pumping
Stat ions
~FO
9.5
6.6
4.2
8.0
1.4
Subtotal
(5)
49.2
18.2
45.1
62.9
6.7
Construction
Contingency
(15 percent)
(6)
7.4
2.7
6.8
9.4
1.0
Total
Construction
Cost
(7)
56.6
20.9
51.9
72.3
7.7
Associated
Cost
(8)
11.3
4.2
10.4
4.5
1.5
Total
Project
Cost
(9)
67.9
25.1
62.3
86.8
9.2
TOTAL
57-0
95.4
29.7
182.1
27.3
209.4
41.9
251.3
*Costs of intra-community sewers are not included.
-------
TABLE 1-7
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE V—REGIONAL SYSTEM
Cost in millions of dollars
Development
Period
(1)
1970 to 1980
Non-DWGNRA
DWGNRA
1980 to 2000
Non-DWGNRA
2000 to 2020
Non-DWGNRA
TOTAL
Treatment
Plants
(2)
9.6
22.4
6.7
13.8
32.5
Sewer
Lines*
46.7
15.1
31.9
8.7
102.4
Pumping
Stations
(4)
16.9
7.3
4.4
1.8
30.4
Subtotal
(5)
73.2
24.8
43.0
24.3
165.3
Construction
Contingency
(15 percent)
(6)
11.0
3.7
6.5
3.6
24.8
Total
Construction
Cost
(7)
84.2
28.5
49.5
27.9
190.1
Associated
Cost
(8)
16.8
5.7
9.9
5.6
38.0
Total
Project
Cost
(9)
101.0
34.2
59.4
33-5
228.1
*Costs of intra-community sewers are not included.
-------
TABLE I.-8
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COST FOR
WASTEWATER COLLECTION' AND TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE I—MULTIPLE SMALL SYSTEMS
Annual Costs, Millions of Dollars'
NO GRANT
PerTocT 1
(1970-1980)
Period 2
(1980-2000)
Period 3
(2000-2020)
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
2.5
0.9
0.1
3.5
0.9
10.1
30% GRANT
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
1.9
0.9
0.1
2.9
0.9
3.8
5.7
1.7
0.1
7.5
1.7
9.2
12.0
60% GRANT
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
1.3
0.9
0.1
2.3
0.9
3.2
3.8
1.7
0.1
1.7
7.3
5.3
2.0
O.I
1.9
9.3
Costs of intra-community sewers are not included.
Excluding costs for DWGNRA.
1-12
-------
TABLE f-9
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COST FOR
WASTEWATER COLLECT I ON* AND TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE I I—LIMITED SUBREGIONAL SYSTEMS
Annual Costs, Millions of Dollars2
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
(1970-1980) (1980-2000) (2000-2020)
NO GRANT
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
2.7
0.3
0.2
3.2
0.8
12.3
18.1
30% GRANT
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
2.0
0.3
0.2
2.5
0.8
3.3
10.1
14.4
60% GRANT
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
1.3
0.3
0.2
T7&-
0.8
2.6
4.5
1.1
0.3
5.9
2.0
7.9
6.7
1.6
0.5
2.3
11.1
'Costs of intra-community sewers are not included,
2£xcluding costs for DWGNRA.
1-13
-------
TABLE 1-10
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COST FOR
WASTEWATER COLLECTION1 AND TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE II I — SUBREGIONAL SYSTEMS
Annual Costs, Millions of Dollars2
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
(1970-1980) (1980-2000) (2000-2020)
NO GRANT
Excluding costs for DWGNRA.
Debt Service 3.2
Treatment 0.4
Pumping 0.3
Subtotal 3.9
Administrative 1.0
Total Annual Cost 4.9 12.5 18.4
30% GRANT
Debt Service 2.k
Treatment 0.4
Pumping 0.3
Subtotal 3.1
Administrative 1.0
Total Annual Cost 4.1 10.2 15.0
60% GRANT
Debt Service 1.6
Treatment 0.4
Pumping 0.3
Subtotal 2.3
Administrative 1.0
Total Annual Cost 3.3 7.8 11.6
^Costs of intra-community sewers are not included.
1-14
-------
TABLE I-]]
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COST FOR
WASTEWATER COLLECTION1 AND TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE IV—SUBREGIONAL SYSTEMS UNTIL 2000;
THEN ONE REGIONAL SYSTEM
Annual Costs, Millions of Dollars2
NO GRANT
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
30% GRANT
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
60% GRANT
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
Period 1
(1970-1980)
3.2
0.4
0.3
3.9
1.0
4.9
2.4
0.4
0.3
3.1
1.0
4.1
1.6
0.4
0.3
2.3
1.0
Period 2
(1980-2000)
9.3
0.9
0.4
ToTS"
1.9
12.5
7.0
0.9
0.4
"ST
1.9
10.2
4.6
0.9
0.4
5.9
1.9
Period 3
(2000-2020)
16.3
0.9
0.9
T57T
3.1
21.2
12.2
0.9
0.9
T4To"
3.1
17.1
8.1
0.9
0.9
9.9
3.1
3.3
7.8
13.0
'Costs of intra-community sewers are not included,
Excluding costs for DWGNRA.
1-15
-------
TABLE 1-12
ESTIMATED
WASTEWATER
NO GRANT
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
30% GRANT
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
60% GRANT
Debt Service
Treatment
Pumping
Subtotal
Administrative
Total Annual Cost
D AVERAGE ANNUAL
COLLECTION1 AND
TIVE V— REGIONAL
Annual CostSj
COST FOR
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
Millions of
Period 1 Period 2
(1970-1980) (1980-2000)
0^3
0.3
5.3
1.4
6.7
3.5
0.3
0.3
K4
5.5
2.4
0.3
0.3
3.0
1.4
4.4
12.3
0.6
0.6
13.5
2.3
15.8
9.2
0.6
0.6
TO"
2.3
12.7
6.1
0.6
0.6
7.3
2.3
9.6
Dollars2
Period 3
(2000-2020)
16.6
0.9
44
T$7$
2.8
21.2
12.4
0.9
0.9
TO"
2.8
17.0
8.3
0.9
0.9
10.1
2.8
12.9
Costs of 5ntra-community sewers are not included.
Excluding costs for DWGNRA.
1-16
-------
TABLE I.-13
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS ALLOCATED TO DWGNRA FOR
WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Annual Costs
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
(1970-»980) (1980-2000) (2000-2020)
Alternative I
Debt Service $1,525,000 $1,525,000 $1,525,000
Treatment 100,000 100,000 100,000
Pumping 17.000 17.000 17.000
Total Annual Cost $1,6^2,000 $1,642,000 $1,6^2,000
Alternative 11
Debt Service $2,120,000 $2,120,000 $2,120,000
Treatment 80,000 80,000 80,000
Pumping 38,000 38.000 38.000
Total Annual Cost $2,238,000 $2,238,000 $2,238,000
Alternative III
Debt Service $2,360,000 $2,360,000 $2,360,000
Treatment 50,000 50,000 50,000
Pumping 200^000 1^0.000 80.000
Total Annual Cost $2,580,000 $2,580,000 $2,580,000
Alternative IV
Debt Service $2,360,000 $2,360,000 $2,790,000
Treatment 50,000 50,000 50,000
Pumpfng 200,000 200.000 200.000
Total Annual Cost $2,610,000 $2,610,000 $3,0^0,000
Alternative V
Debt Service $3,210,000 $3,210,000 $3,210,000
Treatment 50,000 50,000 50,000
Pumping 170.000 140,000 100.000
Total Annual Cost $3,430,000 $3,430,000 $3,430,000
1-17
-------
to present valid cost comparisons, it is necessary to evaluate the
costs of providing low-flow augmentation for the various alternatives.
This has been done, and the estimated costs are presented in Table I'-l^t
in terms of present worth (as of 1970),.
The dilution costs, are computed on., the assumption that flow aug-
mentation would be provided as necessary to maintain streamflows
equal to three times the flow of treated effluent. The degree of
treatment was assumed:, to be 95 percent removal of BOD and substantially
complete removal of phosphates,,: The average recurrence interval of
streamflows less/than the desired flow was assumed to be 20 years.
This means that-_ i.rv,one year out of twenty, on the average, the dilu-
tion flows would be less than three times the effluent flow at some
locations at some time during the year. This was assumed to be an
acceptable degree of risk of inadequate dilution. For a greater
risk, the dilution costs would be less, and, conversely, the risk
could be decreased by providing, at greater cost, augmented stream-
flows with a longer recurrence interval between short periods of
inadequate dilution.
The dilution costs decrease with the degree of regionalization.
This is because the more regionalized systems would discharge the
treated effluents to relatively large streams in which dilution will
be adequate with little or no low-flow augmentation.
Water-qua!i ty suryei1 lance costs
A cost variable not usually considered in studies of sewerage
alternatives is that related to different surveillance requirements
for protection of water quality in streams receiving effluents from
waste treatment plants. Surveillance needs and costs are related
more or less directly to the number of waste discharge points—with
more discharges, more monitoring of instream quality is needed.
These needs have been translated into estimates of costs for the
sewerage alternatives studied. The cost estimates for surveillance
are presented in Table |-15-
As shown in the table, surveillance costs decrease as the de-
gree of regionalization increases. For example, Alternative I costs
for surveillance for the period from 1970 to 2020 are estimated to
have a present worth of 5.^8 millions of dollars (discounted to 1970),
while Alternative V would result in surveillance costs with a present
worth (1970) of only 1.51 millions of dollars. For the intermediate
degrees of regionalization called for by Alternatives II, III, and IV,
the costs of monitoring stream water quality would fall between these
extremes.
On-site disposal costs
The various sewerage alternatives investigated would not serve
the same number of persons. Those not served by the public systems
would have to depend on septic tanks or other on-site systems serving
1-18
-------
TABLE 1-14
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR DILUTION OF TREATED EFFLUENTS
Cost, Mill ions of Dollars
(Present worth, 1970^)
Sewerage Operation and
Alternative Construction Maintenance Total
I 3-31 1.01 4.32
II 1.48 0.47 1.95
III 0.10 0.03 0.13
IV 0.00 0.00 0.00
V 0.00 0.00 0.00
^Discounted at 5.0 percent.
1-19
-------
TABLE I-15
STREAM WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE COSTS, 1970 to 2020
Surveillance cost, millions of dollars
Sewerage
Al ternative
(I)
1
1 1
III
IV
V
Average Annual
1970-1980
(2)
0.225
0.150
0.1 40
0.140
0.070
1980-2000
(3)
0.265
0.200
0.140
0.140
0.070
2000-2020
(4)
0.290
0.200
0.140
0.140
0.070
Present Worth
0970)1
(5)
4.58
3.26
2.56
2.56
1 .28
Discounted at 5.0 percent.
1-20
-------
individual households and small commercial developments. The vari-
ability of population served by the public sewerage schemes results
in a variation of on-site disposal costs, and therefore of total costs,
among the alternatives.
Thi-s variable cost is analyzed in Table 1-16. This table indi-
cates that Alternative I, which would leave unsewered a 2020 peak
summer population of about 266,000, would require on-site disposal
facilities costing about 126 millions of dollars, in terms of pres-
ent (1970) worth, for construction and maintenance through the year
2020. Alternative IV, with a smaller unsewered population, would
call for an estimated 50-year cost of only about 82 million dollars
in terms of present (1970) worth for on-site disposal. The indicated
potential savings of M million dollars as a result of eliminating
many on-site disposal systems would offset much of the cost of the
regional system envisioned in Alternative IV. Other sewerage al-
ternatives would require onsite disposal expenditures between those
projected for Alternatives I and IV.
Present worth
Because the annual costs of the various alternatives do not
take into account the time value of money, they are difficult to
compare with respect to cost effectiveness. In order to provide
easy and direct comparison of two or more cost series having dif-
ferent outlay patterns over time, it is necessary to reduce each
series to a single value at a given time. For financial comparison,
the appropriate method of reduction is to discount all costs for a
given alternative over the period in question to a specific time
and then to add them. The resulting sum is the specific-time value
of the costs that are actually to be spread over a significantly
long period. If discounted to the present, the specific-time value
is usually referred to as the "present worth" of the future costs.
In simple terms, the present worth of future costs can be inter-
preted as the money that must be invested now at compound interest
to provide the money needed to pay the future costs as they come
due. In this study, all cost series have been converted to present
worth (as of 1970) for comparison. The results are presented in
Table I -17 for the basic assumptions regarding interest rate, amorti-
zation period, useful life of facilities, and population served.
Later, the sensitivity of the resulting costs to different assump-
tions for these factors is analyzed.
It should be pointed out that the discount rate used in comput-
ing the present worth of costs presented in Table H7 was 5.0 percent,
whereas an equivalent interest rate of about 8.8 percent was used in
calculating the annual cost of wastewater collection and treatment
facilities presented in Tables 1.-8 through 1-12. As will be shown
later herein, the choice of the least-cost alternative sewerage
scheme is not sensitive to the discount rate used to compute pres-
ent worth, at least within the range of discount rates from 4.0 to
5.0 percent, but is affected if the discount rate is increased to
7.0 percent.
1-21
-------
TABLE 1.-16
ONSITE DiSPOSAL COSTS, 1970 to 2020
Cost, mi 11 ions of dollars
Sewerage
Al ternative
HI
!
i i
in
IV
V
Average Annual
1970-1980
12)
6.37
6.37
5.56
5.56
5.46
1980-2000
(3)
6.99
6.32
3.95
3.95
4.29
2000-2020
(4)
8.11
6.28
3.91
3.04
3.18
Present Worth
(1970)1
(5)
126.11
115.66
84.48
81.97
84.16
Discounted at 5.0 percent.
1-22
-------
As shown in Table 1-17, when all costs of disposing of sewage
and maintaining water quality are counted, the plan calling for
subregional sewerage systems (Alternative III) is the least-cost
alternative. This means that on the basis of economics alone, sew-
erage regionalization at least to the degree called for under Alter-
native III is justified. Factors other than costs support this
finding, and if these other factors tend to guide a choice other
than Alternative III, it will be in the direction of greater re-
gional i zation rather than less.
Sens i t iv i ty ana 1yses
It was recognized that most of the assumptions used in comput-
ing the costs of sewerage alternatives are subject to error. For
this reason, sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the
effect of errors, within a reasonable range, in these assumptions.
In these analyses, the objective was to show whether the economic
choice among the sewerage alternatives would shift from Alternative
III to one of the other plans as a result of a change in one or more
of the basic assumptions used.
Basic assumptions.--The basic assumptions used to derive the
total costs shown in Table 1-17, and the changed assumptions used
in the sensitivity analyses are as follows:
Factor Basic value Sensitivity-test value(s)
Interest (discount) rate,
percent. 5-0 4.0
Sewer replacement interval,
years. *»0 100
Period over which annual
costs are considered and
discounted to 1970. 1970 to 2020 1970 to infinity
Population projection. Medium (High
(Low
Level of on-site disposal Medium (High
costs.
-------
TABLE 1-17
PRESENT WORTH OF WATER QUALITY MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE SEWERAGE PLANS, 1970 to 2020
(Based on medium population projections; Interest at 5 percent'.)
Present Worth of Costs, millions of dollars
Cost Item
(1)
Construction
(40-year Replacement^
Alt. 1
(Multiple
Small
Systems)
(U
Alt. II
(Limited
Subreglonal
Systems)
(3)
Alt. Ill
(Subregional
Systems)
(V
Alt. IV
(Subregional
Systems Until
2000; Then One
Regional System)
(5)
Alt. V
(Regional
System)
(6)
Intracommunlty
Col lection
System
Extracommunity
Interceptors,
Pumps, Treatment
Operation and
Maintenance,
Extracommunity
Storage for Effluent
Dilution
(100-year Replacement)
Water Quality
Survei1 lance
Subtotal
(Public Costs)
Onstte Disposal
(25-year Replacement)
68.17
76.07
52.63
75.51
92.17
48.32
91.49
98.77
50.79
92.64
103.30
51.36
89.76
131.73
55.11
A. 33
4.58
205.78
126.11
1.95
3.26
221.21
115.66
0.13
2.56
243.74
84.48
0.00
2.56
249.86
81.97
0.00
1.28
277.88
84.16
TOTAL
331.89
336.87
328.22
331.83
362.04
H °!,pr*Senn wourth at a 7 percent discount rate changes the rank order of the
various alternat ves. On the 7 percent basis, Alternative I would have a slightly lower
present worth value than Alternative III. ^ngntiy lower
1-24
-------
Table 1-18
COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR DIFFERENT ASSUMED PARAMETERS
(SENSITIVITY ANALYSES)
Present Worth (1970) of Total Water Quality Maintenance Costs,
„ Millions of Dollars
Alternate Plan Number
and Descript i on
~nr
I--(1I6 Local Systems)
ll--(25 Local and 8 Subregional
Systems)
lll--(6 Subregional Systems)
IV--(6 Subregional Systems
Unti1 2020; Then 1
Regional System)
V--(l Regional System)
For Interest Rate of
For
Sewer Replacement
Interval of
51
331.89
336.87
328.22
331-83
362. Oi(
M%
(3)
37M.51
380.01
367-76
372.51
1(03.23
MO years
CO
331.89
336.87
328.22
331.83
362.0't
100 years
317.01
319.99
308.52
313.98
338.50
Other Parameters
Replacement Interval:
Sewers, Interceptors;
Pumps, Treatment Works!
Dilution Storage Reservoirs:
Period Over Which Annual Costs
Arc Considered and Discounted
to 1970:
Interest Rate
Population Projection
Level of Onsite Disposal Costs
MO years MO years
M.Q years MQ years
100 years TOO years
1970 to 2020
.•tedium
Med ium
5?
Med ium
Medium
MO years 100 years
MO years MO years
100 years 100 years
1970 to 2020
Medium
Med ium
Med ium
Medium
1-25
-------
For Indicated Period
Over Which Annual
Costs Are Considered
and Discounted to 1970
1970 to
2020
(6)
331.89
336.87
328.22
331.83
362.04
40 years
40 years
100 years
1970 to
2020
5S
Med ium
Med ium
1970 to
1 nf ini ty
(7)
389.22
396.63
387.8
395.95
423. 15
Assumed
40 years
40 years
100 years
1970 to
Inf ini ty
5?
Med i urn
Med i urn
For Indicated
Population Projection
Low
(8)
275.47
277.18
272.58
274.29
306.03
Values
40 years
40 years
100 years
5*
Low
Medium
Med i urn
(9)
331.89
336.8?
328.22
331.83
362.04
40 years
40 years
100 years
1970 to 2020
5%
Med i urn
Medium
High
(10)
389.64
395.38
384.26
391.66
417.98
40 years
40 years
100 years
5*
High
Medium
For Indicated Level
of Onsite Disposal Costs
Low
(11)
300.36
307.96
307.10
311.34
341 .00
40 years
40 years
100 years
5%
Med i urn
Low
Medium
(12)
331.89
336.87
328.22
331.83
362.04
40 years
40 years
100 years
1970 to 2020
5*
Med i urn
Med ium
High
(13)
363.42
365.79
349.34
352.32
383.08
40 years
40 years
100 years
5%
Med i urn
High
Columns 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 are identical, and represent the basic assumptions and costs against which
the other assumptions and costs in each set are compared.
1-26
-------
the useful life of trunk sewers and Interceptors. The differing
costs in columns 6 and 7 reflect different periods of analysis over
which annual costs are taken into account and discounted to present
worth; column-6 values are for the 50-year period from 1970 to 2020,
and column-7 shows the present worth of annual costs from 1970 to
Infinity. Columns 8 through 10 compare costs based on low and high
population projections with the costs resulting from the basic assump-
tion (medium projection). The last three columns show the effects
on total costs of low and high assumptions regarding the costs of
installing and maintaining onsite systems for disposal of liquid
wastes.
These analyses show two important effects of varying assumptions.
The first is the effect on total costs of each alternative sewerage
scheme. The second is the effect on the selection of the least-cost
alternative. For purposes of this feasibility investigation, the
second effect is the most important, as it indicates the degree of
probability that a selection made today on the basis of least cost
would remain the best selection in future years if projections and
assumptions prove to be inaccurate.
In each set of total costs shown in Table f-18, the least cost
is underlined. It is noteworthy that In only one of the seven sensi-
tivity tests, did the change in the basic assumption result in a change
in the least-cost alternative plan. The assumption of low on-site
disposal costs, instead of medium costs, shifted the least-cost choice
from Alternative III to Alternative I. After the completion of the
sensitivity tests, it became evident that general interest rates had
risen significantly. A supplementary check was then made with a 7
percent discount rate, with the other basic assumptions unchanged.
This also indicated Alternative I as having the lowest present worth;
however at 7 percent discount and the high level of on-site disposal
cost, Alternative III once again Is the least-cost approach. Even with
the exceptions cited, the sensitivity analyses support a high degree
of confidence that the subregional system (Alternative III) Is the
economic choice for wastewater disposal.
The finding that relatively low costs for on-slte disposal would
influence the economic choice among sewerage alternatives forces
further consideration of on-site disposal costs. If the low value
assumed for the sensitivity test could be shown to be reasonable, It
would leave in doubt, at least from the economic standpoint, any
decision to regionalize sewerage beyond that degree of regionaliza-
tion called for in Alternative I. For this reason, the on-site dis-
posal costs have been subjected to further study.
Such further study has clearly Indicated that the assumption of
low costs for on-site disposal systems Is not reasonable. More regu-
lation of the Installation and ma Intenanceof on-site septic tank sys-
tems can be expected, and it will be stricter than at present. Such
Increased regulation has already been enacted in the TIRES area: the
Sewage Facilities Act, in Pennsylvania; and the Critical Sewerage Areas
1-27
-------
Act, In New Jersey. This new legislation and other legislation ex-
pected to come, coupled with more stringent follow-up, will tend to
increase the unit costs of on-site systems. This makes it extremely
unlikely that the average on-site disposal costs would be as low as
25 percent under the basic cost estimate (the medium value) in any
future period.
Furthermore, there are other significant considerations con-
cerning on-site septic tank systems besides the cost of the system
itself. These externalities involve expenditures, and these have
not been included in the estimates in this study of the average costs
of on-site septic tank systems. For instance, there is the distinct
possibility of the transmission of disease as a result of septic tanks
effluent entering ground water that is used (or is projected for fu-
ture use) as a source of drinking water. This externality has par-
ticular applicability in the TIRES area, where much of the future
drinking water supply is expected to come from ground-water sources.
Septic tank effluent can also find its way into surface waters,
often within a few hours. The likelihood of pollution is a danger
in many locations in the TIRES area, where a rapid population growth
dependent upon on-site-septic systems could saturate completely the
capacity of soils to assimilate wastes. Surface and ground-water
pollution can be the result.
The existence of such external costs implies that if they were
included in the estimates of average costs of on-site septic tank
systems, the costs would exceed even our high estimates—and might
even justify extension of sewer service into areas not previously
considered feasible in the more regionalized approaches. The mag-
nitude of these external costs, and the objective to maintain the
high-quality environment of the Tocks island Region, leads us to
conclude that it is undesirable to be satisfied with the limited
degree of regionalization called for in Alternative I, and that
the sensitivity analyses are not the only factors that should be
considered In evaluating this alternative. In other words, even
if the assumption of low on-site disposal costs is valid, which would
result in Alternative I becoming the least-cost choice, there are
external costs to be considered—and they are significant.
Solid-waste disposal
Estimates of costs for disposal of solid wastes in the Tocks
Island Region are presented In Tables 1-19 and |-20. The estimates
given include capital outlays and average annual costs, and are
based on the assumption that all solid-waste disposal for the region
will be by the sanitary landfill method using land within the region.
Alternative methods of disposal were considered, but were ruled out
because of greater cost. For example, transportation of solid wastes
1-28
-------
to landfill sites outside the region would entail costs similar to
those for landfill within the region, plus significant increased costs
for hauling. Incineration for reduction of waste volume would reduce
the volume of wastes for final disposal, but the cost of incineration
would be significantly greater than the savings resulting from the re-
duced landfill requirements.
Capital costs.—The capital cost estimates include land acquisi-
tion, site development, and equipment. Because of the possible ex-
treme variation, from site to site, of landfill costs, the estimates
must be considered as approximate only. The degree of possible
variation depends upon land costs and site development (grading,
access roads to site, access to cover material, etc.). Contingencies
have been included in the unit values used in the analysis.
TABLE 1-19
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR SOLID-WASTE
DISPOSAL BY SANITARY LANDFILL
(Costs in millions of dollars)
Development Period
1970 to 1990
1990 to 2020
Total 35.2
Annual costs.—Annual costs of solid waste disposal can also
vary significantly depending upon site layout, site topography,
availability of cover material, etc. Therefore, the values pre-
sented in Table -20 must also be considered approximate only.
TABLE 1-20
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS FOR SOLID-WASTE
DISPOSAL BY SANITARY LANDFILL
(All costs in millions of dollars)
Development Debt Operation and
Period Service Maintenance
1970-1990 0.6 0.8
1990-2020 1.65 3.9
1-29
aU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:197Z 484-485/23Z
-------
1
Accession Number
w
5
r* Subject Field &. Group
06A,B
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES
ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
organization —
Delaware River Basin Commission
Title
Interstate Planning for Regional Water Supply and Pollution Control
10
22
Authors)
Anonymous
I z Project Designation
' 16110 FPP
2] Note
Citation
Descriptors (Starred Ficst)
•"Planning, #River Basin, Pollution Abatement, Optimum Development Plans,
Regional Analysis, Interstate Commissions
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
Waste Treatment Regionalization
27
Abstract
This report presents the results of a study of the problem of water supply and
waste disposal in the three-State, six-county region in which the Tocks Island
Reservoir and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area are being developed.
Peak summer populations are projected over a 50-year period and utilities systems
alternatives which could accommodate such projected growth are presented in the
report. Water supplies in the region are seen as adequate to meet future demands,
with heavy emphasis on development of groundwater resources. Five alternative
sewerage plans, ranging in degree of regionalization from 116 local treatment
systems to a single system for the entire region, are outlined including detailed
cost estimates. Preservation of water quality in the region is a primary objective
of the study.
Abstractor
Institution
WR:102 (REV. JULY 1969)
WRSIC
SEND WITH COPY OF DOCUMENT. TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
EN ' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240
------- |