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

-------