. •; " •
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 3
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
December 1979
Statement
Bushkill-Lower Lehigh
Joint Sewer Authority
and Borough of Nazareth
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
Northampton County, PA
. •
• . .- .,
-•\ •• -
3 •
•
'•--''-•• '
- i i •••;,
.
"-;"
.
.
:'
: B
.
"-
•
- '••• ' '.
•
;• J
•a I HE;
• .
.•',--.'
\ ^^^^^H
••'••.-:'• •'•••'
-.
,. -
m" -''- *m i \
'- - . ' : • .
I -, •.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
GTH AND WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106 DEC 2 8 1979
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
on the proposed construction of the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint
Sewer Authority and Borough of Nazareth Wastewater Management Facilities,
Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this EIS
process. The large attendance at public meetings, upwards of 400
citizens even during severe weather conditions, is indicative of the
strong commitment of local citizens to become part of the decision-
making process. This involvement has remained intense throughout
the EIS study and has, I believe, been one of the major factors
enabling this EIS process to be open and responsive in the development
of wastewater treatment solutions to the needs of the area.
The Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority submitted a con-
struction grant application to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for Federal financial assistance to construct collection lines
to transmit wastewater from the study area to the existing Easton
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The purpose of this EIS is to inform you
of the potential environmental impacts of the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh
Joint Sewer Authority project and to evaluate alternative treatment
plans.
This Draft EIS is being issued pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and regulations
promulgated by this Agency (40 CFR 6, November 6, 1979). Comments or
inquiries concerning this Draft EIS should be submitted to the attention
of Ms. Rochelle Volin (3IR61) at the above address by March 10, 1980.
A public hearing to solicit testimony concerning the Draft EIS will
be held on February 21, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. in the Nazareth Junior
High School. Individuals and organizations wishing to testify at the
public hearing are requested (if possible) to furnish a copy of their
proposed testimony along with their name, address, telephone number
and the organization they represent to Ms. Rochelle Volin not later
than the close of business on February 20, 1980.
I welcome and encourage your continued interest and participation in
the EIS process.
amm
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities
Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority
and
Borough of Nazareth
Northampton County, Pennsylvania
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
ROCHELLE B. VOLIN, PROJECT MONITOR
Prepared with the assistance of:
WAPORA, Inc.
Chevy Chase, Maryland
ERIC M. HEDIGER, PROJECT MANAGER
Type of Action:
Legislative ( )
Administrative (X)
ABSTRACT: This Draft EIS has found the Applicant's Proposed Action to be
unacceptable for Federal funding due to its potential to cause
significant adverse environmental impacts. An alternative
wastewater management scheme which is acceptable for funding
has been developed and is presented in this report. EPA will
be seeking consultation during the EIS review process so that
design and construction could proceed immediately for a discrete
portion of the project, due to overriding considerations of cost.
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by U.S. Environ-
mental Protection - Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with assistance
from WAPORA, Inc.
Key personnel from EPA included:
Rochelle B. Volin Project Monitor
Key personnel from WAPORA, Inc. included:
Eric M. Hediger
J. Ross Pilling II
David B. Twedell, Ph.D.
Robert M. Kube
Robert K. Rose
Gregory L. Seegert
Judith A. Ludington
Wu-Seng Lung, Ph.D., P.E.
Wesley R. Horner
William L. Bale, Jr.
Melissa J. Wieland
Teresa F. McCue
Gerald 0. Peters, Jr.
Project Manager
Environmental Planner
Geologist
Project Engineer
Terrestrial Ecologist
Biologist
Assistant Environmental Scientist
Senior Environmental Engineer
Socioeconomist
Manager, Graphics and Cartography
Assistant Graphics Specialist
Quality Control Specialist
Technical Advisor
-------
Foreword
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It concerns
the availability of Federal money to assist in the construction of
wastewater management facilities as requested by the Bushkill-Lower
Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority representing residents in the following
communities: Bushkill Township, Palmer Township, Plainfield Township,
Stockertown Borough, Tatamy Borough, and Upper Nazareth Township.
In July 1976, the "Environmental Assessment for the Bushkill-Lower
Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority and City of Easton" (EA) was completed by
the Applicant and subsequently submitted to DER and EPA for review for
compliance with statutory requirements of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (1972) and the National Environmental Policy Act (1969).
The EA included an evaluation of existing conditions in the Applicant's
Proposed Service Area, a determination of beneficial and adverse impacts
of the proposed wastewater management plan, as well as a discussion of
measures necessary to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts. The docu-
ment was based upon an earlier (1970) report examining the feasibility
of a regional wastewater management system for several municipalities in
the greater Easton area, including those in the B-LLJSA. Following re-
view of the EA, DER concluded that the document was in compliance with
the mandates of Federal and State environmental legislation and approved
the plan.
Following its initial review of the EA, EPA decided (January 1977)
to provide financial assistance, as requested, for the construction of
proposed sewage collection and transmission facilities throughout the
B-LLJSA municipalities. Considerable public controversy followed EPA's
decision to fund the proposed project. Four major issues underlying
this controversy included:
• The cost-effectiveness of a regional collection system to
solve municipal sewage disposal needs, particularly in rural,
outlying areas such as Bushkill Township and Plainfield Town-
ship, (i.e. would the feasible benefits of a regional
collections system be worth its cost?)
• The social, economic and environmental impacts of extending
centralized sewerage facilities into the B-LLJSA communities,
particularly those near the headwaters of Bushkill Creek.
• The actual need for sewerage facilities based on the incidence
of existing and past problems with on-site wastewater manage-
ment systems.
• The feasibility of available alternaitve treatment methods (to
the regional collection-treatment concept).
The public controversy that surrounded EPA's decision to fund the
project culminated in the filing of law suits against the Federal agency
-------
by anti-sewer groups in Bushkill Township and Plainfield Township in
1977. The law suits were filed in order to prevent EPA's funding and
hence, the construction of the Applicant's Proposed Action. A series of
"Technical Meetings" failed to resolve the controversy by the fall of
1978. By December 1978, EPA decided that the most effective solution to
the considerable unresolved public controversy lay in the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Several citizen groups were organized and voiced fears concerning
the potential adverse impacts from the Sewer Authority's proposed waste-
water management system. After review of the application and associated
material, EPA Region III determined that the granting of funds for the
construction of this project could result in significant adverse impacts
to the environment. In December 1978, a Notice of Intent was published
informing all Federal, State and local agencies, and other interested
groups and individuals, that a study of the environmental impacts of
this project would be prepared prior to any action concerning the appli-
cation. This study is commonly referred to as an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The purpose of an EIS is to independently evaluate an
applicant's proposed project, analyze and compare all other feasible
wastewater management schemes and select an alternative(s) which is
acceptable for Federal funding.
An extensive public participation program was initiated to ensure
that all interested citizens could become involved in the decision-
making process which would be affecting their future wastewater manage-
ment plans for the next twenty years. Three public meetings and a
series of workshop meetings were held to discuss the project with local
citizens. Newsletters were distributed periodically to inform the
public of the status of the study's progress. Meetings and telephone
conversations with individuals and groups were held throughout the study
to maintain public involvement.
This Draft EIS has found that the Applicant's proposed project is
not acceptable for Federal funding. It recommends an alternative pro-
ject which will satisfy wastewater management needs of the area. Com-
ments on this study may be submitted to EPA Region III until the end of
the Draft EIS Public Comment Period (45 days from the publication of the
Draft EIS). A public hearing is scheduled for February 21, 1980.
Testimony will be taken at this hearing. EPA will announce at this
hearing a decision concerning immediate action for design and construc-
tion of a discrete portion of the project. This will be based upon
comment received to date.
Following the close of the Public Comment Period, a Final EIS will
be prepared. This will include a summary of the public hearing proceed-
ings, responses to substantive comments received during the Public
Comment Period, and a description of the acceptable project(s). The
Final EIS will then be published and - the public will have 30 days in
which to comment to the EPA before final action is taken by the Agency.
-------
SUMMARY
-------
Summary
CONCLUSION
The extent of sewerage facilities in the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh
Joint Sewer Authority (B-LLJSA) Service Area, proposed in 1976, is not
acceptable for Federal funding based upon water quality, public health
and other information gathered and analyzed in this Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The delineation of an appropriate wastewater manage-
ment Service Area based upon documentable water quality and public
health problems associated with malfunctioning on-site sewage disposal/
treatment systems has been a central effort of this EIS. This effort
reveals the following conclusions about the "need" for centralized
wastewater collection and transmission facilities in the six municipali-
ties which constitute the B-LLJSA:
• The lack of water quality or potential public health problems
(i.e., standing pools of wastewater on the ground above an
on-site system) in Plainfield Township north of T609 on Route
115 as well as on Route 191 between the vicinity of Belfast
Junction and Edelman indicates that public wastewater manage-
ment needs in these areas will best be served by continued
use, rehabilitation, or replacement of on-site systems or by
decentralized off-site community facilities instead of centra-
lized sewers.
• Provision of sewerage facilities to serve Jacobsburg State
Park and its surrounding area is not justified on the basis of
either documentable water quality/public health problems or
future recreational opportunities to be provided in the state-
owned park.
• The lack of documented water quality (both surface water and
groundwater) or public health problems in the vicinity of
Cherry Hill, Bushkill Township, as determined through field
surveys, does not justify Federally-funded centralized sewer-
age via the Schoeneck interceptor (or any other interceptor).
• The absence of documentable water quality or public health
problems in the sparsely-developed Northern Corridor of Palmer
Townships especially in the vicinity of Schoeneck Creek and
Bushkill Creek, does not justify Federal-funding of inter-
ceptor sewers.
• An immediate need exists for improved off-site wastewater
management facilities in the Belfast area of Plainfield Town-
ship (from intersection of T609 and Pennsylvania Route 115 to
the Stockertown Borough line); in Stockertown Borough and;
Tatamy Borough. This conclusion is in basic agreement with
that reached by the Applicant (B-LLJSA) in 1976.
• Numerous on-site system problems in immediate need of atten-
tion exist outside the Proposed B-LLJSA Service Area. Areas
where the need for improved wastewater management facilities
iii
-------
appears to be clustered, based on identification of on-lot
ponded effluent, include, Rasleytown and an area east of Pen
Argyl Borough (Plainfield Township), Rismiller (Bushkill
Township) and Christian Springs (Upper Nazareth Township).
The development of alternative wastewater management plans in this
EIS and assessment of their environmental impacts proceeded with an
awareness of these needs documentation findings. A distinction has been
made on this study between community need (Phase I areas) and individual
(household) need (Phase II areas) for improved and Federally-funded
wastewater management facilities.
The wide assortment of on-site wastewater disposal/treatment
systems (cesspools, septic tank systems, elevated sand mounds, etc)
currently in use within the B-LLJSA (or EIS Service Area) reflects the
response of homeowners and municipal Sewage Enforcement Officers to
varying soil and groundwater conditions, small lot sizes, as well as to
the long-standing eventuality of regional sewerage over the past several
years. The fact that sewers have been imminent during this time has
meant that sub-standard construction, maintenance and repair practices
have occurred in isolated cases throughout the EIS Service Area. Fur-
thermore, because much of the residential development in the Service
Area occurred prior to implementation of the Pennsylvania Sewage Facili-
ties Act (1966), many on-site systems do not meet design regulations.
The privately-owned Nazareth sewage treatment plant (STP) was
studied extensively during the preparation of this EIS to determine its
feasibility of remaining a key factor in the wastewater management plan-
ning of the Service Area. Both a sanitary engineering assessment to
determine its treatment efficiency/potential for upgrading and expan-
sion, and an assessment of the structural integrity of its components
were conducted. Based on these field investigations, the following con-
clusions can be drawn about the condition of the 50-year old plant:
• The condition of the sewage collection system owned by the
Nazareth Sewerage Company is not fully known (no infiltration/
inflow study has ever been performed), although it is sus-
pected that the system is susceptible to large amounts of in-
filtration/inflow.
• STP flows are not accurately measured and recorded.
• Bypasses around the STP and around certain processes permit
unmetered, untreated, or partially treated wastewater flows to
pass directly or indirectly to surface waters. As such, state
regulations concerning discharge of untreated wastes are vio-
lated.
• Based on a review of 1976-78 STP operation records, removal
efficiencies of BOD, suspended solids and ammonia nigrogen are
85%, 80%, and 60%, respectively.
• Spalling, cracking, and corrosion of concrete structures are
evident.
IV
-------
• The wastewater stabilization ponds, which play an important
role in generating an effluent which complies with discharge
permit requirements, are unlined, poorly sloped and not per-
mitted (by the state) for operation.
• Disinfection of effluent by chlorination is inefficient, and
consumption of chlorine is excessive.
• Sludge handling practices are outdated.
At a minimum, the upgrading and expansion of the Nazareth plant is
possible if these conditions are corrected. Expansion of the plant
would also require construction of additional facilities such as clari-
fiers and lagoons.
Future growth in the EIS Service Area depends on the number of new
lots that can be developed at the allowable density. Wastewater manage-
ment alternatives relying on continued use of on-site systems in the
Phase I area would restrict both the number of new lots as well as their
density. Preservation of the present rural character of certain com-
munities would likely result under these decentralized wastewater man-
agement conditons.
DRAFT EIS RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Recommended Action of this Draft EIS is, with slight modifica-
tion, represented by EIS Alternative 9. Major elements of the Recom-
mended Action are:
• Gravity sewers, pump stations and force mains as^ the major
means of wastewater collection and transport. Interceptor
sewers follow roadways, not stream banks. In areas expected
to remain sparsely developed (average road frontages of 100
feet or more), the use of pressure sewers should be investi-
gated in detail.
• Treatment of centrally collected wastewater generated in.
Bushkill Creek watershed (approximately 0.30 mgd) at the
upgraded and expanded Easton STP. Wastewater generated in the
immediate need "corridor," described earlier in this Summary
as running from the Belfast Area through Tatamy Borough, and
the Newburg Homes area of Palmer Township is conveyed to the
new Easton facility for treatment. Flows conveyed to the
Easton STP would not include those originating between the
vicinity of Belfast Junction and Edelman (where need for
centralized collection facilities is not documented).
• Treatment of^ centrally collected wastewater generated in the
Schoeneck Creek watershed (0.85 mgd) at. the new Rotating
Biological Contactor (RBC) Plant (adjacent to the abandoned
Nazareth STP site). Wastewater flows include those origina-
ting from the existing Nazareth STP Service Area as well as
those from the East Lawn vicinity of Upper Nazareth Township.
Treatment at the new RBC plant would become operational only
after the Borough of Nazareth finalizes the purchase of the
v
-------
STP from the Nazareth Sewerage Company and facilities planning
requirements are fulfilled according to EPA Construction
Grants Program requirements.
• Decentralized wastewater management of Phase I areas. The
sparsely developed segments along Route 115 north of the
gravity sewer and the communities of east Pen Argyl and Rasley
Town (Plainfield Township) and Rismiller (Bushkill Township)
will be served by small collection systems and multi-family
area fields (cluster systems). If geohydrologic site analyses
do not confirm SCS soils ratings for indicated sites, other
sites should be sought or marsh/pond systems should be con-
sidered.
• Individual (household) need areas. Improved wastewater man-
agement for these areas could be handled without EPA grant
processes, allowing municipalities the time and flexibility to
derive their own solutions (including appropriate mixes of
personnel, and equipment) to on-site system problems. Such
programs can also be initiated under Federal and state grant
assistance.
EIS ISSUES
• NEEDS DOCUMENTATION
Federal participation in the funding of the Applicant's Proposed
Action or any alternative to this action is contingent upon the documen-
tation of need for improved wastewater management facilities. Need is
documented when it can be demonstrated that water quality or potential
public health problems are associated with malfunctioning on-site sys-
tems. Analysis of need is necessary to establish the nature of waste-
water disposal/treatment problems and to develop reasonable alternatives
for their solution. If the need for improved on- and off-site waste-
water management facilities is better substantiated in the EIS Service
Area, then their costs will be better understood and consequently more
likely to be accepted by the local citizenry.
• COST EFFECTIVENESS
The question of whether or not a regional wastewater collection
system is economical in terms of tangible benefits gained by the money
spent to build it (i.e. is cost-effective) has been raised by many local
citizens. The total construction cost for the Applicant's Proposed
Action was estimated to be $10.0 million in 1976. This represents an
investment of approximately $1224 per person and $3673 per existing
dwelling unit within the B-LLJSA Service Area. The availability of
alternative collection and treatment technologies offers the potential
for less expensive solutions to wastewater management problems. In the
absence of needs documentation data, it has not been demonstrated that
the level of resource commitments proposed for large-scale facilities
(on an area-wide basis) is necessary.
VI
-------
• INDUCED GROWTH AND SECONDARY IMPACTS
Centralized wastewater collection facilities, as proposed by the
Applicant have the potential to facilitate rapid population growth.
If growth induced by available sewer capacity is unplanned, adverse im
pacts on water quality, on the total physical environment and on fiscal
resources of local municipalities may result. Wastewater management
plans must, to the extent possible, be coordinated with local land use
plans to ensure that public services and sensitive natural areas within
each government jurisdiction are not overtaxed.
Secondary impacts of the Applicant's Proposed Action are also at
issue in this EIS. Secondary impacts are those which result from indi-
rect or induced changes in the patterns of land use and population
growth as well as the environmental effects resulting from those
changes. Such impacts are associated with air, noise, water, sensitive
ecological systems, population, land use, fiscal resources and public
services.
• GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES
Several residents of the EIS Service Area who are not presently
served by public water systems have expressed concern that the construc-
tion of centralized sewerage facilities ultimately works to lower the
water table locally through elimination of a natural water recycling
system. Once on-site wastewater management systems such as septic tanks
are replaced by sewers, they no longer serve to recharge local ground-
water supplies. Instead wastewater (potential recharge water) is
totally removed from the area, being discharged to a watercourse several
miles away.
• PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The controversy leading to the preparation of this EIS mandates
that the general public be involved to the fullest extent possible in
the documentation of need for sewerage facilities, development of alter-
native wastewater management strategies, selection of appropriate stra-
tegies, and assessment of environmental impacts. Throughout preparation
of this EIS, every attempt has been made to encourage active and con-
tinuous public involvement.
ENVIRONMENT
The development of wastewater management alternatives and the
assessment of their impacts in this EIS was conducted with an awareness
of several important environmental characteristics of the Service Area
which are briefly described below:
• Shale/limestone geology: Shale geology of Bushkill Township
and Plainfield Township vs. the predominately limestone
geology of the remaining B-LLJSA municipalities and Nazareth
Borough -- directly or indirectly affects soil suitability for
on-site wastewater treatment, groundwater hydrology (limestone
springs), surface water quality (pH) and aquatic biology.
Vll
-------
• Prime agricultural land: Over 75% of Service Area is classi-
fi¥d~as prime agricultural land. This land contains some of
the most productive soils in Northampton County.
e Stream classification of Bushkill Creek and Little Bushkill
Creek: These streams have been accorded "conservation status
by DER due to their generally high quality and ability to sup-
port a cold water (trout) fishery. Relatively strict effluent
limitations for discharge of BOD5, suspended solids, and
ammonia in treated wastewater are compatible with this status.
• Brown trout nursery (and probable spawning) area: This
stretch of Bushkill Creek below its confluence with Little
Bushkill Creek supports brown trout reproduction and propaga-
tion due to favorable water temperature, clarity, and bottom
habitat conditions. These conditons were restored only after
a period of several years following channelization of this
stretch of stream approximately 10 years ago.
• Flood prone areas: Preservation of these sensitive environ-
mental areas in their natural setting serves to protect life
and property on the one hand, and prevent the degradation of
stream water quality and disruption of aquatic habitats on the
other.
• Land Use and Zoning: Centralized wastewater collection and
treatment facilities present the potential to induce growth
that would alter the rural and low density suburban character
of the Service Area. In order to be sensitive to the desire
of area residents to conserve this character, wastewater treat-
ment technologies were studied that would solve existing pub-
lic health and water pollution problems as well as allow for
orderly planned growth as defined in municipal plans and ordi-
nances .
ALTERNATIVES
Eleven alternatives to the Applicant's Proposed Action were devel-
oped in this EIS in response to public concern over such issues as needs
documentation, cost-effectiveness, water resources, and induced growth
that results from the extent of sewerage proposed in 1976. To reduce
costs, alternatives were designed to feature innovative technologies for
collection (pressure sewers), treatment (multi-family drainfields or
cluster systems, and land application), and disposal (marsh/pond sys-
tems) of municipal wastewater. Design of the alternatives was also
based on the results of EPA's field investigations (1978-79) of on-site
system problems identified from aerial photography, groundwater quality,
surface water quality and soil suitability for wastewater disposal/
treatment.
The alternatives developed were various combinations of land appli-
cation, conventional stream discharge, cluster, and marsh/pond systems.
ihe Modified Applicant's Proposed Action is a redesign of the Appli-
cant's Proposed Action based on the same assumptions pertained to waste-
water flow per capita, areas to be sewered, and the final year of the
viii
-------
project. In this way, the costs and impacts of the EIS Alternatives may
be compared to the Applicant's Proposed Action.
A summary of total capital (i.e., construction) costs, total pres-
ent worth, and estimated annual user charges associated with the altern-
atives (Phase I areas (only) is presented in Table 1.
IMPACTS
No Action. In the absence of a Federally-funded project, individ-
ual on-site systems which are not operating satisfactorily would have to
be rehabilitated or replaced, at the total expense of homeowners. This
may prove to be a significant economic hardship to many families.
Nitrate levels in the groundwater may become elevated locally.
The No Action alternative would avoid the direct impacts of waste-
water collection, transmission and treatment facilities construction,
and would not induce growth on prime agricultural lands or flood prone
areas.
Applicant's Proposed Action. Adverse impacts associated with the
Applicant's Proposed Action include the following:
• Construction of interceptor sewers along and across streams in.
Service Area: Will significantly alter valuable aquatic and
terrestrial habitats, including the brown trout nursery (and
probable spawning) area in Bushkill Creek below Tatamy Borough
and the virgin hemlock stand in Jacobsburg State Park. Most
of the 29 stream crossings called for in this plan would re-
quire construction of cofferdams, and excavation/blasting of
stream bottoms.
• Induced growth: Provision of sewerage facilities would induce
(over that projected under baseline conditions) a population
of 18,914, dwelling units of 6,143, and 2,112 acres of devel-
oped land. Induced growth would result in the conversion of
approximately twice as much prime agricultural land to more
intense land uses as would occur under baseline conditions.
It would also induce development in flood prone areas. Would
significantly alter residential densities and communities in
many areas, and require large capital investiment in public
services (schools, police, transportation recreation). Im-
pacts on resources of Jacobsburg Historic District likely to
be significant. In Palmer Township, induced development in
the Northern Corridor is not compatible with existing zoning
ordinance.
• Cost: Ranks as second most costly (present worth) of all
wastewater management plans evaluated in this EIS (see Table
1).
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action. Negative impacts of the
Applicant's Proposed Action, summarized above, have been reduced with
the scaled down design of the B-LLJSA plan (Modified Applicant's Pro-
posed Action). The Modified Applicant's Proposed Action is the least
ix
-------
Table 1
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE COSTS
10
1980 $ x 1,000,000
12 13
14
IS
*E.A.
PROP. ACT.
MODIFIED
PROR ACT.
EISALT 1
EIS ALT. 2
EIS ALT. 3
EISALT. 4
EIS ALT. 5
EIS ALT. 6
EISALT. 7
EIS ALT 8
EIS ALT. 9
EIS ALT. 10
°"
*i 9, 921, 800
..*
' ^ e
-
J9, 929, 700
..,..." ;j 10, 5 7 0,400
'} N 3&V-: /„
J 9, 890, 800
^9,724,800
! ^9,630,500
, ••" - - ' ;, -.{
14,770,
^12,078,100
M^f< ^^ «,^««".-K. j 13 , 847 , 300
""'"", .';;:;"'"''l.^j - '-" v ;;_:'; \
Iyjl2,481,100 15,080,
_ ,,,,,^ TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
12,627,400 PHASE 1
200
200
II
13
I
1980 $ x 1,000,000
14 15
16
17
*E.A.
PROR ACT
MODIFIED
PROR ACT
EIS ALT. I
EISALT. 2
EISALT. 3
EIS ALT. 4
EIS ALT. 5
EIS ALT. 6
EIS ALT. 7
EIS ALT. 8
EISALT. 9
EIS ALT.IO
111,201,800
J16,669,300
,440, 300
, ni5,496,000
n n ill.,. I.
13. 765. OOP
17,221,500
I11.933.700
--r--n,,'].12>524'800.
j
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
PHASE I
.,,...-...
'"111. 838.500
J 11,812,700
\,318,500
13,951,700
70
80
90
100
I960 $/YR/HOUSEHOLD
110 120 130
I4O
ISO
160
*E.A.
PROR ACT
MODIFIED
PROP. ACT.
EIS ALT. 1
EIS ALT 2
E IS ALT. 3
EIS ALT. 4
EIS ALT. 5
EIS ALT. 6
EISALT. 7
EIS ALT. 8
EISALT. 9
EIS ALT. 10
: :...: ;.:....... . :: ^ .. ' .. "" .1
, V "-"I 81 164
""""""": iimri jiie
" - , - - ; J132
i ' . * ' !i4i
-r • " '.-.. - J;.Y *jii6
-' *•*•'' '•••'' ' •'' ' ,,J 1X1
.->..;. JM „„„ ,..,„,.„- fl ,;, i11 ESTIMATFO ANNUAl USER
t "„{.*..* : f... 11111U1111 111:,ftll „ v. ^112 CHARGFS
,„„ Jin.x..'.....s..... „„,; ,,,i-,,v..l110 PHASE 1
"""" ' :. ;' "••- imrr . j. ' { 10 7
, , .'. .. „!,., Iio5
#Cost does not include costs for hookups and
sewage treatment for Jacobsburg State Park
or costs for sewage treatment for Nazareth
Borough.
x
-------
costly of all wastewater management approaches evaluated in this EIS.
Adverse impacts associated with this Alternative are listed below:
• Construction p_f interceptor sewers along and across streams in
Service Area: Although the Bushkill interceptor has been elim-
inated under this plan (along with 6 stream crossings), sewer
construction will still adversely affect valuable aquatic hab-
itats, including the brown trout nursery (and probable spawn-
ing) area in Bushkill Creek below Tatamy Borough. Terrestrial
habitats and vegetated floodplains adjacent to Schoeneck Creek
and Bushkill Creek below the confluence with Little Bushkill
Creek will be disturbed during construction.
• Induced growth: Will pressure development in flood prone
areas adjacent to EIS Service Area streams. Increases in
municipal capital investments for public safety services and
recreation would be required. Increase in amount, density and
location of population growth and development not compatible
with existing zoning in Palmer Township.
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7. These alternatives all involve
land application (spray irrigation) of wastewater.
• Cost-effectiveness: Of the 10 EIS Alternatives and Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action, Alternatives 1-4, and 7 have the
highest present worth. The treatment units of these alterna-
tives would be eligible for a 115% cost preference over the
treatment limits of the most cost-effective alternative. How-
ever, even the least cost land application alternative, number
4 does not qualify under this preference.
• Energy requirements: Electricity requirements, associated
with EIS Alternatives 1-4, and 7 (particularly 2, 3, and 7)
are among the highest of all wastewater management plans eval-
uated in this study. Total kilowatt-hours/ year required
ranged from approximately 945,000 to 1,400,000.
EIS Alternative 8. This alternative does not provide environmental
advantages equivalent to the difference in cost between it and the
remaining alternatives; therefore, it is not considered for EPA Con-
struction Grants funding. Additionally, needs documentation findings of
this EIS do not justify the extent of sewerage provided under this
alternative.
EIS Alternatives 5, 6, 9 and 10. These alternatives, which involve
wastewater treatment by either upgraded/expanded or totally new facili-
ties at the Nazareth Sewage Treatment, are among the least costly and
most environmentally acceptable of all wastewater management plans eval-
uated in this EIS. Two of these alternatives, numbers 6 and 10, can be
eliminated from consideration based on the extent of service proposed.
EIS Alternatives 6 and 10 propose to serve the Cherry Hill area of
Bushkill Township and Route 115 north of Belfast in Plainfield Township,
both of which were found to have no justifiable need for EPA-funded
centralized sewerage.
XI
-------
EIS Alternatives 5 and 9 remain as the most suitable of all waste-
water management approaches for consideration as possible recommended
courses of action based upon cost-effectiveness, environmental accept-
ability and implementability. However, EIS Alternative 9 is selected
over EIS Alternative 5 as the EIS Recommended Action based upon the
former's slight savings in cost over the latter's: $11,740,000 vs.
$11,933,700 (present worth). This cost difference reflects the small
savings realised by construction of a new rotating biological contactor
treatment plant at the Nazareth STP instead of upgrading and expanding
existing treatment facilities.
Xll
-------
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
-------
Public Participation
The participation of local, regional, State and Federal agencies,
citizen associations, individual citizens and interested environment
groups has been sought continously throughout the preparation of this
EIS. Suggestions, criticisms and objections generated by the public
have been given full consideration in the documentation of need for
sewerage facilities, development of alternative wastewater management
strategies, assessment of environmental, economic and social impacts, as
well as the selection of the EIS Recommended Action and possible imple-
mentation strategies. Public participation techniques utilized include
EIS newsletters, public information meetings, EIS workshops, meetings
with municipal officials, conversations with local citizens, interviews,
and telephone contacts to insure involvment with as many residents as
possible in this EIS decision-making process. This extensive effort to
obtain citizen input into the EIS process resulted in the development of
new EIS alternatives not originally anticipated.
EPA has prepared periodic newletters which were distributed to re-
sidents and government officials who wished to be kept advised of EIS
progress, preliminary technical findings, completion of project mile-
stones and other general information. The third newsletter was the
forum of discussion in EIS Public Information Meeting No. 3.
Three public information meetings have been conducted by EPA in the
Service Area since preparation of this EIS was undertaken in November
1978. These meetings, which elicited considerable dialogue between EPA
and a public well-informed on the EIS issues (see Section I.C.), are
briefly described below.
Meeting
EIS Public
Meeting No. 1
EIS Public
Meeting No. 2
Date
17 Jan 79
25 Apr 79
Location
Nazareth Sr.
High School
Nazareth Sr.
High School
EIS Public 24 Sept 79 Nazareth Sr.
Meeting No. 3 High School
Topics Discussed
EIS process, scope and issues
Preliminary EIS findings on
environmental setting and
needs documentation; public
involvement in EPA's ground-
water quality sampling pro-
gram
EIS alternatives; preliminary
costs and impacts of alterna-
tives
EPA also scheduled 3 EIS workshops during the course of the project
in order to involve local, regional and state officials as well as con-
cerned citizens directly in the EIS decision-making process. These work-
shops were publicized via the news media. Discussion topics are briefly
described below.
Xlll
-------
Workshop
Date
Location
Topics Discussed
EIS Workshop
No. 1
14 Jim 79 EPA, Philadelphia
EIS Workshop
No. 2
29 Aug 79 Easton Courthouse
EIS Workshop
No. 3
18 Sept 79 EPA, Philadelphia
Needs documentation
findings update; EPA
surface water, ground-
water and soil sampling
programs; preliminary
EIS alternatives.
Needs documentation con-
clusions; feasible EIS
alternatives; preliminary
costs and impacts of the
alternatives,
EIS alternatives costs
update; implementation
strategies; Modified
Applicant Proposed Action
— development parameters.
The offices, agencies, companies, citizens committees and individ-
uals that participated in the preparation of this EIS are presented
below.
Agency/Office
A. W. Martin
Assoc., Inc.
Allentown Testing Co.
Bethlehem, PA
Person(s) Contacted
Dr. Grover Emrich
Bruce Rohrbrauch
BASCO Associates
York, PA
Phillip Kowalchuk, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Kevin Parfitt
Bethlehem Sewerage Serv.
Bethlehem, PA
Blue Mtn. Consolidated
Public Co.
Nazareth, PA
Allan Wyda, Manager
Martin's soil data for
Bushkill and Plainfield
Twps.
Information on company's
groundwater and surface
water sampling program,
availability of historical
water quality data
for Bushkill Creek.
Water sampling and
testing
Structural analysis of
Nazareth STP and cost
Demolition cost for
Nazareth STP
Local costs for wastewater
disposal
Information on present and
future water supplies and
service areas; consumption
rates, etc.
xiv
-------
Agency/Office
Person(s) Contacted
Blue Mtn. Control Center Bob Thomas
Brant Associates
Martins Creek, PA
Bushkill-Lower Lehigh
Joint Sewer Authority
Nazareth, PA
Bushkill Township
Marlene Frey
Lewis Wolfe, Chairman
Gerald Crabtree,1
Chairman
Pam Crabtree,
Zoning Administrator
Joseph DiGerlando
Joseph DiGerlando, Chmn.
Bd. of Supervisors;
William Agnew, Chmn,
Concerned Citizens;
Brent Alderfer, Attorney;
Robert Benscoter, Pres.
A.W. Martin Assoc, Inc.
(all interviewed)
Emergency services (ambulance,
fire, police) in Service Area
Information on company's
groundwater and surface
water sampling program,
availability of historical
water quality data for
Bushkill Creek.
Development of coordination
strategy: B-LLJSA/Gilbert
Assoc. Inc.; project back-
ground and issues
Delineation of Service Area
proposed for B-LLJSA
Project status; secured
Gilbert maps & graphics.
Bushkill-Lower Lehigh local
share; Aug. 29 meeting at
Easton
Socioeconomic Survey*
Project issues and
background
Status of information re-
quested from Bd. of Super-
visors at Phila. meeting,
2/28/79.
Discussed project status
(as of 2/28/79); requested
updated planning/zoning
information for EIS.
1 Interview
* Survey of local government officials conducted by EPA in December 1978
to gather information on development plans, growth management, public
services and EIS issues.
xv
-------
Agency/Office
Bushkill Township
Concerned Citizens Comm.
Collins and Maxwell
Easton, PA
Concerned citizens
Coplay Cement Mfg. Co.
Cornell University
Ornithology Lab
Devine and Luparelli
Realty Co.
Easton, PA
Eastern Pennsylvania
Health Systems Council
Easton Area
School District
Easton Chamber of
Commerce
1 Interview
Person(s) Contacted
Joseph DiGerlando;
Brent Alderfer;
Gary Asteak, Solicitor,
Bushkill Twp;
Dr. Grover Emrich,
Exec. V.P., A.W. Martin
Carl Kislan1
Joe Namath, farmer
(resident, Upper
Nazareth Twp.)
William Agnew,1
Attorney
Stu Lewis
Topic
Discussion of ECE data
and application;
alternatives development;
EIS scope.
On-site system problems
in Bushkill Twp.
Potential pollution of
groundwater and surface
water in Bushkill Twp.
by malfunctioning on-site
systems; induced growth.
Project background and
issues
Sewer costs.
Dr. Isadore Mineo1, Dir.
Northampton Co. Park
System
Terry Hannold, PA
Fish Commission1
Craig Billingsly,*
Regional Fish Commissioner
Barry Fennel1, President
Bushkill Anglers Assoc.
Dale Prinkey,1 Supt.
Jacobsburg State Park
John Zimits,
Maintenance Engineer
Phyllis Dayg
Project issues; Attitudes
toward wastewater mgmt;
Biotic resources of
Bushkill Creek.
Wastewater flows and quality.
Mr. Devine
Robin Pricelan
Ms. Young,
Superintendent
Date/location banded falcons
were sited.
Land value of the 300-acre
Palmer land application
site
Health care (and plans)
for Northampton County.
School facilities in
Palmer Twp.
Development activity in
Service Area.
xvi
-------
Agency/Office
Eastern Sewage Treatment
Plant
US EPA, Environmental
Photographic Interpre-
tation Complex (EPIC)
Warrenton, VA
Person(s) Contacted
John Murphy-1
Barry Evans
Frank Wolle
Barry Evans
Gannett, Flemming,
Corddry and Carpenter
Harrisburg, PA
Steve Hemphill
Gary McCormick
Gilbert Associates,
Inc.
Luke Chelius,P.E.,
Project Engineer
Hawk Mountain
Sanctuary
Douglas McGuil, P.E.
Tom Concannon, Ph.D.
Ron Orach, P.E.
Alex Nagy, Curator
Topic
Easton STP operation
Coordination of EPIC
work in Bushkill Service
Area
Status reports on analysis
of EPIC aerial photos (number
of potential septic tank
system malfunctions identi-
fied to date).
Coordination of EPIC field
check work in Service Area;
results of fieldcheck in
Bushkill & Upper Nazareth.
Results of field checked
(4/2-4/4) in Bushkill Twp.
Extent of EPIC coverage of
Palmer Twp.
GFCC Report on Nazareth
STP.
Requested back-up engineer-
ing cost data supporting
5/11/78 report on Nazareth
STP.
Introduction of EIS Staff;
Development of coordination
strategy
Delineation of Service Area
proposed for B-LLJSA.
B-LLJSA project design
assumptions; detailed
B-LLJSA project costs;
coordination in develop-
ment of Modified EA Pro-
posed Action.
Peregrine falcons and other
raptors in Service Area
1 Interview
xvn
-------
Agency/Office
Hercules Cement Co.
Person(s) Contacted
Ken Hitcho
Jacobsburg State Park Mike Jones, Ranger
Nazareth, PA
Lafayette College
Dale Prinky,
Park Superintendent
Dr. Patricia Bradt
Lehigh-Northampton Cos. Allen O'Dell,1
Joint Planning Comm. Senior Planner
(JPC) Lehigh Valley, PA Chuck Lohr,1 Planner
John Seitz1
Chuck Lohr
Joseph Sandova
Glenn Taggart1
Oliv Teremay
Lehigh University
Local Sewage Enforce-
ment Officers (SEO)
Lone Star Industries
Dr. Ryan, Petrographer
Robert Danner, Thomas
Sales, Dale Kulp, Walter
Davidge, Carl Kislan
Mr. Boyer, Assistant
Plant Manager
M&E Sewage Systems
Nazareth, PA
Monarch Precast Concrete Ed Weber
Co., Allentown, PA
Paul Stein, Jr.
Topic
Wastewater flows and quality;
Industrial reuse of municipal
wastewater
Locations of white pine and
spruce stands in the Park;
location of Penn Pump Dam.
Park sewerage needs.
Benthic macroinvertegrate
listings and sampling sta-
tions; recent water quality
data for Bushkill Creek.
Project issues; Population
projections; EIS use of JPC
planning maps; Air quality
Additional data for ECE.
Subdivision applications
and permits granted in
Service Area; zoning ordi-
nances .
Recent petrographic work
conducted in Service Area.
Requesting assistance in
EPIC fieldcheck of suspected
system malfunctions; needs
documentation data.
Wastewater flows and quality.
Reuse of municipal wastewater.
Septic system costs
Local costs for wastewater
disposal.
Cluster system costs
Interview
xviii
-------
Agency/Office
Mt. Bethel Assoc.
Nazareth Area
School District
Nazareth Borough
Nazareth Sewerage Co.
Nazareth, PA
Nicholson's Excavating
Easton, PA
Northampton County
Conservation District
(NCCD)
Person(s) Contacted
Walter Davidge, SEO,
Upper Nazareth Twp.
James Feather
Charles Peischl, Mayor
Alfred Pierce,1 Solicitor
Paul Kokulus,1 Secretary,
Planning Commission
Craig Moore1 Owner
Jim Collins,1 Operator
Arnold Bath,1 Operator
Jeanne Pritchard
Roslyn Kahler, District
Conservationist
Topic
Stormwater management in
Upper Nazareth Twp.
Bushkill, Nazareth, Upper
Nazareth Schools: Long
range plans and population
projections.
Borough's budget and fiscal
programs.
Socioeconomic Survey
Nazareth STP operation
Number of houses served
by the Nazareth STP and
other collection system
information.
Local costs for wastewater
disposal
NCCD position on wastewater
management in Service Area;
Soils data; Malfunctioning
systems
Locations of owners for
whom DER Repair Permits
have been issued.
Soils, geology, groundwater
of Service Area.
Soil suitability for on-site
disposal and land application;
The Nazareth STP; induced
growth; NCCD position on EIS
alternatives.
Elevation of water table in
Service Area; cement company
wastewater.
Interview
XIX
-------
Agency/Office
Person(s) Contacted
Northampton County
Dept. of Public Schools
Northampton County
Mental Health Clinic
Northampton County
Park Board
Palmer Twp.
Penn Argyl Area
School District
Penn Dixie Industries
Mr. Gieson
Margaurite Obulaney
Jennifer Shel
Edgar Allen
H. Robert Daws, Chmn.
Donald Walter,1 Chmn.,
Planning Commission
Thomas Sales, SEO
Mr. Roper
David Fritzinger
Plant Engineer
Penn State University Michael Hoover
Pennsylvania Dept. of
Environmental Resources
(DER), Offices in
Harrisburg, Bethlehem,
Reading, Wernersville
Ken Bartell, Engineer
Wayne Billings,l
Sanitarian
Ralph Cook
Joseph Defebbo1
Topic
Land values; cluster systems;
preferential taxation of
farm property.
County budget and fiscal
programs.
Health services in the
County.
Northampton County Parks.
Subdivision and building
permits granted.
Socioeconomic Survey
Newburg Homes: on-site
system status
Plainfield school
population projection.
Wastewater flows and
quality.
Industrial reuse of municipal
wastewater
Elevated sand mounds, cluster
systems, & land application
in PA.
State engineering codes for
wastewater management
Project history and issues;
Needs documentation (and
coordinate field inspection
of malfunctions)
EPA STORE! (Water Quality)
data
Project history; Nazareth
Borough and Easton STP's
1 Interview
-------
Agency/Office
Person(s) Contacted
Topic
Palmer Twp.
Robert Frye1
Ernie Kopenhaver
Richard Krabill,1
Geologist
William Remaly,
Twp. Engineer
Charles Kuder
Richard Lyttle,1
Administrator
Tom McGraw,
County Sanitarian
Tom McGraw,
County Sanitarian
Joseph Pomponi,
Supervising Sanitarian
Ronald Morduski
Joseph Pomponi,1
Supervising Sanitarian
Biotic resources-discussion
and gathering of data
Nazareth STP.
Collection of groundwater
data; Interbasin transfer
of water
Hydrogeologic considerations
for land application; waste-
water application rates.
Land application
Location
Delineation of Service Area
proposed for B-LLJSA.
Sludge disposal codes and
regulations.
Well-water contamination.
Gathering of data: needs
documentation; engineering
reports; project history.
Surface water quality con-
cerns .
Incidence of wastewater -
related illness in Service
Area.
Newburg Homes (Palmer Twp.)
On-site wastewater manage-
ment (Phase II) in EIS Ser-
vice Area.
Air quality data for B-LLJSA.
Project history and issues;
Gathering of data; needs
documentation.
Surface discharge of grey-
water in Service Area;
alternative treatment system.
TTnterview
xxi
-------
Agency/Office
Person(s) Contacted
Emil Wasko
John Wroblewski,1
Senior Planner
Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation
Pennsylvania Fish
& Game Commission
John Wroblewski
Bob Day-Lewis
Bob Jones
Mr. Richard Anderson,
Game Commissioner
Additional data on well water
quality and groundwater hydrol-
ogy-
Review of EIS wastewater
alternatives.
Sludge disposal codes and
regulations.
Project background; Develop-
ment of a coordination
strategy; Assessment of
sewage treatment plants
(STP's) in Service Area;
Water quality concerns;
State engineering codes
Current effluent limits for
wastewater discharge to
Bushkill Creek and Schoeneck
Creek; land application in
Jacobsburg State Park.
State eligibility.
State funding of B-LL project.
Bushkill alternatives package.
State priority list for fund-
ing of B-LL project.
Effluent limitations for Bush-
kill Creek; land application
in Jacobsburg State Park
Position of an EIS Alterna-
tive on State's priority
list for Federal funding
Degree of preliminary treat-
ment required for spray
irrigation in the EIS
Service Area.
Aerial photographs of
Service Area
Wildlife inventory of
Service Area.
1 Interview
-------
Agency/Office
Pennsylvania
Geological Survey
Pennsylvania Power &
Light Co.
Allentown, PA
Pennsylvania State
Board of Employment
Pennsylvania State
Health Department
Pennsylvania State
Sanitarian
Person(s) Contacted
Don Haskins
Frank Hawk
John Graflin
Margaret Mahloney
Ted Veresink
Pennsylvania Topographic Allen Geier
and Geologic Survey
Harrisburg, PA
Plainfield Twp.
Plainfield Twp.
Taxpayers Assn.
R & G Engineering
Associates, Inc.
Bill Danner1, Chairman
John Houck, Supervisor
Bob Danner1, SEO
Richard Rutt1, P.E., SEO
Dick Rutt, Twp. Engineer
Marie Moykin,
Zoning Officer
Erwin Firpen1
Joseph Dorner1
Harold Coleman1
Mick Warner1
Ellie Cyr,1 consulting
geologist
Richard Schenick, Inc. Richard Schenick
Topic
Groundwater data for
Service Area.
Energy production and
consumption in Service Area
Unemployment in Northampton
County.
Public health problems in
Service Area stemming from
well contamination.
Stream sampling stations.
Gathering of geology and
groundwater data
Project issues; Location
and interpretation of mal-
functioning systems;
Socioeconomic survey
Township Ordinances;
Wastewater management.
Subdivision and building
permits granted.
Project issues; Attitudes
toward wastewater manage-
ment.
Malfunctioning on-lot systems
in Service Area - location
and assessment. (Information
not being used in the EIS.)
Additional hydrogeologic
data.
Needs data; cluster systems.
Local costs for wastewater
disposal
^Interview
xxni
-------
Agency/Office
Schultz Welders
Septic tank effluent
pumpers/haulers in
Northampton County
Stockertown Borough
Tatamy Borough
Thomas A. Coughlin
Engineers
Bethlehem, PA
Upper Nazareth Twp.
Upper Nazareth Twp.
Citizens League
Urban Research &
Development Corp.
Bethlehem, PA
Person(s) Contacted
Boh Foust
Cy Hunter Co.;
Robert Fretz & Sons;
Bethlehem Sewerage Service;
Albert Lawson; Henry
Yeska & Son, Inc.
Sherman Metzgar,1 Mayor
N. Larry Sapone, Planning
Commission
Walt Davidge, SEO
Marguarite Obulaney,1
Health Officer
Topic
Chlorinator installation in
Service Area.
Septage disposal
Location and interpretation
of malfunctioning on-lot
systems.
Malfunctions in Stockertown.
B. James Williams,1 Mayor Socioeconomic survey
Sydney Spencer,1 Planning
Commission
Dale Kulp,1 SEO
Gary Ames,1 SEO Asst.
Thomas A. Coughlin, P.E.
Raymond DeRaymond,
Ted Lewis, Solicitors
Ed Malch
Al Salinger,
Twp. Consultants
Mark Werner, Chmn.
Donald Hickman1, Sec.
Walter Davidge,1, SEO
Francis Schweitzer
Dave Humphry1
(& several subsequent
phone calls)
Location and interpretation
of malfunctioning on-lot
systems
Requested engineering cost
data supporting F&M report
on Nazareth STP.
Township zoning ordinance
and subdivision regulations:
statement of intent.
Status of comprehensive
plan currently being revised.
Location and interpretation
of malfunctioning systems
Recent survey (1/79) of
Upper Nazareth Twp. Taxpayers
re: sewage problems, surface
drainage problems, B-LLJSA,
merger study.
Discussion of updated plan-
ning/zoning information for
Bushkill Twp.
1 Interview
xxiv
-------
Agency/Office
US Dept. of
Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service
(SCS) Lebanon, PA
US Fish and
Wildlife Service
US Geological Survey
(USGS); Offices in
Harrisburg, PA; Reston
VA; Woodshole, MA
Wallace & Tierman
Yeska & Sons, Inc.
Nazareth, PA
Person(s) Contacted
Al Bacher,
Soil Scientist
John Bert, Soil Sci-
entist
Kenneth Dodd
Avery Drake,
Geologist
J. M. Aaron
C. W. Poth
Lloyd Reed
Dale Glatsfelter
Delores Fyte
Sam Jackson
Topic
SCS Soil Investigation for
Bushkill EIS
Prime and unique agricultural
land in Service Area.
Detailed soil mapping --
land application sites
Bog turtle status
Geology of Service Area;
Collection of unpublished
geologic data.
Collection of geologic data
for Nazareth quad.
Groundwater data for Service
Area.
Historical flow data in
neighboring watersheds
Current flow data and 7-day
10-year low flow data (7Q10)
Chlorinator at Nazareth STP.
Local costs for wastewater
disposal.
XXV
-------
EIS MAILING LIST
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Advisory Council on Environmental
Preservation
Council on Environmental Quality
US Bureau of Prisons
US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
US Department of Commerce
Office of Environmental
Affairs
US Department of Defense
US Department of Energy
US Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare
US Department of Housing and
Urban Development
US Department of the Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recrea-
tion
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Adminis-
tration
Marine Environmental Pro-
tection Division
US Department of Treasury
Water Resources Council
PENNSYLVANIA STATE AGENCIES
Department of Commerce
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Environmental re-
sources
Bureau of Air Quality and
Noise Control
Bureau of Community Environ-
mental Control
Bureau of Occupational
Health
Bureau of Radiological
Health
Bureau of State Forestry
Bureau of State Parks
Bureau of Topographic and
Geological Survey
Bureau of Water Quality
Management
Coordinator for Environmen-
tal Protection & Regula-
tion
Division of Solid Waste
Management
Division of Water Supply
& Sewerage
Environmental Hearing Board
Regional Director, Reading
Region
Sewage Facilities Consul-
tant
State Conservation Com-
mission
Department of Health
Department of Transportation
Fish Commission
Game Commission
Historical and Museum Commission
State Clearinghouse
LOCAL AGENCIES
Bushkill Township
Board of Supervisors
Engineer
Planning Commission
S ecretary-Treasurer
Solicitor
Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint
Sewer Authority
City of Easton
Administration Committee
Board of Health
Business Administrator
Controller
Council
Mayor
Planning Commission
Planning and Development
Committee
Police, Fire, and Health
Committees
Public Services Commitee
Suburban Water Authority
Treasurer
Easton Area Joint Sewer Authority
Joint Planning Commission Lehigh-
Northampton Counties
Borough of Nazareth
Council
Engineer
Mayor
Secretary
Solicitor
Treasurer
Upper Nazareth Township
Board of Supervisors
Engineer
Planning Commission
Solicitor
Palmer Township
Board of Supervisors
Engineer
Planning Commission
Secretary
Solicitor
Plainfield Township
Board of Supervisors
Engineer
Planning Commission
Secretary-Treasurer
Solicitor
Borough of Stockertown
Council
Mayor
Planning Commission
Secretary
Solicitor
Treasurer
Borough of Tatamy
Council
Mayor
Secretary
Solicitor
Treasurer
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Honorable Richard Thornburgh,
Governor of Pennsylvania
Honorable H. John Heinz: III,
United States Senator
Honorable Richard S. Schweiker,
United States Senator
Honorable Fred B. Rooney,
United States House of Repre-
sentatives
Honorable Jeannette D. Reibman,
Senate of Pennsylvania, Easton
ELECTED OFFICIALS (cont.)
Honorable Russell Kowalyskyn,
Pennsylvania House of Represen-
tatives, Northampton
Honorable James F. Prendergast,
Pennsylvania House of Represen-
tatives, Easton
Honorable Philip I. Ruggiero,
Pennsylvania House of Represen-
tatives, Bangor
Honorable Michael J. Schweder,
Pennsylvania House of Represen-
tatives, Bethlehem
MEDIA
Newspapers
Allentown Morning Call
Bulletin
Easton Express
Emmaus & Allentown Times
Evening Chronicle
Globe Times
Herald
Horn fi News
Northampton Times
Town Topic
Radio
WEEX - AM
WEST - AM
WEZV - FM
WGPA - AM
WJRH - FM
WLEV - FM
WQQQ - FM
Television
WLVT - TV
CITIZENS GROUPS
Air Pollution Control Association,
Pittsburgh, PA
America the Beautiful Fund,
Washington, DC
Appalachian Mountain Club,
Easton, PA
Audobon Naturalist Society of the
Central Atlantic States, Inc.,
Washington, DC
Bushkill Anglers Association,
Nazareth, PA
Bushkill Watershed Association,
Easton, PA
Bushkill Township Concerned
Citizens Committee,
Nazareth, PA
Citizens' Advisory Council,
Harrisburg, PA
Citizens Environmental Task Force,
Pittsburgh, PA
Concerned Laymen for Environmental
Action Now (CLEAN), Hellertown,
PA
Cooks Creek Watershed, Hellertown,
PA
Environmental Defense Fund,
Washington, DC
Environmental Policy Center,
Washington, DC
Group Against Smog and Pollution
(GASP), Pittsburgh, PA
-------
CITIZENS GROUPS (cont.)
League of Women Voters of PA,
Philadelphia, PA
Lehigh Valley Conservancy,
Bethlehem, PA
Monocacy Creek Watershed
Association, Bethlehem, PA
National Audobon Society,
Harrisburg, PA
National Parks and Conservation
Association, Washington, DC
Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., Washington, DC
PA Forestry Association,
Mechanicsburg, PA
PA Horticultural Society,
Philadelphia, PA
PA Lung Association
Hershey, PA
PA Roadside Council, Inc.,
Philadelphia, PA
PA State Fish and Game Protec-
tive Association, Philadelphia,
PA
Plainfield Township Taxpayers
Association, Wind Gap, PA
Rachel Carson Trust for the
Living, Washington, DC
Saucon Creek Watershed Asso-
ciation, Hellertown, PA
Sierra Club, Philadelphia, PA
Trout Unlimited, Indiana, PA
Upper Nazareth Citizens,
Nazareth, PA
Water Pollution Control Asso-
ciation, Washington, DC
Wilderness Society, Washington,
DC
The Wildlife Society,
Washington, DC
LIBRARIES
Easton Area Public Library
Lafayette College Library
Mary Meuser Memorial Library
Nazareth Memorial Library
Northampton County Area
Community College Library
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Ma.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mrs
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Betty Abel
Mary Ann Achweitzer
Bernie Agner
Ruth Anderson
A. J. Aplinger
Sherwood Ashenfelder
Gary Asteak
Edwin Averback
Dale Bantsolmer
L. R. Barllch
Frederick C. Benfield
Joan Benter
Dennis Bickert
David Boskirk
Lester Bleam
Wayne Bond
Patricia Bradt
Ralph Broat
Andrew Brock
Donald Burley
Yolanda Burley
K. N. Burz
Virginia Buskirk
Joseph Butz
& Mrs. Richard Cartwright
Dwight Celser
Luke Chelnis
Gregory Chrin
. Beatrice Cohen
Harold Coleman
John Corral 1
Carol Crane
William Crane
Maynard Grouse
Ellie Cyr
Samuel Damofie
Raymond DeGaynewd
Pete Deni
Reg DeWalt
Franklin Dieter
Cosmo DiGerlando
Marge Dorker
Frances Dreisback
Vergil Easton
R. A. Elbe
Anna Erdie
Dominic Fararo
John Feack
Raymond Fehnel
John Ferretti
John Filonge
Larry Finnegan
James Fish
Robert Fisher
Donald Fishl
Keith Fling
Allan Frantl
Alfred Franusiszin
F. Fraunfieder
& Mrs. Joseph Frey
Joseph Frisch
Woodrow Fuls
Paul Fundarish
Quentin Gilbert
James Godisha
John E. Godsker
Ellen Gradwokl
Lee Graver
Stephen Greyus
Dennis Gruke
John Gruff
Gordon Habrial
& Mrs. John Hale
Joseph M. Hale
Charles Halm
Terry Hannold
William Heard
Eric M. Hediger
F. Heller
Catherine Herkmann
Thomas Herkmann
J. Hildenhand
& Mrs. Joseph Hopper
Lee House
John A. Hovch
Joseph Hull
Ricki Hurwitz
Lowrence Janett
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
CITIZENS (cont.)
Barbara Jeninka
Denise Johnson
E. Joan Johnson
T. W. Johnson
Michael Jones
Tony Kagmakeis
Harold Kahler
Tony Kazmakites
& Mrs. Kemback
& Mrs. Ben Kebler
Milton Kelchner
George Kelethuer
Lester Kilbanks
& Mrs. David Kern
Willard J. Kickline
William Kilpatrick
& Mrs. Richard King
Harry Kirchgassner
Carol Kislan
Elwood Kocher
Linda Kortz
Stanley Kratze
Lester Kratzer
& Mrs. Conrad Kripy
Kenneth Kromer
Stephen Lakatos
Alfred Lankics
Karl Lausehack
Richard S. Lerback
Kermit Lilly
Douglass Long
Joseph Lopresti
Harvey Lowrther
& Mrs. Stephen Lukaez
James E. Lutz
Robert Lynn
& Mrs. David Mack
Glenn D. Macker
L. Makart
Anna Mann
Mary Manning
Randolf Markovitz
William Martin
Don McCabe
Alan McFall
M. McGill
T. McGrass
Mary McHan
J. McMaufer
Henry Mebus
Lowrence Menaghan
R. Bernard Merwarth
L. Messenlehner
Raymond Messinger
Vernon L. Messinger
Ralph Metz
& Mrs. Tim Meyer
Floyd Michael
& Mrs. Henry Milrus
Edward Mitman
Craig Moore
M. Morin
William Morman
Robert Mugione
Russel Naubold
Dorothy Neff
J. Gregory Neff
Michael Neiser
Joseph Nemeth
Frank Nikies
M. Obulany
George Odenwelder
John A. 0'Hagan
Howard F. Overholt
Howard Overholt
Joseph Pail
& Mrs. John Papuak
Wayne Pany
Phillip Parsons
Vincent Paukovitch
R. H. Peters
Robert Peters
Richard Piatt
Alfred Pierce
Michael Pierzga
George D. Plowman
Joseph Pomponi
Dale Prinky
xxvii
-------
CITIZENS (cont.)
Mr. Walter Quier
Mr. & Mrs. S. P. Raisner
Donald A. Ramaley
Nicholas Rampulla
Gary Rapp
Robert Rapp
Mr. William D. Raumsey
Mr. & Mrs. Earl Reade
Mr. John Reed
Mr. William Remaley
Mr. Paul Repohen
Mr. Frank Ressler
Mr. Conrad Rice
Mr. Robert Richard
Mr. Harry Richebacher
Mr. H. Riefenstahl
Mr. Dale Rissmiller
Mr. Robert Robert
Ms. Elaine Rodger
Mr. Clayton T. Roose
Mr. Claude Roth
Mr. Joseph Saftman
Mr. Ernest Sargent
Ms. Mary Ann Sargent
Mr. Francis Schweitzer
Mr. Charles Scobo
Mr. Arthur Seifasr
Mr. R. S. Serifass
Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Seyfried
Mr. John Shaddle
Mr. Claude Shappelle
Ms. Joanne Sherman
Mr. Conrad Shimer
Mr. Carl Shmitz
Mr. Stephen Shockoz
Mr. & Mrs. George Shook
Mr. & Mrs. Lester Shook
Mr. Edwin Simons
Mr. Harold Simons
Mr. & Mrs. Peter Slavish
Mr. Charles Smith
Mr. R. W. Smith
Ms. Shirley Smith
Mr. William Smith
Mr. Charles Spohn
Mr. & Mrs. Allen Stahl
Mr. F. E. Stannard
Mr. Robert Starke
Mr. Douglas Stechl
Mr. Wayne Steinmetz
Mr. Richard Stine
Mr. A. Stirba
Ms. Mary L. Stracho
Mr. Donald Strockoz
Mr. Leo Suprye
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Sutter
Mr. D. J. Thew
Ms. Jeannette Uettery
Mr. Robert Vanon
Mr. Karl Vinger
Mr. Charles Voda
Mr. Jeannette Walters
Mr. Harold Warner
Mr. Mick Warner
Mr. Willard Weave
Mr. Martin Wenfield
Ms. Jan Werkheiser
Mr. Edward Werner
Mr. Melvin Werner
Mr. Donald White
Ms. Maureen White
Mr. John Wikles
Mr. Ed Wilchner
Mr. Dale Williamson
Mrs. Ann Woehrle
Mr. L. H. Wolfe
Mr. Joseph J. Warner
Mr. Francis Wunderly
Ms. Jane Yeakel
Mr. M. A. Yeakel
Mr. Ronald Yeakel
Mr. Grant Zilena
OTHERS
William H. Agnew, Esq.
Brent Alderfer, Esq.
Gary N. Asteak, Esq.
A. W. Martin Associates, Inc.
Cassebaum and McFall, P.C,
C. C. Collings & Co.
Dickert, Price and Rhodes
Gilbert Associates, Inc.
Hemstret, Smith and Van
Antwerpen
Northampton County Conserva-
tion District
PA State Cooperative Extension
Service
Winer, Newburger & Sive
Wolfe, Block, Schow, and
Solis-Cohen
-------
CONTENTS
Foreward [[[ i
Summary [[[ iii
Public Participation ................................................. xiii
Table of Contents [[[
I . BACKGROUND AND ISSUES ............................................ 1
A. Introduction ................................................. 1
1. Federal Affiliation with the Project. . . .* ................. 1
2. Project Service Area ..................................... 2
B . Proj ect Background ........................................... 7
C . Issues of this EIS ................................ . .......... 12
1. Needs Documentation ...................................... 12
2. Cost Effectiveness ....................................... 12
3 . Induced Growth and Secondary Impacts ..................... 13
4. Groundwater Supplies ..................................... 13
5 . Public Participation ..................................... 13
D. National Perspective on the Rural Sewering Problem ........... 14
1 . Socioeconomics ........................................... 14
2. Secondary Impacts ........................................ 15
3. The Need for Management of Decentralized Alternative
Systems ................................................ 16
E. Purpose and Approach of this EIS and Criteria for Evaluation
of Alternatives ............................................ 17
1. Purpose .................................................. 17
2 . Approach ................................................. 17
a. Review of Available Data ............................. 17
b. Segment Analysis ..................................... 17
c. Review of Wastewater Design Flows .................... 18
d. Development of Alternatives .......................... 18
e. Development of a Modified Applicant's Proposed
Action ............................................. 18
f . Estimation of Costs for Alternatives ................. 18
-------
Page
3. Major Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives 19
a. Cost 19
b. Significant Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts.. 19
c. Flexibility 20
II. APPLICANT ' S PROPOSED ACTION 21
A. Applicant's Proposed Action 21
B. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities ^ 22
1. Easton Sewage Treatment Plant 22
2. Nazareth Sewage Treatment Plant 22
C. On-Site Systems 25
D. Existing Problems 25
1. Water Quality 25
2. Wastewater Treatment Facilities 27
III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 29
A. Natural Environment 29
1. Climate 29
a. Temperature 29
b. Precipitation 29
c. Wind Direction and Speed 29
2. Air Quality 30
3. Odor 30
4. Noise 31
5. Topography 32
6. Geology 32
a. Surficial Geology 32
b. Bedrock Geology 33
c. Adverse Geologic Conditions 33
7. Soils 33
a. Soil Suitability for Wastewater Treatment 38
b. Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands 42
8. Groundwater Resources 45
a. Groundwater Hydrology 45
b. Groundwater Quality 46
c. Groundwater Use 49
xxx
-------
9. Surface Water Resources 50
a. Surface Water Hydrology 50
b. Surface Water Uses and Classification 52
c. Surface Water Quality 53
10. Biological Resources 55
a. Aquatic Biota 55
b. Terrestrial Biota 58
c. Threatened or Endangered Species 63
B. Human Environment 64
1. Demography and Socioeconomics 64
a. Recent Population Trends 64
b. Population Proj ections 66
c. Existing Economic Conditions 66
d. Projected Economic Conditions 68
e. Existing Housing Characteristics 70
f. Projected Housing Characteristics 70
g. Local Government Finances 70
2. Land Use 71
a. Existing Land Use 71
b. Future Land U se 75
c. Growth Management Controls 76
3. Public Services 76
a. Schools 76
b. Health Services 76
c. Public Safety 76
d. Utilities 76
e. Solid Waste Disposal 80
f. Transportation 84
4. Cultural Resources 84
a. Historic Sites 84
b. Archaeological Sites 84
c. Recreation 87
5. Wastewater Management Systems 89
a. Nazareth Collection Systems and Wastewater Flows 89
b. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 91
c. On-Site Wastewater Management Systems 97
xxx i
-------
Page
C. Suitability for Development (Evaluation of Environmental
Constraints) ............................................... 106
IV. IMPACTS OF APPLICANT ' S PROPOSED ACTION ..........................
A. Natural Environment ..........................................
1 . Air Quality ..............................................
2. Noise [[[
3. Topography, Geology and Soils ............................ 113
a. Topography ........................................... 113
b . Geology .............................................. 113
c. Soils ................................................ 114
4. Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands ...................... 114
5 . Water Resources .......................................... 116
a . Groundwater .......................................... 116
b. Surface Water ........................................ 116
6 . Biotic Resources ......................................... 118
B . Human Environment ............................................ 120
1. Population ............................................... 120
2 . Land Use ................................................. 123
3 . Economic Conditions ...................................... 123
a . User Charges ......................................... 123
b. Local Cost Burden .................................... 124
c. Displacement Pressure ................................ 124
d . Additional Charges ................................... 125
4 . Public Services .......................................... 125
5 . Cultural Resources ....................................... 126
V. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................... 127
A. Introduction ................................................. 127
1. Overview ................................................. 127
2. Design Population of Alternatives ........................ 129
3. Basis of Flow and Waste Load Projections ................. 129
B . Components and Options ....................................... 132
1 . Flow and Waste Reduction ................................. 132
a. Residential Flow Reduction Devices ................... 132
b. Rehabilitation of Existing Sewers to Reduce Infil-
-------
Page
2 . Collection 133
a. Gravity Sewers 133
b. Pressure Sewers 134
c. Small Diameter Gravity Sewers 135
3. Wastewater Treatment Process Options 135
a. Centralized Treatment — Conventional Technologies... 136
b. Centralized Treatment — Land Disposal 138
c. Decentralized Treatment 140
4. Effluent Disposal 144
a. Reuse 144
b. Land Application 145
c. Discharge to Surface Waters 146
5. Sludge Handling and Disposal 149
a. Incineration 149
b. Digestion 149
c. Dewatering 150
d. Contract Hauling 151
e. Landf illing 151
f. Land Application 152
g. Composting 152
C. Implementation 154
1. Centralized Districts 154
a. Authority 154
b. Managing Agency 154
c. Financing 155
d. User Charges 155
2 . Small Waste Flows Districts 156
a. Authority 156
b. Management 157
c. Financing 160
d. User Charges 160
VI. EIS ALTERNATIVES 161
A. Introduction 161
B. Alternatives 162
1. No Action 162
xxxIi i
-------
2. Modified Applicant' s Proposed Action 166
3. EIS Alternative 1 • • • 169
4. EIS Alternative 2 169
5. EIS Alternative 3 169
6. EIS Alternative 4 17°
7. EIS Alternative 5 • • • • 170
8. EIS Alternative 6 170
9. EIS Alternative 7 181
10. EIS Alternative 8 181
11. EIS Alternative 9 181
12. EIS Alternative 10 181
C. Flexibility of Alternatives 181
1. No Action 182
2. Modified Applicant's Proposed Action 182
3. EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 182
4. EIS Alternative 3 182
5. EIS Alternative 4 182
6. EIS Alternatives 5 and 6 193
7. EIS Alternatives 7 and 8 193
8. EIS Alternatives 9 and 10 193
D. Sludge Handling Alternatives 193
E. Energy Requirements of Alternatives 194
F. Costs of Alternatives 194
VII. IMPACTS OF EIS ALTERNATIVES 199
A. Natural Environment 199
1. Air Quality 199
a. Impact... 199
b. Mitigation 205
2. Noise 206
a. Impact 206
b. Mitigation 208
3. Geology 209
4. Soils 209
a. Impacts 209
b. Mitigation 210
xxx iv
-------
Page
5. Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands 210
a. Impact 210
b. Mitigation 213
6. Groundwater 214
a. Impact 214
b. Mitigation 218
7. Surface Water 219
a. Impact 219
b. Mitigation 224
8. Flood Prone Areas 225
a. Impact 225
b. Mitigation 226
9. Biotic Resources 226
a. Impact 226
b. Mitigation 231
B. Human Environment 232
1. Population 232
2. Land Use 232
3. Mitigation for Demographic and Socioeconomic Impacts 234
4. Economic Conditions 235
a. Introduction 235
b. User Charges 235
c. Local Cost Burden 236
d. Additional Charges 239
e. Mitigation 239
5. Public Services Impacts 242
a. Schools 242
b. Health Services 242
c. Public Safety 244
d. Water Supply 244
e. Electricity 244
f. Solid Waste Management 244
g. Transportation 244
6. Cultural Resources 245
a. Historic Sites 245
xxxv
-------
Page
b. Archaeological Sites 247
c. Recreation. • 247
VIII. COMPARISON OF IMPACTS • 249
A. Narrative Impact Matrix 249
B. Screening of Alternative Wastewater Management Plans 249
1. No Action 249
2. Applicant' s Proposed Action 257
3. Modified Applicant's Proposed Action 258
4. EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 258
5. EIS Alternative 8 259
6. EIS Alternatives 5, 6, 9, and 10 259
IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 261
A. Description of the EIS Recommended Action 261
1. Bushkill Creek Watershed — Phase I 261
2. Schoeneck Creek Watershed — Phase 1 261
3. Phase II 262
4. Estimated Costs of the EIS Recommended Action 265
B. Impacts of the EIS Recommended Action 265
C. Implementation of the EIS Recommended Action 272
1. Areas of Immediate Need 272
2. Phase 1 272
a. Bushkill Creek Watershed 272
b. Schoeneck Creek Watershed 273
3. Phase II 274
Glossary 277
EIS Terminology 287
Bibliography 289
xxx vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
III-l Calculated Day/Night Sound Levels 31
III-2 Noise Levels in the Environment 31
III-3 Effluent Limitations of Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants 52
III-4 Historic and Projected Populations: EIS Service Area,
County, and State 65
III-5 Projected Manufacturing Employment for the Proposed
Service Area, 1975-2000 68
III-6 Projected Family Income Distribution for Northampton
County, 1975 to 1990 69
III-7 Existing Land Use 72
III-8 Development Control Ordinances 79
III-9 Water Supply and Use in the EIS Service Area 83
111-10 Correlation Between On-Site System Problems and Existing
Conditions 103
IV-1 Distances from Construction Equipment at Which Annoyance
Occurs Due to Sound Level 112
V-l EIS Alternatives Design Population/Average Daily Flow 130
V-2 Average Daily Water Consumption in EIS Service Area 131
V-3 Small Waste Flows Management Functions by Operational
Component and by Basic and Supplemental Usage 158
VI-1 Wastewater Management Alternatives for the EIS Service
Area — Summary of Major Components 165
VI-2 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs 195
VI-3 Estimated Energy Budgets for Alternative Wastewater
Management Technologies 196
VI-4 Cost Effective Analysis of Alternatives 198
VII-1 Summary of Air Quality Impact Potential of Modified EA
Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives 200
VII-2 Data Base by 5-Year Intervals EmployecTln Estimating
Major Air Contaminant Emissions Attributable to
Increased Electric Energy Demand and Vehicular Traffic... 202
VII-3 Major Air Contaminant Emissions (Metric Tons) by Year
Resulting from the Population in the Service Area,
Based on the Modified EA Proposed Action 203
VII-4 Maximum Major Air Contaminant Concentrations (pg/m3) by
Year Resulting from the Population in the Service Area,
Based on the Modified EA Proposed Action 204
VII-5 Sound Levels Associated With Sewer Construction Equipment.. 207
VII-6 Estimated Future Day/Night Sound Levels in EIS Service
Area 207
VII-7 Estimated Conversion of Undeveloped Land to Other Uses,
Year 2000 211
VII-8 Estimated Groundwater Recharge by On-Site Wastewater
Management System in Year 1980 215
VII-9 Estimated Wastewater Recharge and Export (Year 2000) 216
VII-10 Projected Growth and Residential Development (in Acres)
in the Bushkill Watershed by Year 2000 224
VII-11 Stream Crossings Under Various EIS Wastewater Management
Plans 228
VII-12 Population, Households (Dwelling Units), and Land Develop-
ment (Acres) Induced by Alternative Wastewater Manage-
ment Plans Evaluated in EIS 230
VII-13 Estimated Annual Household User Charges — Phase I 237
VII-14 Estimated 1980 Median Household Incomes 238
VII-15 Financial Burden (% of Households) 240
VII-16 Displacement Pressure (% of Households) 241
VII-17 Service Area Year 2000 School Age Population 243
VIII-1 Narrative Impact Matrix 250
VIII-2 Alternative Screening Criteria 256
xxxvii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Pa§e
1-1 Location of the EIS Service Area Within Northampton County. 3
1-2 Municipalities in the EIS Service Area 5
1-3 Monthly Cost of Gravity Sewers 15
II-l Environmental Assessment Proposed Action 23
II-2 Nazareth Sewerage Company Service Area 2f>
III-l General Geologic Column of the EIS Service Area 34
III-2 Bedrock Geology 35
III-3 General Soils Map of the EIS Service Area 37
III-4 Degree of Limitation for Standard On-Site Wastewater
Disposal 39
III-5 Soil Series Profiles Examined by Back-Hoe Pit Excavation... 41
III-6 Prime Agricultural Land 43
III-7 Water Quality Sampling Network. • 47
III-8 Bushkill Creek 50
III-9 Surface Water Hydrology 51
111-10 Floodprone Areas 59
III-ll Unique Natural Areas. 61
111-12 Existing Land Use 73
111-13 Year 2000 Land Use Plan 77
111-14 Blue Mountain Consolidated Water Company Service Area 81
111-15 Historic and Archaeological Resources 85,
111-16 Artifacts from Jacobsburg State Park 88
111-17 Effect of Rainfall Upon Flows at Nazareth STP 92
111-18 Influence of Flow Upon Wastewater Characteristics of
Nazareth STP 93
111-19 Nazareth Sewage Treatment Facilities 95
111-20 Nazareth STP Trickling Filters 96
111-21 Location of On-Site System Problems 101
111-22 Localized Shale Outcrops 105
111-23 Constraints on Development 107
IV-1 Location of Stream Crossings Associates With Environmental
Assessment Proposed Action 121
V-l Typical Pump Installation for Pressure Sewer 135
V-2 Typical Trickling Filter 137
V-3 Rotating Biological Contractor 137
V-4 Spray Irrigation 139
V-5 Overland Flow 139
V-6 Land Application Spray Irrigation 140
V-7 Schematic of Marsh/Pond Facility 144
V-8 Potential Land Application Sites 147
VI-1 Location of Segments in EIS Service Area 163
VI-2 Modified EA Proposed Action 167
VI-3 EIS Alternative 1 171
VI-4 EIS Alternative 2 173
VI-5 EIS Alternative 3 175
VI-6 EIS Alternative 4 177
VI-7 EIS Alternative 5 179
VI-8 EIS Alternative 6 183
VI-9 EIS Alternative 7 185
VI-10 EIS Alternative 8 187
VI-11 EIS Alternative 9 189
VI-12 EIS Alternative 10 ' 191
VII-1 Primary Impact on Dissolved Oxygen in Bushkill Creek Under
Various Wastewater Management Alternatives 220
VII-2 Storm Runoff Impact on Dissolved Oxygen in Bushkill Creek
by Year 2000 222
VII-3 Storm Runoff Impact on Dissolved Oxygen in Bushkill Creek
by Year 2000 223
IX-1 EIS Recommended Action 263
XXXV111
-------
CHAPTER I
Background and Issues
•
-------
Chapter I
Background and Issues
The Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority (B-LLJSA) is the
Applicant to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for funding of
proposed wastewater collection facilities in Northampton County, Penn-
sylvania. The six municipalities which constitute the B-LLJSA area in-
clude: Stockertown Borough, Tatamy Borough, Bushkill Township, Plain-
field Township, as well as the unsewered portions of Upper Nazareth
Township and Palmer Township. Construction of the facilities in these
municipalities (in addition to Jacobsburg State Park in Bushkill Town-
ship) was recommended in the "Environmental Assessment for Bushkill-
Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority and City of Easton, Northampton
County, Pennsylvania," hereafter referred to as the Environmental
Assessment (EA)*.
1. FEDERAL AFFILIATION WITH THE PROJECT
The B-LLJSA has requested the participation of the US Environmental
Protection Agency in the funding of proposed wastewater collection
facilities construction, under the agency's Construction Grants Program.
According to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA), as implemented by the guidelines of the Council on
Environmental Quality, all Federally-funded construction projects are
subject to a detailed environmental review process before funds can be
awarded. If it is anticipated that implementation of the project may
result in significant impacts to the environment, then this process in-
volves the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The
objectives of the EIS are to (1) build into the decision-making process
an appropriate and careful consideration of all environmental impacts of
proposed actions, (2) explain potential environmental effects of pro-
posed actions and their alternatives for public understanding, (3) avoid
or minimize adverse impacts of proposed actions upon the human environ-
ment, and (4) restore or improve the quality of the environment as much
as possible. On December 15, 1978, EPA issued a Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS on the Applicant's Proposed Action based on its potential
for significant environmental degradation, as well as its surrounding
public controversy.
The Applicant's request is for funds to construct the Proposed
Action. Facilities construction is the third step of a three step Con-
struction Grants Program. The first two steps, facilities planning and
detailed facilities design, were completed without Federal funds. The
three step Construction Grants Program, the exemption of this project
from the typical process as a "pipeline" project, and the roles of EPA
and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) in co-
ordinating the Construction Grants Program are described in Appendix A.
1 See Chapter II for a description of the EA.
-------
2. PROJECT SERVICE AREA
Located in the northern portion of Northampton County (see Figure
1-1), approximately 7 miles northwest of the City of Easton, the EIS
Service Area encompasses about 66 square miles of farmland, woodland,
quarries, as well as urban and suburban development. It includes the
entire area (except for Palmer Township) within the 6 municipalities
which constitute the B-LLJSA (see Figure 1-2). Although not a member of
the B-LLJSA, Nazareth Borough has also been included as part of this
study because collection and treatment capacity for its approximately
5700 residents was provided in the Applicant's Proposed Action. The EA
anticipated that wastewater flows from the Nazareth area would even-
tually be connected to the B-LLJSA collection system.
The configuration and extent of areas that presently require sewer-
ing for water quality or public health reasons is an issue in this EIS.
The issue was raised by concerned citizens. Present Federal regulations
(Construction Grants Program Requirements Memorandum 78-9) require docu-
mentation of water quality or public health problems prior to funding of
collector sewers. Therefore, several studies were undertaken as part of
this EIS to identify those parts of the EIS Service Area requiring
sewage collection and off-site treatment. These studies are discussed
in Section III.B.5.C.
Based on these studies, the areas proposed for new sewers in the
Applicant's Environmental Assessment, the EA Proposed Service Area (see
Figure II-l) have been modified for this EIS as follows:
Municipality
Bushkill Township
Plainfield Township
Palmer Township
Modification of Applicant's Proposed Service
Area by Municipal Component
Jacobsburg State Park and vicinity deleted;
Cherry Hill vicinity reduced/deleted; on-site
system problems identified throughout northern
portion of Township.
Service extended further north on Route 115;
additional on-site system problems identified
in northeastern and central portions of Town-
ship; Sewers serving Route 191 from Belfast
Junction to Edelman could be deleted.
Service Area restricted to Newburg Homes and
isolated areas in Northern Corridor.
Upper Nazareth Township Nazareth Sewage Treatment Plant Service Area
and East Lawn Area added, along with Christian
Springs
Stockertown Borough
Tatamy Borough
Nazareth Borough
No change
No change
Added
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
\ .'^,
-/
\
NORTHAMPTON
^ COUNTY
\
\
L--^^
^
Figure 1-1. LOCATION OF THE EIS SERVICE AREA
WITHIN NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
\ X
\ /
\ x
\s
MILES
-------
FIGURE 1-2 MUNICIPALITIES IN THE EIS SERVICE AREA
— SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
—— MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY
-------
As will be discussed later, these modifications do not increase the
number of residents served by centralized collection and treatment faci-
lities in the EIS Service Area.
B. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A substantial amount of consideration was devoted to the wastewater
management needs of the seven municipalities prior to preparation of
this EIS. Both centralized2 and decentralized3 approaches to wastewater
collection and treatment were explored in this period.
Local sewerage solutions to area-wide wastewater management prob-
lems were considered in the Master Sewerage Plan (1967) prepared by the
Joint Planning Commission, Lehigh-Northampton Counties (JPC). Seven
sewage treatment plants (STP's) were tentatively planned in the drainage
areas of Bushkill Creek, the Lower Lehigh River and the Delaware River.
Initial reference to a regional wastewater management approach ap-
pears in a study entitled "Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Regional Sewerage
System, a Feasibility Study for Intermunicipal Cooperation in a Drainage
Basin Sewerage System" (Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1970). This study was
prepared for the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Board, an unincorpor-
ated citizens committee concerned about potentially unrestricted con-
struction of STP's in the Bushkill Creek drainage basin, especially in
the headwaters of Little Bushkill Creek. The Board represented eleven
Northampton County municipalities, including: City of Easton, Forks
Township, Lower Nazareth Township, Palmer Township, Stockertown Borough,
Tatamy Borough, Upper Nazareth Township, West Easton Borough, Williams
Township, Wilson Borough, and Plainfield Township (southern half only).
The study also unofficially included all or parts of the following muni-
cipalities: Nazareth Borough, Glendon Borough, Wind Gap Borough,
Bushkill Township, and Plainfield Township (northern half).
The 1970 feasibility study was significant insofar as it served as
the basis for the Applicant's Proposed Action. It concluded that the
Easton STP should be expanded and a sanitary sewer system for what is
now the B-LLJSA area should be constructed. The Study made the
following recommendations:
• The Easton STP should be the only regional facility serving
communities in the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh drainage area; it
should be expanded immediately from 5 million gallons per day
(mgd) to 10 mgd; the main interceptor sewer and pumping system
in the Easton vicinity should also be enlarged;
2 "Centralized treatment" refers to treatment at a central site of waste-
water collected by a single system and transported to a central lo-
cation. Centralized treatment systems may serve all or a part of
the service area.
3 "Decentralized treatment" defines those systems processing a relatively
small amount of wastewater. Decentralized treatment can be provided
on-site or off-site.
-------
• A new joint sewer authority should be incorporated, including
Plainfield Township, Palmer Township, Stockertown Borough and
Tatamy Borough. This authority should begin design and con-
struction of sewerage facilities for all or parts of those
municipalities;
• Nazareth Borough, Upper Nazareth Township and Lower Nazareth
Township should form a joint sewer authority and purchase the
existing STP of the Nazareth Sewerage Company for eventual
abandonment and connection to the regional collection system;
• The newly constructed Wind Gap STP should remain in service
for its useful life or its period of amortization, whichever
is shorter.
The Feasibility Study was presented to the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh
Joint Sewer Board on 18 November 1970, and endorsed by resolution of the
City of Easton Council on 19 November 1970. It provided that the muni-
cipalities would pay all costs involved in constructing and maintaining
the new treatment capacity. In August 1971, the Study was formally ap-
proved by all participating municipalities, as well as JPC, DER, and the
Delaware River Basin Commission (Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1976).
The Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority was formed in 1972
as a result of the recommendations of the Feasiblity Study. Charter
members of the authority included Bushkill Township, Plainfield Town-
ship, Palmer Township, Stockertown Borough, and Tatamy Borough. Upper
Nazareth Township joined the B-LLJSA in 1973.
In 1973, JPC, the A-95 Regional Clearinghouse, offered its endorse-
ment and approval of the proposed expansion of the Easton STP to serve
upstream residents in the Bushkill Creek drainage basin. DER issued a
permit in May 1974 for the construction of the proposed expansion pro-
gram following receipt of the plans and application for Federal grant
during the previous year.4
The B-LLJSA authorized the design of a major portion of its pro-
posed project in 1973. In February 1974, plans for sewage collection
and transmission facilities in the B-LLJSA municipalities were completed
and submitted to DER along with an application for a Federal grant. JPC
approved and endorsed the project for Federal funding February 1975
based upon their review of the project's timing, location, and capacity
for compatibility with the A-95 Clearinghouse's "Water Supply and Sewer-
age Facilities Plan Update-1970". DER issued a construction permit in
July 1975 (Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1976).
4The 5 mgd expansion of the Easton STP has proceeded under a Federal
grant that is separate from that allocated for the B-LLJSA sewerage
(interceptor and collector sewer) project. Therefore, discussion
in this EIS of the Easton facilities, in and of themselves, will be
limited.
-------
In July 1976, the "Environmental Assessment for the Bushkill-Lower
Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority and City of Easton" (EA) (Gilbert Associ-
ates, Inc.) was completed and subsequently submitted to DER and EPA for
review for compliance with statutory requirements of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (1972) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(1969). The EA included an evaluation of existing conditions in the
Applicant's Proposed Service Area, a determination of beneficial and
adverse impacts of the proposed wastewater management plan, as well as a
discussion of measures necessary to minimize or eliminate adverse im-
pacts. Following review of the EA, DER concluded that the document was
in compliance with the mandates of Federal and State environmental
legislation and approved the plan.
Following its initial review of the EA, EPA decided (January 1977)
to provide financial assistance, as requested, for the construction of
proposed sewage collection and transmission facilities throughout the
B-LLJSA municipalities. Considerable public controversy followed EPA's
decision to fund the proposed project. Four major issues underlying the
controversy included the following:
• The cost-effectiveness of a regional collection system to
solve municipal sewage disposal needs, particularly in rural,
outlying areas such as Bushkill Township and Plainfield Town-
ship, (i.e. would the tangible benefits of a regional collec-
tion system be worth its cost?)
• The environmental, economic, and social impacts of extending
centralized sewerage facilities into the B-LLJSA communities,
particularly those near the headwaters of Bushkill Creek.
• The actual need for sewerage facilities based on the incidence
of existing and past problems with on-site wastewater manage-
ment systems.
• The feasibility of available alternative treatment methods (to
the regional collection-treatment concept).
The public controversy that surrounded EPA's decision to fund the
project culminated in the filing of law suits against the Federal agency
by "anti-sewer" groups in Bushkill Township and Plainfield Township in
1977. The law suits were filed in order to prevent EPA's funding and
hence, the construction of the Applicant's Proposed Action. A series of
"Technical Meetings" failed to resolve the controversy by the autumn of
1978.
By December 1978, EPA decided that the most effective solution to
the considerable unresolved public controversy lay in the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In addition to the objectives
listed in Section I.A.I, the EIS would serve to address the question of
whether or not the extent of proposed sewerage was needed or justified.
The Applicant's Proposed Action, which is the basis for this EIS, is
described in Chapter II.
-------
A chronology of the actions associated with wastewater management
planning in the Service Area taken before and during the preparation of
this EIS is listed below.
March
May
1967
1970
November 1970
February 1971
August 1971
1972
June
1972
July
1972
1973
1973
February 1974
February 1975
July 1975
Completion of the Master Sewerage Plan ("Water
Supply and Sewage Facilities Plan, Lehigh
Valley, Pennsylvania 1966-2020") by JPC
"Feasibility Report on Providing Complete Cen-
tral Sewerage Facilities for Nazareth Borough"
Prepared for Nazareth Borough Council (Thomas
A. Coughlin and Co.)
Presentation of "Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Regional
Sewer System, a Feasibility Study for Intermuni-
cipal Cooperation in a Drainage Basin Sewerage
System" (Gilbert Associates, Inc.) to Bushkill-
Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Board.
Release of "Water Supply and Sewage Facilities
Plan Update 1970" (JPC)
1970 Feasibility Study approved by participa-
ting municipalities, JPC, DER and Delaware
River Basin Commission.
Formation of the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint
Sewer Authority (B-LLJSA)
Completion of "Sanitary Sewerage System Feasi-
bility Report for Upper Nazareth Township,
Northampton County, Pennsylvania" (Fogarasi and
Moyer, Inc.)
Completion of "Sanitary Sewerage System Feasi-
bility Report for Schoeneck Creek Drainage Area,
Northampton County, Pennsylvania" (Fogarasi and
Moyer, Inc.)
Upper Nazareth Township Joins B-LLJSA
B-LLJSA authorized design of major portion of
its proposed project.
B-LLJSA submitted project plans and Federal
grant application to DER.
JPC (A-95 Regional Clearinghouse) approved and
endorsed B-LLJSA project for Federal funding
Permit to construct B-LLJSA project issued by
DER.
10
-------
July
May
1976
1978
November 1978
December 1978
January 1979
April 1979
June
1979
August 1979
September 1979
September 1979
Publication of the "Environmental Assessment
for the B-LLJSA and City of Easton" (Gilbert
Associates, Inc.)
Report: Evaluation of alternative wastewater
treatment and disposal methods for the Nazareth
Sewerage Company (Gannett Fleming Corddry and
Carpenter, Inc.)
Preparation of EIS begins
Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS issued by
EPA. Aerial photographs taken of EIS Service
Area to identify suspected malfunctions of
on-site wastewater systems.
First Public Information Meeting to discuss the
EIS process, EIS format, and receive public
input on specific issues related to the Appli-
cant's Proposed Action or its potential alter-
natives; EPA's engineering assessment of
Nazareth Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) comple-
ted.
Second Public Information Meeting to discuss
preliminary EIS findings on needs documentation
and the environmental baseline and to solicit
volunteers for EPA's groundwater sampling pro-
gram; field-check of suspected malfunctions
(from aerial photographs) completed.
First EIS Public Workshop conducted to discuss
needs documentation and environmental sampling
programs; EPA's sampling of surface water and
groundwater quality in EIS Service Area comple-
ted; EPA's structural assessment of Nazareth
STP completed.
Second EIS Public Workshop conducted to report
needs documentation findings, and address EIS
alternatives and impacts of various wastewater
management strategies.
Third EIS Public Workshop conducted to discuss
EIS alternatives, design, cost and implementa-
tion;
Third Public Information Meeting rediscuss EIS
findings to date.
11
-------
C. ISSUES OF THIS EIS
The purpose of this EIS is to respond to concerns raised regarding
the Environmental Assessment (EA) Proposed Action5 identified by review
agencies, local government officials, and especially, the public. These
concerns, involving the possibility of significant environmental im-
pacts, include the following:
1. NEEDS DOCUMENTATION
Federal participation in the funding of the Applicant's Proposed
Action or any alternative to this action is contingent upon the documen-
tation of need for improved wastewater management facilities. Analysis
of need is necessary to establish the nature of wastewater disposal/
treatment problems and to develop reasonable alternatives for their
solution. The extent and distribution of on-site system problems is a
leading issue in this project. If the need for improved on- and
off-site wastewater management facilities is better substantiated in the
EIS Service Area, then their costs will be better understood and conse-
quently more likely to be accepted by the local citizenry.
In the EA, septic tank and other on-site systems were suspected of
contributing to public health and water quality problems, although there
was little evidence to support this suspicion. The relationship between
deteriorating water quality and inadequately functioning septic systems
was not documented.
2. COST EFFECTIVENESS
The question of whether or not a regional wastewater collection
system is economical in terms of tangible benefits gained by the money
spent to build it (i.e. is cost-effective) has been raised by many local
citizens. The total construction cost for the Applicant's Proposed
Action was estimated to be $10.1 million in 1976. This represents an
investment of approximately $1224 per person and $3673 per existing
dwelling unit within the B-LLJSA Service Area.6
The availability of alternative collection and treatment technolo-
gies offers the potential for less expensive solutions to wastewater
management problems. In the absence of needs documentation data, it has
not been demonstrated that the level of resource commitments proposed
for large-scale facilities (on an area-wide basis) is necessary.
Applicant's Proposed Action.
6 These figures are based on an estimated service population (less
Nazareth Borough and Jacobsburg State Park) of 8268 in year 1978
(see EA), which is equivalent to an estimated 2756 dwelling units,
12
-------
3. INDUCED GROWTH AND SECONDARY IMPACTS
Centralized wastewater collection facilities, as proposed in the
EA, have the potential to facilitate rapid population growth. If growth
induced by available sewer capacity is unplanned, adverse impacts on
water quality, the total physical environment and fiscal resources of
local unmunicipalities may result. Wastewater management plans must, to
the extent possible, be coordinated with local land use plans to ensure
that public services and sensitive natural areas within each government
jurisdiction are not overtaxed. The population growth induced by the
placement, sizing and the provision of reserve capacity in Service Area
sewers for both the Applicant's Proposed Action and its alternatives
will be addressed in this EIS.
Secondary impacts of the Applicant's Proposed Action are also at
issue in this EIS. Secondary impacts are those which result from in-
direct or induced changes in the patterns of land use and population
growth as well as the environmental effects resulting from those
changes. Such impacts associated with air, noise, water, sensitive
ecological systems, population, land use, fiscal resources and public
services will be addressed for the Applicant's Proposed Action as well
as its alternatives in this EIS.
4. GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES
Several residents of the EIS Service Area who are not presently
served by public water systems have expressed concern that the construc-
tion of centralized sewerage facilities ultimately works to lower the
water table locally through elimination of a natural water recycling
system. Once on-site wastewater management systems such as septic tanks
are replaced by sewers, they no longer serve to recharge local ground-
water supplies. Instead wastewater (potential recharge water) is
totally removed from the area, being discharged to a watercourse several
miles away. The effects of the Applicant's Proposed Action and alter-
native wastewater management strategies on the groundwater levels in the
Service Area will be addressed in this EIS.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The controversy leading to the preparation of this EIS mandates
that the general public be involved to the fullest extent possible in
the documentation of need for sewerage facilities, development of
alternative wastewater management strategies, selection of appropriate
strategies, and assessment of environmental impacts. Throughout pre-
paration of this EIS, every attempt has been made to encourage active
and continuous public involvement. Specifically, several public
meetings and workshops were held to stimulate public interaction with
EIS preparers. Newsletters were distributed to announce project mile-
stones. Numerous meetings and telephone conversations with local groups
and individuals occurred throughout the study.
13
-------
D. NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE RURAL SEWERING PROBLEM
The EIS issues discussed above are not unique to the proposed plan
for wastewater management in the B-LLJSA area. They are typical of the
concerns raised by a large number of wastewater projects for rural and
developing communities that have been submitted to EPA for funding. The
scope of the problem has grown in the last few years as controversy has
mounted over the high costs and possible impacts of providing conven-
tional sewerage facilites to small communities.
1. SOCIOECONOMICS
To assess the reasons and magnitude of the cost burden that many
proposed wastewater collection projects would impose on small communi-
ties, EPA studied more than 250 facilities plans for 49 states for
pending projects for communities under 50,000 population (Dearth 1977).
EPA found that, even with substantial State and Federal construc-
tion grants, the costs of conventional sewering are sometimes beyond the
means of families in rural and semi-rural areas. This was particularly
true for those communities where the new facilities proposed would
result in annual user charges of more than $200 per household.
The Federal government has developed criteria to identify high-cost
wastewater facilities projects (The White House Rural Development Initi-
atives 1978). Projects are considered to place a financial burden on
rural community users when annual user charges (debt service plus opera-
tion and maintenance) would exceed:
• 1.5% median household incomes less than $6,000;
• 2.0% of median household incomes between $6,000 and $10,000;
and
• 2.5% of median household incomes over $10,000.
Annual user charges exceeding these criteria would materially affect the
households' standard of living. Federal agencies involved in funding
wastewater facilities will work with the community to achieve lower pro-
ject costs through a change in the project's scope or design. If the
project's scope or design is not changed, the agencies will work with
the community until they are assured that the community is aware of the
financial impacts of undertaking the high-cost project.
It is the collection system that is chiefly responsible for the
high costs of conventional sewerage facilities or small communities.
Typically, 80% or more of the total capital cost for newly serviced
rural areas is spent for the collection system. Figure 1-3 indicates
that the costs per residence for gravity sewers increase exponentially
as population density decreases. Primary factors contributing to this
cost/density relationship were found to be:
14
-------
Greater length of sewer pipe per dwelling in lower-density
areas;
More problems with grade, resulting in more lift stations or
excessively deep sewers;
Regulations or criteria which set eight inches as the smallest
allowable sewer pipe diameter; and
Inability of small communities to spread capital costs among
larger populations sewered previously.
40
30
£20
10
1 I I
COST (S/mon1h)=43e
Source' Dsurth 1977
I I i
246 8 10 12 14
POPULATION DENSITY (persons/acre)
MONTHLY COST OF GRAVITY SEWERS
Figure 1-3
In addition to the comparatively high costs of sewers, facilities were
sometimes found to be more expensive than necessary due to:
• Oversophistication in design, large energy requirements, and
costly maintenance and operator expense;
• Use of expensive construction materials such as non-locally
produced brick and block and terrazzo when a prefab steel and
concrete building would suffice; and
• Abandonment of existing treatment works without economic
justification.
2. SECONDARY IMPACTS
Installation of centralized collection and treatment systems in
previously unsewered areas can have dramatic effects on development and
hence on the economy, demography and environment of rural communities.
These effects can be desirable, or they may substantially offset com-
munity objectives for water resource improvement, land use planning and
environmental protection.
15
-------
A community's potential for recreational, residential, industrial,
commercial or institutional development is determined by economic fac-
tors such as the availability of land, capital, skilled manpower and
natural resources. However, fulfillment of this potential can be
limited by the unavailability of facilities or services such as water
supply, sewerage, electric power distribution and transportation. If a
missing community service element is supplied, development of one type
or another may take place depending upon prevailing local economic fac-
tors. Such development is considered to be "induced growth" and is a
secondary impact of the provision of the essential community service
element.
Secondary impacts of new wastewater facilities may be highly de-
sirable. For example, diversification of the local employment base may
be possible only when sufficient wastewater collection and treatment
capacity is provided for commercial or industrial development. On the
other hand, new commerical or industrial development may not be compa-
tible with existing recreational or agricultural interests. Residential
development accompanying expansion of the employment base may take place
on prime agricultural land, steep slopes or wetlands, or may otherwise
infringe on valued natural features.
3. THE NEED FOR MANAGEMENT OF DECENTRALIZED ALTERNATIVE
SYSTEMS
A promising alternative to expensive centralized sewer systems in
rural areas is a decentralized wastewater management system. Both engi-
neering and management are integral parts of such a system and "decen-
tralized alternatives," as used in this EIS, incorporate both engineer-
ing and management elements.
Briefly, the engineering element consists of the use of existing
and new on-site systems, rehabilitation or replacement of those systems
where necessary, and construction of small-scale off-site systems where
existing on-site systems are not acceptable.
The management element consists of continuing supervision for the
systems' installation, maintenance and rehabilitation and of appropriate
monitoring of the systems' environmental impacts.
While other factors such as soil characteristics, groundwater hy-
drology and lot configurations are highly important, adequate management
may be critical to the success of decentralized alternatives in many
communities. Similarly, lack of adequate management undoubtedly con-
tributed to past failures of many on-site wastewater facilities and
therefore the lack of trust in which they are held by local public
health officials and consulting engineers.
In some cases implementation of these requirements by municipali-
ties may be hindered by lack of state enabling legislation for small
waste flows management districts and by lack of adequately trained man-
power. The municipality may have no control over the former and be at a
disadvantage because of the latter. Other implementation factors, over
which municipalities should have control, are discussed in Section V.C
of this EIS.
16
-------
E. PURPOSE AND APPROACH OF THIS EIS AND CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
1. PURPOSE
This EIS documents EPA's review and analysis of the application for
EPA Step 2 funding of the Applicant's Proposed Action. Based upon this
review, the Agency will take one of several actions:
• Approve the grant application, possibly with recommendations
for design changes and/or measures to mitigate impacts of the
Applicant's Proposed Action;
• Return the application with recommendations for additional
Step 1 analysis;
• With the applicant's and State's concurrence, approve Step 2
funding for an alternative to the Applicant's Proposed Action,
as presented in this EIS; or
• Reject the grant application.
The review and analysis of the issues identified in Section I.C.
were conducted with an awareness of the more general considerations of
rural sewering problems discussed in Section I.D. Major emphasis has
been placed on developing and evaluating alternative wastewater manage-
ment approaches to be compared with the Applicant's Proposed Action and
a modified version thereof.
2. APPROACH
The review and analysis reported in this EIS included a series of
tasks which were undertaken in approximately the following sequence:
a. Review of Available Data
Data presented in the EA and other sources were reviewed for appli-
cability in development and/or evaluations of the Applicant's Proposed
Action and of the new alternatives developed for the EIS. Documents
consulted are listed in the bibliography at the end of this text.
b. Segment Analysis
As a basis for revised population projections and for development
of alternatives, the EIS Proposed Service Area was partitioned into 29
segments. The number of dwellings in each segment was counted from
black and white aerial photographs taken in March 1979. Available in-
formation on soils, depth to groundwater, water quality problems,
environmentally sensitive areas and land use capabilities was tabulated
for each segment and the tabulations used to make preliminary estimates
of the need for off-site wastewater disposal.
17
-------
c. Review of Wastewater Design Flows
Available population projections for the EIS Service Area were re-
vised on the basis of the segment house counts. New EPA guidelines for
estimating design wastewater flows were then used to revise the design
year wastewater flow projections.
d. Development of Alternatives
First, technologies that might potentially reduce project costs or
minimize adverse impacts while still solving existing problems were
examined. Four categories of alternative technologies -- flow reduc-
tion, low-cost sewers, decentralization, and land application -- were
considered according to their functions in a wastewater management
system. Next, several specific areawide alternatives to the Applicant's
Proposed Action were developed, combining the alternative technologies
into complete wastewater management systems that would serve the EIS
Service Area. The technologies and the alternatives are described in
Chapters V and VI, respectively.
e. Development of a Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
In order to compare the Applicant's Proposed Action to feasible
alternatives developed in this EIS in terms of costs and environmental
impacts, certain basic assumptions used by the Applicant in the design
of the Proposed Action were modified to comply with those used in the
design of the alternatives. These assumptions pertained to wastewater
flow per capita, areas to be sewered and the final year of the project
(design year). The result, the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action is
described in Chapter VI.
f. Estimation of Costs for Alternatives
In order to assure comparability of costs between the Applicant's
Proposed Action and alternatives, all alternatives (including the
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action) were designed to serve a year 2000
population. This design year population varied according to the waste-
water management technologies examined in the alternative. Total pre-
sent worth and local user charge estimates were based upon unit costs
which derive from local contact with contractors or available EPA cost
data.
g. Evaluation of the Alternatives
The new alternatives were developed with a knowledge of the local
environmental setting and with the understanding that they would be
evaluated under criteria from several disciplines. The general criteria
for evaluating the Applicant's Proposed Action and the EIS alternatives
are listed in Section I.D.3 below.
h. Needs Documentation
Although indirect evidence was presented in the EA indicating that
there may be a water quality problem attributed to malfunctioning septic
18
-------
systems, the relationship between deteriorating water quality and inad-
equately functioning septic systems was not documented. Because deter-
mination of eligibility for Federal funding of a substantial portion of
the Applicant's will be based on the documentation of these effects,
four supplemental studies were conducted:
• An aerial survey (December 1978) of visible septic tank system
malfunctions using low-altitude color and infrared photography
by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC).
• Bacteriological sampling of surface water in the Service Area
(June 1979) to determine presence of any public health pro-
blems .
• Sampling of groundwater, in cooperation with individual home-
owners, to identify any public health problems associated with
nitrates or bacteria (June 1979).
• Sampling of local soils to determine suitability for continued
use of on-site wastewater management systems (July 1979).
3. MAJOR CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
While the high cost of sewering rural communities is a primary
reason for examining alternative approaches to wastewater management,
cost is not the only criterion. Trade-offs between cost and other major
impacts will have to be made. The various criteria are defined below.
a. Cost
With some exceptions for innovative technologies, EPA construction
grant regulations allow funding of only the most cost-effective alterna-
tives. Cost-effectiveness has been measured here as the total present
worth of an alternative, including construction costs for facilities
needed now, construction costs for facilities required later in the
20-year planning period, and operation and maintenance costs for all
wastewater facilities. Salvage value for facilities expected to be in
service after 20 years has been deducted. Analyses of cost-effective-
ness do not recognize differences between public and private expendi-
tures .
The responsible municipality or sewer authority will recover opera-
tion, maintenance and local debt retirement costs through periodic sew-
age bills. The local economic impact of new wastewater facilities pub-
licly financed costs were included in residential user charges. Salvage
was not factored into residential user charges.
b. Significant Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts
The system selected for the Proposed Service Area will affect en-
vironmental and socioeconomic resources. Following a comprehensive re-
view of possible impacts of the Applicant's and the new alternatives,
several types of impacts were determined to warrant in-depth evaluation
and discussion in this EIS. These impacts are classified as follows:
19
-------
• Surface Water Quality Impacts;
• Groundwater Impacts;
« Population and Land Use Impacts;
• Economic Impacts;
• Public-Service Impacts; and
• Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
c. Flexibility
The capability of an alternative to accommodate increasing waste-
water flows from future development in the Proposed Service Area is re-
ferred to as its flexibility. Factors such as the amount of land that
could be developed using on-lot systems or the ability to increase the
capacity of a treatment plant might have a significant effect on future
development in the B-LLJSA. The capability of the alternatives to
accommodate increased wastewater flows is reviewed in Chapter VI. The
effects of the alternatives' flexibility on population growth are pre-
dicted in Chapter VII.
20
-------
CHAPTER II
Applicant's Proposed Action
-------
Chapter II
Applicant's Proposed Action
This chapter describes wastewater management facilities now exist-
ing in the Service Area1 and in the Easton vicinity, summarizes the
existing water quality problems as they were presented in the EA, and
discusses the recommended course of action (Proposed Action) developed
in the EA. Conclusions reached in the EA and summarized in this Section
are not necessarily those reached in this EIS.
A. APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION
The EA proposed a sewerage system for all areas of concentrated
residential/commercial/industrial development in the B-LLJSA Study Area,
with collected wastewater to be treated at the upgraded/expanded plant
at Easton and discharged to the Delaware River. Collection was also
planned for less dense areas where extensive problems were reported to
exist and the only acceptable solution, according to the EA, would be
sewers. The system, comprised primarily of gravity* (downhill sewage
flow) interceptor and collector sewers, is regional in concept. In a
regional sewerage system, the wastewater management needs of several
townships and/or boroughs are served by one collection and treatment
system in order to maximize wastewater management cost savings. Immedi-
ately prior to 1976, this concept was preferred by EPA and DER over a
decentralized wastewater management scheme which involves several dif-
ferent collection and treatment systems.
Design of the interceptor sewers generally followed natural drain-
age patterns of Schoeneck Creek, Bushkill Creek, and Little Bushkill
Creek. Design of all the interceptor sewers was based on 250 gallons
per capita (person) per day; that for collector sewers was based on 400
gallons per capita per day. For the entire sewerage system estimated
wastewater flow was 100 gallons per capita per day. The design period
for the Applicant's Proposed Action was 40 years (1980-2020). Estimated
B-LLJSA population to be served by the system in the year 2020 is
27,085. In two areas, it proved economically and physically more fea-
sible to utilize a pump station* and force mains* rather than gravity
lines.
Another feature of the Applicant's Proposed Action was the provi-
sion of double or parallel sewers at the following locations in the
B-LLJSA Service Area:
o Route 115 (south of L.R. 48106, Plainfield Township) to
Stockertown Borough; Route 191 (Werkheiser to Edelman)
o portion of Stockertown Road (Stockertown Borough)
o portion of East Lawn Road (Upper Nazareth Township)
o portion of Jacobsburg Road (Cherry Hill, Bushkill Township)
1 EIS Service Area
-------
• portions of L.R. 175 and L.R. 48019 in Palmer Township
The rationale for the design of parallel sewers (along the same road)
was based on considerations of local topography and road preservation.
The proposed collection system would serve the following developed
portions of the B-LLJSA Service Area: 40% Plainfield Township, 100%
Stockertown Borough: 100% Tatamy Borough, 25% Upper Nazareth Township,
10% Bushkill Township and 90% of the unsewered population in Palmer Town-
ship. Capacity for wastewater flows generated by residents presently in
the Nazareth STP Service Area has been provided in the proposed collec-
tion system under the assumption that the Nazareth STP will eventually
be abandoned. The extent of the Applicant's Proposed Action Service
Area is illustrated in Figure II-l.
The design of the proposed collection system calls for a total of
29 stream crossings: 8 on Bushkill Creek; 8 on Little Bushkill Creek; 6
on Schoeneck Creek; and 7 on tributaries to these streams.
In 1976, the EA estimated that the total construction cost for pro-
posed sewage collection and transmission facilities in the B-LLJSA would
be $10,128,000; it was estimated that total project costs, which include
technical, legal, fiscal and administrative costs, would be $12,340,000.
Federal funding of the eligible cost for new sewerage facilities was an-
ticipated to amount to $8,314,000, leaving a B-LLJSA bond issue of about
$4,026,000. To this local share of the B-LLJSA project costs would be
added the B-LLJSA's share (after grants) of the costs associated with
the expansion of sewage transmission and treatment facilities in the
Easton vicinity which have been estimated to be $1.3 to $1.6 million.
B. EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
1. EASTON SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
The Easton sewage treatment plant (STP), constructed in 1951-1952
serves the City of Easton, Wilson Borough, West Easton Borough, Forks
Township and Palmer Township. The facility, originally designed to
treat 5 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater, included primary
treatment, trickling filters for secondary treatment, disinfection, and
sludge digestion and dewatering.
The plant is presently being upgraded and expanded to 10 mgd. The
old trickling filters are being replaced by rotating biological contac-
tors, which provide secondary treatment. Some new equipment is planned
to provide increased treatment capacity and to replace that which has
been worn out, but no other new processes have been designed for this
plant.
2. NAZARETH SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
Designed for a flow of 0.5 mgd, the sewage treatment plant2 serving
Nazareth Borough, Upper Nazareth Township, and Bushkill Township (see
2 Referred to as the Nazareth STP in this EIS.
22
-------
FIGURE n-i ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED
— —EIS SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY ACTION (I976/
[TT} AREA SERVED BY PROPOSED SEWER
tea'"
c
-------
Figure II-2) was constructed in 1928 and has been operated since that
time as a private enterprise (Nazareth Sewerage Company) regulated by
the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission. The treatment facilities
include: two Imhoff tanks, which provide primary treatment and sludge
digestion; two trickling filters, which provide secondary treatment;
four final clarifiers; and chlorination for disinfection. In addition,
three stabilization ponds and a sludge lagoon were added after the
original facilities were completed. The ponds and lagoon have never
been granted operation permits by DER. A full discussion of the
Nazareth plant may be found in Appendix H-2.
C. ON-SITE SYSTEMS
The EA indicated that unsewered areas were relying upon septic
tanks, boreholes and cesspools. In some areas of low development dens-
ity, it was stated that on-site systems were operating efficiently and
could be expected to so continue. In areas of moderate to heavy den-
sity, consistent malfunctions and inefficient operation were implied.
D. EXISTING PROBLEMS
1. WATER QUALITY
The EA identified several streams in the B-LLJSA Study Area that
have been degraded in quality. The report specifically cited "higher
levels of nutrients, BOD and coliforms" (than in years prior to 1976) in
Schoeneck Creek as being attributable to point source" discharges along
the creek. Such discharges include that from the Nazareth STP. A study
performed by Young (1972) on the water quality in Schoeneck Creek sub-
stantiates the EA's statement.
Bushkill Creek and Little Bushkill Creek were the subjects of a
study in 1974 (Bradt). This study concluded that malfunctioning on-site
systems were contributing to high levels of coliform bacteria.
The EA examined a mathematical model of non-point sources of the
nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus. It concludes that nitrates entering
Bushkill Creek above Tatamy are primarily from non-point sources." The
quantity of nitrates contributed to the Creek by the Upper Bushkill
Basin was described by the EA as:
"...slightly greater than would be expected under natural condi-
tions and less than half of the maximum loss expected from land
completely devoted to agriculture."
A similar analysis was performed on Bushkill Creek at Easton. It was
concluded that point source pollution is the major contributor of ni-
trates at that location.
Modeling of Bushkill Creek for phosphorus was inconclusive and the
EA was unable to state that point- or non-point sources were definitely
Defined in the glossary; hereafter, * denotes a reference to the
glossary.
25
-------
UPPER
NAZARETH
TOWNSHIP
BOROUGH
OF
NAZARETH
LOWER
NAZARETH
TOWNSHIP
Figure II-2
LEGEND
SERVICE AREA
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY
PROPOSED SCHOENECK
INTERCEPTING SEWER
NAZARETH SEWERAGE COMPANY
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
LOCATION MAP
3000
3000
6000
SCALE IN FEET
GANNETT FLEMING CORDDRY AND CARPENTER, INC.
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA MAY, 1978
26
-------
associated with discharges of phosphorus. In the absence of evidence to
the contrary, the EA concluded that non-point sources were responsible
for other pollutants besides nitrates. Phosphorus was, by implication,
included.
2. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
The 1970 Feasibility Study concluded that the Nazareth STP was "doing
a creditable job," apart from certain deficiencies. The study faulted
the sewerage system primarily on administrative grounds:
• failure to provide service to part of its franchise area;
• failure to provide new service, which would encourage develop-
ment;
• ineligibility for Federal and State grants, because the system
was privately owned.
The EA, in evaluating the Easton treatment plant, indicated that it
had at times been hydraulically overloaded. However, with the present
upgrading and expansion nearly completed, this criticism no longer ap-
plies .
27
-------
CHAPTER III
Existing Environment
-------
Chapter III
Existing Environment
This chapter, which inventories important environmental, economic
and social conditions in the EIS Service Area serves two purposes.
First, it is the starting point for goal and problem identification as-
sociated with the development of wastewater management strategies.
Second, it is the basis for the analysis and comparison of the Appli-
cant's Proposed Action and its alternatives which are described in
Chapter VI. The inventory is categorized into 2 sections: natural en-
vironment and human environment.
A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
This section describes the physical, chemical and biological condi-
tions in the EIS Service Area and focuses on those areas which are sen-
sitive to alterations by wastewater management projects.
1. CLIMATE
The climate of the EIS Service Area is pleasant, with moderate tem-
peratures and generally adequate precipitation. The nearest source of
meteorological data is the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (ABE) Airport, ap-
proximately 20 miles southwest of the Borough of Nazareth. These data,
believed to be representative of climatic conditions in the Service Area,
are presented in Appendix B-l.
a. Temperature
The average annual temperature in the EIS Service Area is 51.0°F.
July is the warmest month during the year, with an average temperature
of 74.1°F. The coldest month is January, with an average temperature of
27.8°F. Extreme temperatures during the year rarely exceed 105°F during
hot weather or fall below -12°F during cold weather. The growing season
ranges from 107 to 185 days, averaging 180 days. April 20 is the aver-
age date of the last freeze, October 16 is the first.
b. Precipitation
The average annual precipitation in the EIS Service Area is 42.49
inches with July and October being the wettest (4.36 inches) and driest
(2.73 inches) months of the year, respectively. During the period of
record (1941-1970) included in Appendix B-l, the amount of snowfall has
varied greatly from less than 10 to more tian 60 inches per year. The
combination of snowfall and spring rains over the Lehigh Valley often
floods portions of the area. Torrential rains occasionally cause flash
flooding.
c. Wind Direction and Speed
On an annual basis wind speeds in the seven municipalities under
study average 9.4 mph. Prevailing winds are from the west on an average
annual basis. The windiest month of the year is March, with an average
29
-------
wind speed of 11.9 mph. The least windy month is August, when the aver-
age speed is 6.9 mph. Large destructive storms are infrequent. The
annual wind rose* for the EIS Service Area is shown in Appendix B-2.
2. AIR QUALITY
Ambient air quality data for the Service Area in 1977 representing
the existing conditions were obtained from DER Bureau of Air Quality and
Noise Control, and are presented in Appendix C-l. These data indicate a
severe oxidant problem associated with vehicular and other hydrocarbon
emissions and subsequent atmospheric reaction. In addition, it can be
seen that the Pennsylvania 30-day settled particulate and sulfate (as
H2S04) standards are violated by small amounts. Settled particulate
results from cement plants and many other source types. The sulfate
violation is attributable to both localized and distant power plant
emissions of sulfur dioxide (S02), and other sources to a lesser extent.
Primary standards are enacted and enforced to prevent adverse health
effects. These and other standards set by the State of Pennsylvania are
included in Appendix C-2.
The major point sources of atmospheric emissions in the Service
Area included the Lone Star, Perm-Dixie and Coplay cement manufacturing
companies in Nazareth, the Hercules Cement Company in Stockertown, and
the Pfizer, Incorporated mineral and pigment plant in Easton. Particu-
late emissions are associated with all of these facilities. Another
major point source is the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company's Martins
Creek Generating Station. Although this source is not located within
the EIS Service Area, it is situated to the east of Plainfield Township
on the Delaware River and affects the Service Area. This station in-
cludes two poal-fired boilers and two oil-fired boilers. The principal
contaminants emitted from the generating station are sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and particulates.
The EIS Service Area is also subjected to the effects of vehicular
emissions along State Route 33, a major north-south traffic route, and
other roadways. Furthermore, large quantities of emissions of all types
originate in the densely developed areas to the south, including Allen-
town, Bethelehem, Easton, and Phillipsburg.
The air quality of the Service Area is described in more detail in
Appendix C-3.
3. ODOR
No complaints about odors from the Nazareth sewage treatment plant
have been received by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re-
sources (DER). This plant is located in a predominantly agricultural
setting of very low population density. An odor problem exists, however
at Pump Station No. 1, which conveys wastewater to the Nazareth STP (see
Appendix H-2).
The Wind Gap sewage treatment plant, located approximately 6 miles
to the north, is a potential source of odors in Plainfield Township.
This plant is currently receiving flows that exceed its design capacity,
and is reported to be discharging improperly treated wastewater to a tri-
butary of Little Bushkill Creek.
30
-------
Localized odor problems may be associated with malfunctioning
on-lot sewage disposal systems throughout the Service Area that are lo-
cated in poorly drained soils or in high density residential areas, or
both. These problems, expressed as either surface or back-up malfunc-
tions, have caused public complaints about odor in the Stockertown
Borough, along Route 115 in Plainfield Township and in selected portions
of Upper Nazareth Township.
4. NOISE
The ambient or background noise level in the EIS Service Area has
been estimated to range from 44 to 57 decibels* (Scale A). These esti-
mates (see Table III-l) are based upon population density per square
mile. Consult Table III-2 for a comparison of these noise levels to
some typical ones in the environment.
Table III-l
CALCULATED DAY/NIGHT SOUND LEVELS*
(in decibels, Scale A)
Municipality Existing
Bushkill Township 44
Plainfield Township 45
Upper Nazareth Township 49
Palmer Township 53
Nazareth Borough 57
Tatamy Borough 55
Stockertown Borough 51
'^"Day/night sound level is the equivalent A-weighted sound level over a
24 hour period, with actual sound levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
increased by 20 decibels.
Table III-2
NOISE LEVELS IN THE ENVIRONMENT
(Vesilind, 1975)
Noise Intensity (decibels, Scale A)
Threshold of hearing 0
Room in a quiet house at night 30
Typical quiet outdoor community 40
Average traffic 70
Heavy city traffic 90
Air hammer 100
Jetliner 500 ft. overhead 115
Aside from higher sound levels (more than 57 decibles,) associated
with highway traffic and aircraft flyovers, no excessive noise sources
have been identified in the EIS Service Area. Occasional blasting that
31
-------
occurs at cement quarries in the vicinity of Nazareth Borough and
Stockertown Borough cause few public complaints about noise. A larger
number of noise complaints tend to be voiced by residents of the western
portion of Upper Nazareth Townships where blasting at cement quarries
occurs relatively frequently.
5. TOPOGRAPHY
The EIS Service Area is located within the Great Valley Section of
the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province. Elevations within this
section range from 1576 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the peak of
Blue Mountain in the north, gently sloping to 300 feet msl at the junc-
tion of the Delaware River and the Lehigh River to the south.
Three distinct topographic regions stretch across the Service Area.
The northernmost region, an even-crested ridge known as Blue Mountain,
is characterized by slopes greater than 15% (see Appendix D-l). The
central region, containing most of Bushkill Township and Plainfield
Township, is characterized by rolling, evenly-rounded hills. Stream
gradients are steep in this "slate belt" region because of the resis-
tance of the slate bedrock to erosion. Bushkill Creek, Schoeneck Creek
and their tributaries divide this region of the Service Area into
several minor drainage basins. The southern region is characterized by
undulating topography predominantly at an elevation below 450 feet.
This region of the Service Area is underlain by limestone and dolomitic
limestone, a type of bedrock which has formed some sinkholes and depres-
sions .
6. GEOLOGY
The complicated geologic history of the EIS Service Area, which has
spanned more than a billion years, includes periods of erosion and de-
position associated with continental glaciation, as well as periods of
sedimentation, plain formation and mountain building. The slow north-
ward retreat of the last known ice sheet left behind a blanket of gla-
cial soils (Epstein et al. 1969) and has influenced the landforms, min-
eral resources and drainage of the Service Area. Glaciated areas are
generally poorly drained and may have stony to extremely stony soils.
The Service Area lies in a section of the Appalachian Highlands
classified as the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province. It occupies
the heart of Northampton County's "slate belt," so named for the large
amounts of Martinsburg formation slate quarried there. Geologic forma-
tions in Northampton County trend northeast to southwest; the oldest
formations are located in the southwest (Drake and Epstein 1967).
No unique geologic features have been identified in the EIS Service
Area.
a. Surficial Geology
Unconsolidated materials above bedrock (overburden) in the Service
Area were deposited by melting glacial ice 10 to 60 thousand years ago
(SCS 1974) as outwash*, stream alluvium*, and glacial till*. The extent
32
-------
of glacial activity in Northampton County is illustrated in Appendix
D-2; only the Illinoian drift is found in the Service Area. Glacial
sediments of Illinoian* age are composed of varying proportions of
gravel, sand, silt and clay, with clay being most abundant.
Thickness of the overburden within the Service Area is estimated,
based upon inspection of well data through 1978 supplied by drillers to
DER, to range from 0 at stream bed level to 300 feet on the slopes of
Blue Mountain. This estimate is confirmed by the US Geological Survey
(by telephone, Jack Epstein, USGS, Feb 79). Epstein stated that the
depth of soil over bedrock varies but averages approximately 15 feet.
Farmers in Bushkill Township who have reported striking slate bedrock
while plowing state that the overburden is 3 to 4 feet deep on hilltops,
thinning downslope toward streambeds (interview, Roslyn Kahler,
Northampton County Conservation District, 14 Feb 79).
b. Bedrock Geology
Physical characteristics of formations within the EIS Service Area
are described in Appendix D-3. A geologic column section displaying the
general subsurface formation sequence is shown in Figure III-l. A map
view of bedrock geology within the Service Area is illustrated in Figure
III-2. A detailed description of bedrock geologic units is given in
Appendix D-4.
Fracture traces within the Service Area are shown in Appendix D-5.
These are areas of bedrock deformation*, which may allow direct contami-
nation of groundwater. Fractures in the Martinsburg slates and shales
are the result of bedrock folding. In contrast, fractures in the Beek-
mantown and Jacksonburg limestones are solution channels*, formed by
continuous groundwater movement, which widen to form underground caves
and caverns, and which can eventually form sinkholes. These solution
channels may also contribute directly to contamination of groundwater.
c. Adverse Geologic Conditions
There is no major faulting within the EIS Service Area, and risk of
minor damage from earthquakes is low (interview, Avery Drake, USGS,
14 Feb 79). However, glacial till soils with high clay content may be
placed in hazardous condition when slopes are excessively steepened
during cut and fill operations, or when slopes are oversaturated. These
conditions should be considered in planning the construction of waste-
water management facilities.
7. SOILS
The glacial origin of the soils in the EIS Service Area is discus-
sed in Section III.A.6.a. A general soils map (see Figure III-3) lo-
cates and briefly describes the five principal soils associations of the
area under study. General properties of these soils which may impose
constraints on residential/commercial/industrial development, irrigation
and wastewater management include the following (USDA-SCS 1974):
33
-------
1
o
W
SILURIAN
ORDOVICIAN
GLACIAL
UNCONFORMITY
SHAWANGUNK
. UNCONFORMITY
MARTINSBURG
JACKSONBURG
UNCONFORMITY
BEEKMANTON
ir
3000'
TO
6000'
2800'
4000'
300'
TO
700'
1000'
TO
2000'
Figure III-l. General Geologic Column of the EIS Service Area
34
-------
|H»irV
FIGURE in-2 BEDROCK GEOLOGY
— — SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
UPPER MARTINSBURG SHALE
MIDDLE MARTINSBURG SHALE
Omb LOWER MARTINSBURG SHALE
Ojr UPPER JACKSONBURG LIMESTONE
Ojl LOWER JACKSONBURG LIMESTONE
Ob BEEKMANTOWN LIMESTONE
€0 ALLENTOWN LIMESTONE
•— FAULT
SS SHAWANGUNK FORMATION
(SANDSTONE) -*
Ul
SOURCE' PAOS, 1973 i U308, 1974
"•we
"MM
gray.
-------
Figure III-3
\ -
^ r
- ^-.^^ft
Source: USDA Soil Conser
vation Service 1974.
GENERAL SOILS MAP OF THE EIS SERVICE AREA
LEGEND
LAIDIG-STONY LAND ASSOCIATION: Gently sloping to very
steep, deep, well-drained, extremely stony soils
and land types on upper mountain slopes.
BUCHANAN-LAIDIG-ANDOVER ASSOCIATION: Gently sloping to
moderately deep and deep, well-drained to
drained soils on mountain foot slopes.
BERKS-BEDINGTON-COMLY ASSOCIATION: Gently sloping to
steep, moderatly deep and deep, well-drained to
somewhat poorly drained soils underlain by acid,
gray shale.
DUFFIELD-CLARKSBURG-RYDER ASSOCIATION: Nearly level to
sloping, deep and moderately deep, well-drained
and moderately well-drained, silty soils underlain
by shaly limestone.
WASHINGTON-URBAN LAND ASSOCIATION: Nearly level to slop-
ing, deep, well-drained soils and land types under-
lain by thin glacial till over cavernous limestone,
37
-------
• Laidig-Stony Land: Stoniness, steepness of slope.
• Buchanan-Laidig-Andover: Stoniness, restrictive permeability,
and a seasonally high water table.
• Berks-Bedington-Comly: Steepness of slope, impeded drainage
and a shallow depth to bedrock.
• Duffield-Clarksburg-Ryder: Shallow depth to water table. Use
of this association for on-site sewage systems may contribute
to groundwater contamination.
• Washington-Urban Land: Shallow depth to water table. Contam-
ination of groundwater is rated as a severe hazard.
Specific properties of the soils in the Service Area, including
depth to limiting zone* and permeability, which determine their suita-
bility for development, irrigation or wastewater management are listed
in Appendix D-6. A portion of that table describes the "limitations (of
the soils) for conventional on-site septic systems." The limitation
categories are defined as follows (USDA-SCS 1974):
slight: generally few limitations for the use being considered.
moderate: limitations that require special practices to overcome or cor-
rect.
severe: limitations very difficult or expensive to overcome or correct.
variable: areas of considerable urban development. The type and amount
of soil used for fill and for general construction purposes
must be examined carefully before any development decision can
be made.
a. Soil Suitability for Wastewater Treatment
The soil properties listed in Appendix D-6 are the most important
factors in determining site suitability for any soil dependent waste-
water treatment system. Fifty to sixty percent of the soils in the
Service Area are rated severe by the USDA-SCS soil survey (1974). The
major limiting factors cited by SCS are (1) shallow depth to bedrock,
(2) shallow depth to water bearing strata, (3) seasonal high water
table, (4) too rapid or too slow a rate of permeability, and (5) exces-
sively steep slopes. The degree of limitation for wastewater treatment
by conventional septic tank/soil absorption systems (ST/SAS) within the
EIS Service Area, as determined by USDA-SCS, is illustrated in Figure
III-4. 6
Several investigations and analyses of soils in the Service Area
have been made specifically for this EIS in order to assess their suit-
ability for wastewater treatment under the following: conventional
ST/SAS, alternate on-site treatment systems, off-site facilities
(cluster systems) and land application systems. During EPA-sponsored
field investigations conducted in July 1979, several key soil series
profiles were examined by back-hoe pit excavation (see Figure III-5).
38
-------
!£H'»o*
*£ie'oo'
FIGUREm-4 DEGREE OF LIMITATION FOR STANDARD ON-SITE
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
EH SLIGHT
[;g'"'{ MODERATE
| | SEVERE
VARIABLE
QUARRY OR GRAVEL PIT
u>
m
c
SOURCE' U3DA-SCS, 1971
•O-UljT
"•«Ej£
"•use
*°ttt!tf
!U»rM"
Jayst.
ISfnn'.
«L
-------
Figure III-5
SOIL SERIES PROFILES EXAMINED BY BACK-HOE PIT EXCAVATION (JULY 1979)
41
-------
Among them were the Berks-Bedington-Comly and the Washington series.
With few exceptions, the subsurface descriptions, mapping series pro-
files, and soil suitability data for wastewater management in the
Northampton County Soil Survey (1974) and the survey itself were found
to be reliable.
Several observations can be based on this investigation:
• Depth to bedrock in the Berks soils is usually too shallow to
permit standard septic systems; consequently, mound or shallow
placement systems may have to be used in their place;
• Bedington soils can vary a great deal in the amount and size
of coarse particles and the percentage of clay material. They
will require careful examination before use of conventional
on-site systems;
• Some homes along Highway 115 in Plainfield Township are built
on urban land soils, many of which have been stripped of their
"B" horizon". The "B" horizon, or subsoil is necessary to
ensure proper treatment of wastewater.
In another investigation undertaken for this EIS, site-specific DER
well records covering a 4-year period were examined for information on
depth to bedrock. From these data a thickness-of-overburden (depth to
bedrock) profile was prepared for several points within the EIS Service
Area (see Appendix D-7).
Other graphic materials have been prepared to illustrate further
specific soil properties in the EIS Service Area which are important for
soil-dependent sewage systems. Illustrations of depth to seasonal high
water table and permeability are included in Appendix D-8.
Taken together, these studies and figures provide a reliable
general statement about Service Area soils. Detailed reports of these
investigations and field studies, with maps, are contained in Appendix
D-9.
b. Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands
Prime agricultural lands are those whose value derives from their
general advantage as cropland due to soil and water conditions. Aside
from producing staples like corn, oats, and wheat in the B-LLJSA Service
Area, this land also provides open space for hunting and recreation as
well as clean air through plant photosynthesis". Prime farm lands in
the EIS Service Area are among the most productive in Northampton
County; their deep, well-drained soils can produce 100 bushels of corn
per acre (by telephone, Roslyn Kahler, NCCD, 18 Oct 79).
Over 75% of the EIS Service Area has been classified as prime agri-
cultural land, or land with capability classes I and II (see Figure
III-6). Capability Classes I and II are defined as follows (USDA-SCS
1974):
42
-------
FIGURE ni-6 PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND (Class15HSoils)
— — SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
CLASS ran SOILS
OTHER SOILS
SOUflCEi U3DA-3C3,1974
-------
Class I - soils with few limitations on their use.
Class II- soils with moderate limitations that reduce the choice of
plants or that require moderate conservation practices.
The Northampton County District SCS is presently re-mapping prime
agricultural land in Northampton County using 1977 guidelines. Two
changes from the 1974 capability classification which will affect the
Service Area have been noted thus far. The Comly (Cmb) soil series and
the Clarksburg (Clb) soil series will remain in capability Class II but
will no longer be considered prime agricultural land (by telephone, John
Bert, USDA-SCS, 13 Apr 79).
Unique agricultural land is defined by the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice as any farmland presently being used for high cash or high fiber
crops (e.g. orchards). Northampton County has fewer than 1000 acres of
land which could be so classified (by telephone, John Bert, USDA-SCS, 13
Apr 79).
8. GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
a. Groundwater Hydrology
The three members of the Martinsburg formation constitute the major
groundwater aquifer system within the Service Area north of Upper
Nazareth Township. This unconfined* (water table) aquifer is composed
primarily of shale and slate (see Section III.A.6). Groundwater move-
ment within this aquifer takes place in cracks or fissures which were
formed by folding and faulting of the rock material.
In the southern portion of the Service Area in and around Palmer
Township, Upper Nazareth Township, and Nazareth Borough the Jacksonburg
formation is the primary groundwater aquifer. Groundwater movement with-
in this aquifer is by way of solution channels"" characteristic of the
limestone rock. More quantities of water are obtainable from these so-
lution channels than from the smaller cracks and openings found in the
Martinsburg aquifer. However, because groundwater travels faster and in
greater quantities in the Jacksonburg aquifer than in the Martinsburg
aquifer, water quality is better in the Martinsburg aquifer.
Other minor aquifer systems occur in the unconsolidated glacial
till material which overlies the Martinsburg aquifer and the Jacksonburg
aquifer. These aquifer systems however, are not a primary source of
groundwater, and wells in these aquifer systems are confined to the
northern portion of the Service Area where sediment depth can reach 300
feet.
Aquifer thicknesses within the Service Area range from 9,000 feet
to 12,000 feet in the Martinsburg system, and from 300 feet to 600 feet
in the Jacksonburg system. Depth to the aquifer ranges from 0 to 300
feet.
Precipitation within the Service Area is approximately 42.5 inches
per year (USDA-SCS 1974). Runoff losses account for nearly 50% (20
inches) of the total annual precipitation. Of the remaining 22.5 inches,
45
-------
some is lost to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration and some per-
colates into the groundwater aquifer systems (McGuiness 1964).
Natural discharge of groundwater takes place primarily in Bushkill
Creek, Little Bushkill Creek, and their tributaries. Some groundwater
discharge also occurs in abandoned slate and limestone quarries found in
the Service Area. Groundwater recharge* occurs throughout the area in
unconsolidated deposits, the bedrock fractures and fissures of the Mar-
tinsburg shales, and in the solution channel openings of the Jacksonburg
limestone. The Blue Mountain ridge (see Figure III-2) with its thick
cover of coarse glacial material, serves as a major groundwater recharge
area for down slope aquifers in the EIS Service Area.
Wells supply most domestic water in the Service Area. Specific ca-
pacities of wells in the Martinsburg aquifer system may be as high as 25
gallons per minute (gpm) per foot of drawdown. However, overall specific
capacities of wells vary widely. Well yields can range from 1 gpm to
over 200 gpm depending on the extent of fracturing or the size of solu-
tion channels encountered within the area drilled. Well yields in the
Jacksonburg aquifer system outside solution channels are very low.
Wells drilled into solution channels usually render high yields. How-
ever, because these solution channels are direct groundwater inlets for
surface water runoff, water quality will be questionable (Hall 1934).
No yield data are available for wells in the unconsolidated material.
b. Groundwater Quality
For this EIS, a well-water sampling program sponsored by EPA was
undertaken in June 1979 to determine the groundwater quality within the
Service Area. Twenty-five wells, 96% of which were in Bushkill Township,
were sampled for chlorides, nitrates, total phosphate, orthophosphate,
total nitrogen, total dissolved solids, total coliform and fecal coli-
form bacteria. Sampling procedures and data are presented in Appendix
E-l; the location of well water samples taken are shown in Figure III-7-
The results of this sampling program are briefly summarized below:
• 9 wells had nitrate levels less than 1.4 mg/1; the level found
by Poth (1972) to be the median background level for nitrates
in Northampton County was 1.5 mg/1.
• 11 wells contained nitrates levels (expressed as N) in excess
of 4 mg/1, 2 of these beyond the permissible drinking water
standard of 10 mg/1.
• 10 of the 11 wells showing high nitrate concentrations are in
soils of the Berks and Comly series, which are rated as having
severe limitations for septic systems by the USDA-SCS due to
slow permeability or shallowness to bedrock/groundwater.
• All chloride levels were less than the 250 mg/1 standard for
drinking water. The maximum concentration found was 180 mg/1.
• Phosphate levels were all less than .07 mg/1. No drinking
water standard exists for phosphate.
• Bacteriological quality was generally good, with only 4 wells
displaying total coliform levels greater than 2 colonies/100
46
-------
FIGUREiii-7WATER QUALITY SAMPLING NETWORK
_ SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
• 2 SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
•9 WELL-WATER SAMPLE
-------
ml (ranging from 28 to 63/100 ml) and 2 wells testing positive
for fecal coliform bacteria (one at 2 colonies/100 ml, the
other at 7 colonies/100 ml).
• Fecal coliforms indicated possible contamination by animal
waste, but the data are inconclusive as to the human origin.
From the data collected it can be concluded that there is signifi-
cant groundwater pollution in the form of high nitrate levels within the
area tested. High levels of nitrates in water are a matter of some con-
cern. High nitrate concentrations in water consumed by infants can
cause methemoglobinemia*, and there is evidence that they can cause che-
mical diarrhea and general poor health in adults (McNabb 1977).
Excessive nitrate levels in groundwater may come from any of
several sources such as surface runoff into poorly constructed wells,
malfunctioning septic systems that allow sewage to enter directly into
drinking supplies, or agricultural drainage. Determination of the
source for high concentrations of nitrates within the Service Area is
difficult and will not be explored at this time. However, continued use
of ST/SASs, cesspools and seepage pits where nitrate concentrations are
high, especially where population is dense, would likely further elevate
nitrate levels. This is because soil-dependent sewage treatment systems
do not adequately renovate nitrogen from sewage. A monitoring system
for groundwater quality should therefore be established in areas of high
nitrate levels to ensure that any future elevation of nitrates will be
detected before serious health problems can arise.
Poth (1972) shows the hardness level in the Martinsburg aquifer
system within Northampton County as ranging from 22 to 434 mg/1. Hard-
ness increases from approximately 60 mg/1 in the northern section of the
Service Area to more than 180 mg/1 in the southern portion. These
levels in the southern portion of the Service Area can be considered very
hard when compared to the recommended level of 100 mg/1.
c. Groundwater Use
Groundwater supplies withdrawn for mine dewatering and agricultural
purposes supplement those withdrawn for domestic and industrial purposes.
Of the approximately 2.16 mgd of potable water presently consumed for
domestic purposes within the EIS Service Area, 1.67 mgd (77%) is with-
drawn from groundwater sources by private wells.
It is estimated that by the design year 2000, use of groundwater
for domestic purposes within the Service Area will average approximately
2.01 mgd.
49
-------
9.
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
a. Surface Water Hydrology
Bushkill Creek is the major drainage basin in the EIS Service
Area,1 with a watershed area of 79.6 square miles (see Figure III-9).
The main stem of Bushkill Creek originates in northern Bushkill
Township, flows through Jacobsburg State Park (see Figure III-8) and
runs southeasterly to the junction with its tributary, Little Bushkill
Creek (drainage area 17.5 square miles) in Stockertown Borough and
Schoeneck Creek (drainage area 13.8 square miles) in Upper Nazareth
Township and Palmer Township. Most of the surface runoff of Bushkill
Creek comes from the rolling grasslands, cultivated areas and small wood
lots of the surrounding agricultural areas.
FIGURE III-8
BUSHKILL CREEK
The US Geological Survey does not maintain a gauging station on
Bushkill Creek. However, a recent report on the Delaware River Basin
indicated that the annual average flow, based on 66 years of record,
The Monocacy Creek drainage basin drains approximately 6 square miles
of the Service Area's southwest corner.
50
-------
\
\
MILES
LEGEND
8USHKILL CREEK WATERSHED
BOUNDARY
MINOR DRAINAGE BASINS
Figure III- 9 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
51
-------
from the Creek to the Delaware River is 233 cfs (Delaware River Basin
Water Quality 1976). A stream flow gauging station on Little Bushkill
Creek was formerly located at Edelman (Pennsylvania Department of
Forests and Waters 1966). There the 7-day, 10-year low flow was esti-
mated to be 33 cfs at Easton, Pennsylvania.
Floods occur most often in the Service Area during the spring
months. Late summer floods occur when hurricanes moving up the Atlantic
Coast cause heavy rainfall over the region for several successive days.
b. Surface Water Uses and Classification
Surface waters in the Bushkill Creek watershed are not used for
private or public drinking suplies. Bushkill Creek's (including Little
Bushkill Creek) most restrictive use as designated by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is as a conservation stream,
owing to the generally rural nature of its watershed and the fact that
trout naturally reproduce along many of its reaches (see Section
III.A.10.a). The water use classification, "high quality, coldwater
fish", for Bushkill Creek and Little Bushkill Creek was proposed by DER
in March 1978 but has not yet been adopted. Both the current and pro-
posed use classifications stipulate that high quality wastewaters may be
discharged into these streams following best practical treatment as long
as social and economic justification for doing so is provided (by tele-
phone, John Wroblewski, DER, 13 Apr 79).
Shoeneck Creek's most restrictive designated use is that of sup-
porting "cold water fish" under the classification by DER. Under this
classification, social and economic justification need not be provided
for discharge of wastewaters to such a stream.
Point Source Discharges and Effluent Limitations. Six operating
facilities (two municipal facilities and four industries) discharge into
Bushkill Creek (Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1977). The two municipal facilities
are the Wind Gap and the Nazareth sewage treatment plants (STP). New
effluent limitations published for STP's (by telephone, John Wroblewski,
DER, 13 Apr 79) are summarized in Table III-3. There are no phosphorus
limitations at the present time.
Table III-3
Effluent Limitations of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Treatment BOD5 Ammonia Suspended Receiving
Plant (mg/1) (mg N/l) Solids (mg/1) Water
Wind Gap 10 3 15 Little Bushkill
Creek
Nazareth 20 3 25 Schoeneck Creek
Water Quality Criteria. Water quality criteria are established by
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. A brief summary
of the pertinent criteria is presented in Appendix E-2.
52
-------
c. Surface Water Quality
This section discusses water quality conditions in Bushkill Creek
and its tributaries. Historical data concerning the physical, chemical,
and biological water quality characteristics and hydrology of the
Bushkill Creek watershed gathered from a number of sources have been
reviewed during the present study to establish the trends in water qual-
ity. The sources are listed in Appendix E-3.
The review has indicated that the present water quality in Bushkill
Creek is relatively good in terms of dissolved oxygen level and nutrient
concentrations. Dissolved oxygen in particular is close to saturation
level most of the time. Nutrient levels in the Creek seem to have been
slightly reduced over the last few years. Bacteria levels in the stream
have been constantly high over the years. As a result, bacterial con-
tamination is the most significant water quality problem at the present
time. As described later, bacterial contamination in the Creek is
mainly caused by the agricultural runoff in the watershed.
Non-Point Source Pollution. Non-point sources—urban runoff, agri-
cultural runoff, on-lot systems, and highway runoff--also contribute to
pollution of surface waters. Random spills and illegal discharges are
included in this category. Runoff from an individual storm event of
significant intensity may create critical water quality conditions in
the receiving waters where feedlot or cropland runoff is involved, espe-
cially when stream flow is low. Long-term water quality effects, such
as increased sedimentation, dissolved oxygen (DO) deficits and increased
input of nutrients may result if storm runoff is prolonged. Another
effect, a typical example of agricultural pollution, is the high coli-
form concentrations caused by uncontrolled runoff from feedlots and pas-
ture land. Pollution from on-lot systems (usually involving a malfunc-
tioning sub-surface wastewater disposal system, i.e. a septic tank)
might take the form of increased bacteria and nutrient input into the
Creek.
Data on non-point pollution in the EIS Service Area are limited.
In June 1972 Bushkill Creek overflowed as a result of rainfall accom-
panying Hurricane Agnes. Data collected during that period and analyzed
by Dr. Patricia Bradt, (Lehigh University) indicated that DO, percentage
of oxygen saturation, pH, total alkalinity and chloride levels were
lower in the summer after the flood than in the summer of 1973 (1975),
but nitrate levels were higher in the summer of 1972.
Stream Water Quality. Data collected from a number of surveys and
studies were reviewed to summarize water quality conditions in Bushkill
Creek. The discussion of these studies is presented in chronological
order to put trends in water quality conditions into perspective.
1972 and 1973 Surveys. The first data examined are those assembled
by Dr. Bradt (1974).An extensive sampling program was carried out from
May 1972 to October 1973 at intervals of 2 to 4 weeks. Chemical charac-
teristics in the EIS Service Area were documented in terms of tempera-
ture, pH, alkalinity, carbon dioxide, chloride, hardness, conductivity,
flow, dissolved oxygen, orthophosphate, nitrate, and total iron. Total
coliform bacteria was also sampled in numbers per 100 ml during the
study period.
53
-------
It is usually most logical to examine water quality during the sum-
mer low-flow, dry weather periods when minimum dilution and high temper-
ature often compound to produce conditions of poor water quality, such
as low dissolved oxygen level. Appendix E-4 shows the spatial distri-
bution of some of the above-mentioned water quality parameters in
Bushkill Creek in the months of July and August of 1972 and 1973, re-
spectively. The data indicate an average temperature of 20°C (68°F)
which is higher than the State standard (58°F or 14.5°C). Bushkill
Creek above Stockertown Borough showed a lower pH, attributed to the
underlying shale bedrock (Bradt 1974), while a higher pH in the down-
stream portion reflected the limestone bedrock. Therefore, alkalinity
level increased in the downstream direction. The average dissolved
oxygen level observed in the summer months was close to the State stand-
ard (7 mg/1) with some areas near the confluence of Little Bushkill
Creek being below the standard. Orthophosphate levels found during
these periods were lowest at the headwaters at 0.05 mg P/l and highest
at the confluence with Little Bushkill Creek, due to the discharge from
the Wind Gap STP. A similar pattern was observed for nitrate and
ammonia nitrogen levels, with Little Bushkill Creek receiving signifi-
cant amounts of nitrogen from the STP (see Appendix E-4).
Total coliform bacteria concentrations during these periods are
summarized and plotted in Appendix E-5. Also shown in Appendix E-5 are
the average levels of total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal strep-
tococci (fecal strep) measured by Lafayette College (1973) in July and
August of 1972. The total coliform levels measured by Lafayette College
are higher than those sampled by Dr. Bradt (1974). Furthermore, the
fecal strep levels were relatively high along the entire length of
Bushkill Creek during the sampling period. The range in the fecal coli-
form to fecal strep ratio from 2.1 to 3.2 indicated sources were both
human and animal waste.
1976 B-LLJSA. Two water quality surveys were conducted by Gilbert
Associates, Inc. (1976) from March 5 to March 8 and April 7 to April 8,
1976. Appendix E-6 presents the water quality parameters observed along
Bushkill Creek during these two surveys. In contrast to the water qua-
lity conditions in summer 1972 and 1973, the 1976 surveys show an over-
saturated dissolved oxygen level. In addition, nitrate levels were
lower in spring 1976. The data collected by Dr. Bradt (1974) in March
and April of 1973 were plotted in order to compare the water quality
conditions of the three years (see Appendix E-7). Comparison of these
water quality parameters under spring conditions showed higher dissolved
oxygen level in 1976 than in 1973. Furthermore, both nitrate and ortho-
phosphate levels were lower in 1976 than those observed during the same
period in 1973.
In Appendix E-8 the total coliform bacteria levels observed during
these two spring periods are compared. Observed concentrations were
lower in 1976 than 1977.
1979 EPA Survey. In an effort to document present water quality
conditions within the EIS Service Area, a sampling survey was conducted
on June 11 and 12, 1979 for this EIS. Results are shown in Appendix
E-9; the locations where surface water quality samples were taken are
indicated in Appendix E-10. The temperature was 15°C, reflecting the
late spring conditions. The 5-day BOD level was at 2.0 mg/1 over the
54
-------
entire length of the Creek. The dissolved oxygen level was about 9.5
mg/1 and slightly below saturation. Nutrients such as nitrate, ortho-
phosphorus, and total phosphorus were all at relatively low levels in
the stream until Schoeneck Creek joined Bushkill Creek. A significant
increase in nutrient levels below the confluence with Schoeneck Creek
suggested that large amounts of nutrients were coming from the Nazareth
sewage treatment plant.
Appendix E-ll presents the spatial distributions of total coliform,
fecal coliform, and fecal streptococci bacteria (fecal strep) observed
during this survey. Again, high total coliform level in the stream re-
flects significant bacteria contamination.
The fecal coliform to fecal strep ratio increased from 0.7 to 1.0
in the downstream direction. A recent study by Feachem (1975) suggests
that a non-human source of coliform bacteria should exhibit an initially
low ratio (<0.7) which should subsequently rise as fecal strep bacteria
die off more rapidly than fecal coliforms. Therefore, the present bac-
teria contamination may be caused by predominantly non-human sources,
possibly from the agricultural runoff in the watershed.
10. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Quantitative studies describing the bottom habitat of streams in
the EIS Service Area are lacking. However, data by Young (1972) suggest
that the substrate in Bushkill Creek and Little Bushkill Creek is a mix-
ture of sand, gravel, rubble and large rocks. In the upper portions of
these streams sand and gravel predominate, while in the lower reaches
rubble and rocks predominate (Young 1972). The substrate in Schoeneck
Creek is primarily mud and clay (Young 1972).
It is a general precept that a high diversity of species is an in-
dication of a healthy ecosystem (Hynes 1972) . Surveys in the Service
Area streams have shown a high diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates*
(that is, aquatic insects, snails, clams, worms, and crayfishes) that
can be seen with the unaided eye. This high diversity is one indication
of good quality in the natural waters of the Service Area (see Appendix
F-2). The number and kinds of fishes (see Appendix F-3) collected in
the streams also indicated relatively good conditions. The aquatic
plants (see Appendix F-l) of the creeks were dominated by a variety of
algae, mostly green and yellow-green, which indicate generally good
water quality.
a. Aquatic Biota
Bushkill Creek is a high quality fishing stream that is not only
valuable to residents of the vicinity but also attracts sport fishermen
from outside the EIS Service Area. The aquatic biota of the three main
Service Area streams, Bushkill Creek and its tributaries, Little
Bushkill Creek, and Schoeneck Creek, have been studied for certain
species and for some sections of stream. Published information has been
augmented with personal interviews with Dr. Patricia Bradt, Department
55
-------
of Biology, Lehigh University, and with other knowledgeable persons2 who
reside in the Service Area.
Aquatic Plants. The flora of the streams is dominated during most
of the year by green and yellow-green algae (see Appendix F-l). The
studies of Bradt (1974, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979), concentrated in Bush-
kill Creek, revealed that diatoms* predominate except in late summer,
when the filamentous green alga Cladophora and Oscillatoria, which
thrive in relatively warm and nutrient-enriched waters (Palmer 1977),
are numerous. Bradt (1979) concluded that both numbers of algae and pri-
mary productivity have increased south of Tatamy Borough since Bushkill
Creek was channelized in that section. In Little Bushkill Creek, the
flora is similar to that in the shale-influenced upper reaches of
Bushkill Creek and is dominated by Cladophora and another green alga,
Spirogyra (Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1976; DER 1974, 1976; Delaware River
Basin Cooperative Study 1976). Vegetation in Schoeneck Creek is domi-
nated by Cladophora and another filamentous green alga, Ulothrix. The
absence of blue-green algae during much of the year indicates that water
quality in these streams is generally good. The only rooted aquatic vas-
cular plants are two pondweeds and waterweed (Elodea); the free-floating
duckweed (Lemna), found primarily in Little Bushkill Creek, is the
fourth species of flowering plant.
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. Many genera of macroinvertebrates con-
sidered to be intolerant of organic wastes, including sewage, have been
collected in Bushkill Creek. Species of these "indicator" organisms,
defined as being intolerant of even moderate levels of organic contami-
nants (National Environmental Research Center 1973), are most numerous
in Bushkill Creek, implying that it does not receive substantial amounts
of decomposable organic wastes. In fact, 17 of the 22 intolerant spe-
cies (see Appendix F-2) were found in Bushkill Creek; by contrast,
Little Bushkill Creek had 9 and Schoeneck Creek only 3 of the 22. Al-
though some of these numerical differences may be attributable to the
fewer ecological niches (or potential habitats) available in these smal-
ler, generally shallower streams, at least part of the differences is
probably due to the superior quality of the water in Bushkill Creek.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (by letter, Charles J. Kulp, FWS
Field Supervisor to Jack Schramm, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III,
23 Jan 78) concluded that the macroinvertebrates in their 1977 samples,
which included the stoneflies Taeniopteryx and Nemoura, were indicative
of high water quality.
Diversity, the number of species in a community of organisms, is
another measure of environmental quality. Bradt (1974), who reported
that the high diversity of upper Bushkill Creek decreased south of the
confluence with Little Bushkill Creek, suggested that nutrient enrich-
ment was the probable cause for the numerical decline. However, later
2 Dr. Isidore Mineo, Director of the Northampton Co. Park System, Pre-
sident of the Bushkill Watershed Association; Terry M. Hannold,
Waterways Patrolman, Pennsylvania Fish Commission; Craig Billingsly,
Regional Fish Commissioner; Barry P. Fehnel, President of the
Bushkill Angler Association; and Dale Prinkey; Superintendent of
the Jacobsburg State Park.
56
-------
studies (Bradt 1978, 1979) revealed a positive correlation between total
alkalinity and macroinvertebrate diversity indices, which she contended
could be attributable to the joint action of nutrients and to greater
primary productivity induced by more sunlight in the channelized section
of stream.
The macroinvertebrates of Schoeneck Creek, as reported by DER (1976)
and Gilbert Associates, Inc. (1976), suggest moderately poor water
quality. Mayflies and stoneflies were rare or absent, the tolerant flat-
worm, Dugesia, was common, and only 3 of the 22 intolerant species were
detected. The low diversity could be at least partly due to the dis-
charges that enter the stream from the Nazareth sewage treatment plant.
Fish - General. A total of 33 species of fish have been collected
in Bushkill and Little Bushkill Creeks (see Appendix F-3). White sucker
and brown trout were the only species collected at all eight of the sta-
tions established by the PA Fish Commission (1976). Blacknose dace and
longnose dace were found at 7 of the 8 stations and cutlips minnow, com-
mon shiner, tassellated darter, and American eel were collected at 6 of
the 8 stations. All eight of these species were collected again in 1978
at the single station sampled (PA Fish Commission 1978). Other commonly
collected species include creek chub, largemouth bars, and pumkinseed.
This high diversity indicates that the water quality in these two stream
is generally good.
Although data are scanty, fish populations in Schoeneck Creek are
apparently depressed. An electrofishing survey conducted by Gilbert
Associates (1976) yielded only two species: longnose dace and white
sucker. Recently, the PA Fish Commission conducted macroinvertebrate
and fish studies immediately above and below the Nazereth STP. The re-
sults of their survey showed that (1) macroinvertebrate populations were
depressed both above and below (~100m) the plant and (2) the number of
fish collected at both stations was low (by telephone, Craig Billingsley,
PA Fish Commission, 3 Dec 79). Five species of fish (longnose dace,
blacknose dace, creek chub, white sucker, and largemouth bass) were col-
lected above the plant and four species (longnose dace, white sucker,
American eel, and largemouth bass) were collected below the plant. Data
are currently insufficient to determine the cause of the reduced popula-
tions of fish and macroinvertebrates in Schoeneck Creek.
Fish - Salmonids. An intensive salmonid sport fishery exists in
Bushkill Creek. On 6 May 1978 a total of 127 anglers were counted by
the PA Fish Commission and between 5 May and 31 Aug 1978 the Commission
counted 1651 anglers. Actual angler usage is undoubtedly much greater
because the numbers reported above were derived from surveys that were
only conducted (1) over only part of the stream, (2) only on selected
dates, and (3) only at selected times of the day.
This important recreational fishery is conducted for brook, brown,
and rainbow trout. Although populations of these species result pri-
marily from the stocking efforts of the state, they are supplemented by
natural reproduction of brown, and perhaps brook trout (PA Fish Commis-
sion 1976). PA Fish Commission (1976) records indicated that five brown
trout and one brook trout in the 2 to 4 inch size category and more than
100 4 to 6 inch brown trout were captured in Bushkill Creek. Because
57
-------
the state does not stock trout this small it can be concluded that
Bushkill Creek has a naturally reproducing population of brown trout.
Most of the fingerling brown trout were captured in Bushkill Creek below
its confluence with Little Bushkill Creek. Although this area appears
to be the principal nursery area, the exact location of the spawning
grounds are not known. It has been suggested that this entire section
of Bushkill Creek is suitable for spawning (by telephone, Craig
Billingsley, PA Fish Commission, 3 Dec 79).
Major factors affecting the suitability of streams as salmonid
spawning habitat are substrate type, food availability, dissolved oxygen
concentrations and temperature (Hynes 1972). Food is not thought to be
a limiting factor in Bushkill Creek. Bradt (1974) reported that there
are "plenty of macroinvertebrates in the Bushkill for the fish to feed
upon". There also appear to be large areas of the gravel and rubble
type substrates that trout require for successful spawning. Young
(1972) reported mixtures of this type substrate at all stations sampled
on Bushkill Creek and Little Bushkill Creek. Schoeneck Creek, however,
apparently does not possess a suitable type substrate, being primarily
mud and clay (Young 1972).
Temperature does appear to be a factor affecting trout distribution
and subsequent spawning success. A series of limestone springs located
in the lower portion of Bushkill Creek (below the confluence with Little
Bushkill) provide enough groundwater input to keep stream temperatures
suitable for trout throughout the summer (Young 1972). Conversely,
Billingsley (by telephone, PA Fish Commission, 3 Dec 79) considers
Bushkill Creek above its confluence with Little Bushkill Creek to be
severly thermally limited and considers Little Bushkill Creek to be
somewhat thermally limited.
Oxygen concentrations are a critical factor affecting the hatching
success of trout eggs (Hynes 1972). Oxygen concentrations in the trout
nests (redds) are in turn affected by the permeability of the substrate.
Permeability is a measure of the ease with which water passes through
the substrate and is a function of gravel size and compactness. Suffo-
cation of eggs caused by siltation and the subsequent loss of gravel
permeability has been cited by a number of authors (White, 1943; Cooper
1965) as the single most important factor affecting egg mortality.
b. Terrestrial Biota
Streamside Communities. The floodplains of the three streams, out-
lined in Figure 111-10, support a plant community that requires (or
tolerates) moist or saturated soils. A few small wetlands are present
(see Figure III-ll). The upper reaches of both Bushkill Creek and
Little Bushkill Creek are relatively undisturbed, and include willow,
ash, sycamore, and box elder trees (Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1976;
National Science Foundation 1972). A virgin stand of large hemlock
trees (JPC 1975) provides cooling shade to Bushkill Creek in Jacobsburg
State Park (see Figure III-ll). A bordering shrubby understory also
contributes shade for the creeks of the Service Area. Species of terres-
trial plants reported by the National Science Foundation study (1972)
and known from Jacobsburg State Park are listed in Appendix F-4. This
plant community in the floodplain supports a diverse wildlife community,
58
-------
FIGUREin-ioFLOODPRONE AREAS
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
AREA FLOODS ONCE IN A HUNDRED YEARS
— LIMIT OF FLOOD MAPPING
SOURCE' US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 1872, l>73
tK. , lawte.
-------
FIGURE1!?'UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS
— — SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
FLYWAY FOR BIRDS OF PREY
UNIQUE AREA
WETLAND, MARSH OR SWAMP
ZQN
SOURCE: BRADT, 1974, GILBERT ASSOC., INC. 1976; JPC, 1971;
MINED, 1979
-------
including various amphibians and reptiles, muskrats, mink, woodcock,
wood ducks, weasels, wild turkeys, and ruffed grouse (Interview, local
experts [see above]). In addition, the floodplain of the southern third
of Little Bushkill Creek and Bushkill Creek from the part south to the
Delaware River is considered by the Joint Planning Commission of Lehigh
and Northampton Counties (JPC) (1971) to be an ornithological area.
This area, shown in Figure III-ll, includes the hemlock stand where
ruby-crowned kinglets and golden-crowned kinglets, which rarely occur
together, are found (Interview, Dr. Isidore Mineo, 3 Jan 79). A list of
the birds known in the park is given in Appendix F-5.
In some sections, the floodplain has been disturbed by logging
operations and other activities. Although such activities ultimately
contribute to an increase in water temperature and sedimentation rate
and, if widespread, to the decline of coldwater fish such as trout, they
do provide heterogeneity* to the stream environment that may contribute
to the overall diversity of the aquatic biota in the streams of the
Service Area. Similar disturbances, caused by fire or other natural
events, undoubtedly contributed to such environmental heterogeneity
prior to the Colonial Period.
Upland Communities. The uplands are dominated by birch, hickory,
oaks and maples. The relatively undisturbed upland forests are restric-
ted primarily to Jacobsburg State Park and to the slopes of Blue Mountain
(Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1976; National Science Foundation 1972). In
1971, JPC noted that Blue Mountain is both a unique botanical area, sup-
porting such wildflowers as blazing star and a species of goldenrod
(Solidago odera), and a valuable ornithological area because it lies
under a major flyway for migratory birds. These natural areas are shown
in Figure III-ll.
In total, cleared lands including farmland are greater than the
forested area in the Service Area. The patchwork of abandoned fields in
various stages of biological succession provides excellent habitat for
white-tailed deer, cottontails, and many other species of wildlife (see
Appendix F-5).
c. Threatened or Endangered Species
Pennsylvania recognizes the Federal list of Threatened or Endan-
gered species and does not presently maintain a separate State list. No
population of a species of plant or animal classified as Threatened or
Endangered is known to reside in the Service Area. However, two En-
dangered species, the peregrine falcon and American bald eagle (44 FR
No. 12, 17 Jan 79), are known there as migrants. According to Alexander
C. Nagy (by letter, 2 Feb 79), curator of the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary
Association, both species use the flyway shown in Figure III-ll, the
ridge-top of Blue Mountain.
The small whorled pogonia, Isotria meleoloides, is reported to be
growing on the wooded slopes of Blue Mountain (Interview, 3 Jan 79,
local experts listed above). This member of the orchid family is among
the nearly 2000 species of plants listed by the Smithsonian Institution
(41 FR No. 117, 16 June 76) as having uncertain status and need of study
prior to possible classification as Threatened or Endangered. Gilbert
Associates, Inc. (1976) searched, in vain, the reported habitat in the
63
-------
Service Area for the occurrence of another of the 2000 species of plants,
the mouse-ear chickweed, Cerastium arvense var. villoisissium.
Several other uncommon or rare species occur in the Service Area
and are regarded by the local experts (see Section III.A.10.a) to be
natural resources of special concern and in need of protection. Some of
these species are under consideration to be recommended for nomination
to the Federal list of Threatened or Endangered species. For example,
Scott's spleenwort, Asplenium ebenoides, is reported to be common along
the banks of Bushkill Creek. This rare fern, produced by hybridization
with the walking fern, is being considered by the Ecological Services
Division of the Pennsylvania Department of Interior for nomination to
the Federal list (by telephone, Department of Interior, 21 Mar 79). The
northern brook lamprey, Ichthyomyzon fossor, which was collected near
Third Street in Easton during a 1972 study, currently is under study for
possible protection. Similarly, the bog turtle, Clemmys muhlenbergi, is
reported to be an inhabitant of the floodplains of the Service Area. A
bobcat, Lynx rufus, was seen in the white pine stand in Jacobsburg State
Park in 1975. A rare mammal in Pennsylvania, the bobcat is considered
to be a transient, not resident, species in the area (by letter,
Richard W. Anderson, District Game Protector for the Pennsylvania Game
Commission, 7 Mar 79). Finally, although there is some controversy
about the species identification (by telephone, Dr. Patricia Bradt, 15
March 79), the rare stonefly, Perlinela drymo, has been reported in
Bushkill Creek.
In summary, although there are no resident species in the Service
Area that are classified as Threatened or Endangered, there are several
species of valued plants and animals that merit special consideration.
B. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
This section describes the components of the EIS Service Area which
result from or are affected by human activities. These components in-
clude economic conditions, housing, land use, public services, cultural
resources and wastewater management facilities. Both existing and
future conditions of certain components are discussed.
1. DEMOGRAPHY AND SOCIOECONOMICS
a. Recent Population Trends
A review of recent population trends for the EIS Service Area
reveals a variable pattern of moderate growth to slight decline (see
Table III-4). The Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (ABE SMSA) has shown an increase in population from
1960 to 1977 as has Northampton County.
In the Service Area, municipal rates of population growth differ
considerably from those of the County and the SMSA. Two of the three
boroughs -- Nazareth and Stockertown -- showed net declines between 1960
and 1970 of 6.8% and 3.2% respectively. From" 1970 to 1977 Stockertown
Borough continued to decrease (by 2.5%) although Nazareth Borough grew
by 2.7%. However, in the more suburban and rural townships the rate of
population increase has been higher: for Bushkill Township it was 21%
64
-------
Table III-4
HISTORIC AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS: EIS SERVICE AREA, COUNTY, AND STATE
Bushkill Twp.
Nazareth Boro
Palmer Twp.
Plainfield Twp.
Stockertown Boro
Tatamy Boro
Upper Nazareth Twp.
Service Area *
Northampton Co.
ABE SMSA
I9601
2,676
6,209
8,823
3,614
777
762
2,661
25,522
201,412
428,948
19702
3,387
5,815
12,684
4,288
753
891
3,605
31,423
214,545
469,849
19773
4,979
5,978
14,527
4,544
671
982
3,464
34,236
225,700*
489,300*
1980
4,350
5,750
14,900
5,100
734
1,000
4,120
35,954
228,821
485,512*
1985
4,825
5,725
15,790
5,550
800
1,050
4,335
38,075
237,019
501,552*
1990
5,300
5,700
16,680
6,000
800
1,100
4,550
40,130
244,743
516,210*
1995
5,750
5,650
17,240
6,400
800
1,175
4,825
41,840
251,285
525,368*
2000
6,200
5,600
17,800
6,800
800
1,250
5,100
43,550
257,156
543,674"
Pennsylvania
11,519,366 11,800,766 11,785,200* 12,023,324* 12,209,334* 12,421,704* 12,468,429* 12,632,185*
Source: ^.S. Dept. of Commerce 1960.
2U.S. Dept. of Commerce 1970
31977, 1980, 1985, 1990, 2000 data. JPC 1973 except as noted
*Penna. Office of State Planning and Development October 1978.
*Penna. Office of State Planning and Development June 1978.
-------
from 1960 to 1970 and 16.8% between 1970 and 1977. Upper Nazareth Town-
ship showed a comparable rate of growth between 1960 and 1970 (26.2%);
the decline after 1970 can be attributed to the moratorium on develop-
ment there and the temporary reduction in capacity at the Gracedale re-
tirement home. The strong pattern of inmigration to the developing town-
ships is likely to continue for the 20-year planning period.
b. Population Projections
The population figures shown in Table III-4, prepared by the Joint
Planning Commission of Lehigh-Northampton Counties (JPC), were published
in Estimated Population Changes in the Lehigh Valley 1970-2000 (JPC
1973). They were used by the Applicant's consulting engineer in the
preparation of the "Environmental Assessment for the Bushkill-Lower
Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority and the City of Easton" (1976). JPC has
projected that Service Area municipalities will grow by 21% from 1977 to
the year 2000.
An analysis of the JPC population projection model, past trends in
population growth, and recent housing construction activity shows these
projections to be reasonable estimates of future rates of population
growth in Service Area municipalities. The JPC projections were pro-
duced with a cohort-survival model, which takes into account variables
such as fertility and migration patterns plus utilities. For these pro-
jections Bushkill Township was assumed to have ncj sewer service, while
Upper Nazareth Township was assumed to have neither sewer nor water ser-
vice, and Plainfield Township to have both sewer and water. A more com-
plete description of the population projection methodology and review is
presented in Appendix G-l.
It must be noted that these total figures are not necessarily used
as the basis for developing design flows for alternative wastewater man-
agement facilities in this EIS. Design population and wastewater flows
are discussed in Section V.A.
c. Existing Economic Conditions
The Service Area has served primarily as a bedroom community* for
the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton economic centers. To provide a framework
for the discussion of the EIS Service Area economies which follows,
major economic indicators reported for Northampton County and the ABE
SMSA are first summarized in this section.
Both Northampton County and the ABE SMSA have manufacturing-domi-
nated economies. As residential development has increased, farming has
decreased and been replaced by service and retail activities. However,
agricultural activities, although declining in volume, remain signifi-
cant. Construction, transportation, mining, and wholesale trade repre-
sent relatively small portions of the SMSA's and the County's economies
and labor forces.
Labor Force and Employment. The Pennsylvania State Office of Plan-
ning and Development estimated that Northampton County had a labor force
of 104,490 people during 1975, an increase of 13.4% since 1970. Further
details are given in Appendix G-2.
66
-------
For the seven Service Area units of government the 1970 census
figures for the industry of employed persons are given in Appendix G-3.
Nearly 53% of the Service Area labor force was employed in the manufac-
turing category; the percentage was at least 47% for each unit of local
government. Service (18.7%) and retail trade (11.0%) were the other
major occupations. Palmer Township had the highest percentage of em-
ployment in service and retail sectors, Stockertown Borough in manufac-
turing.
Unemployment in the County reported for January 1979 was 6.9%,
higher than the yearly average, due to seasonal unemployment.
Income Levels. The median family income in Northampton County dur-
ing 1969 was $10,027, higher than for the State ($9,558) and nation
($9,590). Median family income and economic distribution figures for
Service Area governments are presented in Appendixes G-4 and G-5. High-
est among them are Palmer Township ($11,638), which also had the highest
percentage of white collar workers. Tatamy Borough had the lowest
median family income ($9,510) but no families below the Federally estab-
lished poverty level. Nazareth Borough, the oldest and most urbanized
portion of the Service Area, had the highest number of families (96)
below the poverty level. While the Service Area cannot be characterized
as affluent, its income levels are generally above average.
Manufacturing Activity. Manufacturing activity in the Service Area
is concentrated primarily in Nazareth Borough, Palmer Township and Plain-
field Township. The manufacturing segment is discussed in Appendix G-6.
Retail Trade. Pertinent retail trade statistics for Nazareth
Borough and Palmer Township are reported in Appendix G-7.
Service Activities. Nazareth Borough, the major urban area of the
Service Area, had 115 service industries while Palmer Township had 52.
Combined total receipts were $63.6 million (see Appendix G-7).
Agriculture. The 1974 Census of Agriculture reported 603 farms in
Northampton County with approximately 86,895 acres of agricultural land.
During the past 25 years, both the number of farms and the amount of
farmland have decreased significantly, by over 45% and 75% respectively.
While consolidation has in large part accounted for the decrease in the
number of farms, land development is responsible for the decrease in
acreage. The sale of farm road frontage as well as the sale of large
tracts for new subdivisions have been prevalent trends. Although pref-
erential assessments"' for farmland and the sale of development ease-
ments* are helping to prevent the immediate conversion of large tracts
of farmland in the Service Area, many farmers are still subdividing
their land and getting the developers to pay back taxes.
Nevertheless, agriculture remains a strong economic segment in the
region. In addition to dairying, the primary agricultural activities
are the cultivation of such cash grains as corn and wheat. Crop values
have continually increased and at present are approximately $250 per
acre in the Service Area (by telephone, Roslyn Kahler, Executive Assis-
tant, Northampton County Conservation District, 8 Aug 79).
67
-------
d. Projected Economic Conditions
Labor Force. The labor force in the Service Area is projected to
increase by 24.8% from 1970 to 2000; this estimate is in line with pro-
jected Service Area growth of approximately 21% during the same period.
The projection has been derived from projections for the ABE SMSA by the
Pennsylvania Office of State Planning and Development. Detailed figures
and an explanation of the methodology used may be found in Appendix G-8.
Employment. Projections by labor market to the year 2000 forecast
a 23.5% increase in employment within the ABE SMSA. Because this in-
crease is slightly greater than the projected increase in labor force
during the same period, it can be expected that there will not be a
major shift in employment locations or commuting patterns.
There will, however, be several major shifts in employment by in-
dustry. As indicated in Table III-5, manufacturing employment within the
Service Area is projected to increase by 291 employees or 6.9%. Based
on existing employee-per-acre ratios for the region, this increase
translates to a demand for 125-135 additional manufacturing acres by
2000. Retail trade and service industry employment is projected to in-
crease by 1,260 (to 2,520 employees) by 2000. More detail on these
projections will be found in Appendix G-9.
Table III-5
Projected Manufacturing Employment for
the Proposed Service Area, 1975-2000
Municipality 1975 1980 1990 2000
Bushkill Township 58 59 61 62
Nazareth Borough 1,894 1,925 1,991 2,025
Palmer Township 1,271 1,292 1,336 1,359
Plainfield Township 380 386 399 406
Stockertown Borough 300 305 315 320
Tatamy Borough 106 108 111 113
Upper Nazareth
Borough 217 221 228 232
Total Service Area 4,226 4,296 4,441 4,517
Income. Projections of per capita income for Northampton County
for 1975 through 1990 by the Pennsylvania Office of State Planning and
Development forecast that per capita income would rise from the 1970
level of $3,938 to $15,990 by 1990, an increase of over 300%. Projected
family income distributions for 1975 to 1990 (done for this EIS) are in-
dicated in Table III-6. These figures further support the forecast of
higher income levels in the County.
68
-------
Table III-6
PROJECTED FAMILY INCOME DISTRIBUTION FOR NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, 1975 to 1990
INCOME CLASS
TOTAL FAMILIES
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 - $11,999
$12,000 - $14,999
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 AND OVER
JULY 1975
JULY 1980
JULY 1985
JULY 1990
56,898
523
553
712
1,026
1,142
1,278
1,450
1,649
1,835
2,142
5,307
8,816
22,414
7,159
893
59,226
393
426
433
532
726
831
883
957
1,030
1,124
2,577
4,963
22,327
19,153
2,872
61,861
298
318
333
339
385
471
567
626
663
699
1,505
2,593
12,943
31,383
8,738
65,056
232
245
258
267
266
288
318
366
427
464
1,017
1,695
7,308
29,973
21,933
-------
e. Existing Housing Characteristics
The condition of the housing stock is generally adequate with many
of the older units lacking the amenities typical of newer units, but in
standard condition. For an analysis of municipal housing characteris-
tics see Appendix G-10.
f. Projected Housing Characteristics
Projected housing units by number and type are given in Appendix
G-10 for the seven Service Area municipalities. During the planning
period, there is projected to be a 34.3% increase in dwelling units --
with increases of 33% or more in all jurisdictions except Stockertown
Borough and Nazareth Borough. The mix of housing units is forecasted to
remain relatively constant, but it may change considerably if several
pending major developments are eventually constructed.
g. Local Government Finances
Local Government Debt Limits. During 1978, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania revised the provisions of Public Law 781, No. 185, relative
to debt limits for local government units. These provisions apply for
four categories of debt as defined below:
(1) Electoral Debt - All net debt incurred with the assent of the
voters at a general or special election. There is no debt limit on
electoral debt.
(2) Subsidized Debt - Debt which is self-liquidating because the
annual debt service is recovered by revenues from the use and/or
operation of the capital improvement. There is no debt limit on
subsidized debt.
(3) Nonelectoral Debt - All debt incurred which is not approved by
the voters with the exception of subsidized debt and lease rental
debt. The debt limit for boroughs and townships for nonelectoral
debt is 250% of its borrowing base.3
(4) Lease Rental Debt - Debt in the form of bonds or notes which
is to be repaid through leases, guaranties, subsidy contracts or
other forms of agreement which evidence the acquisition of capital
assets. The debt limit for the aggregate of the nonelectoral and
lease rental debt is 350% of its borrowing base.
The statute also allows any local unit of government that has assumed
the responsibility of providing services (sewage treatment, water sup-
ply, etc.) to adjacent areas outside its jurisdiction to incur additional
nonelectoral or lease rental debt or both in the aggregate amount of
100% of its borrowing base.
3 The borrowing base for any local unit of government is defined as the
annual arithmetic average of the total revenues for the three full
fiscal years preceding the date of incurring the debt.
70
-------
Available data indicate that the municipalities are operating with-
in their budgets. Major municipal expenditures include policy and fire
protection and highways, and major revenue sources include real estate
and earned income taxes. For an analysis of local government finances
see Appendix G-5.
2. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use
Land use data for the EIS Service Area is based upon JPC 1972 exis-
ting land use inventory map as updated with interpretation of aerial
photographs taken 20 Mar 1979. The acreage for each of the 9 land use
categories derived and corresponding percentages are listed in Table
III-7. Figure 111-12 illustrates existing land use in the Service Area.
Growth in the Service Area has been low to moderate in recent years,
from 1 to 2% a year depending on the municipality. This limited rate of
growth is largely attributed to the lack of suitable soils for on-site
septic systems (see Figure III-4). Nevertheless, growth pressures in
the Service Area, stemming partly from its access to regional employment
opportunities are present and are reflected in the number of subdivision
permits sought yearly. The rural setting -- the predominance of agricul-
ture, forested areas, and other open space in the Service Area -- is a
major attraction, one that can also be perceived as an opportunity for
additional growth.
Open space, including agricultural, forested, park and recreation
areas, is the predominant land use in the Service Area, with agriculture,
including orchards, croplands and pasture, the most significant.
Forested areas are found in the northern part of the Service Area along
the base and slopes of Blue Mountain as well as along stream courses
throughout the area. A notable percentage of the parks and recreation
acreage is in Bushkill Township (see Section III.B.4.C.).
The low-density residential category makes up the next most promi-
nent land use. Residential development is most concentrated in and
around the Nazareth Borough extending northeast into the East Lawn sec-
tion of Upper Nazareth and to the north into the Cherry Hill Area of
Bushkill Township. Road-side development is found in what has been de-
scribed as an inverted L, reaching from Pen Argyl to Wind Gap and south
along Route 115 through Plainfield Township into Stockertown Borough and
Tatamy Borough. Additional development is scattered through the Service
Area, some around unincorporated towns such as Clearfield in Bushkill
Township and Edelman, Kesslersville, and Belfast in Plainfield Township.
Recent records show notable residential growth pressure exerted on
the municipalities. Subdivision applications received in recent years
significantly outnumber permits approved, especially in the Townships.
In spite of its moratorium Bushkill Township has been growing at an over-
all rate of 40 to 50 dwelling units per year, Plainfield Township at
approximately the same rate. However, in Upper Nazareth Township, the
moratorium has effectively stopped development; consequently vacancy
rates are low. In contrast, the Boroughs, which already have high den-
sity residential areas, have experienced very little development
recently.
71
-------
Table III-7
EXISTING LAND USE
Acres Percent
Forest 7,367 20.0%
Agriculture 17,763 48.2%
Parks and Recreation Areas 3,098 8.4%
Low Density Residential 4,664 12.6%
(single family and mobile homes)
High Density Residential 123 0.3%
(includes duplexes, townhouses and apartments)
Public and Quasi-Public 807 2.2%
(schools, municipal buildings, churches, etc.)
Commercial 314 0.9%
Mining and Quarrying 2,488 6.7%
Industrial 247 0.7%
TOTAL 36,871
72
-------
FIGUREni-12 EXISTING LAND USE
——- SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
—m^v,0
TFS1!
boo-
F;H FOREST
^1 AGRICULTURAL
COMMERCIAL
jffliU MINING
|p:;v| PARK
I] LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PUBLIC
R$MJ INDUSTRIAL
l3£2l'«"
e#w
30URCE> AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY MARCH, 1973
%~**
iTUJtV-
"•idd
••••**&
I'SMllL.
j£CtBi_
ir«ai-
temc_
"•••yf
-------
The largest concentration of commercial land in the Service Area is
in the central part of the Borough of Nazareth, a significant retail,
service and office use area. Convenience neighborhood shopping and auto-
motive services are found along Route 512 in Bushkill Township and Route
115 in Plainfield Township. There are also nodes of commercial uses at
the Route 33 interchanges and in Stockertown Borough and Tatamy Borough.
The 247 acres in industrial uses are contiguous to the boroughs in
the Service Area. Uses in this category are manufacturing, wholesale
distribution and warehousing, junkyards and the two sanitary landfills
(see Section III.B.S.e).
Mining and quarrying is a major land use and economic force in the
Service Area. Slate quarrying in the northern part of Plainfield Town-
ship was pursued for many years but has gradually declined since the
turn of the century. Limestone quarrying is the major land use in the
southern part of the Service Area. The land use map shows not only
those areas in active production but the extent of cement-company-owned
property. Limestone quarrying is still economically viable and is pro-
jected to continue in the foreseeable future, rendering these lands
unavailable for any other intensive use.
Public and quasi-public uses, although most concentrated in
Nazareth Borough, are found throughout the Service Area.
b. Future Land Use
There are two levels of jurisdiction over future use of land in the
Service Area. The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Act 247 of
1968 as amended) requires each township and borough in the Commonwealth
to formulate a comprehensive plan for future community development.
Each municipality under study has home rule, and each must include a
statement of goals and objectives along with its plan for future land
use. The seven municipalities of the Service Area have officially
adopted comprehensive plans, which are described in Appendix G-ll. A
composite future land use map is illustrated in Figure 111-13.
On the regional level, JPC coordinates the planning efforts of
local, county, State and Federal agencies and has adopted a plan for
Northampton and Lehigh Counties. JPC has also adopted a Water and Sewer
Plan. The two JPC plans are discussed in Appendix G-12. Implementation
measures such as zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations are the
responsibility of the individual jurisdictions. The latter are discussed
separately in Section III.B.2.C.
On the State level, DER is drafting the State Comprehensive Water
Quality Management Plan (COWAMP) under the mandates of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 and the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law. COWAMP is also dis-
cussed in Appendix G-12, but it should be noted here that the Bushkill
Creek Basin, except Schoeneck Creek, has been proposed for High Quality
Waters classification, which carries an anti-degradation policy.
75
-------
c. Growth Management Controls
The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code "enables municipali-
ties to plan for community development through preparation of a compre-
hensive development plan and to govern such development through zoning,
subdivision and land development, and planned residential development
ordinances". Ordinances adopted by Service Area municipalities are
listed in Table III-8. Discussion on the role of JPC in growth manage-
ment, on the State function in erosion and sedimentation control, and on
the recently enacted flood plain and stormwater laws can be found in
Appendix G-13.
3. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Schools
There are 2 senior high schools, 2 junior high schools and 5
elementary schools which educate 3,262 public school children in the EIS
Service Area and 1,444 children outside of the Service Area. These
schools are administered by the Nazareth Area and Pen Argyl Area School
Districts. With two exceptions, all schools are operating below their
rated capacity. There is a total surplus capacity of 376 pupils, which
represents approximately 7% of the practical public capacity of these
schools (5082 pupils). Detailed information on school enrollment and
capacity by school is provided in Appendix G-14.
b. Health Services
Available data indicate that health services, including general and
specialized hospital care as well as care of the elderly, are more than
adequate to serve the present needs of the EIS Service Area population.
Appendix G-15 contains a brief discussion of existing health care facili-
ties and future health care plans of the area.
c. Public Safety
Responsibility for emergency services rests on the township level
for funding and equipment. However, inter-municipal cooperation is very
strong. Blue Mountain Control Center, the emergency police, fire, and
ambulance dispatch center for the Service Area (except for Palmer Town-
ship) , has no plans for increasing services in the foreseeable future
(by telephone, Bob Thomas, 14 Mar 79).
According to national standards for suburban areas (1.5 police
officers per 1,000 population (HUD)), it is apparent that needs are be-
ing met on the local level (see Appendix G-16), with some help from the
State police. Should the population increase be greater in the future
than over the past few years, an increase in police protection will be
required.
d. Utilities
Water Supply. Water is supplied to the Service Area through public
and private systems. Palmer Township is served by the Easton Suburban
76
-------
FIGUREni-13YEAR 2000 LAND USE PLAN
——. SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
^§j EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (ResioVitiol, Commercial, Industrial, Recreational, Institutional, Mining or Quarrying)
JH§ ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD AREAS
y^A:rr.:.-r'-i^ *^^^*&j&'*':'-?~ •'•>!- ^
DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED - Few or no limitatkjns ^i^^^^^f^
DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED-PossiM* limitations
MiJ( DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONALLY RECOMMENDED
[ ^j DEVELOPMENT NOT PRESENTLY RECOMMENDED
[ [ URBAN DEVELOPMENT NOT RECOMMENDED
L_—Jririur-
-------
Table III-8
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDINANCES
,H CX ,£ a 0) -H 4-> ,G .CO,
,-1 -H 4-1 /d }-( -H -H rC S-i M) ,13 4-> -H
•H ,£ 01 t>o Sw cp^io B3 MS-IW
,£C rtO'HCi-HS O!-i cdO (DcdC
cn^ NS-I n)[s cdo oo -Ui-i cxNg
SO cflo P-iO iHH 4-ipq cflO ftcdO
pqE-i^FQ HPM en HWPZ;H
Zoning Ordinance
Year Adopted
Flood Plain Ord.
Steep Slope Ord.
Stormwater Ord.
Erosion & Sediment
Control Ord.
PRD Ordinance
Subdivision Regs.
Year Adopted
Environmental Per-
formance Regs.
0
66
0
0
0
0
0
0
73
0
0
69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
69
NA
0
73
0
NA
0
0
0
0
74
NA
0
71
0
0
0
0
NA
0
4
0
0
73
0
NA
0
NA
NA
0
70
NA
0
76
0
NA
0
0
0
0
76
NA
A
NA
NA
0
NA
0
0
67
NA
0 Current information.
* Update in progress.
NA Not Available
Source: Municipal Ordnances variously dated 1966-1976
79
-------
Water Authority (ESWA) except for its northern rural portion which is
served by private wells (Local Government Research Corp. 1972). The
Blue Mountain Consolidated Water Company (BMCWC) serves approximately
6,400 residential, commercial, and industrial customers in Nazareth
Borough, Plainfield Township, Bushkill Township, Tatamy Borough and
Upper Nazareth Township (by letter, Al Wyda, BMCWC, 8 Mar 79). A small
portion of Plainfield Township receives water from the Keystone Water
Company-Bangor District (JPC 1971). The rest of the Service Area, in-
cluding those parts of the municipalities not served by the companies,
is served by private wells, springs and cisterns. The extent of the
BMCWC supply system is shown in Figure III-14.
Water supply and its use in the Service Area are shown in Table
III-9. Water sources listed there include those presently in use, those
used in emergencies and those not presently in use. It should be noted
that the capacity of springs is usually reliable from late winter to
summer (JPC 1974, 1978).
Future Water Supply. It is projected that future water demands can
be met from present sources. ESWA has recently expanded its service area
to meet future demands, but BMCWC does not extend service until there is
a demand. BMCWC has been studying the feasibility of enlarging the well
supply for the Nazareth area (by letter, Al Wyda, 8 Mar 79) and has
recently extended service to a new municipal water system in the
northern third of Palmer Township (Easton Express, 6 Feb 79).
Electricity. Electricity is supplied to the Service Area by Metro-
politan Edison Company (Met-Ed) and Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L).
Met-Ed provides service to Bushkill Township, Nazareth Borough, Palmer
Township, Plainfield Township, and Upper Nazareth Township. PP&L serves
Stockertown Borough and Tatamy Borough. Electricity is generated by a
mix of nuclear (40%), coal (56%), oil (2%) and gas and water power (2%)
at generating stations located throughout southern and eastern Pennsyl-
vania (by letter, Harrison Bauman, Met-Ed,21 Mar 79). The closest sta-
tion is PP&L's Martins Creek facility, located just east of the Service
Area on the Delaware River near Belvedere. Company representatives an-
ticipate that supply will be adequate to meet regional year 2000 needs
(by letter, Met-Ed, PP&L, 21 Mar 79). However, there is indication that
the recent closure of one of the Three Mile Island nuclear facilities
may affect regional capacity.
e. Solid Waste Disposal
The solid waste disposal needs of the EIS Service Area are served
by two privately owned and operated landfill sites: the Grand Central
Landfill in northeast Plainfield Township approximately \ mile south of
Pen Argyl Borough and the Herceg Landfill located on the border between
southwest Bushkill Township and northwest Upper Nazareth Township.
Solid waste management planning for each municipality is conducted by
JPC. Landfill capacity has been deemed adequate to handle solid waste
in the region for the next 14 years (JPC 1978). Recent modifications of
the Grand Central site may extend this estimate.
80
-------
FIGURE iii-u BLUE MOUNTAIN CONSOLIDATED WATER CO.
— — SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY SERVICE AREA
oo
SOURCE: BLUE MOUNTAIN CONSOLIDATED WATER CO,, 1976
KXittt—
rritu*.
-------
Table III-9
WATER SUPPLY AND USE IN THE EIS SERVICE AREA
DEPENDABLE
CAPACITY
WATI:R SYSTI^I
hlne Mountain
Consolidated Water
Company
lias ton Suburban
Watei Authority
Keystone Waler
Company- Uangor
District
SOURCE OF SUPPLY
3 Springs
8 Wells
Aquashicola Creek
Pen Argyl Stream
•
Delaware River
(from City of
Easton f acl 1 i ty )
6 Springs
9 Wells
Martin's Creek
West Fork
ra^/day
3,815,
8,667,
3,152.
480.
16,116.
30,280
9.273
8,516,
3,785,
21.574.
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(MOD) ra3
.2bO
.650
,905
,695
,530
.250
.250
.000
.500
(1.
(2.
(0.
(0.
4.
(8,
(2.
(2.
(1.
(5.
008)
290)
833)
127)
258
,0)
.450)
,250)
,000)
,700)
45
3
4
4
59
12
719
18
738
)
,420
,785
,920,
,920
,046
.963,
.0
.0
.5
.5
.0
.625
.150.000
,925
,075
.000
.000
(KG)
(12.000)
(1.000)
(1.300)
(1.300)
(15.600)
(3.425)
(190.0)
(5.0)
(195.0)
AVERAGE DAILY CONSUMPTION 2
MUNICIPALITIES t OF CONNECTIONS „ RESIDENTIAL , INDUSTRIAL
SERVED RESIDENTIAL
Nazareth 2015
Plalnfield Township-
Bushklll Township 655
S cocker Loun-Fo rks
Township 226
Tatamy 281
Upper Nazareth
Township 4B4
3,661
Palmer Township
Plainfleld Township
INDUSTRIAL m /day (MOD) "i /day (MCU)
163 1,014.38 (0.268) 2,206.655 (0.583)
36 321.725 (0.085) 52.99 (0.014)
22 109.765 (0.029) 817.56 (0.216)
17 155.185 (0.041) 15.14 (0.004)
12 276.305 (0.073) 83.27 (0.022)
250 1,877.360 (0.496) 3,175.615 (0.839)
_
_
Heu\dent 1al customers on 1y
"Industrial, coimnurcluI, public customers and fire flows
Kx;ic c number of connect Ions and consumption uere not available by Municipality
um-Ld: Joint Planning Commission Leh J gh-NorLliampton Counties, 1971 and June 1978.
-------
f. Transportation
Major highway routes in the Service Area are indicated in Appendix
G-17, with corresponding classifications and average daily traffic (ADT)
volumes. Interstate Route 78 and State Route 33 form the nucleus of the
regional highway system around which other major Service Area highways
are oriented and connect the Service Area with other portions of the
State. North-south State Route 33 nearly bisects the Service Area and
connects it with east-west Interstates Route 78 to the south and Route
80 to the north.
With two exceptions, it appears that the highway network within the
EIS Service Area is not severely congested or operating beyond capacity
based on available traffic volume data. Traffic volumes have been found
to exceed capacity within Nazareth Borough (State Route 248 and Legisla-
tive Route 48043) and near Wind Gap (Legislative Route 48088) (Lehigh
Valley Transportation Study 1976-1982).
Public transportation service is limited within the EIS Service
Area where population is relatively sparse. Rail, air and bus service
is available within the Lehigh-Northampton County area.
Projected increases in the number of vehicle trips are described in
Appendix G-17.
4. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Pennsylvania Office of Historic Preservation, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, was asked for information on historic and prehistoric cul-
tural resources in the Service Area. Resources of the JPC were also con-
sulted for information about cultural resources located there.
a. Historic Sites
A review of the National Register of Historic Places4 (44 FR No.
26:7571-7581 and monthly supplements), the Pennsylvania Inventory of
Historic Sites and Landmarks, and an historic sites inventory prepared
by JPC identified 15 historic structures and historic sites within the
EIS Service Area. These historic properties have been listed pursuant
to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), Execu-
tive Order 11593, the Historic and Archaeological Preservation Act of
1974, and Advisory Council Procedures for the Protection of Historic and
Cultural Properties (as amended 30 January 79). The 15 are mapped in
Figure 111-15, which is keyed to Appendix G-18. A brief description of
each historic resource is provided in that appendix.
b. Archaeological Sites
General locations of prehistoric archaeological sites were obtained
through a personal interview with Mr. and Mrs. Lopresti, avocational
4 The Pennsylvania Inventory and the National Register of Historic
Places are on-going projects and the inventories are not complete.
84
-------
FIGURE Hi-is HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
— — SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
|f|> AREA OF KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Nml7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE IN STATE FILE
A HISTORIC SITE
2 HISTORIC STRUCTURE
c
SOURCE' JPC, 1972; LOPRE3TI, 1979; PA INVENTORY Of HISTORIC SITES, 1977;
PA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, l»7».
rrst..
-------
archaeologists familiar with the Service Area, and from the archaeolog-
ical site files maintained at the William Perm Memorial Museum by the
Pennsylvania Office of Historic Preservation. The inventory of prehis-
toric sites is incomplete. No systematic field reconnaissance has been
conducted in the Service Area to identify archaeological resources that
may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Poten-
tially significant archaelogical resources are most likely to occur near
springs and adjacent to major streams. Areas of known prehistoric
archaeological significance are mapped in Figure 111-15. Artifacts that
have been collected from the vicinity of Jacobsburg State Park are illu-
strated in Figure 111-16. Other illustrations of historic and archaeo-
logical resources are included in Appendix G-18.
c. Recreation
Municipal, county and State park and recreation areas in the EIS
Service Area have been identified from municipal comprehensive plans and
the JPC Regional Recreation and Open Space Plan. These have been inven-
toried (see Appendix G-19). In comparison with national standards for
park and recreation acreage needs Northampton County, appears to be
somewhat deficient in relation to existing population. The less devel-
oped townships lack municipal recreation areas but under current plan-
ning programs are endeavoring to bring the acreage up to standards (see
Appendix G-19). Extensive State-owned acreage in the Service Area meets
a considerable portion of the regional demand for large parklands. For
a discussion of the park and recreation assets and plans of the several
municipalities, see Appendix G-19.
JPC's planning objectives for the period between 1975 and 1990 call
for 1300 to 1800 acres of regional park land. State holdings help meet
these objectives but do not provide for the facilities that JPC indi-
cates are needed. JPC has also recommended a regional open space system
exclusive of regional parks. This system would contain between 8000 and
9000 acres for passive recreation and hunting. The Bushkill Creek
valley and tributaries and all steeply sloping areas would be included.
The plan also calls for a regional scenic and historic drive to be de-
signated and protected by easement.
The Gracedale tract is the only County Park in the Service Area.
This is a 340-acre site adjoining the county retirement home 2 miles
west of Nazareth Borough. Existing facilities are a hiking and nature
trail. The County 5-year Capital Program of 1979 calls for the expendi-
ture of $190,000 for the development of 10 acres east of the home for 5
ball fields and other recreation facilities. Additional plans call for
the development of an 18-hole golf course on this tract. However, no
funds have been allocated.
The State of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over 2113 acres in the
Service Area in Jacobsburg State Park and the State Game Lands. Short
range plans for Jacobsburg State Park call for the completion of
development of low-density recreation facilities including hiking,
biking, cross-country skiing, nature and historic interpretation,
picnic, parking and comfort stations with on-site disposal. Long range
plans which formerly called for the development of a swimming pool and
87
-------
PM
cu
4-1
C/5
M
(-4
3
O
O
Cfl
-1
O
M
4-1
U
cfl
•H
J-)
S-i
0)
S-i
3
M
•H
-------
campground have been cancelled by DER (DER, Sep 79). Recent trends show
that Park attendance for 1979 is 1/3 above 1978 levels. This trend in-
dicates that with the recent gas shortage, Lehigh Valley residents are
seeking more local recreation opportunities.
Bushkill Creek has been classified as a recreation river in the
state wild and scenic river inventory. This classification covers 21.4
miles of Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with the Delaware
River at Easton. It has been so designated for its high water quality,
its value as trout habitat and the fishing opportunities it affords.
The State has not formulated a program to conserve the valley to protect
this resource. However, various levels of protection would be provided
in the JPC recreational plan and those of Stockertown Borough and Tatamy
Borough.
5. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
This section describes both centralized5 and decentralized6 waste-
water management systems either currently in use within or, in the case
of the Easton sewage treatment plant (STP), of direct concern to the EIS
Service Area. The discussion focuses on the privately owned and oper-
ated Nazareth STP (its operating efficiency and potential for upgrading
and expansion) and its collection system, as well as the suitability of
on-site wastewater treatment systems in the Service Area. The Easton
STP is only briefly discussed. Finally, the presence of dry-capped
sewers* is acknowledged at 2 locations in the "northern corridor" of
Palmer Townships, but will not be addressed in this section.
a. Nazareth Collection Systems and Wastewater Flows
Areas Presently Served. Sewerage facilities for Nazareth Borough
were constructed in 1929. At that time sewer service was provided to
approximately three-fourths of the Borough. In 1975, most of the re-
mainder of the Borough was sewered. The 2.2-square-mile service area is
shown in Figure II-l. At present, sewers extend to 1785 households
users in the Borough, 387 households users in Upper Nazareth Township
and 72 households in Bushkill Township.
Total Flows. The average daily flows of wastewater in the service
area of the Nazareth (STP) are listed in Appendix H-l for each month
from January 1977 through November 1978. The data represent combined
flows of domestic, commercial and industrial (cement processing) waste-
water, as well as inflow and infiltration.
5 "Centralized treatment" refers to treatment at a central site of
wastewater collected by a single system and transported to a central
location.
6 "Decentralized treatment" defines those systems processing a relatively
small amount of wastewater. Decentralized treatment can be provided
on-site or off-site.
89
-------
The average daily flow was 0.83 mgd in 1977 and 0.71 mgd in 1978.
Apparently, flows are highest in the late winter and spring. However,
because there are several by-passes above the flow meter at the Nazareth
STP, these data may not accurately reflect the wastewater generated in
the Nazareth service area. The contributions of infiltration and inflow
(I/I) to total flow are not known; conversely losses of flow through by-
passes have not been measured.
Wastewater Characteristics. Characteristics of the influent to the
Nazareth STP were tabulated for the period from August 1976 to November
1978. The data (see Appendix H-4) include biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), suspended solids (SS) and ammonia nitrogen (NHs-N), the para-
meters for which DER has established effluent standards in the Bushkill
watershed.
The data were evaluated in terms of both monthly range and monthly
average. Values of BOD ranged from as low as 10 mg/1 to as high as 279
mg/1 during the period of interest. The average value was 174 mg/1,
which implies medium-concentration wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy 1972).
Ammonia nitrogen, which averaged 31 mg/1, ranged from as low as 4 mg/1
to as high as 60 mg/1. These data also imply medium concentration
wastewater. Suspended solids, which averaged 104 mg/1 and ranged be-
tween 0 and 500 mg/1 are typical of weak-concentration wastewater.
Infiltration and Inflow (I/I). Neither a comprehensive field in-
vestigation to determine the physical condition of the sewers nor an I/I
study has been performed. The extraneous flow entering the system
therefore cannot be accurately determined. However, two years of plant
flow records indicate that the collection system is susceptible to I/I.
The most important points are these:
• The collection system, which includes the two pump stations,
has four bypasses prior to entering the sewage treatment
plant. Overflows at these points are not uncommon during
rainfall. Thus, there appears to be inflow to the system.
• Wastewater flow and population data for 1976 indicate per
capita wastewater generation of approximately 120 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd). This value is higher than normal by 20
gpcd even when a reasonable amount of I/I is considered. In
addition, a 1972 engineering report documented per capita
water consumption to be 57 gpcd.
• Annual monitoring reports show that for 1975, 1976, and 1978,
rainfall averaged from 40 to 50 inches per year while the
yearly average wastewater flow was consistently 0.70 mgd. In
1977, when rainfall totaled 66 inches, the average wastewater
flow increased to 0.83 mgd. It may be assumed that the dif-
ference of 0.13 mgd (a 19% increase) was due to additional in-
flow and infiltration. Unaccounted for is the portion of the
base flow (0.70 mgd) that is due to I/I, as well as the un-
documented flow which never reaches the plant flow recorder
because of bypasses.
90
-------
In Figure 111-17 wastewater flow is compared with rainfall during
the period from June 1977 to November 1978. With the exception of two
rather sharp decreases (in February and November 1978), average flows at
Nazareth are fairly constant. Conversely, the chart of total rainfall
indicates that wide variations in monthly precipitation occurred during
the period of study. Although the two sharp decreases in flow appear to
correspond to decreases in total rainfall, the correlation is not good
because the drops in flow appear to be only for individual months,
whereas the decreases in rainfall appear to be seasonal.
Figure 111-18 compares wastewater flow and characteristics during
the same period. (For ease of comparison, the flow and characteristics
have been expressed as fractions of the highest values recorded during
the period of interest.) If I/I were evident, increased flows would be
associated with decreased concentrations of BOD, SS, and ammonia because
the additional water would dilute the waste. The curves should thus
appear as mirror images of each other. Examination of Figure 111-18
reveals no such obvious associations. The chart for BOD indicates a
decrease in concentration at approximately the same time (February 1978)
that flow decreases, but no pattern is apparent.
The curve for suspended solids, high during the initial part of the
study period, appears to approximately parallel the flow curve. A
slight mirror image relationship may exist, but the results are incon-
clusive. Similarly, the curve for ammonia nitrogen shows an increase in
concentration toward the end of the study period, and although a mirror
image relationship may exist, the evidence is far from conclusive.
b. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Two wastewater treatment facilities are of direct concern to this
EIS. One of these, the Easton STP is located south of Easton on the
Delaware River. Recently converted from trickling filter operation to
rotating biological contactors (RBC's), the capacity of this facility
was also doubled, to 10 mgd.
The other is located east of Nazareth Borough in Palmer Township.
The Nazareth STP was constructed in 1928 with a nominal capacity of
0.5 mgd. This plant was the subject of two engineering studies per-
formed as part of this EIS. One, an engineering assessment of the
facility, is presented as Appendix H-2. The other, a structural evalu-
ation, appears as Appendix H-3.
Easton - Conditions and Operating Efficiency. When this EIS was
prepared , construction of the new Easton facility was not complete al-
though substantial progress had been made. Therefore no statement could
be made regarding its operating efficiency. Presumably, the plant was
designed to comply with effluent standards set for the Delaware River,
and operation of the facility will permit the effluent to meet the
standards.
Suitability for Future Use. At the time the Easton plant was
designed, it was intended that wastewater from the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh
Joint Sewer Authority would be treated at the plant. Accordingly, 2 mgd
of treatment capacity was reserved for the B-LLJSA, and this capacity
will exist when the facility is completed. The Easton plant is there-
fore suitable for future use by the EIS Service Area.
91
-------
.2r
I.I
1.0
.9
o -8
Z
* .7
O
Sj .5
.4
.3
.2
LEGEND
O FLOW (SCALE ON LEFT)
• RAINFALL (SCALE ON RIGHT)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
10
9
8 3
7 5
z
6 2
r-
i-
5 1
4
3
2
JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
1977
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV
1978
Figure 111-17. EFFECT OF RAINFALL UPON FLOWS
AT NAZARETH STP
-------
o
JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
1977
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV
1978
Figure 111-18. INFLUENCE OF FLOW UPON WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS OF NAZARETH STP
-------
Potential for Upgrading and Expansion. Inasmuch as the plant is
presently being upgraded and expanded, it is unlikely that another such
activity will occur during the design period of this EIS.
Nazareth STP. In the course of an inspection of the Nazareth STP,
four major problems were noted, two structural and two administrative.
These problems are summarized below:
« Structural: Since the Nazareth STP was constructed over 50
years ago the concrete walls of the tanks have deteriorated
significantly. Crumbling, cracking, and spalling concrete are
particularly evident in the Imhoff tank and secondary clari-
fier (see Figure 111-19). Similar deterioration, but to a
lesser extent, is apparent in the walls of the dosing chamber.
In addition the concrete wall of one trickling filter has
cracked, with a gap of approximately one inch at the widest
point.
The walls of the sludge storage lagoon and wastewater stabili-
zation lagoons have been appreciably eroded, both by natural
(wind and water) forces and by burrowing animals. Consequent-
ly, failure of the walls is possible and, in the case of the
sludge lagoon, imminent.
The second structural problem relates to the bypasses at
several points in the treatment process. In particular, by-
passes exist at the influent manhole, at the bar screen, at
the secondary clarifier, and at each waste stabilization la-
goon. It is the policy of DER not to permit bypasses of un-
treated or partially treated wastewater, and these therefore
constitute violations of State regulations. The bypasses,
besides polluting surface waters, also make it impossible to
accurately meter wastewater flows.
• Administrative: The three wastewater stabilization lagoons
and one sludge storage lagoon were installed after the
original Nazareth STP had been permitted and constructed. Be-
cause these lagoons constituted a modification of the permit-
ted facility, permits were required for their construction.
The permits were never obtained. As a result the lagoons are,
strictly speaking, illegal. However, it appears that the ef-
fluent from the STP would be unable to meet discharge stand-
ards if the lagoons were decommissioned. It therefore seems
likely that, without a change in the status of the treatment
plant, the lagoons will have to be upgraded and permits appli-
ed for.
The second administrative problem relates to the discharge
requirements for the Nazareth STP- DER has indicated that the
effluent from the treatment plant may not exceed 20 mg/1 of
BOD, 25 mg/1 of SS and 3 mg/1 of ammonia nitrogen. Since the
Nazareth plant has, in the past, not consistently met these
requirements, action will be necessary. The residents of
Nazareth must decide whether to upgrade their facility to pro-
duce an acceptable quality of effluent, or eliminate discharge
to the stream altogether.
94
-------
Figure 111-19
NAZARETH SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES
Imhoff Tank (foreground)
Secondary Clarifier (foreground):
Wastewater Stabilization Lagoon (background)
Secondary Clarifier Discharge to
Wastewater Stabilization Lagoon
Wastewater Stabilization Lagoon
No. 1
95
-------
Industrial. Cement manufacturing constitutes the major industry in
the Service Area. This industry uses water for:
• Processing
• Cooling and condensing
• Boiler feed
• Sanitation.
Of these categories, sanitary wastewater is generally discharged
either to on-site systems or to municipal sewers, and cooling water is
generally returned, after storage, to surface streams. Boiler feedwater
is consumed, and process water is disposed of along with cooling water.
Of the plants surveyed, only Hercules Cement Company in Stockertown in-
dicated that it used a settling basin for treatment of wastewater. The
company stated that use of the basin permitted heated water to cool
prior to return to Bushkill Creek. None of the plants surveyed indi-
cated the need for an NPDES discharge permit, since their discharge
consisted solely of clear water.
Nazareth STP - Condition and Operating Efficiency. Briefly, the
concrete structures have deteriorated and numerous violations of DER
regulations exist. The most serious of the violations relate to bypass-
ing of raw and partially treated wastewater to the receiving stream, and
the absence of lines or suitable banks for the lagoons.
The operating efficiency of the plant was evaluated by analyzing
plant records for October 1976 to November 1978. Influent data for this
period are presented in Appendix H-4; effluent data are presented in
Appendix H-5. Influent and effluent data are tabulated by month for com-
parison in Appendix H-6. The average removal efficiency for BOD is 85%.
This value is normal for a properly operating trickling filter. For
suspended solids, the plant averaged 80% removal; this value is also
within the range of acceptable operation. Operation appears to be
somewhat deficient with respect to removal of ammonia nitrogen. For a
trickling filter of the type operating at Nazareth (see Figure 111-20),
90% removal of ammonia nitrogen may be expected. In fact, only approxi-
mately 60% removal was observed.
FIGURE I11-20 NAZARETH STP TRICKLING FILTERS
96
-------
Suitability for Future Use. The plant appears at present to be
hydraulically overloaded; this is likely due in part to excessive infil-
tration and inflow (I/I). Since, however, the condition of the sewers
has not been definitely established, the potential for rehabilitation of
the sewers and alleviation of the I/I is conjectural. The plant cannot
now meet the more stringent requirements that DER has imposed upon it
without the modifications described more fully below and in Appendix H-3.
Assuming that the sewers need rehabilitation and could be repaired cost-
effectively, and assuming further that the necessary modifications to
the plant were made, the plant could continue to operate. The present
service population could, under these assumptions, expect future use of
the treatment facility.
Potential for Upgrading and Expansion. Upgrading of the Nazareth
plant will be necessary to comply with DER construction and operation
regulations and to meet effluent discharge standards. With respect to
construction, the existing lagoons are unlined and do not have suitable
banks. Also, much of the concrete structures need rehabilitation.
With respect to operation, numerous illegal bypasses exist and are
used, suitable sampling and testing equipment is absent, and hazardous
conditions, such as unguarded tanks, exist. These conditions must be
rectified as part of the upgrading process.
Expansion of the plant would require either additional facilities,
modified operation of the existing ones, or both. It is, for example,
possible to modify the operation of the existing trickling filters to
permit greater flows through them. On the other hand, the Imhoff tank
could not accept increased flows, and an additional primary clarifier
would be needed. Similarly, the chlorination facilities would require
expansion in order to accept new flows.
Sufficient land appears to exist around the plant to provide room
for expansion, but although it appears to be possible to expand and up-
grade the plant, the feasibility of such action has not yet been esta-
blished. See Chapter V for a discussion of the costs associated with
rehabilitating the Nazareth STP to accept a flow of 0.85 mgd.
c. On-Site Wastewater Management Systems
This section describes the types of on-site wastewater disposal and
treatment systems that exist in the EIS Service Area as well as past and
present problems associated with them. The descriptions focus on the
efforts undertaken in the EIS to identify and locate these problems and
to determine their causes. In this way, the EIS may address appropriate
solutions.
Types of Existing Systems. The EIS Service Areas's on-site waste-
water management needs are served by several types of systems which in-
clude the following:
• conventional septic tank/soil absorption systems
(ST/SAS); SAS include both standard beds and
trenches
97
-------
Conventional
• Sand lined beds or tenches
Alternate * Elevated sand mounds
• Shallow placement systems
• Oversized systems
Alternate * Aerobic tanks with dosing
• Holding tanks
• Cesspools
The wide assortment of on-site systems currently employed within
the seven municipalities under study reflects the response of homeowners
and Sewage Enforcement Officers (SEO's) to varying soil and groundwater
conditions, small lot sizes as well as to the long-standing eventuality
of regional sewerage over the past several years. Section III.A.7.a
stated that 50 to 60% of the soils in the EIS Service Area had severe
limitations for on-site wastewater treatment, as rated by the USDA-SCS.
The wide use of alternate on-site systems is indicative of these limita-
tions which are attributed to high water tables or rapid permeability.
Actual size and design of on-site systems varies considerably according
to when the system was installed and what sanitary codes were in effect
at the time of installation. Because much of the residential develop-
ment in the Service Area occurred before implementation of the Pennsyl-
vania Sewage Facilities Act (1966), many on-site systems do not meet
design regulations. Furthermore, the fact that sewers have been
"coming" for the past several years has meant that sub-standard install-
ation, maintenance and repair practices have occurred in isolated cases
throughout unsewered portions of the Service Area.
Extent and Distribution of On-Site System Problems. Efforts were
undertaken in this EIS to determine the extent and distribution of
problems associated with on-site wastewater management systems in
Bushkill Township, Plainfield Township, Stockertown Borough, Tatamy
Borough, as well as in the unsewered portions of Upper Nazareth Town-
ship, Palmer Township and Nazareth Borough. The objective of these
efforts, which are described in this section, is intended to identify
the following:
1) historical performance of on-site systems
2) existing and potential water quality or public health problems
associated with on-site systems
3) historical solutions to on-site system problems
98
-------
The identification of 1) and 2) constitutes a determination of
"need" for improved wastewater management facilities7. Federal partici-
pation in the funding of sewers as well as conventional and innovative
alternative sewage treatment systems is contingent upon the documenta-
tion of need for these facilities. Furthermore, the identification of
all three points listed above provides a basis for determing the design,
costs, and impacts of alternatives to the Applicant's Proposed Action
involving the continued use of on-site systems.
The Technical Manual for Sewage Enforcement Officers (DER 1975)
identifies three types of problems associated with septic tank systems,
which are termed "malfunctions." They are:
• Sewage backing up in the system (back-up malfunction)
• Effluent rising to the surface (surface malfunction)
• Effluent passing directly to the water table (water table mal-
function)
Methods used in this EIS to identify areas where these malfunctions
occur included:
* Review of DER files containing repair permits, inspection
reports, etc.
* Interviews and area tours with SEO's, local sanitarians,
health officers, and zoning officers.
* EPA-EPIC Survey. An aerial photographic survey was conducted
by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) in order to detect any on-site system malfunctions that
are visible at the land surface.
The survey was conducted over the entirety of Bushkill Town-
ship, Plainfield Township, Stockertown Borough, Tatamy Borough
and unsewered portions of Upper Nazareth Township and Palmer
Township. The aerial photographs were taken in December 1978
and suspected malfunctions (from the inspection of photos)
were field-checked during April 1979. Appendix 1-1 contains a
detailed report of the EPIC investigation.
• Well-water quality survey (June 1979) in Bushkill Township
(see Section III.A.9.b).
• Surface water quality survey of Bushkill Creek, Little Bush-
kill Creek and Schoeneck Creek (June 1979) (see Section
III.A.8.b).
7 These facilities include both off-site and alternate on-site waste-
water treatment systems.
99
-------
The extent and distribution of on-site system problems in the
Service Area, based on the first 3 needs determination methods listed
above, is illustrated in Figure 111-21. Correlation between these pro-
blems and existing conditions is illustrated in Table 111-10. The EIS
Service Area including its areas of existing need, was delineated
based on the information in Figure III- 21 and Table 111-10. A summary
of needs documentation findings by unsewered municipality is presented
below.
• Bushkill Township On-site system problems in this 26 square
mile township are attributed to poor soil suitability, inade-
quate system installation and lack of regular maintenance.
Most of the 31 repair permits that have been issued since
April 1975 have been to correct surface and back-up malfunc-
tions; 74% of the repairs have been performed on septic
tank-standard bed systems (by letter, Carl Kislan, SEO, 26 Apr
79). The majority of on-site system problems are located in
the northern portion of Bushkill Township, where the seasonal
high water table is within 3 feet of the surface in most areas
(see Appendix D-8). Under these conditions, with the drain-
fields of conventional septic tank systems likely to be in the
water table itself, adequate absorption, filtration and bio-
degradation of sewage effluent cannot occur. The standing
wastewater or seepage (surface malfunctions) which results
from poor drainage can b' uetected from aerial photographic
flyovers. Thirteen out or the 21 surface malfunctions (62%)
verified in the township by EPA-EPIC personnel and 13 out of
the 31 repair permits issued (42%) in the township were
located north of Clearfield.
While on-site system problems, in the form of surface and
backup malfunctions are scattered throughout northern Bushkill
Township, the community of Rismiller has the highest percent-
age (12%) of the equivalent dwelling units (EDU's) showing
problems (15% and 8% in the western and eastern parts of the
community, respectively; see Table 111-10). Standing waste-
water or seepage in this community is likely due to the
seasonal high water table (0 to 3 ft. below land surface), in-
adequate system installation/ maintenance or a combination of
these factors. This area has severe limitations for conven-
tional on-site wastewater disposal, owing to the high water
table and slow permeability of the soils (USDA-SCS 1974). No
well water quality data was collected from this community
during June 1979; however, standing wastewater and seepage as
identified during the EPA-EPIC field-check of suspected mal-
functions constitutes a potential public health problem. Ris-
miller is therefore determined to be an area in need of decen-
tralized off-site wastewater management facilities.
The documentation of need in Cherry Hill, located just above the
boundary between Bushkill Township and Upper Nazareth Township, has long
been at issue prior to and during the preparation of this project, there
exists no need for centralized sewerage facilities in the vicinity of
Cherry Hill to overcome the few wastewater management problems that
occur there. Information supportive of this conclusion is briefly out-
lined below:
100
-------
FIGUREin-21 LOCATION OF ON-SITE SYSTEM PROBLEMS
— — SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
EPA-EPIC:
• VERIFIED MALFUNCTION
O SUSPECTED MALFUNCTION
DER (INCLUDING SEO'S):
A VERIFIED MALFUNCTION
SUSPECTED MALFUNCTION
REJECTED APPLICATION FOR ST-SAS
REPAIR PERMIT ISSUED FOR ST-SAS
HOLDING TANK
SOURCE: EPA-EPIC AND DER, 1978-1979
-------
Table 111-10
CORRELATION BETWEEN ON-SITE SYSTEM PROBLEMS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Identified Problems
Associated with On-site Systems
No. of
No. of Permits
Half unc tions I ssued
Veri- Sus- since No
Area Segment No. fied pected (date) Other Problems
M _Q- Rismiller II-l 5 1
•H jH
j±: w
•s I
ji £ Cherry Hill II-2 2 02 (1975) Greywater discharge
to streets
East Pen Argyl 1-1 3
-H
I
O
H Rasleytown 1-9 3 3
« Route 115 - 1-2 to 8; 11 33 Greywater discharge
•£ North 1-10 to 13 to streets (1-13)
•H
dj
H> S
O
^ Bolfast-Edelman 1-14 to 18 20 19 Greywater discharge
to streets
J3 Q. Christian Springs III-3 2 5
M o> ,c:
<1) J-i 0)
P. (0 d
CL M S
& ^ £ East L.nwn III-2 1 3
Borough of IV-1 to 3 0 6 WLdespreaduseof
Stockertown cesspools in Borough;
in northern section
of Borough (east of
Rt. 191) ST-SAS1 dis-
charge to Little
Bushklll Creek
Borough of Tatamy IV-4 13 0 60-80% of residences
using cesspools for
wastewater disposal
p.
M -H
u .c
Jj 2 Newburg Homes IV-5 13 (1974) 13 out of 125 (10%)
•Cu O
H
Hydrogeologic
Percentage
of EDU's
. of EDU's Showing
in Area Problems
26 (west) 15% (west)
26 (east) 8% (east)
106 4%
30
10%
13 46%
208
21%
432
9%
52 14%
277 1%
270 2%
(75% reported
by Borough
Health Officer)
420 10% of ST-SAS
reported by
SEO
125 21%
Average
Lot Size
(acre)
0.5 (west)
0.5 (east)
0.25-0.5
0.25-0.5
0.25-0.5
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0
1.0
0.25-0.5
0.25-0.5
0.25-0.5
0.25-0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25-0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
Description of
Soils on Which
Malfunctions Occur
Andover gravelly loam
Depth to
Bedrock
(ft)
>62
Buchanan gravelly loam >5
Berks shaly silt loam
Clarksburg silt loam
Urban land
Bedington shaly silt
loani
Urban land
Comly silt loam
Comly silt loam
Bedington shaly silt
loam
Bedington silt loam
Urban land
Bedington shaly silt
loam
Berks shaly silt loam
Clarksburg silt loam
Duffield silt loam
Ryder silt loam
Urban land
Clarksburg silt loam
Urban land
Washington silt loam
Washington silt loam
Clarksburg silt loam
1.5-3.5
>6 It
ROI
>4
ROI
>4
>4
>'.
>4
ROI
>3
1.5-3.5
>6
>5
2-3.5
ROt
^6
ROI
>6
'6
>6
Conditions
Perme-
ability
(In/hr)
< 0.2
0.63-6.3
2.0-6.3
0.63-6.3
Variable
0.63-2.0
Variable
0.2-2.0
0.2-2.0
0.63-2.0
0.63-6.3
Variable
0.63-2.0
2.0-6.3
0.63-6.3
0.63-2.0
0.63-2.0
Variable
0.63-6.3
Variable
0.63-2.0
0.63-2.0
0.63-6.3
Depth to
Seasonal High
Water Table
(ft)
0-1
1-3
>3
1.5-3
Variable
>3
Variable
0.5
0.5
>3
>3
Variable
>3
>3
1.5-3
*3
>3
Variable
1.5-3
Variable
>3
>3
1.5-3
Limita-
tions for
Conven-
tional
ST-SAS1
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
ROI
5
Moderate
ROI
Severe
Severe
Moderate
Nodera te"
ROI
Moclera te
Severe
Severe
Slight
Severe
ROI
Severe
ROI
Slight
Slight
Severe
ST-SAS = septic tank - soil absorption system
> = greater than
"ROI = requires on~site investigation
-------
* Only 2 surface malfunctions were identified by field inspec-
tion, one of which was characterized by street discharge of
kitchen wastes (greywater)8. The EPA-EPIC aerial flyovers-
ground inspection effort identified no surface malfunctions in
Cherry Hill proper. Surface malfunctions are generally not
detectable in rapidly permeable soils which are shallow to
bedrock (see Appendix D-7). Water table malfunctions would
expectedly be more common under these conditions
• Groundwater quality (June 1979) was found to be generally good
in the 6 wells sampled in the Cherry Hill vicinity (see
well-water sample numbers 3,4,9,10,13,23 in Figure III-7, with
no bacterial contamination or excessive nitrate levels detec-
ted (see Appendix E-l). Nitrate levels, although not in vio-
lation of Federal drinking water standards, can be expected to
increase following installation of additional on-site waste -
water management systems.
• Analysis of surface water quality data collected June 1979
(sample no. 9A, Appendix E-ll) indicated no stream contamina-
tion from human wastes below Cherry Hill on a tributary to
Schoeneck Creek.
* An isolated, historical on-site system problem, which has been
corrected, does not justify a sewer in Cherry Hill. It is,
however, an indication that measures may have to be taken to
improve on-site wastewater management, either through holding
tanks or elevated sandmounds, to preserve groundwater quality
and public health as future development occurs.
Since most of the Cherry Hill community is underlain by soils
classified as Berks shaly silt loams, which are rapidly permeable and
shallow to bedrock (see Table 111-10), the potential for groundwater
quality and public health problems is high. It must be emphasized here
that this potential exists not only in Cherry Hill but also particularly
in Upper Nazareth Township communities such as Schoeneck and East Lawn
which are down-gradient from Cherry Hill (i.e., in a lower topographical
position than Cherry Hill). It is also noted that the political boun-
dary between these two townships approximates the contact between the
shale and limestone formation of the Service Area (see Figure III-2).
Soils that derive from the Martinsburg shale formations (Bushkill Town-
ship) contain a high percentage of coarse shale fragments, with loca-
lized shale outcrops (see Figure 111-22) occurring throughout the Cherry
Hill community. Such fragments and outcrops account for the severe
limitations of these soils to properly treat effluent from on-site
systems, including cesspools. Improperly treated wastewater moving
downhill to fine-grained, less permeable limestone soils can cause sur-
face malfunctions, back-up malfunctions, and potential public health
problems in Upper Nazareth Township.
Under Chapter 243, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act,
discharge of wash water into any gutter, street, roadway, or public
place is illegal.
104
-------
FIGURE 111-22
LOCALIZED SHALE OUTCROPS
Additional information concerning the performance of on-site sys-
tems in Bushkill Township is contained in Appendix 1-2.
• Plainfield Township--Figure 111-21 shows that most of the
on-site system problems in the township are located along
Route 115 north of Belfast Junction. Slowly permeable soils,
a high water table and small lot sizes are said to account for
most of the on-site system malfunctions which manifest them-
selves as either standing wastewater on private properties or
as greywater* discharge to the street (Interview, Robert
Banner, SEO and Richard Rutt, Engineer, Plainfield Township,
12 Dec 78). The latter case indicates that the drainfields
are not of sufficient size or that the soils within them are
not suited to proper wastewater treatment. Greywater dis-
charge minimizes the incidence of surface and back-up mal-
functions. A large clay lens in known to exist east of Route
115, and the location of this lens coincides with a high
density of septic system malfunctions. Appendix 1-3 contains
additional information about the performance of on-site
systems in Plainfield Township.
The EPA-EPIC survey identified other areas that would indicate
a need for improved wastewater management facilities. These
areas include Rasleytown, northeast of Belfast Junction and a
small community east of Pen Argyl. Information on malfunc-
tions, lot sizes, and hydrogeologic conditions in these areas
is included in Table 111-10.
•<.
• Upper Nazareth Township -- The Township SEO indicated that
much of the unsewered area within his jurisdiction is served
105
-------
by cesspools. Major factors inhibiting the use of conventional
ST-SAS's are small lot sizes and poorly drained soils. Upon
the recommendation from the SEO, many residents use laundromats
to reduce wastewater discharge to on-lot drainfields. The in-
stallation of seepage beds and elevated sand mounds has in-
creased as people await some sort of off-site wastewater man-
agement.
Aside from the East Lawn area, Christian Springs was found to
be an area in need of improved wastewater treatment facilities
in Upper Nazareth Township. Information on existing condi-
tions in this small community is presented in Table 111-10.
• Stockertown Borough and Tatamy Borough -- The status of
on-site systems and existing conditions in these two well-
established, densely populated municipalities is described in
Table 111-10.
• Palmer Township -- The only community within the unsewered por-
tion of Palmer Township that has experienced a high percentage
of on-site system problems is Newburg Homes, located southwest
of Schoeneck Creek. The SEO attributes most of the problems
in this low-lying area to the high clay content of the soils.
Thirteen repair permits have been issued here since 1974 (by
letter, Thomas Sales, SEO, Palmer Township, 29 Aug 79). Other
information on existing conditions in this portion of the
Service Area is presented in Table 111-10.
C. SUITABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT (EVALUATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS)
The EIS Service Area's natural and manmade environment was descri-
bed in the preceding sections. Inventorying topography, geology, soils,
biota, ground and surface waters, climate and environmentally sensitive
areas, population, services, housing, etc. was the first step in a pro-
cess of analyses and syntheses leading to a determination of carrying
capacity to accommodate the baseline population of the Service Area pro-
jected for the year 2000.
The complex process, only highlighted below, is described in detail
in Appendix J-l. Briefly, those critical environmental features which
would restrict development were identified then evaluated together with
constraints imposed by man: policies, zoning and other ordinances, and
State and Federal laws. These factors were aggregated in mappable
units, and ranked in order of importance. Appendix J-2 lists the
observable natural factors phenomena within the Service Area under
appropriate constraint categories, and also ranks the relative con-
straint presented by each natural factor. Analysis and evaluation of
all the factors made possible several maps on which the darkest shading
indicated areas where development should be prohibited, lighter shading
where it should be limited, and no shading on acreage without con-
straints. Overlaying the natural factors and concurrent constraints map
produced a composite natural factor constraint map see Figure 111-23.
106
-------
___ IWn'oc-
FIGURE ^"CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT
— — SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
FLOODPLAINS
{§1 WETLANDS
HH SOILS UNSUITABLE FOR STANDARD ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS
\%2fy STEEP SLOPES
HH HABITAT FOR RARE OR UNIQUE SPECIES
f | UNCONSTRAINED LAND
IO'4T iq"
LJ,
2223.
-------
A similar process of analyzing and synthesizing planning data pro-
duced composite land use maps incorporating existing sewer and water
service areas, and permitted density of development. The result of
overlaying the two composite maps is a map of vacant developable lands.
This analysis showed that there is ample vacant developable land to
accommodate the projected population without infringing upon sensitive
environmental resources. For a more detailed explanation of carrying
capacity analysis see Appendix G-20.
109
-------
CHAPTER IV
Impacts of Applicant's Proposed Action
MB^HBBK
-------
Chapter IV
Impacts of Applicant's Proposed Action
This chapter evaluates the impacts of the Applicant's Proposed
Action, described in Chapter II, on natural and human components of the
environment inventoried in Chapter III. Here, "environment" is defined
as the area within, or where appropriate, contiguous to the B-LLJSA Ser-
vice Area boundary (see Figure II-l). The discussion focuses on both
beneficial and adverse effects of the proposed project insofar as the
B-LLJSA sewage collection and transmission system is concerned; the
environmental impacts of sewage treatment and disposal at the upgraded/
expanded Easton sewage treatment plant (STP) will not be discussed here.
A comparison of the impacts of the Applicant's Proposed Action to those
of the wastewater management alternatives developed in this EIS is not
included in this chapter either; Chapter VII provides this comparison,
along with a discussion of estimated future environmental conditions
without implementation of the Applicant's Proposed Action or any of its
alternatives.
Impact discussion in this EIS will consider both primary and secon-
dary effects of the Applicant's Proposed Action. For this study, pri-
mary effects or impacts*1are those directly related to the construction
and operation of sewage collection/transmission facilities. Secondary
impacts-'^represent project-induced impacts on the environment. In addi-
tion to being described as either beneficial or adverse, these impacts
will be characterized as either short-term or long-term. Short-term
effects on the environment are usually a direct consequence of the
project in its immediate vicinity. Long-term effects are those which
are the result, either directly or indirectly, of the project and in
most cases are considered to be permanent effects.
A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. AIR QUALITY
The construction of wastewater collection and transmission facili-
ties in the B-LLJSA project will result in localized air contaminant
emissions. Major emissions include total suspended particulates (such
as fugitive dust from right of way clearing, excavation, and filling, as
well as smoke from the exhaust of diesel-powered equipment) and gases
(nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, organics, and odors from diesel-
powered equipment, as well as hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from in-
terrupted roadway traffic). Because site preparation and construction
would be of relatively little duration at any one location in the
B-LLJSA Service Area, these primary air quality impacts are projected to
be short-term and negligible.
example: destruction of historical, archaeological or recreational
areas during pipeline construction.
2 example: loss of prime agricultural land over time as a result of
sewer-induced (secondary) growth.
Ill
-------
Adverse air quality impacts which derive from the operation of the
upgraded and expanded Easton sewage treatment plant (STP) would be
limited to occasional odor problems in the immediate vicinity of the
STP. Odor generated by the operation of the Easton STP is not expected
to adversely effect air quality in the B-LLJSA Service Area, located
approximately 6 miles northwest of the plant.
2. NOISE
The construction of interceptor and collector sewers as well as
pump stations in the B-LLJSA Service Area, as prescribed in the Appli-
cant's Proposed Action, can be expected to cause short-term adverse
noise conditions. Such construction would involve the use of dozers for
right-of-way clearance, front loaders and dump trucks for debris re-
moval, chain saws for short-term use in wooded areas (Jacobsburg State
Park), rock drills and blasting equipment for use in hard-rock areas
(Cherry Hill vicinity), as well as heavy trucks, backhoes, cranes, and
other equipment for sewer pipe installation. The operation of these
equipment items will create public annoyance at certain distances as
shown in Table IV-1.
Table IV-1
DISTANCES FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AT WHICH
ANNOYANCE OCCURS DUE TO SOUND LEVEL
Equipment Item Distance (ft)
Dozer 100
Dump Truck 100
Backhoe 500
Rock Drill >2000
Crane 2000
Concrete Mixer 500
Source: EPA 1977
The actual sound levels emitted during sewage facilities construction
depend on equipment duty cycle and the number and mixture of equipment
items that are operating simultaneously. Mild adverse reaction may be
expected during construction of a ditch at a distance of up to approxi-
mately 700 feet due to noise caused by dozers, backhoes, and trucks.
Sewer pipe installation would create a more severe impact on local resi-
dents, since noise from crane operations will dominate the noise field
up to 2,000 feet. If blasting is required, the rock drill operation
would be a major noise source causing extreme, short-term annoyance up
to distances of approximately 2,000 feet (EPA 1977).
The length of time that such primary adverse noise impacts would
occur, if the Applicant's Proposed Action were implemented, is highly
variable, depending upon soil conditions, accessibility, weather and
other factors. The length of time a given group of residents would be
affected by construction related noise can be estimated, assuming that
approximately 2,000 feet of interceptor can be completed in a typical
one-month period. At this completion rate, inhabitants within approxi-
mately 1,000 feet of the center of construction activity could expect
112
-------
noise to be in excess of limiting threshold levels (day/night average
noise level = 55 dB) for a total period of two weeks to one month (EPA
1977). Noise intrusion from sewer construction is projected to exist
for a relatively longer period in those areas of the B-LLJSA specified
to be served by double (parallel) sewers under the Applicant's Proposed
Action. These areas include Route 115 and the community of Edelman in
Plainfield Township as well as portions of Stockertown Borough and East
Lawn in Upper Nazareth Township.
The construction of proposed sewerage facilities in the B-LLJSA
Service Area, particularly within Jacobsburg State Park and in wooded
areas along Bushkill Creek, may have primary adverse impacts upon wild-
life. Noise's major effect on wildlife is related to the use of audi-
tory signals which are important for survival in some species. Animals
that rely on their ears to locate prey and to detect predators are in
each case adversely affected by intruding noise from construction equip-
ment. Such noise could also affect wildlife reproduction or increase
mortality as auditory mating signals and distress/ warning signals,
respectively, are masked during the construction period. It has been
indicated that short-term high noise levels may startle wild game birds
and stop the brooding cycle for an entire season (EPA 1977).
Long-term primary noise impacts resulting from the operation of
sewerage facilities, particularly pump stations, are expected to be
negligible. Only 2 pump stations are proposed to be constructed in the
B-LLJSA.
Secondary noise impacts would result from sewer induced population
growth and the corresponding increase in vehicular traffic throughout
the B-LLJSA Service Area. The increment in ambient noise levels attri-
buted to this induced growth under the Applicant's Proposed Action is
projected to be negligible.
3. TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. Topography
No adverse impacts on the Service Area's topography would be expec-
ted from the construction of interceptor sewers"", which are proposed to
lie adjacent to relatively flat or gently sloping stream beds.
b. Geology
The construction of interceptor sewers as well as lateral sewers*
could have a significant primary impact on local geology since blasting
would likely be required along roads in Bushkill Township and Plainfield
Township and adjacent to certain segments of Schoeneck Creek in Palmer
Township where outcrops" (hard rock visible at the surface) have been
observed. Blasting that is required near streams is expected to have
adverse impacts on channel hydraulics in the short-term (blasting may
adversely affect channel hydraulics by altering paths of groundwater
flow to Service Area streams). Due caution should be used in selecting
blasting sites along the proposed sewer route. Over the long-term,
these impacts are judged to be insignificant. Unconsolidated and frag-
mented shale rock could be removed with a backhoe during sewer construc-
tion; impacts on local geology would then be insignificant.
113
-------
The most important secondary geologic impacts of the Applicant's
Proposed Action are related to urban growth that would occur in the
Service Area as a result of the implementation of the project. With the
exception of certain areas underlain by limestone, the Service Area is
generally well-suited to urbanization, and these impacts should there-
fore be minimal. However, in areas where sinkhole development has been
known to occur (in limestone soils), sewer-induced growth should proceed
only after a detailed geologic reconnaissance has been made of the poten-
tially developable area.
c. Soils
The most important primary impact of the Applicant's Proposed
Action on the soils of the B-LLJSA Service Area relates to the potential
for soil erosion or loss to downslope areas during sewer construction.
Available soil data indicate that most soils adjacent to Schoeneck Creek
and Bushkill Creek, where interceptor construction has been proposed,
have moderate to poor stability. This condition indicates that erosion
is a potential problem, especially when sites are devegetated during con-
struction operations. Therefore, to keep soil loss and stream turbidity
to a minimum, a relatively flat vegetative buffer as wide as possible
should be maintained between construction sites and stream courses.
Secondary impacts of the Applicant's Proposed Action on the soils
in B-LLJSA Study Area involve the removal of soil from potential pro-
ductivity. This is discussed in the next section (IV.A.4).
4. PRIME AND UNIQUE AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Prime agricultural lands are those whose value derives from their
general advantage as cropland due to soil and water conditions. These
lands constitute the vast majority of acreage in the B-LLJSA Study Area.
Implementation of the Applicant's Proposed Action may, over a 20-year
planning period, lead to the conversion of approximately twice the
amount of agricultural land, forest and pasture to residential/
commercial/industrial use that would occur without the project
(conversion = 3735 acres with project and 1623 acres without project).
The amount of prime agricultural land consumed under the Applicant's
Proposed Action, as with any centralized wastewater management alterna-
tive (see Chapter VII), will likely be high simply because the percen-
tage of this type of land in the B-LLJSA Service Area is high.
Construction of regional or centralized collection facilities will
neutralize soil constraints presently limiting the use of on-site waste-
water management systems, thus allowing more development in the B-LLJSA
Service Area than is now the case. By permitting high density develop-
ment in non-prime farmland areas, centralized wastewater management, as
proposed, serves to prevent the unmanaged development of prime farmland
that may occur without the project or with decentralized wastewater
management alternatives. Provided proper growth management controls are
implemented, this may be considered a benefit of the Applicant's Pro-
posed Action.
114
-------
However, for every parcel of prime agricultural land converted to
residential/commercial/industrial use under the Applicant's Proposed
Action, alternative benefits must be foregone. In some cases, the loss
of alternative benefits may carry with it significant social, economic
and environmental costs which are borne by the Service Area population
as a whole or large portions thereof. Adverse impacts that may result
from implementation of the Applicant's Proposed Action include:
The agricultural character of several municipalities, includ-
ing Bushkill Township, Plainfield Township and Upper Nazareth
Township may decrease in the short run and may be diminished
in the long run if sewer-induced growth on prime agricultural
land is unchecked. This character was the incentive behind
many residents moving to these municipalities in the first
place.
* Reduction in the amount of open space; hunting and recreation
opportunities are decreased.
* Reduction in the amount of clean air generated by oxygen-pro-
ducing crops and other green plants in the Service Area.
* Natural control of surface runoff afforded by prime farmlands
is diminished as the amount of impermeable material (roads,
houses, buildings) increases; surface runoff is increased.
* The local prices of certain farm products may increase if
agricultural land is converted to other uses in the greater
Easton area. Seasonal vegetables, certain grains, and to a
limited degree, dairy products may become more expensive if
Service Area residents have to pay extra money to have these
products shipped to their markets from other regions.
* Reduction in crop productivity per acre. The B-LLJSA Service
Area contains some of the most productive soils in Northampton
County; these soils can produce over 100 bushels of corn per
acre (by telephone, Roslyn Kahler, NCCD, 18 Oct 79). If these
prime areas are lost to development, farmers will, out of
necessity, move to marginal soils to produce the same crops at
lower yields per acre. Farming of marginal soils may result
in more extensive soil erosion, increased fertilizer require-
ments and increased need for soil conservation measures. Loss
of prime agricultural land will result in lower profits per
acre for the farmer, and therefore less incentive to continue
farming operations. This may, in the long run, accelerate the
loss of farmland to other uses in the Service Area.
Unique agricultural land, or land which is used in the production
of high cash or high fiber crops (e.g. orchards), constitutes less than
1% of all land in Northampton County. It follows that unique agricul-
tural land constitutes a very small portion of the total acreage within
the B-LLJSA Study Area. Therefore, the degree to which it would be
affected by the Applicant's Proposed Action is insignificant.
115
-------
5. WATER RESOURCES
a. Groundwater
Proposed construction and operation of sewage collection and trans-
mission facilities in an area partly served by private wells must con-
sider the implications of such construction with regard to local ground-
water supplies. The Applicant's Proposed Action is expected to cause no
significant primary or secondary impacts on water table levels and the
available quantity of groundwater within the B-LLJSA Study Area. In
Bushkill Township where the estimated groundwater recharge from on-site
wastewater management systems in 1980 is estimated to be 260,000 gallons
per day (gpd) (see Table V-3), only 3,000 gpd would be diverted to the
proposed sewerage system and out of the aquifers. On the other hand,
the increased population in non-sewered areas of Bushkill Township dur-
ing the design period would result in an average increase of 100,000 gpd
recharge from on-site systems. For Plainfield Township, the correspon-
ding reduction in 1980 is 120,000 gpd which is almost balanced by the
increase of 90,000 gpd due to the projected growth of on-site systems
during the design period. The net result in the two Townships is an in-
crease in the potential recharge from on-site systems of 40,000 gpd.
All of the above rates are relatively small in comparison to the average
groundwater discharge rate to Bushkill Creek which is estimated to be 61
million gallons per day at 40% of stream flow (Delaware River Basin Com-
mission 1975).
Sewage collection and transmission lines that would be maintained
throughout the Service Area pose a potential long-term groundwater qua-
lity hazard. Pipeline leakage and groundwater quality degradation
should be minimized if good, up-to-date engineering practices that will
prevent leakage are used in the pipeline construction.
It was stated in Section III.A.8.b. that nitrate levels (expressed
as N) can be expected to increase with continued use of on-site waste-
water management systems in the Service Area. Nitrate concentrations
associated with septic tank effluent are not removed during the soil
filtration process as effectively as other pollutants, such as phosphor-
us and BOD. Implementation of the Applicant's Proposed Action would
have a beneficial impact on groundwater quality by diverting sewage
flows from on-site (subsurface) systems to centralized treatment facili-
ties. Any improvement in groundwater quality gained through this diver-
sion, particularly in Bushkill Township and Plainfield Township would be
partly off-set by agricultural drainage and the construction of new
on-site wastewater management systems outside of the immediate B-LLJSA
Service Area.
b. Surface Water
Implementation of the Applicant's Proposed Action would have pri-
mary impacts on both the quantity and quality of surface water in the
Service Area. The first is adverse, involving the EA's assumption that
the Nazareth Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) would eventually (within ap-
proximately 5 years) be abandoned and connected to the proposed B-LLJSA
116
-------
system via the Schoeneck interceptor. Abandonment of the Nazareth STP
means that a certain quantity (effectively 1.1 cfs3 out of 8 cfs4) of
streamflow immediately downstream of the plant would be decreased.
Wastewater from the STP and quarry/process water from nearby cement com-
pany operations are known to supplement the annual flow of Schoeneck
Creek. Loss of 1.1 cfs (approximately 14% of the total Schoeneck Creek
flow) may have a significant adverse affect on the stream hydrology and
further, may increase the frequency with which Schoeneck Creek totally
disappears before reaching the Bushkill Creek in Palmer Township. This
disappearance presently occurs at times during the dry period of late
August through early September, and is attributed to the sinkhole
topography as well as the dry and permeable land drained by the Creek.
Other impacts of the Applicant's Proposed Action on stream hydrology
(channel hydraulics) in the Service Area were discussed previously in
Section IV.A.3.
On the other hand, the abandonment of the Nazareth STP can be ex-
pected to have a beneficial primary impact on the water quality of
Schoeneck Creek. With the discontinuance of this point source* dis-
charge, waste loads into Schoeneck Creek, and ultimately into Bushkill
Creek, would be reduced and a dissolved oxygen level slightly higher
than the present level could be expected. Reductions in bacteria and
phosphorus levels in Bushkill Creek, however, would be insignificant in
the short-term as a result of the Applicant's Proposed Action because
agricultural runoff (not septic tank systems) has been identified as the
major source of these pollutants.
Another primary impact of the Applicant's Proposed Action relates
to the erosion of soils which would accompany construction of sewers
(see Section IV.A.2.) and to the subsequent deposition of sediment into
the streams. Sedimentation* and resultant disruption of stream habitat
would likely be greatest at approximately 23 of the 29 stream crossings
which are part of the Applicant's Proposed Action.5 This erosion and
sedimentation would be intensified during storm events and would in-
crease until the surface and channel have again been stabilized by
natural vegetation or revegetation and stabilization.
Implementation of the Applicant's Proposed Action would eliminate
the need for grey water (laundry, kitchen water) discharge to public
streets, which is common in Plainfield Township (Belfast) and Bushkill
Township. Discontinued grey water discharge would result in reduced
non-point source pollution loads of BOD and nutrients to surface water
channels in the Service Area. This reduction may, in the short run, be
insignificant compared to non-point source pollution originating from
3 The STP's average annual discharge of 0.73 mgd = approximately 1.1
cubic feet per second (cfs).
4 The 7-day 10-year low flow of Schoeneck Creek is about 8 cfs.
5 Six of the 29 stream crossings (along Schoeneck Creek) are projected
to involve tunneling or jacking of the sewer pipe below the stream
bottom; these would not significantly increase sedimentation.
117
-------
agricultural land; in the long run, the same reduction may be insignifi-
cant in light of increased non-point source runoff, bacteria, BOD and
nutrients, which would result from the development of presently open or
agricultural land.
Abandoning the Nazareth STP (under the Applicant's Proposed Action)
would have the beneficial impact eliminating the discharge of ammonia
into Schoeneck Creek. Based on STP operation reports (1996-1978),
ammonia concentrations in the effluent discharged to the Creek average
20 mg/1. Abandonment may provide a significant reduction in potentially
toxic un-ionized ammonia concentrations that are found in Bushkill
Creek's brown trout nursery (and probable spawning) area (see Figure
III-ll). Corresponding reductions in downstream residual chlorine con-
centrations below the Nazareth STP discharge point under the proposed
plant abandonment are less quantifiable (than ammonia) because exact
concentrations of residual chlorine in the plant effluent are difficult
to determine due to various by-passes in the wastewater treatment
system.
Secondary impacts on surface water quality would result from the
induced growth that would follow implementation of the Applicant's Pro-
posed Action. Increased construction of impervious surfaces, i.e.
structures and roads, decrease the area over which rainfall can enter
the ground (and eventually the gi ^undwater). Development thereby in-
creases the amount and intensity £ stormwater runoff. As a result,
erosion, sedimentation, and non-point source pollution* of the Service
Area's watercourses are increased. Key water quality parameters such as
dissolved oxygen, phosphorus and nitrogen may also be affected.
The secondary impacts on water quality were quantified in terms of
the dissolved oxygen and coliform bacteria concentrations in Bushkill
Creek. It is most practical to assess the relative impacts of the con-
tinuous (i.e., STP discharges) and storm-related discharges due to the
highly variable nature of rainfall-related processes. The average im-
pact of a number of storms occurring in a season was compared to that of
the continuous sources. The results of comparison indicate that the dis-
solved oxygen and coliform bacteria levels in Bushkill Creek will be
slightly affected due to summer storms by implementing the Applicant's
Proposed Action. The calculated dissolved oxygen level will be reduced
by 1 mg/1 and still be above the State Water Quality Criteria of 7 mg/1.
6. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Implementation of the Applicant's Proposed Action would likely have
severe adverse primary and secondary impacts on the biotic resources
(aquatic and terrestrial) of the Service Area. Primary impacts would
arise from the construction of sewage transmission lines along and
across stream channels. Construction activities would involve the
removal of trees, shrubs and other vegetation along Bushkill Creek from
the existing Palmer manhole through Jacobsburg State Park, including a
virgin hemlock stand in the park. Removal of portions of the virgin
hemlock stand will reduce the area of a locally unique ornithological
area. Removal of trees will also allow more sunlight to reach the
water, thus increasing its temperature.
118
-------
As water temperature increases, its capacity to hold oxygen de-
creases. As described previously oxygen concentrations are crucial to
proper development of trout eggs. Water temperature itself is also
critical for successful brown trout spawning. Egg development is
reduced at temperatures above 12.8°C (Brown 1974, with suppls. 1975 and
1976) and there is high mortality when brown trout eggs are incubated at
15°C. Should Bushkill Creek's temperature in the area shown as the
"Brown Trout Nursery/Probable Spawing Area"on Figure III-ll, which aver-
ages 10°C during October and November, increase by as little as 3°C
during these spawning months, reproductive success might be reduced.
As stream-side areas are partially-to-completely devegetated during
interceptor sewer construction, surface runoff and soil erosion are in-
creased, particularly during storm events. Nutrient-rich soil particles
and suspended solids transported to the Creek might temporarily increase
algae populations. As these suspended solids settle to the bottom of
the stream, the bottom will become unfavorable for those macroinverte-
brates which prefer rocky or gravelly habitats. Aquatic insects, which
are a preferred food of trout (Carlander 1969), will be among those
macroinvertebrates most severely affected. Siltation may affect brown
trout spawning success by suffocating eggs and early stage larval trout
that are developing in the gravel.
Sewer construction, as proposed in the EA, would involve 29 stream
crossings: 8 on Bushkill Creek; 8 on Little Bushkill Creek; 6 on Schoe-
neck Creek; and 7 on tributaries to these streams. It is reported that
the interceptor sewer along Schoeneck Creek will be jacked (or tunneled)
under the stream at selected locations (see Figure IV-1), instead of
being placed into an excavation in the stream bottom itself (Interview,
Lewis Wolfe, Chairman, B-LLJSA, 12 Oct 79). The jacking of sewers is
expected to result in negligible adverse impacts upon stream biota owing
to the absence of stream bottom deposit disruption. Pipe jacking con-
struction involves the "pump-out of work areas (usually pits or trenches
on either side of the stream) if the water table or a spring is inter-
cepted during excavation. The muddy water in the pit is discharged to
the stream. Although it may locally disrupt aquatic habitats for a
short period of time, no long term adverse consequences are expected
unless this occurs above or in trout spawning areas.
The remainder of the stream crossings within the B-LLJSA Service
Area, involving excavation and possible blasting of the stream bottom
itself as well as the temporary construction of cofferdams*, would
likely have severe short- and long-term primary impacts on stream flora
and fauna. Such impacts would be characterized by high turbidity of the
water, destruction of aquatic habitats and disruption of channel hydrau-
lics. The severity of these impacts becomes more pronounced in slower
moving waters downstream of any given construction site as the suspended
solids settle. As indicated in Section III.A.10.a, the ability of
Bushkill Creek to support a naturally-reproducing brown trout population
is dependent upon a plentiful supply of cool, clear fresh water and an
undisturbed habitat. Proposed stream crossings which involve excava-
tion, blasting, and cofferdam construction will adversely affect bottom
habitat in this critical brown trout nursey and probable spawning area,
thereby impairing the ability of brown trout to successfully reproduce
in Bushkill Creek. Such stream crossings may also have measurable
119
-------
impacts on the rainbow and brook trout populations in Little Bushkill
Creek. Although natural reproduction may not occur or only be sporadic
and limited in this watercourse, these species are also dependent on
high stream quality.
Secondary impacts on aquatic biota would also be negative if the
Applicant's Proposed Action were implemented. In Bushkill Creek,
sedimentation resulting from increased runoff from impervious surfaces
and construction of new homes in the immediate vicinity of the streams
would likely render the bottom unfavorable for trout food species and
cause suffocation of trout eggs and early stage larvae. Secondary
impacts are expected to be minimal in Little Bushkill Creek.
Induced growth and development along Schoeneck Creek (secondary im-
pacts) would increase stormwater runoff and sediment loads and have very
insignificant changes in seasonal DO levels in that stream, although
aquatic life would benefit from cessation of waste discharges from the
Nazareth STP.
Without effective floodplain management, construction of the Appli-
cant's Proposed Action would cause negative impacts on the floodplain
habitat, as it would be altered due to induced growth. Induced growth
would also negatively affect terrestrial vegetation and wildlife
throughout the Service Area as up to 5,606 additional acres are devel-
oped.
In conclusion, the Applicant's Proposed Action would likely have
severe adverse primary and secondary impacts on the Service Area's
biotic resources. Macroinvertabrate populations are likely to be
adversely affected and successful reproduction by brown trout might be
reduced or eliminated.
B. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
1. POPULATION
The Applicant's Proposed Action would induce a very significant
population growth in the EIS Study Area. This induced growth is defined
as growth that would occur in addition to the baseline population pro-
jected for the year 2000 (see Section III.B.l.b) as a result of the pro-
viding of sewer service. This secondary impact would result from two
factors: the configuration of proposed sewers and their hydraulic
capacity.
The placement of easily accessible gravity interceptors in all of
the major Study Area watersheds would permit relatively inexpensive
trunk sewers to be constructed that could serve new development. To in-
dicate the extent of the area that is likely to be developed, a calcula-
tion of an economic transport distance was made. This is the distance
from an interceptor that a subdivision developer would find economically
justifiable to build a trunk sewer serving a new 100 house development.
The distance is approximately 4800 linear feet assuming no obstacles to
120
-------
FIGURE iv-i LOCATION OF STREAM CROSSINGS ASSOCIATED WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ACTION
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
t STREAM CROSSINGS INVOLVING EXCAVATION,
BLASTING, OR COFFERDAMS DURING
SEWER PIPE CONSTRUCTION
J t SEWER PIPE JACKED UNDER STREAMBED
CTl AREA WHERE SPRINGS ARE KNOWN TO EXIST
SOURCE: GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC. 1973
-------
construction of an 8 inch diameter sewer at minimum grade.6 By munici-
pality, this distance from the proposed sewers would cover all of Palmer
Township in the Study Area, all of Upper Nazareth Township east of
Nazareth Borough, approximately one third of Bushkill Township in the
central and southeast sections, approximately one third of Plainfield
Township in the west and west central sections and all of Stockerton and
Tatamy Boroughs. In addition, bordering areas of Forks Township and
Lower Nazareth Township could readily be developed under these assump-
tions .
The second factor inducing growth would be hydraulic capacity.
Hydraulic capacity for the Applicant's Proposed Action was designed such
that there is capacity at the lower end of the collection system for an
additional 4.3 mgd. This excess capacity could add 18,914 persons to
the already anticipated baseline population growth of 7596 for a total
population of 62,464. This sewer-induced growth is approximately 250%
greater than that which would occur under baseline conditions. In order
to affect the viability of this impact, the JPC 1978 Service Area muni-
cipal population forecasts were used to represent the upper limit of
growth that could be expected. The difference between baseline projec-
tions and JPC forecasts for the year 2000 amounts to approximately 9,000
persons. Clearly the amount of induced growth that could occur as a re-
sult of excess capacity in the Applicant's Proposed Action is high.
This design would probably be underutilized for an extended period of
time and would be more appropriate for the years 2010 or 2020. (For a
more detailed discussion see Appendix G-20).
2. LAND USE
Land use would change significantly if the Applicant's Proposed
Action were implemented. Not only would the 2,112 additional acres that
would probably be absorbed bring the total to 12,378 developed acres in
the Service Area, but the density of areas already developed would in-
crease. The induced dwelling unit growth under this course of action is
estimated to be 161% (6,143 units) over the year 2000 baseline projec-
tion. An increase of this magnitude would involve a major impact on the
mix of housing throughout the Service Area. Enough multiple-family
development would be induced not only to diminish but to alter the
area's rural character. The interaction of growth-related factors is
discussed in Section VII.B.
3. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
a. User Charges
User charges represent the costs billed to customers of a waste-
water management system. They consist of three major compoents: debt
service
6 Assumes a marginal cost per house of $1,000, and a cost per foot of
sewer, including manholes, of $21.20 installed including contingen-
cies. An eight inch sewer has more than enough capacity for this
site development.
123
-------
(repayment of principal and interest of the loan used to pay construc-
tion costs), operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and an annual re-
serve fund assumed to equal 20% of the annual debt service amount. The
reserve fund is a portion of current revenues inverted to finance future
construction-related improvements.
The percentage of construction costs elegible for Federal funding
of wastewater management projects has a strong effect on the costs that
users would have to bear. Eligibility refers to that portion of waste-
water management facilities costs determined by EPA to be eligible for
Federal wastewater facilities construction grants under Section 201 of
the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments and the Clean
Water Act of 1977. The 1972 and 1977 Acts enable EPA to fund 75% of
local eligible capital costs of conventional systems and 85% of innova-
tive and alternative systems costs. Approximately 80% of the construc-
tion costs associated with new wastewater collection and conveyance
facilities under the Applicant's Proposed Action were determined to be
eligible for Federal funding.
Some states provide matching funds for capital costs of wastewater
facilities. Pennsylvania, however, does not provide any funding for
capital costs. Pennsylvania may provide up to 2% of a wastewater
system's annual O&M costs.
The annual user charge for the Applicant's Proposed Action is
estimated to be $160 for each household connected to the proposed
facilities in the B-LLJSA Service Area. The calculation of the user
charge is based on local capital costs being paid through the use of a
30-year bond at 6 7/8% interest.
b. Local Cost Burden
High-cost wastewater facilities may place an excessive financial
burden on the users of the facilities. Such burdens may cause families
to substantially alter their spending patterns. A project is likely to
place significant financial burden on users when user charges equal or
exceed the following criteria developed by the Federal government (The
White House Rural Development Triative 1978):
« 1.5% of median household incomes less than $6,000;
• 2.0% of median household incomes between $6,000 and $10,000;
• 2.5% of median household incomes greater than $10,000.
When compared to the distribution of incomes in the Service Area, the
user charge of the Applicant's Proposed Action would place a significant
financial burden on 15 to 20% of the Service Area's households.
c. Displacement Pressure
User charges may be excessive to the extent of causing some lower
income families to move away from the B-LLJSA Service Area. This cost
burden is termed displacement pressure and is measured by determining
the number of households having user charges exceeding 5% of their
.annual income. Approximately 5 to 10% of the households in the Service
Area would be displaced by the user charges associated with the
Applicant's Proposed Action.
124
-------
d. Additional Charges
Two other charges will have to be paid in addition to the user
charges associated with the Applicant's Proposed Action. Households
will be charged a one-time fee for connecting to the wastewater convey-
ance collection system. Gravity sewer connections will cost $1,000
while pressure sewer connections will cost $150. The pressure sewer
connection is considered an innovative and alternative technology and is
eligible for 85% of the total cost to be funded by US EPA. The gravity
sewer connection is not eligible for EPA funding and, thus is more expen-
sive than the pressure sewer connection.
The second charge would be assessed users of the EA Proposed System
to pay back debts incurred by the B-L1JSA, including:
• B-LLJSA's share of construction costs associated with the up-
grading/expansion of the Easton STP as well as expansion of
wastewater conveyance facilities in the existing Easton Ser-
vice area to accomodate B-LLJSA sewage. This share has been
estimated to be $1.3 million (Interview, Lewis Wolfe, Chair-
man, B-LLJSA, 18 Sept 79)
• Extended costs associated with B-LLJSA project design,
right-of-way negotiations, interest on loan, and other fees
that have already been spent. These costs total an estimated
$0.9 million.
These additional charges total an estimated $2.2 million, which must be
paid by the B-LLJSA Service Area residents. The user charge which is
levied (over and beyond the $l60/year user charge described earlier) in
order to retire this total amount of indebtedness is estimated to be
$70/househoId/year.
The additional charges will add to the financial burden and dis-
placement pressure induced by the user charges. Economic stress on
households will be highest during the first year the system's operation
where users will be billed for the sewer connection charge.
4. PUBLIC SERVICES
The amount of induced growth anticipated under the Applicant's
Proposed Action would tax the existing capacity of public services such
as schools, health facilities and ambulances, and police and fire pro-
tection. For police protection, 28 additional officers would be needed.
For the school districts, some projections for the year 2000 under the
Applicant's Proposed Action, if all the children were to attend public
school, are as follows:
125
-------
SCHOOL DESKS NEEDED
District Rated Capacity 2000 School Shortage
Population in 2000
Nazareth Area* 2904 9105* 5926*
(+275 in 1982)
Pen Argyl 2178 4798** 2620**
* Not including additional students ** For Plainfield Town-
from Lower Nazareth Township ship alone
Capital investments in new buildings and required equipment could also
strain the local tax base. It has been projected that in the year 2000
ample electricity and enough water would be available to meet the demands
for an additional 974,000 gallons per day. Landfill capacity for solid
waste would also be available; however, solid waste generation at higher
rates than anticipated could shorten the life span of the facility.
Also taxed following implementation of the Applicant's Proposed Action
would be the present local and regional transportation networks.
Region-wide improvements would be needed to handle the increase of 59%
over baseline projections in the volume of traffic which would be gener-
ated. Extensive induced growth would also negatively affect the recrea-
tional opportunities and their quality in the Service Area. A 66-acre
increase in recreational lands would be required to provide adequate
facilities for the population. Furthermore, under the Applicant's
Proposed Action, a large area contiguous to Jacobsburg State Park could
be developed, drastically altering the character of the area and
reducing the recreational quality and opportunity.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Implementation of the Applicant's Proposed Action would have nega-
tive impacts on cultural resources in the Service Area. Negative im-
pacts could result from placing sewers and inducing population growth in
sensitive historic and archaeological sites, especially the Jacobsburg
Historic District and the Anita Grist Mill. In addition, the
Applicant's Proposed Action could adversely affect 14 known archaeo-
logical sites, as well as buried archaeological resources of the
Jacobsburg Historic District. However, prior to implementation of any
wastewater management plan, review by the Pennslyvania State Historic
Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
as well as compliance with present laws, would be required. This would
serve to partially mitigate adverse impacts on cultural resources in the
Service Area.
126
-------
CHAPTER V
Development of Alternatives
-------
Chapter V
Development of Alternatives
Wastewater collection and treatment systems that serve as alterna-
tives to the Applicant's Proposed Action (see Section II.D.3) are
developed in this chapter. The development of alternatives focuses on
the wastewater management needs of residents throughout the EIS Service
Area (see Figure 1-2) , not solely on those of residents in the B-LLJSA
Service Area (see Figure II-2). The delineation of an appropriate
Service Area, a leading issue in this project, is based on EPA's needs
documentation findings which were described in detail in Section
III.B.5.C. Since the B-LLJSA and EIS Service Areas lack geographical
conformity and furthermore, since it is the objective of this EIS to
compare the Applicant's Proposed Action with feasible alternative plans,
it has been necessary to develop a modified version of the Applicant's
Proposed Action (Modified Applicant's Proposed Action). The impacts of
the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action as well as the EIS Alternatives
(described in Chapter VI) upon the natural and human environment are
assessed in Chapter VII.
The process by which wastewater management alternatives were devel-
oped in this EIS is described in Appendix N-l.
The development of alternatives in this EIS focuses on those
aspects and implications of the proposed wastewater management plan for
the EIS Service Area which either have been identified as major issues
or concerns, or were not adequately addressed in the Environmental
Assessment. Chapter I of this EIS emphasized that an important issue is
the overall need for the project proposed in the 1976 Environmental
Assessment. Documenting a clear need for new wastewater facilities re-
quires evidence that the existing on-lot systems are causing water
quality and public health problems. Such a need is shown when one or
more of the following conditions exists:
• Standing pools of septic tank effluent or raw domestic sewage
in yards or public areas where direct contact with residents
is likely
• Sewage in basements from inoperable or sluggish sewage dis-
posal systems
• Contaminated private wells clearly associated with sewage dis-
posal systems.
Unsuitable site conditions such as high groundwater, rapidly or slowly
permeable soils, or solution channels are not of themselves sufficient
documentation of the need for Federally-funded wastewater management
facilities. Nor does the occurrence of fecal coliform bacteria alone
in the Service Area's water courses justify Federal funding of the
127
-------
proposed project. Federally-fundable need is established when these
bacteria can be traced to the intestinal tracts of humans (instead of
warm-blooded animals).
The high cost of the Applicant's Proposed Action and its potential
impact on area residents make the issue of cost-effectiveness of proposed
facilities a major concern. Since the collection system accounts for a
significant share of the construction costs in the Applicant's Proposed
Action (approximately 52%), the extent of servicing necessary, along with
alternative wastewater treatment systems and the use of newer technol-
ogies for wastewater collection are investigated in detail. The devel-
opment of alternative treatment facilities has been undertaken by
matching available technologies to such site conditions as soil char-
acteristics and housing density in the EIS Service Area. The tech-
nologies assessed are listed below:
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS AND OPTIONS
Functional Component
Flow and Waste Load
Reduction
Options
Collection of Wastewaters
Wastewater Treatment
Processes
Effluent Disposal
Sludge Handling
Sludge Disposal
household water conserva-
tion measures
rehabilitation of existing
sewers to reduce
infiltration and inflow
limited service area
pressure sewers
gravity sewers
small-diameter gravity
sewers
conventional centralized
treatment
land application
marsh/pond systems
on-site treatment
(conventional and alter-
nate systems)
cluster systems
subsurface disposal
land application
discharge to surface
waters
digestion
dewatering
land application
landfilling
composting
contract hauling
incineration
128
-------
Appropriate options were selected and combined into the alternative
systems that are described in Chapter VI. The last section of the
present chapter considers implementation, administration and financing
of the alternatives.
2. DESIGN POPULATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The design population is that population projected to reside in the
Service Area in the year 2000, which under EPA's Construction Grant Pro-
gram, is the last year of the wastewater management planning period. In
this EIS, design population is assumed to vary according to the avail-
ability of public sewerage. Populations, and hence, wastewater flows,
associated with centralized wastewater collection and treatment facili-
ties are usually larger than those associated with decentralized facili-
ties. The classical pipeline projects which characterize centralized
facilities effectively neutralize environmental and physical constraints
(soil suitability, water quality, and residential lot size) that deter-
mine the viability of decentralized facilities. Sewer-induced growth in
areas underlain by poor soils (high water table, shallow depth to bed-
rock, slow permeability for example) result in larger populations, at
greater density, than is possible under decentralized alternatives which
depend on specified environmental conditions. The design population and
average daily flow accorded the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action as
well as each EIS alternative is shown in Table V-l. The methodology
used to derive the alternative population estimates is described in
Appendix G-l.
In this EIS, the design population to be served by the Applicant's
Proposed Action has not been changed. This population figure (27,085)
represents a projection through the year 2020 instead of year 2000, and
assumes that Nazareth Borough and portions of Lower Nazareth Township
will be connected to the B-LLJSA system by the year 2020. The design
population accorded the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action, however,
differs significantly from that associated with the Applicant's Proposed
Action. The former is a 20-year instead of a 40-year projection. The
design population for the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action was
derived using the same Environmental Constraints Evaluation criteria
used for development of EIS Alternative populations. Other modifica-
tions1 , described in detail in Chapter VI, were made to the Applicant's
Proposed Action in the interest of equitable comparison of the designs
and costs of alternative wastewater management strategies for the EIS
Service Area.
3. BASIS OF FLOW AND WASTE LOAD PROJECTIONS
The design flow used for the Applicant's Proposed Action was 100
gpcd, including I/I. To properly compare costs in this EIS, flows
developed for the EIS Alternatives were used to re-calculate flows for
the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action.
1 Other differences between the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action and
the Applicant's Proposed Action include: projected wastewater flow
per capita (60/70 vs 100 gpcd); line-sizing of collection and trans-
mission systems; areas served by facilities.
1-29
-------
Table V-l
EIS ALTERNATIVES
DESIGN POPULATION/AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MGD)
Modified EA Pro-
Municipality posed Action Alternative 1
h-1
U>
O
Plainfleld Township
Bushkill Township
Upper Nazareth
Township
Nazareth Borough
Palmer Township
Tatamy Borough
Stockertown Borough
TOTAL
2,288/0.185
860/0.041
1,074/0.083
5,843/0.705
634/0.046
1,360/0.107
821/0.067
12,880/1.234
1,938/0.128
165/0.010
1,046/0.076
5,843/0.705
90/0.006
1,360/0.102
821/0.065
11,263/1.092
Alternative 2
1,986/0.127
165/0.010
1,046/0.076
5,843/0.705
90/0.006
1,360/0.102
821/0.065
11,311/1.091
Alternative 3
2,288/0.185
508/0.026
1,052/0.076
5,843/0.705
435/0.031
1,360/0.102
821/0.065
12,307/1.190
Alternative 4
1,938/0.141
165/0.010
1,046/0.076
5,843/0.705
435/0.031
1,360/0.102
821/0.065
11,608/1.130
Alternatives
5 S 9
1,938/0.141
165/0.010
1,046/0.076
5,843/0.705
90f/0.006
1,360/0.102
821/0.065
11,263/1.105
Alternatives
6 S 10
2,288/0.185
508/0.024
1,074/0.083
5,843/0.705
90/0.006
1,360/0.102
821/0.065
11,984/1.170
Alternative 7
2,288/0.185
508/0.024
1,074/0.083
5,843/0.705
435/0.031
1,360/0.102
821/0.065
12,329/1.195
Alternative 8
2,288/0.185
508/0.024
1,074/0.083
5,843/0.705
435/0.031
1,360/0.102
821/0.065
12,329/1.195
Includes entire existing sewered area for the Nazareth STP.
For Alternative 9, Palmer Township: 435/0.031
t.
-------
Design flows for centralized treatment facilities and for community
on-lot disposal systems (cluster systems) evaluated in the EIS are based
on a design domestic sewage flow of 60 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
in residential areas and 70 gpcd in residential/ commercial areas. In-
filtration and inflow* (I/I) into gravity sewers was added to the calcu-
lated sewage flow in appropriate alternatives.
The domestic sewage generation rate depends upon the mix of resi-
dential, commercial, institutional sources in the area. Studies on
residential water usage (Witt, Siegrist, and Boyle 1974; Bailey et al.
1969; Cohen and Wallman 1976) reported individual household water con-
sumptions varying widely between 20 and 100 gpcd. However, average
values reported in those studies generally ranged between 40 and 56
gpcd. On a community-wide basis, non-residential domestic (commercial,
small industrial, and institutional) water use increases per capita
flows. The extents of such increases are influenced by:
• the importance of the community as a local or regional trading
center;
• the concentration of such water-intensive institutions as
schools and hospitals; and
• the level of small industrial development.
For communities with populations of less than 5,000, EPA regulations
allow design flows in the range of 60 to 70 gpcd where existing per
capita flow data is not available. In larger communities, and in com-
munities within Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, the maximum
allowable flow ranges up to 85 gpcd.
Design flows of 60 and 70 gpcd for residential and residential/
commercial areas, respectively appear justified on the basis of local
water consumption data generated by the Joint Planning Commission,
Lehigh-Northampton Counties (JPC). In their report entitled "Water
Supply and Sewage Facilities Plan Update -- 1974," JPC lists the follow-
ing water consumption figures for local governments in the EIS Service
Area:
Table V-2
AVERAGE DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION IN THE EIS SERVICE AREA
Average Daily Water
Municipality Consumption (gpcd)
Nazareth Borough 44
Bushkill Township, 43
Plainfield Township 43
Stockertown Borough 43
Tatamy Borough 49
Upper Nazareth Township 50
Palmer Township N/A
The design flow figure of 60 gpcd does not reflect reductions in
flow from a program of water conservation. Residential water conserva-
tion devices, discussed in Section V.B.I.a., could reduce flows by
approximately 16 gpcd.
131
-------
B. COMPONENTS AND OPTIONS
1. FLOW AND WASTE REDUCTION
a. Residential Flow Reduction Devices
A variety of devices that reduce water consumption and sewage flow
are available. A list of some of the devices is presented in Appendix
K-l with data on their water-saving potential and costs. Most of these
devices require no change in the user's hygienic habits and are as main-
tenance-free as standard fixtures. Others, such as compost toilets, may
require changes in hygiene practices and/or increased maintenance. The
use of any of these devices may be justified under certain conditions,
for instance when no other device can provide adequate sanitation or
when excessive flows cause malfunctions of conventional on-site septic
systems. In most cases, however, the justifications for flow reduction
devices are economic.
With some decentralized technologies, substantial reductions in
flow may be required regardless of costs. Holding tanks, soil absorp-
tion systems that cannot be enlarged, evaporation or evapotranspiration
systems and sand mounds are examples of technologies that would operate
with less risk of malfunction if sewage flows could be reduced to the
minimum. Sewage flows on the order of 15 to 30 gpcd can be achieved by
installation of combinations of the following devices:
• Reduce lavatory water usage by installing spray tap faucets.
« Replace standard toilets with dual cycle or other low volume
toilets.
• Reduce shower water use by installing thermostatic mixing
valves and flow control shower heads. Use of showers rather
than baths should be encouraged whenever possible.
• Replace older clothes washing machines with those equipped
with water-level controls or with front-loading machines.
• Eliminate water-carried toilet wastes by use of in-house com-
posting toilets.
• Recycle bath and laundry wastewaters for toilet flushing.
Filtering and disinfection of bath and laundry wastes for this
purpose has been shown to be feasible and aesthetically accep-
table in pilot studies (Cohen and Wallman 1974; Mclaughlin
1968). This is an alternative to in-house composting toilets
that could achieve the same level of wastewater flow reduc-
tion.
• Recycle bath and laundry wastewaters for lawn sprinkling in
summer. The feasibility of this method would have to be
evaluated on a trial basis in the Service Area because its
general applicability is not certain.
132
-------
• Commercially available pressurized toilets and air-assisted
shower heads using a common air compressor of small horsepower
would reduce sewage volume from these two largest household
sources up to 90%.
b. Rehabilitation of Existing Sewers To Reduce Infiltration
and Inflow (I/I)
As indicated in Section III.B.5.a, sewers presently serve the
Nazareth Borough as well as portions of Upper Nazareth Township and
Bushkill Township. I/I into these sewers has not been studied. On the
basis of the numerous and frequently used bypasses at the Nazareth STP
such I/I is probably excessive (greater than 1500 gallons per inch
diameter per mile per day (gimd) of I/I). As such, the design flows of
wastewater treatment works evaluated for this sewered area are tentative
because the flow to the plant, including non-excessive I/I, could not be
well defined.
In the absence of more specific information, literature values for
old sewer systems were assumed to apply (WPCF 1970). As a result of
this assumption, it follows that I/I into the Nazareth sewers would be
excessive and rehabilitation of the sewers would be required.
2. COLLECTION
The collection system proposed for the B-LLJSA was estimated to
cost $5.3 million, and an additional $4.8 million was proposed for in-
terceptor sewers and pump stations (Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1976).
Because not all parts of collection systems are eligible for Federal and
State funding, the costs of the collection system can affect the local
community more than other components of the project. There is, there-
fore, considerable incentive at local, State and national levels to
choose less expensive alternatives to conventional sewer systems.
Alternative means of wastewater collection are:
• pressure sewers (including grinder pumps or STEP systems)
• small diameter gravity sewers (Troyan and Norris 1974).
Areas where site conditions increase the cost of conventional
sewerage, such as shallow depth to bedrock, high groundwater table, or
hilly terrain, may be economically sewered by an alternative collection
system. Housing density also affects the relative costs of conventional
and alternative wastewater collection techniques.
a. Gravity Sewers
Gravity, or conventional, sewers operate on the principle that
gravity supplies the force to convey wastewater from the point of gene-
ration to the point of treatment. A continual downhill slope is re-
quired, which imposes a limit on the utility of such a system when the
topography is flat or hilly. In addition, when the depth to a limiting
layer such as bedrock or groundwater, is shallow, extraordinary measures
must be taken, such as blasting of rock or total encasement of the
sewer.
133
-------
The chief advantages of conventional sewers are:
« reliability -- since they have no moving parts, gravity sewers
avoid many mechanical problems.
• low maintenance requirements -- maintenance associated with
conventional sewers is primarily preventive and consists of
periodic inspection and cleaning.
The chief disadvantage of sewers relate to aging. As sewers age,
the joints between pipe sections become less secure. Wastewater may
then escape through the joints to the surrounding soil (exfiltration).
Conversely, groundwater may enter the system at the joints (infiltra-
tion). Pipes may also be crushed or cracked, with similar effects.
Careful construction practices and good inspection and maintenance
techniques can minimize such occurrences.
The need for a continuous downgrade implies that, unless topography
is unusually favorable, flow from certain locations will have to be
pumped uphill. In other, flat areas, the downgrade may eventually re-
sult in excessive depths of excavation. For both of these circumstances
pumping stations are provided. Pimping is designed to raise wastewater,
either to an existing sewer nea~er the surface or to provide a new,
shallow elevation from which wast<= water can flow.
Pipes carrying wastewater under pressure are called force mains and
must be designed to withstand the pressure of pumping. They are subject
to the same disadvantages as sewers, namely, the threat of leakage at
the joints.
The pumps themselves, by introducing a mechanical component, re-
quire attention. Large safety factors are designed into pump stations,
but failure of the pumps may result in sewage overflows or backups into
homes. Vigilant maintenance is needed to prevent such accidents.
b. Pressure Sewers
The alternative most extensively studied is collection by a pres-
sure sewer system. The principles behind the pressure system and a
water distribution system are opposite to each other. The water system
consists of a single point of pressurization and a number of user out-
lets. Conversely, the pressure sewer system has inlet points of pres-
surization and a single outlet. Pressurized wastewater is generally
discharged to a treatment facility or to a gravity sewer.
The two major types of pressure sewer systems are the grinder pump
(GP) system and the septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) system. The dif-
ferences between the two systems are in the on-site equipment and layout.
The GP system employs individual grinder pumps to convey raw wastewater
to the sewer. In the STEP system septic tank effluent from individual
households is pumped to the pressure main. The arrangement of the STEP
system house pump and sewer line connection is illustrated in Figure
V-l.
134
-------
CONTROL PANEL
8 ALARM LIGHT
^PRESSURE SEWER/
—-' —-^—-___ > COMMON
( TRENCH
FORCE MAIN }
EXISTING SEPTIC TANK
TANK. UNIT
TYPICAL PUMP INSTALLATION FOR PRESSURE SEWER
FIGURE V-l
The advantages of pressure sewer systems are:
• elimination of infiltration/inflow
• reduction of construction cost and
e use in varied site and climatic conditions.
The disadvantages include relatively high operation and maintenance cost
and the requirement of individual home STEP systems or grinder pumps.
c. Small Diameter Gravity Sewers
As an alternative to conventional gravity sewers, small diameter
(4-inch) pipe can be used if septic tank effluent, rather than raw waste,
is collected. Materials costs with such pipe may be lower, but the
systems retain some of the disadvantages of larger sewers. The need for
deep excavations and pump stations is reduced because these sewers are
placed in relatively flat terrain.
3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS OPTIONS
Wastewater treatment options examined in this EIS include three
categories: centralized treatment prior to discharge into surface
water; centralized treatment prior to disposal on land; and decentral-
ized treatment.
"Centralized treatment" refers to treatment at a central site of
wastewater collected by a single system and transported to a central
location. Centralized treatment systems may serve all or a part of the
service area. Centrally treated effluent may be discharged to surface
waters or applied to the land; the method and site of disposal affect
the treatment process requirements.
135
-------
"Decentralized treatment" defines those systems processing a rela-
tively small amount of wastewater and can be provided on-site or off-
site. Usually, effluent is disposed of near the source of sewage,
eliminating the need for costly transmission of sewage to distant dis-
posal sites.
A major purpose of this EIS is to assess the technical feasibility,
relative costs, environmental impacts, and implementation problems asso-
ciated with these approaches to wastewater treatment in the proposed EIS
Service Area. Centralized and decentralized approaches to wastewater
treatment that were evaluated in the development of EIS alternatives are
discussed below.
a. Centralized Treatment—Conventional Technologies
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT). Advanced wastewater treatment
technologies were examined in the development of preliminary EIS altern-
atives to determine the feasibility of discharging centrally-treated ef-
fluent to Bushkill Creek, Little Bushkill Creek and Schoeneck Creek.
Feasibility criteria included cost as well as environmental and socio-
economic impacts of surface water discharge within the EIS Service Area
itself. AWT was the only possible method of treatment considered given
the effluent limitations set by DER for discharge to these water bodies
(see Section III.A.9.b).
When the feasibility of AWT was compared to that of land applica-
tion of wastewater by spray irrigation for identical service areas, it
was concluded that spray irrigation would be more cost-effective than
AWT (spray irrigation was found to be 50% less expensive than AWT for a
1.0 mgd flow). The cost comparison was based on curves developed by EPA
(Pound, Crites, and Smith 1975). Consequently, AWT was not considered a
viable wastewater treatment option to be evaluated further in the EIS.
Trickling Filters. Trickling filters have a long history of satis-
factory operation in the United States. The earliest trickling filters
included a bed of solid particles such as fist-sized rocks, upon which
wastewater was sprayed from fixed nozzles. Sewage percolating down
encouraged the growth of a bacterial layer on the rocks, which removed
pollutants and purified the water. Later, rotating arms were substituted
for fixed nozzles. Early theory required that the bacteria be provided
"rest periods" during which no wastewater was applied. The facility at
Nazareth was originally designed to be of this type. Subsequently, it
was learned that the filters could be more heavily loaded if wastewater
was applied continuously and a portion of the effluent recycled to the
filter. [This method of recycling (with its attendant pumps and addi-
tional piping) could permit the Nazareth plant to treat more wastes than
it does at present.] A typical trickling filter is illustrated in
Figure V-2.
Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC). The newly upgraded treatment
plantatEaston employsrotating biological contactors, where use to
treat wastewater is relatively new in the US. The RBC rotates circular
discs covered with a film of aerobic bacteria in a basin through which
wastewater flows. The disc is usually 40% submerged for aerobic treat-
ment (see Figure V-3).
136
-------
'ff-^i-'-l^ Rotary distributor
•.-.•'•'•\V Stone media : / •'•"-••'/••>'
^mmT" -^
'"'• '-".~.:.•:'•'':''.' '{"- ••
P^''fv.i-V:: Underdrain system C^'i-'r^:';;
FIGURE V-2
TYPICAL TRICKLING FILTER
RBCs are simple to operate. They are similar in theory to trick-
ling filters, used in the United States since 1908. The RBC units do
not require sludge recycling or maintenance of a suspended microbial
culture as does activated sludge. The relatively simple operation,
therefore, gives RBC plants high operational flexibility.
Biodisc Process
Primary Treatment
Secondary Clarifier
Raw
B
-0-
Solids Disposal
ffluent
FIGURE V-3
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
The modular nature of RBC reactors makes expansion or upgrading of
the plant relatively easy. With proper design of other components and
proper planning of the facility layout, the cost and effort required for
expansion may be relatively small. RBCs are therefore well suited for
projects to be constructed in phases over an extended period.
RBCs require relatively shallow basin depths (6 to 8 feet), which
is another advantage. Less structural strength is required for the
basin because water volume per square foot of basin area is reduced.
Because structural requirements are lower, more soil types and ground
conditions are suitable and there is more leeway in choosing a site.
137
-------
There are several disadvantages to the RBC reactor. The many discs
usually required involve large requirements for land and hence limit
design flows to the range of 0.1 to 10 mgd. The mechanical components
have relatively low salvage value, and converting the RBC units to
another type process may be costly if these components can not be reused
or sold.
b. Centralized Treatment -- Land Disposal
Land treatment of municipal wastewater uses vegetation and soil to
remove many constituents of wastewater. Preliminary wastewater treatment
is needed to prevent health hazards, maintain high treatment efficiency
by the soil, reduce soil clogging, and insure reliable operation of the
distribution system. Many different objectives, among them water reuse,
nutrient recycling and crop production, can be achieved by several pro-
cesses. The three principal types of land application systems are:
® Slow rate (irrigation)
® Rapid infiltration (infiltration-percolation)
• Overland flow.
Land treatment systems require that wastewater be stored when factors
such as unfavorable weather prevent or limit application. In Pennsyl-
vania storage facilities for the winter months are necessary.
The quality of effluent required for land application in terms of
BOD and suspended solids is not so high as that for stream discharge.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) currently
recommends the equivalent of secondary treatment prior to land disposal
(see Appendix H-7), but a recent memorandum from EPA may alter that
recommendation. To encourage both land treatment and land disposal of
wastewater, EPA has indicated that:
"A universal minimum of secondary treatment for direct surface
discharge... will not be accepted because it is inconsistent
with the basic concepts of land treatment.
...the costs of the additional preapplication increment needed
to meet more stringent preapplication treatment requirements
[than necessary] imposed at the State or local level would be
ineligible for Agency funding and thus would be paid for from
State or local funds." (EPA 1978)
By allowing Federal funding of land used for storage and underwriting
the risk of failure for certain land-related projects the policy pro-
motes the consideration of land treatment alternatives.
Of the three land application techniques mentioned earlier, rapid
infiltration (RI) has not been examined here in detail. This technique,
which employs large infiltration basins and high rates of application,
was unsuited to the Service Area. Rapid infiltration requires highly
permeable soils which were not found in the parts of the EIS Service
Area where RI facilities could be located. In this EIS, spray irriga-
tion (see Figure V-4) and overland flow (OF) (see Figure V-5) are
evaluated as treatment options for the EIS Service Area.
138
-------
The spray irrigation facilities evaluated in the development of the
EIS alternatives consist of preliminary treatment (bar screen, com-
minutor, primary settling basin), a stabilization pond, and chlorination
to disinfect the effluent prior to its application on cropland. An
application rate of 2 inches per week was determined. After calculating
nitrogen loading (based on a wastewater application rate of 2 inches per
week), it was found that there would be no need for under-drainage.
Evaporation
Spray or surface
application
Crop
Slope variable
Deep
percolation
FIGURE V-4
SPRAY IRRIGATION
Spray application
Evaporation
Grass and vegetative litter
Slope 2-6%
Runoff
collection
FIGURE V-5
OVERLAND FLOW
139
-------
Higher loading rates may produce poor crop growth. Alfalfa was chosen
as cover crop over corn because alfalfa, with its growing season limited
solely by climatic factors, allows a higher application rate than corn.
The ponds would have a storage period of 60 days. A flow diagram of
this plant is illustrated in Figure V-6.
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
RAW
WASTE
PRELIM1 -
NARY
TREAT-
MENT
LAND APPLICATION
SPRAY IRRIGATION
FIGURE V-6
Depending upon the alternative, the spray irrigation site in Bush-
kill Township would occupy 100 acres and would have the capacity to treat
16,000 gallons per day (gpd). The site in Plainfield Township would
occupy 100 acres, with capacity to treat 175,000 gpd. The site in Palmer
Township would occupy approximately 300 acres, with capacity to treat 1
million gpd.
c. Decentralized Treatment
A number of technologies can provide decentralized treatment either
on-site or near the point of sewage generation. Disposal of treated
wastewaters can be to the air, soil or surface waters and normally
occurs near the treatment site. Some of the available technologies are
listed below.
On-lot treatment and disposal
Septic tank and soil absorption system (ST/SAS)
Septic tank and dual, alternating soil disposal system
Aerobic treatment and soil disposal system
Septic tank or aerobic treatment and sand filter with
effluent discharge to surface waters
140
-------
Septic tank and evapotranspiration system
Septic tank and mechanical evaporation system
Septic tank and sand mound system
Rejuvenation of soil disposal fields with hydrogen per-
oxide (H202) treatments
• Off-lot treatment and disposal
Holding tanks
Cluster systems (multiple houses served by a common soil
disposal system)
Community septic tank or aerobic treatment and sand
filter with effluent discharge to surface water
Small-scale lagoon with seasonal effluent discharge to
surface waters
Small-scale lagoon with seasonal effluent discharge at
slow-rate land application site
Small scale, preconstructed activated sludge (package)
treatment plants with effluent discharge to surface
waters
Marsh/pond system with discharge to surface waters.
Septic Tank/Soil Absorption System (ST/SAS). If the decentralized
approach to wastewater management is selected, continued use of on-site
septic tanks and soil absorption systems is the technology of choice,
provided that the public health and environmental impacts are accep-
table. It should be emphasized that rarely are "septic tank failures"
or "malfunctions" actually caused by failures of the tank itself.
Rather, it is usually the drainfield that malfunctions. There are
several causes of these malfunctions:
• Failure to maintain the septic tank - insufficient pumping may
permit soils to overflow to the drainfields, thus clogging the
pores of the soil absorption system.
0 Hydraulic overloading of the drainfield -- this may be caused
by excessive flow to the septic system or by undersizing the
drainfield. In either case, the drainage system becomes
saturated and cannot accept additional liquid.
• Insufficiently permeable soils — the soils lack adequate
capacity to absorb and renovate liquid waste. Soils whose
percolation rate is less than 60 minutes per inch1 generally
fall into this category (DER Rules and Regulations, Title 25
Chapter 13 25 Jan 1966).
141
-------
• Overly permeable soil -- this frequently overlooked problem
relates to excessively well-drained, sandy soils. In such
cases, the soil does not retain liquids long enough for reno-
vation of the wastes. Soils whose percolation rate exceeds 5
minutes per inch fall into this category. (DER Rules and Regu-
lations, Title 25 Chapter 73 24 Jan 1966).
* Steep slopes -- in these cases, the natural grade is so great
that unrenovated or partially renovated septic tank leachate
escapes through the side of the hill. Although Pennsylvania
permits slopes as steep as 25% for a septic system, slopes
greater than 15% require extraordinary design procedures (DER
Rules and Regulations, Title 25 Chapter 73 24 Jan 1966).
e Unsuitable depth to limiting layer -- limiting layers, such as
bedrock or the groundwater table, prevent further renovation
of wastewater. If the depth to such layers is shallow, there
will not be enough time for the drainfield to perform its
function, and a failure may result.
Although septic system failures are popularly associated with damp
soil and "green grass over the septic tank," surface malfunctions are
only one way in which failures may manifest themselves. If liquid
cannot migrate into the drainfield, it will back up through the plumbing
system and ultimately into the building generating the wastewater. Such
backups constitute a second category of failures. A third type of
failure occurs when the drainfield does not adequately renovate waste-
water, which then finds its way to the groundwater. Such a failure mani-
fests itself as pollution of surface streams or lakes, or as contami-
nated wells.
Although not specifically categorized as a failure, situations in
which grey water (laundry wastes, kitchen wastes, bathwater) is dis-
charged to public streets or otherwise in an unapproved fashion con-
stitute evidence of overtaxed septic systems. Where specific provision
for separation of grey water from black water (toilet wastes) has not
been made, the presumption is that grey water will be disposed of to-
gether with black water. While they may be dictated by necessity and
overlooked by health authorities, grey water discharges are not condoned
by such authorities.
Elevated Sand Mounds. Where the depth of soil to the limiting
layer is insufficient to provide adequate renovation of wastewater,
elevated sand mounds may be used. Following partial clarification in a
septic tank, wastewater enters the mound, where filtration and partial
renovation occurs. Such mounds are not designed to completely renovate
septic tank effluent, but rather to supplement the capabilities of the
soil in this respect. For this reason, sand mounds may perform well (if
properly designed, constructed and maintained) provided the soil can be
relied upon for additional treatment. However, the renovating capa-
bility of the soil may not always be available, as for example when
depth to bedrock is quite shallow, or when the seasonal high groundwater
table approaches the surface. Under these conditions, an elevated sand
mound, even one that has been deliberately oversized, may be incapable
142
-------
of suitable treatment. It is for this reason that sand mounds may
perform well intermittently, and sand mounds located in different parts
of the same subdivision, or even the same block, may perform different-
ly. Careful site-by-site analyses are therefore necessary to determine
the suitability of such individual systems.
Cluster Systems. Detailed site evaluations may show that for some
dwellings it is not feasible to continue the use of on-site systems or
that repairs for a number of dwellings are more expensive than joint
disposal. Cluster systems may be useful in such circumstances. These
are subsurface absorption systems similar in operation and design to
on-site soil absorption systems but large enough to accommodate flows up
to 20 dwellings. Because of the need to collect and transport wastes,
cluster systems include limited collection facilities using pressure
sewers, small diameter sewers and/or pumps and force mains.
The costs developed for cluster systems were based on the design of
individual cluster systems serving pocket developments in the EIS
Service Area. The cost includes the replacement of individual septic
tanks by one large (2,000 gallons) septic tank, a dosing pump to control
flow from the septic tank to the sub-surface drainfield and ensure
maximum treatment efficiency, and provision for an alternate drainfield
for reserve treatment capacity. The total cost for cluster systems was
the sum of the costs for individual clusters. Design assumptions for
the cluster system appear in Appendix L-l. Criteria recommended by the
State of Pennsylvania for the cluster systems were considered in the
development of the cluster system design.
Marsh/Pond Systems. A relatively recent innovation in wastewater
treatment, marsh/pond systems were first introduced to the US in 1975 at
Brookhaven National Laboratory. These systems rely heavily upon microb-
ial activity in the marsh to reduce the concentrations of pollutants in
sewage influent to the system. Aquatic vegetation in the marsh provides
a supporting matrix for the growth of micro-organisms and also addi-
tional removal of pollutants.
Partially treated wastewater flows from the marsh to a holding
pond, in which additional removal of pollutants occurs ("polishing").
Such marsh-ponds may be constructed by excavating an appropriate area,
installing an impervious liner, and providing a bed of rocks, gravel,
and sand in which aquatic vegetation can take root. Although the marsh
and pond need not be physically separated, they may be if desired, since
different ecosystems arise in each. A schematic of a marsh/pond facil-
ity is shown in Figure V-7.
Available operating history indicates that the effluent from such
systems is equivalent to that from secondary treatment plants. Under
favorable conditions, the effluent from such a system has been claimed
to equal that of potable water. Such data are, however, limited and
should not be taken as representative.
In the EIS alternatives that propose marsh/pond systems, raw sewage
would be screened, comminuted* and passed to an aerated lagoon for
initial reduction of BOD and suspended solids. Partially treated waste-
water would then pass to the marsh for additional treatment, then to the
143
-------
FIGURE V-7
SCHEMATIC OF MARSH/POND FACILITY
Raw
Sewage
Preliminary
Treatment :
1. Bar Screen
2 . Cotrrminutor
Stream
Discharge
pond for further stabilization. Effluent from the pond would be polish-
ed by land treatment using overland flow (see Figure V-5). The land-
treated wastewater would then be collected; it would be suitable for
discharge to a stream such as Bushkill Creek.
It is evident from the available information that both overland
flow and marsh/pond systems can produce effluent of acceptable quality
in warm climatic and seasonal conditions. The evidence is less certain
in cool climates and during the winter. For these reasons careful
thought must be given to the reliability of such systems for compliance
on a year-round basis with stream discharge requirements.
4. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
There are three approaches to disposal of treated wastewater.
Reuse, perhaps the most desirable of the three, implies recycling of the
effluent by industry, agriculture or by recharge to groundwater. Land
application takes advantage of the absorptive and renovative capacities
of soil to improve effluent quality and reduce the quantity of waste-
water requiring disposal. Discharge to surface water generally implies
the use of streams or impoundments for ultimate disposal of treated ef-
fluent.
a. Reuse
Industrial Reuse. Cement manufacturing constitutes the major in-
dustry in the EIS Service Area. The use of water by the industry re-
lates mostly to non-contact cooling, for which water is withdrawn from
ground or surface sources. After use, the cooling water is discharged
to a nearby stream.
144
-------
Reuse of treated effluent by most such manufacturers is not anti-
cipated because:
• Water presently used is of higher quality and is obtained at
no cost, and
• The industries would be required to obtain a discharge permit
and comply with regulations not presently applicable.
Preliminary contact with one local cement manufacturer did indicate
interest in using treated effluent from the Nazareth Sewage Treatment
Plant (STP). Apparently the requirements of this manufacturer exceed the
capabilities of the plant; it would thus be possible for the Nazareth
Sewerage Company to convey all its effluent to the manufacturer and
cease discharging to surface waters. Although the Nazareth STP is not
now a publicly-owned treatment works, a change to such status would
merit inquiries as to the legal, financial and institutional require-
ments of reuse.
Agricultural Reuse. The use of treated wastewater for irrigation
was discussed in Section V.B.S.b.
Groundwater Recharge. Groundwater supplies much of the potable
water in the EIS Service Area, and its availability in ample quantities
is a significant resource. There is no evidence that these resources are
being depleted to the extent that supplemental recharge is necesary.
Reuse of wastewater by recharge of groundwater has therefore not been
evaluated.
b. Land Application
The land application method of wastewater treatment evaluated for
potential use in the EIS Service Area has been briefly described in
Section V.B.S.b. The location of potential land application sites
evaluated within the EIS Service Area is shown in Figure V-8. It is
emphasized that these are only candidate sites that were selected for
study in this EIS based on their accessibility. Several other possible
land application sites exist in the Service Area.
Soil suitability for renovation of wastewater for three potential
spray irrigation sites was determined during field investigation con-
ducted by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in July 1979. A brief
description of each site is as follows:
• The first site comprises approximately 300 acres in Palmer
Township. This site is characterized by slopes ranging from
2% to 8% and is underlain by deep, well-drained silty clay
loam. Depth to seasonal high water table and bedrock was
found to be greater than 6 feet.
• The second site is located southeast of Bushkill Center in
Bushkill Township and is characterized by rolling to gently
rolling slopes between 6% and 8%. Soils on this site are
moderately deep to deep, well-drained shaly silt loams. Depth
145
-------
to seasonal high water table is greater than 6 feet over
approximately 25% to 30% of the site. Water or signs of water
were encountered from 24 to 36 inches in several locations.
The site is approximately 100 acres.
0 The third site is approximately 100 acres located north of
Kesslerville (Plainfield Township) and is characterized by
gently rolling land with slopes of 2% to 7%. Soils at this
site are generally deep to moderately deep, well-drained shaly
silt loams. Depth to seasonal high water table is greater
than 6 feet. Only 20% to 25% of this site will be unsuitable
for land application due to a shallow depth to bedrock.
It is emphasized here that a detailed field investigation of the
existing soil and groundwater conditions should precede any serious con-
sideration of an EIS alternative involving spray irrigation. The de-
tailed soils mapping of these 3 sites performed by USDA-SCS personnel
during the course of this project is useful as a planning tool for the
development of wastewater management alternatives.
c. Discharge to Surface Waters
This EIS evaluates surface water discharge of treated wastewater at
several locations in the Service Area as listed below:
Location of Surface
Treatment Method Water Discharge
Trickling filters and lagoons Schoeneck Creek
Marsh-Pond/Overland Flow Little Bushkill Creek
Marsh-Pond/Overland Flow Wind Gap Creek
Marsh-Pond/Overland Flow North Branch, Bushkill Creek
Marsh-Pond/Overland Flow Unnamed Tributary, Monocacy Creek
Rotating Biological Contactor Schoeneck Creek and Delaware River
The feasibility of the wastewater treatment methods listed above is
contingent upon the water quality criteria promulgated by DER and EPA.
Bushkill Creek, with the exception of the Schoeneck Basin, has been
classified as a conservation area (a protected status). Discharge stan-
dards for the respective streams are as follows:
Stream BOD (mg/1) SS (mg/1) NH3-N (mg/1)
Bushkill Creek 25 25 3
Little Bushkill Creek 20 25 3
Monacacy Creek 25 24 4
Schoeneck Creek 20 25 3
All of the treatment methods mentioned above are believed to be capable
of producing an effluent that would comply with these discharge stan-
dards .
146
-------
FIGURE v-a POTENTIAL LAND APPLICATION SITES
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
TJ3 SITES MAPPED IN ONE ACRE DETAIL BY SCS
• BACKHOE PIT SITE
-------
5. SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL
Two types of sludge would be generated by the wastewater treatment
options considered above -- chemical/biological sludges from convention-
al treatment processes and solids pumped from septic tanks. The resi-
dues from treatment by lagoons and land application are grit and screen-
ings. Several techniques exist for handling and disposal of these
materials.
a. Incineration
Incineration of solids has been widely accepted as a method of
reducing the volume of material requiring disposal. It also produces an
innocuous residue that is nonpathogenic and, depending upon the source,
may be nontoxic as well. Recent interest in recovery of energy has led
to the design of incinerators that generate steam for use or sale.
The high cost of equipment, operation and maintenance is the major
disadvantage of incineration. Not only is the equipment expensive to
purchase and install, but antipollution devices raise costs still higher.
Similarly, incineration requires skilled operators and maintenance
workers. Finally, since a residue remains, more costs are incurred in
collection, transportation and disposal of the ash.
Arguments have also been made against incineration on the grounds
that it represents a waste of energy and resources. Although energy may
be recovered in the form of saleable steam, more energy is consumed in
drying the sludge (particularly, if the sludge has been digested) than
is recovered. Others have argued that the constituents of sludge are
nutrients that should be returned to the soil.
b. Digestion
Digestion is a process whereby raw sludge is stabilized. Raw
sludge has an offensive odor and is frequently pathogenic. By encourag-
ing biological activity, the odor is greatly reduced and many pathogens
are destroyed. Frequently, digested sludge is also more amenable to sub-
sequent processes, such as dewatering.
Aerobic Digestion. Aerobic digestion employs aeration to encourage
the growth of bacteria that stabilize sludge. The advantages of this
technique are:
• Safe. Unlike anaerobic digestion, fire and explosion hazards
are absent, and no particular safety measures are required.
a Simple. Moderate fluctuations in the environment, for example
in temperature, do not greatly affect operation. In fact,
aerobic digestion is usually performed under ambient* condi-
tions .
149
-------
« Applicable to small or large quantities of sludge.
The main disadvantages of aerobic digestion are the following:
« Requires an input of energy. In order to maintain aerobic
conditions, energy must be expended in operating some type of
mixer and aerator. If air is not continually provided and the
sludge continually mixed, foul odors develop rapidly and the
efficiency of digestion decreases.
• No useful byproduct is obtained. Unlike anaerobic digestion,
in which methane gas is generated, only stabilized sludge
results from the aerobic process.
Anaerobic Digestion. Anaerobic digestion occurs in closed tanks
from which air is excluded. Under these conditions microorganisms
stabilize sludge in a fermentation process, releasing methane and other
gases as byproducts. The advantages and disadvantages of this technique
are, in general, the converse of those for aerobic digestion. The
advantages relate primarily to the generation of methane gas, which can
be used on-site, sold off-site, or both, and to the small energy input
requirements. Normally, the energy consummed during anaerobic digestion
is used for mixing and heating. Under favorable conditions, both of
these requirements can be met by combustion of the methane gas generated
by the process.
The disadvantages of anaerobic digestion are all related to the
generation of gas. Because methane is combustible or explosive when
mixed with air, elaborate precautions are necessary. Nonetheless acci-
dents do occur, with loss of life and damage to property.
The reliability of gas generation depends upon the stability of
conditions. Anaerobic digestion is inappropriate for small quantities
of sludge because such amounts are not reliably delivered to the treat-
ment plant. Similarly, digestion may be completely upset by changes in
environmental conditions of, for example, as little as 2°F.
c. Dewatering
Although its consistency may vary, sludge is usually liquid, and
consequently occupies considerable volume. Since the liquid portion of
sludge is water, transportation and disposal of liquid sludge implies
the expenditure of money to move and dispose of water. If the concen-
tration of solids in 1000 gallons of sludge is increased from 5% to 25%,
the volume occupied decreases to 200 gallons. The effect of such a re-
duction upon hauling and disposal costs is obvious, but a point of
diminishing returns is soon reached. Although it is easy to dewater
sludge to 25% solids, dewatering to 50% solids is not and the decrease
in volume is only 100 additional gallons.
Dewatering equipment is designed around either of two principles --
filtration or centrifugation. Generally, more water may be removed with
filter-based equipment than with centrifuges. However, capital costs
centrifuges are frequently lower. The question of which type of equip-
ment, indeed whether sludge dewatering is necessary at all, is closely
150
-------
tied to the method of disposal. Where the driest possible sludge would
be desirable prior to incineration, less dewatering is necessary if the
sludge is to be landfilled. For agricultural landspreading, liquid
sludge may be appropriate, thereby saving all costs of dewatering.
d. Contract Hauling
Although not specifically a technique of disposal, contract hauling
is treated as such because many localities transport and dispose of
sludge as a governmental function. If the municipality chooses not to
offer these services, it may contract with a hauler to provide them.
For the purposes of this EIS, costs of $81 per million gallons of
sewage were assumed, based upon $30/1000 gallons of sludge and 2700
gallons of sludge per million gallons of sewage. These costs were
incorporated into the cost-effectiveness analysis presented in Chapter
VI.
Alternatives using residential septic tanks for on-lot systems,
cluster systems, or STEP sewer systems must provide for periodic removal
and disposal of the accumulated solids. To design and cost these alter-
natives, it is assumed that systems are pumped every 3 years at a cost
of $45 per pumping. Local septage haulers operate in Northampton County.
Farm lands are typical septage disposal sites.
e. Landfilling
Landfilling of solid wastes is one of the best known of all disposal
techniques. Although at one time landfills suffered from a "dump" image,
landfills in Pennsylvania are now carefully regulated and supervised.
They offer several advantages.
• Expense. In many economic analyses, landfilling of sewage
sludge has proven to be the lowest cost alternative. Locating
landfills near sewage plants reduces hauling costs. The
capital costs are low by comparison to high-technology altern-
atives, although this is less true now than formerly.
• Permanent disposal. Unlike incineration, for which further
handling is required, landfilling is a form of ultimate dis-
posal. Once sludge has been deposited in an approved land-
fill, it may be assumed that no further attention to it will
be required.
Several disadvantages are also associated with landfills:
• Refusal of some landfill operators to accept sewage sludge.
Regulations pertaining to pollution of groundwater by landfill
leachate have discouraged many landfill operators from accept-
ing sludge. In addition, the operators frequently find that
large volumes of sludge limit the capacity to accept other
wastes and thus shorten the lives of their facilities.
• Waste of a resource. Many people feel that landfilling sludge
does not make best use of its soil conditioning properties.
151
-------
They believe that the nutrients in sludge should be used to
help fertilize agricultural lands.
• Lack of convenient location. As the volume of solid waste
generated daily increases, landfills are being used up more
rapidly. New sites are harder to find and are less conveni-
ently located. This leads to increased hauling costs, pro-
vided the new sites accept sludge.
f. Land Application
The use of agricultural land for disposal of sludge has been prac-
ticed throughout the world for centuries. In the US though, availability
of sludge was historically far less than the amount of agricultural land
available, and opposition to the practice has also been based upon fears
of odors, infection and water pollution. Most of these potential pro-
blems can be alleviated if sludge is plowed or disked into the soil as
it is applied. Problems are, however, likely to arise if this precau-
tion is not taken, and the threat of groundwater contamination remains
even if this precaution is taken; hydrogeological surveys may be neces-
sary.
Nevertheless, the practice of agricultural landspreading offers
several advantages:
9 Reuse of resources. The nutrients and soil conditioners pre-
sent in sludge are returned to the soil.
• Low costs. Landspreading requires little or no sludge de-
watering prior to application. The major capital expense is
for sludge hauling equipment; sometimes the farmer's equipment
will suffice.
» Ultimate disposal. Sludge that is spread on agricultural
lands may be considered as permanently disposed. No further
steps are required.
• Ready market. Farmers are generally aware of the agricultural
values of sludge and are usually willing to spread the mate-
rial on their land.
Two main disadvantages are associated with landspreading:
• Sludge offers the potential for contamination of water resour-
ces. Consequently the spreading program must be carefully
managed so as to minimize runoff from the sludge disposal
site. Wells to monitor groundwater quality may be required.
« Potential nuisance. Non-agricultural neighbors may resist the
introduction of sludge in their community.
g. Composting
Composting of sludge implies aerobic decomposition of the material
in a dry environment. This is distinguished from digestion, which
152
-------
occurs in a liquid environment. Considerable research on composting of
sludge has been performed at the USDA research facility in Beltsville
MD. Most of this research has been related to digested sludge and has
led to the impression that such sludge is generally used for composting.
In fact, raw sludge is also suitable and its use as a compost material
may eliminate the need for digestion. Many advantages have been claimed
for composting:
• Reuse of resources. Composted sludge is readily applicable to
the soil. It decomposes quickly, provides nutrients and con-
ditions the soil.
» Wide application. Landspreading of raw sludge is generally
suitable only for agricultural lands. Composted sludge may be
applied to gardens, lawns, golf courses and other non-agricul-
tural sites.
• Source of income. Some municipalities have successfully
marketed their composted material. Milwaukee is frequently
mentioned in this regard (although its product is not, strict-
ly speaking, compost). Philadelphia has also had some suc-
cess .
• Ready acceptability. Compost has none of the unpleasant odors
or pathogenic organisms associated with sludge. It does not,
therefore, suffer from the same unfavorable image.
Several disadvantages of composting may also be cited:
• Expense. A large investment is required to initiate a com-
posting program. Equipment for the composting process,
operating personnel, and a sizeable amount of land are re-
quired. In addition, the product must be packaged and
marketed.
• Insufficient market. Many composting operations in the US
have failed. In general, the problem seems to be overly
optimistic predictions of consumer acceptance. Frequently,
sales have not exceeded expenses and government subsidies have
been necessary.
• Neighborhood resistance. Community objections to composting
facilities have sometimes been strong enough to defeat their
construction and operation. Failure to involve the public in
the decision-making has, on occasion, contributed to the
problem.
• Misunderstanding of the nature of compost. Federal regula-
tions have contributed to this problem. Because the agricul-
tural assay (NPK) of compost does not usually meet the regu-
latory requirement for fertilizer, compost must be marketed as
a soil conditioner, not as a fertilizer. The consuming public
is generally unaware of the lower assay, but unaware of the
longer-lasting action of compost.
153
-------
C. IMPLEMENTATION
The process by which a wastewater management plan is to be imple-
mented depends upon whether the selected alternative relies primarily
upon centralized or decentralized components. Since most sanitary
districts have in the past been designed around centralized collection
and treatment of wastewater, there is a great deal of information about
the implementation of such systems. Decentralized collection and treat-
ment is, however, relatively new, and there is little management experi-
ence on which to draw.
Regardless of whether the selected alternative is primarily centra-
lized or decentralized, four aspects of the implementation program must
be addressed:
• There must be legal authority for a managing agency to exist
and financial authority for it to operate.
• The agency must manage construction, ownership and operation
of the sanitary district.
• A choice must be made between the several types of long-term
financing that are generally required in paying for capital
expenditures associated with the project.
• A system of user charges to retire capital debts, to cover
expenditures for operation and maintenance, and to provide a
reserve for contingencies must be established.
In the following sections, these requirements are examined first
with respect to centralized sanitary districts, then with respect to
decentralized districts.
1. CENTRALIZED DISTRICTS
a. Authority
The Environmental Assessment identified the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh
Joint Sewer Authority as the legal authority for implementing the
Applicant's Proposed Action. Under Act 537 of the Pennsylvania statutes,
the Authority would be able to implement this system and to contract
with the boroughs and townships for services.
b. Managing Agency
The role of the managing agency has been well defined for centra-
lized sanitary districts. In general, the agency constructs, maintains
and operates the sewerage facilities. Although in fact different con-
tractual relationships exist between the agencies and their service
areas, for the purposes of this document ownership of the facilities may
be assumed to reside with the agency. For gravity sewers, such owner-
ship has traditionally extended to the private property. For STEP or
grinder pump stations connected to pressure sewers several options
exist:
154
-------
• The station may be designed to agency specifications, with the
responsibility for purchase, maintenance and ownership
residing with the homeowner.
• The station may be specified and purchased by the agency, with
the homeowner repurchasing and maintaining it.
• The station may be specified and owned by the agency, but pur-
chased by the homeowner.
• The station may be specified, purchased and owned by the
agency.
Regardless, however, of the option selected, all residences are treated
equally.
c. Financing
Capital expenses associated with the project may be financed by
several techniques. Briefly, they are:
• pay-as-you-go methods
• special benefits assessments
• reserve funds
• debt financing.
The EA indicated that much of the Applicant's Proposed Action would
be funded by Federal grants, and implied that bonds would be issued to
finance the remaining local share.
d. User Charges
User charges are set at a level that will provide for repayment of
long-term debt and cover operating and maintenance expenses. In addi-
tion, prudent management agencies frequently add an extra charge to pro-
vide a contingency fund for extraordinary expenses and replacement of
equipment.
The implementation program proposed by the EA is an example of a
scheme calling for an inter-municipal Authority to recover the costs of
wastewater management. The Authority would directly charge the users of
the system. Because of the potential economic impacts, the charges must
be carefully allocated among various classes of users. Recognized
classes of users include:
• Permanent residents
• Residential/Commercial/Industrial users
• Presently sewered users/Newly sewered users
• Low- and fixed-income residents/Active income producers
Each class of user imposes different requirements on the design and
cost of each alternative, receives different benefits, and has different
financial capabilities.
155
-------
2. SMALL WASTE FLOWS DISTRICTS
Regulation of on-lot sewage systems has evolved to the point where
most new facilities are designed, permitted and inspected by local
jurisdictions through their sewage enforcement officers (SEOs). But
after installation, local government has no further responsibility for
these systems until malfunctions become evident. At that time the SEO
may inspect and issue permits for repair of the systems. In the past,
the sole basis for a government in this activity has been its obligation
to protect public health.
Rarely have the obligations of the government been interpreted to
include monitoring and control of other effects of on-lot system use or
misuse. The general lack of knowledge about operation of on-site
systems has been coupled with an absence of information concerning the
impacts of septic systems on ground and surface water quality.
Now, methods of identifying and dealing with the adverse effects of
on-lot systems are being developed. They include the wastewater treat-
ment and disposal alternatives discussed in Section V.B, improved moni-
toring of water quality, and new managerial methods. The latter are
being applied in various communities (see Appendix M-l) whose waste
flows are small.
As with centralized districts, the issues of legal and fiscal
authority, agency management, project financing, and user charges must
all be resolved by small waste flows districts.
a. Authority
Pennsylvania's Act 537 empowers individual municipalities jointly
or singly to form authorities for centralized disposal of wastewater.
The same Act sets up a system of Sewage Enforcement Officers appointed
by each municipality to be responsible for oversight of on-site waste-
water management systems.
The SEOs issue building permits, oversee construction and inspect
completed installations of on-site systems. They also issue repair
permits for failing systems. There is, however, no structure for man-
agement of small waste flows on a district-wide basis. Maintenance re-
mains the responsibility of the homeowner, and no inspection and moni-
toring program exists.
If a small waste flows management district were set up in the EIS
Service Area along the lines discussed in Section V.D.2.b, resolution of
the roles of agency and SEO would be an important issue. The SEO could,
for example, head the agency, be employed by it, continue his present
role and work outside it, or serve as an advisor. It is probable that
amendments to Act 537 would be necessary.
California and Illinois, to resolve interagency conflicts or to
authorize access to private properties for inspection and maintenance of
wastewater facilities, have passed legislation specifically intended to
facilitate management of decentralized facilities. These laws are
summarized in Appendix M-2.
156
-------
b. Management
The purpose of a small waste flows district is to balance the costs
of management with the needs of public health and environmental quality.
Management of such a district implies formation of a management agency
and formulation of policies for the agency. The concept of such an
agency is relatively new. Appendix M-3 discusses this concept in detail.
The range of functions a management agency may provide for adequate
control of decentralized systems is presented in Table V-3. Because the
level of funding for these functions could become an economic burden,
their costs and benefits should be considered in the development of the
management agency. Major decisions which have to be made in the devel-
opment of this agency relate to the following questions.
• Should engineering and operations functions be provided by the
agency or by private organizations under contract?
• Would off-site facilities require acquisition of property and
right-of-way?
• Would public or private ownership of on-site wastewater facil-
ities be more likely to provide cost savings and improved con-
trol of facilities operation?
• Are there environmental, land use, or economic characteristics
of the area that would be sensitive to operation and construc-
tion of decentralized technologies? If so, would special plan-
ning, education and permitting steps be appropriate?
Five steps are recommended to implement an efficient, effective
program for the management of wastewater in unsewered areas:
• Development of a site-specific environmental and engineering
data base;
• Design of the management organization;
• Agency start-up;
• Construction and rehabilitation of facilities; and
• Operation of facilities.
Site Specific Environmental and Engineering Data Base. The data
base should include groundwater monitoring, a house-to-house investiga-
tion (sanitary survey), soils and engineering studies, and a survey of
available technologies likely to function adequately in the area. This
baseline information will provide the framework for the systems and
technologies appropriate to the district.
A program for monitoring groundwater should include sampling of
existing wells and possibly additional testing of the aquifer. Such
monitoring should be instituted early enough to provide data useful in
selecting and designing wastewater disposal systems.
157
-------
Table V-3
SMALL WASTE FLOW MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS BY OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
AND BY BASIC AND SUPPLEMENTAL USAGE
Component
Basic Usage
Supplemental Usage
Administrative
Engineering
Operations
Planning
User charge system
Staffing
Enforcement
Adopt design standards*
Review and approval of plans*
Evaluate Existing systems/
design rehabilitation
measures
Installation inspection*
On-site soils investigations*
Acceptance for public
management of privately
installed facilities
Routine inspection and
maintenance
Septage collection and
disposal
Groundwater monitoring
Grants administration
Service contracts supervision
Occupancy/operating permits
Interagency coordination
Property and right-of-way
acquisition
Performance bonding
requirements
Design and install facilities
for public ownership
Contractor training
Special designs for alternative
technologies
Pilot studies of alternative
technologies
Implementing flow reduction
techniques
Emergency inspection and
maintenance
Surface water monitoring
Land use planning
Public education
Designate areas sensitive to
soil-dependent systems
Establish environmental, land
use and economic criteria
for issuance or non-issuance
of permits
*Usage normally provided by local governments at present.
158
-------
The sanitary survey should include interviews with residents and
inspections of existing systems. A trained surveyor should record in-
formation on: lot size and location; age and use of dwelling; location,
age, and type of sewage disposal system; adequacy of the maintenance of
the existing system; water-using fixtures; and problems with the exist-
ing system.
Detailed site analyses may be required to evaluate operation of the
effluent disposal fields and to determine the impacts of effluent dis-
posal upon local groundwater. These studies may include probing the
disposal area, boring soil samples, and the installation of shallow
groundwater observation shafts. Sampling of the water table downhill
from drains fields aids in evaluating the potential for transport of
nutrients and pathogens through the soil. Classifications of soil near
selected leach fields may facilitate improved correlations between soils
and leach field failures. An examination of the reasons for inadequate
functioning of existing wastewater systems may prevent such problems
with the rehabilitation or construction of new systems.
Design the Management Organization. The EA has recommended the
B-LLJSA as the agency best suited to manage wastewater facilities in
sewered areas of the Service Area. The role of organizations such as
the Department of Health should be examined with respect to avoiding in-
teragency conflicts and duplication of effort and staffing.
Determination of the basic and supplementary management functions
to be provided will be influenced by the technologies appropriate to the
Service Area. In this respect, the questions raised earlier regarding
formulation of management policies must be resolved.
The product of these analyses should be an organizational design in
which staffing requirements, functions, interagency agreements, user
charge systems and procedural guidelines are defined.
Agency Start-Up. Once the structure and responsibilities of the
management agnecy have been defined, public review is advisable. Addi-
tional personnel required for construction and/or operation should be
provided. If necessary, contractual arrangements with private organiza-
tions should be developed. Acquisition of property should also be
inititated.
Construction and Rehabilitation of Facilities. Site data collected
for the environmental and engineering data base should support selection
and design of appropriate technologies for individual residences. Once
construction and rehabilitation begin, site conditions may be revealed
that suggest technology or design changes. Since decentralized techno-
logies generally must be designed to operate within site limitations
instead of overcoming them, flexibility should be provided. Personnel
authorized to revise designs in the field would provide this flexibility.
Operation of Facilities. The administrative planning, engineering,
and operations functions listed in Table V-3 are primarily applicable to
this phase. The role of the management agency would have been deter-
mined in the organizational phase. Experience gained during agency
start-up and facilities construction may indicate that some lower or
higher level of effort will be necessary to insure that the decentral-
ized facilities will be reliable over the long term.
159
-------
c. Financing
The financing of a small waste flows district is similar to that of
a centralized district. Financing was discussed in Section V.C.l.c.
d. User Charges
User charges and classes have been discussed in Section V.C.l.d.
The significance of decentralized districts lies in the creation of an
additional class of users. Since residents of such districts may be
differentiated in terms of centrally sewered areas and decentralized
areas, user charges may differ. As a result many different management
functions are joined togeather. For the analyses in this EIS, it has
been assumed that on-site systems would be publicly owned.
160
-------
CHAPTER VI
EIS Alternatives
-------
Chapter VI
EIS Alternatives
Chapter V described options for the functional components of waste-
water management systems serving the communities in the EIS Service
Area. This chapter examines alternative wastewater management plans, or
alternative courses of action for the Service Area in the design year
2000. A No Action alternative is also examined.
The EIS alternatives provide for both centralized and decentralized
management of wastewater generated in a larger Service Area (see Figure
1-2) than that proposed by the Applicant (see Figure II-l). As dis-
cussed in Section I. A. 2, the Applicant's Service Area was modified based
upon the results of the needs documentation effort undertaken in this
EIS. Although the EIS Service Area comprises more acreage than the
B-LLJSA Service Area, the sewerage provided in any EIS alternative is
less extensive than that proposed in the Environmental Assessment. Most
notable are the changes in the extent of sewerage for Bushkill Township.
The sewerage proposed for Jacobsburg State Park has been deleted in the
EIS under the assumption that only limited recreational facilities will
be provided by the Park in the foreseeable future (see Section
The approach to documenting a need for improved sewerage facilities
in this EIS has been comprehensive, with the focus on locating on-site
system problems in rural as well as residential portions of the EIS
Service Area. However, the design and costing of wastewater management
alternatives requires that a categorization of need throughout the
66-square mile Service Area be made based on whether the on-site system
problems identified are isolated or wide-spread throughout a community.
Therefore, a distinction has been made between those areas where there
exists a community need (Phase I area) and an individual (one dwelling
unit's) need (Phase II areas). In general, Phase I areas show a need
for off-site (i.e. cluster system or sewers) wastewater management
facilities, while low-density Phase II areas call only for improved
on-site facilities. The Phase I area has been divided into the 29
segments shown in Figure VI- 1. The Phase II area1 comprises the
remainder of the EIS Service Area where community solutions to indivi-
dual problems are not cost-effective. The discussion of EIS alternatives
as well as their impacts focuses on the Phase I area. The total costs
associated with the Phase II area, which are constant for each alterna-
tive, are included in Section F of this chapter. The implementation of
Phase I/Phase II wastewater management in the EIS Service Area is dis-
cussed in Section IX. c.
In response to concerns about the expense of the Applicant's Pro-
posed Action, as well as about its effects upon local water quality, the
development of EIS alternatives emphasized the use of decentralized and
1 The Phase II area is also referred to in this EIS as the Small Flows
District (SFD).
161
-------
alternative or innovative technologies, including alternative collection
systems, decentralized treatment and land disposal of wastewaters. All
of the EIS alternatives use decentralized treatment, to varying degrees,
in order to avoid the costs of sewers where feasible. Analysis of
available data on soils and groundwater indicates that there are feasi-
ble alternatives to sewering the homes along Route 115 north of Belfast
in Plainfield Township. Multi-family filter fields (cluster systems)
and marsh/pond treatment systems could meet wastewater management needs.
Where site conditions such as soils and topography are favorable,
land disposal of wastewater offers advantages over conventional biologi-
cal treatment systems that discharge to surface waters: the land is
used as a natural treatment facility system; reduced operation and main-
tenance may result from relatively simple operations; and savings in
capital and operating costs are possible.
The major features of the EIS alternatives and the Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action are summarized in Table VI-1. As indicated
in Chapter I, the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action represents a
redesign of the Applicant's Proposed Action on the basis of the same
engineering parameters used to develop the 10 EIS alternatives. Only in
this way can an equitable comparison be made between the Applicant's
regional wastewater management plan and the alternative plans briefly
described below. A summary of the Applicant's Proposed Action, which
was described in Section II.A.I, is included in Table VI-1. The assump-
tions used in the design and costing of the alternatives are presented
in Appendix N-2.
B. ALTERNATIVES
This section briefly describes the No Action ("do nothing") alter-
native, the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action as well as the 10 EIS
alternatives.
1. NO ACTION
The EIS process must evaluate the consequences of not taking action.
This No Action Alternative implies that EPA would not provide funds to
support new construction, upgrading, or expansion of existing wastewater
collection and treatment systems. In the absence of Federally-funded
off-site or improved on-site wastewater management facilities, it is
unlikely that many existing on-site systems in the EIS Service Area
would continue to be used in their present conditions. These systems
are located in such communities as Belfast (Plainfield Township),
Stockertown, and Tatamy, as well as in selected rural portions of
Bushkill Township north of Clearfield and Bushkill Center where
groundwater elevations are high.
Many homeowners in these areas might be forced to serve their
wastewater management needs through the use of alternate on-lot systems
(e.g. elevated sand mounds, aerobic septic tanks, holding tanks) because
site limitations would preclude continued use of conventional on-lot
systems. In the absence of Federal subsidy these alternate systems
would likely be installed and maintained at a significant cost to the
162
-------
FIGURE vi-i LOCATION OF SEGMENTS IN EIS SERVICE AREA
-------
"3 £ Cherry Hill
I I Otlwr
"5 5" Rcn-te 115 - North
7J § Rasleytown
-• (-
^ East Pen ArRyl
Other
JjfjjJ c*rietian Springs
sg (2 Other
S toe ker town Borough
T^,y B™eh
% o Borough, portions of
ra o Buahklll and Upper
fe x Nc-wburR Homea
Modified
Proposed Proposed
Action Action
Easton STP"1 Easton STP
N/A SFD
N/A Cluster System
N/A Cluster System
N/A EFD
N/A Cluster System
N/A SFD
Easton STP Easton STP
Easton STP Easton STP
Easton STP Eaaton STP
Easton STP Easton STF
Easton STP Eagton STP
SFD SFD L.A. in Bush. Twp. SFD SFD U/E Nazareth STP Easton STP Easton STP SFD RBC Plant
SFD f, SFD SFD SFD SFD
SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD
S^ SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD SFD
''Small Flows District
3
5
Upgraded/expanded Nazareth STP
fsecondary
STP at sac
-------
homeowner. Presumably, the Sewage Enforcement Officers (SEO's) would be
responsible for ensuring strict compliance with Chapter 73, Standards
for Sewage Disposal Facilities, of the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities
Act.
With no small waste flows agency in existence, municipalities,
through their SEO's, would continue to issue permits to build and repair
on-lot systems in order to prevent future public health problems.
2. Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
The Modified Applicant's Proposed Action is similar to the
Applicant's Proposed Action in concept, with wastewater generated in the
Service Area to be collected and conveyed to the upgraded and expanded
Easton Sewage treatment plant for disposal. The configuration of its
immediate Service Area differs slightly from that proposed in the EA
(see Figure II-l) as illustrated in Figure VI-2. The Jacobsburg State
Park interceptor and the Bushkill Creek interceptor have been eliminated
under the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action because need for sewerage
facilities is not justified on the basis of existing on-site system
problems or DER's recreation plans for Jacobsburg State Park in the
foreseeable future. This elimination of interceptors affords compara-
bility with the EIS alternatives which do not recommend sewers for
Jacobsburg State Park and its immediate vicinity in Bushkill Township
either. The provision of double or parallel sewers as proposed by the
Applicant at several locations throughout the Service Area (see Section
II.A.) has also been eliminated under the Modified Applicant's Proposed
Action to further ensure comparability with the EIS alternatives.
The Modified Applicant's Proposed Action's design flow of 1.234
million gallons per day (mgd) was estimated on the basis of a year 2000
service population2 and on the following per capita flows: 60 gallons
per capita per day (gpcd) for residential areas and 70 gpcd for residen-
tial/ commercial areas. These per capita flows, which do not include
infiltration/inflow (I/I), represent a departure from the Applicant's
Proposed Action which was designed on the basis of 100 gpcd, including
I/I. The service population and average daily flow (mgd) for the
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action as well as the EIS alternatives are
presented in Table V-l. Revisions of the EA design parameters con-
cerning per capita flow and design year service population were made so
that the costs and environmental impacts of the Applicant's Proposed
Action could be compared to those of the EIS alternatives. This com-
parability is further enhanced by the addition of 4 cluster systems to
the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action's immediate service (Phase I)
area. These cluster systems, which are included in every EIS alterna-
tive, are located in the following communities: east Pen Argyl and
Rasleytown (Plainfield Township), Rismiller (Bushkill Township), and
Christian Springs (Upper Nazareth Township). The 4 systems are included
in the Phase I area and are justified on the basis of needs documenta-
tion findings described in Section III.B.S.c. The Modified Applicant's
Proposed Action is illustrated in Figure VI-2.
2The Applicant's Proposed Action was designed to service a year 2020
population.
166
-------
FIGURE vi-2 MODIFIED EA PROPOSED ACTION
— —•SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
AREA SERVED BY EASTON STP
AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
• CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
[ ~| AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS DISTRICT
-------
3. EIS ALTERNATIVE 1
EIS Alternative 1, with a design flow of 1.085 mgd, would make
extensive use of land application of wastewater and decentralized
options. Wastewater from the small communities of Christian Springs in
Upper Nazareth Township and Rismiller in Bushkill Township would be
collected and treated by cluster systems in those communities. Similar-
ly, cluster systems would serve Rasleytown, a small area south of Wind
Gap on Route 115 and a small community east of Pen Argyl Borough, all in
Plainfield Township. Flows totalling 1.0 mgd from the Boroughs of
Nazareth, Stockertown, and Tatamy would all be treated by land applica-
tion at a site3 in Palmer Township. Flows totalling 0.085 mgd from the
Belfast area would be treated at a land application site in Plainfield
Township. All other areas would be served by conventional or alterna-
tive on-site systems. A small waste flows district (Phase II area)
would be organized to manage the decentralized and on-site systems.
This alternative is illustrated in Figure VI-3.
4. EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
The configuration of EIS Alternative 2 is identical to that of EIS
Alternative 1. The difference between the two lies in the substitution
of treatment methods for the small communities. In EIS Alternative 2,
marsh/ponds would be used instead of the cluster systems proposed by the
previous alternative. Wastewater discharge from these marsh/pond
systems would meet the effluent limitations for BOD, suspended solids
and ammonia nitrogen set by DER for receiving waters in the Service
Area. EIS Alternative 2 is illustrated in Figure VI-4.
5. EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
EIS Alternative 3 is similar to previous alternatives, but with
important differences. The Boroughs of Nazareth, Stockertown and Tatamy
would discharge their sewage (1.0 mgd) to a land application site in
Palmer Township as in EIS Alternative 1. Similarly, Rasleytown and the
small community east of Pen Argyl Borough would use cluster systems to
treat their wastewater. As in EIS Alternative 2, Rismiller and Chris-
tian Springs would be served by marsh/pond systems.
In contrast to the previous alternatives, sewers would be extended
north along Route 115 to permit collection of flows from the residences
that were proposed for clustering in EIS Alternative 1. These addi-
tional flows would increase treatment capacity at the Plainfield Town-
ship land application site to 0.175 mgd. In addition, Cherry Hill would
be sewered, with flows of 0.016 mgd being treated by land application at
a site near Bushkill Center. As in previous alternatives, all other
areas would be served by on-lot systems. This alternative is illu-
strated in Figure VI-5.
3It is re-emphasized that the locations of land application sites are
not absolute in this or any EIS alternative. Other possible sites
are located elsewhere in the Service Area. The sites described in
this section were selected on the basis of accessibility and repre-
sentative soil suitability.
169
-------
6. EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
EIS Alternative 4 differs from EIS Alternative 1 only in the number
of land application sites included in the overall wastewater management
plan. Whereas EIS Alternative 1 would convey some flows to a site in
Plainfield Township and others to a site in Palmer Township, EIS Alter-
native 4 would convey all the flows (1.10 mgd) to the Palmer Township
site. All other factors would be identical to EIS Alternative 1. This
alternative is illustrated in Figure VI-6.
7. EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
The configuration of EIS Alternative 5 is identical to that of EIS
Alternative 1, the two differing in the types of centralized treatment
proposed. Whereas EIS Alternative 1 proposes land application of waste-
water, EIS Alternative 5 proposes conveyance of flows (0.30 mgd) from
the Belfast-Stockertown-Tatamy area to Palmer Township, for treatment at
the upgraded and expanded Easton facility. Flows from Christian Springs
and the flows from the existing Nazareth sewage treatment plant (STP)
service area (0.85 mgd) would be treated at the Nazareth plant, which
would be upgraded and expanded to comply with DER wastewater treatment
specifications. Upgrading and expanding the existing Nazareth STP4
would involve the following construction:
• addition of one secondary clarifier
• addition of skimmer to the existing clarifier
• installation of a chlorine contact tank
• construction of 2 new (6 acre) lagoons, properly lined and
banked
• installation of 2 new pumps at the secondary clarifier
discharge point to recirculate effluent through the trickling
filters
• repair spalling and cracking of concrete fixtures
Other areas, as already indicated, would continue to use on-site
facilities. This alternative is illustrated in Figure VI-7.
8. EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
EIS Alternative 6 is similar to EIS Alternative 5 insofar as the
types of wastewater treatment are concerned. One difference between
the two alternatives is that EIS Alternative 6 would sewer the Cherry
Hill area and convey flows from that area to the upgraded and expanded
Nazareth STP. The second difference is that sewers would be extended
north along Route 115 to permit collection of flows from the residences
that were proposed for clustering in EIS Alternative 5. These flows
4The existing components of the Nazareth STP are described in
Appendix H-2.
170
-------
:IGUREvi-3 IS AL ERNATIVE
— SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
AREA SERVED BY LAND APPLICATION (SPRAY IRRIGATION)
'&;i$ AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
LAND APPLICATION TREATMENT SITE
• CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
| | AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS DISTRICT
-------
FIGURE vi-4 EIS ALTERNATIVE 2
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
^1 AREA SERVED BY LAND APPLICATION (SPRAY IRRIGATION)
|;|:^i| AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
AREA SERVED BY MARSH/POND SYSTEM
LAND APPLICATION TREATMENT SITE
MARSH/POND TREATMENT SITE
CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS DISTRICT ^.
X
r
-------
FIGURE vi-s EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
BH AREA SERVED BY LAND APPLICATION (SPRAY IRRIGATION)
p;aJ| AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
AREA SERVED BY MARSH/POND SYSTEM
UjTfjf LAND APPLICATION TREATMENT SITE
||M| MARSH/POND TREATMENT SITE
• CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
! I AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS DISTRICT
S
S"
J
-------
FIGURE vi-6 EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
TO AREA SERVED BY LAND APPLICATION (SPRAY IRRIGATION)
AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
LAND APPLICATION TREATMENT SITE
• CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
| | AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS DISTRICT
f
-------
FIGURE vi-7 EIS ALTERNATIVE 5
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
AREA SERVED BY EASTON STP
AREA SERVED BY NAZARETH STP
g'&Sj AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
NAZARETH STP
AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS DISTRICT
-------
would then be conveyed down Route 115, through Belfast, Stockertown
Borough, and Tatamy Borough, to Palmer Township, where they would be
discharged to Easton for treatment (0.35 mgd). On-site systems would be
used throughout the remainder of the EIS Service Area. Figure VI-8
depicts this alternative.
9. EIS ALTERNATIVE 7
EIS Alternative 7 proposes extensive centralized sewering of the
Service Area. The configurations of EIS Alternatives 6 and 7 are ident-
ical; the two alternatives differ only in the type and location of
wastewater treatment. In EIS Alternative 6, flows would be conveyed to
separate but conventional treatment facilities. In EIS Alternative 7
all flows through centralized sewer systems (1.2 mgd) would be conveyed
to a land application site in Palmer Township. Other areas would con-
tinue to use on-site systems. Figure VI-9 depicts this alternative.
10. EIS ALTERNATIVE 8
EIS Alternative 8 differs from EIS Alternative 7 only in that all
flows collected by central sewer systems (1.2 mgd) would be conveyed to
the Easton STP. All other areas would continue to rely upon conven-
tional or on-site systems. In this sense, EIS Alternative 8 is similar
to the Applicant's Proposed Action. The main difference between the two
is that the centralized Service Area in EIS Alternative 8 would be
appreciably smaller than the immediate Service Area proposed in the
Environmental Assessment. Figure VI-10 represents this alternative.
11. EIS Alternative 9
This alternative is identical to EIS Alternative 5 except for the
method of treating wastewater generated by the Nazareth STP Service
Area. In EIS Alternative 9, this wastewater (0.85) is treated by a pre-
fabricated Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) plant instead of by up-
graded/expanded facilities at the Nazareth STP site as proposed in the
fifth EIS Alternative. This would necessitate abandoning the existing
STP- EIS Alternative 9 is illustrated in Figure VI-11.
12. EIS Alternative 10
EIS Alternative 10 is identical to EIS Alternative 6 except that
wastewater generated by the Nazareth STP Service Area is treated by a
prefabricated RBC plant instead of trickling filters and lagoons. This
alternative is depicted in Figure VI-12.
C. FLEXIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES
The flexibility of the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action, EIS
Alternatives, as well as the No Action Alternative, to accommodate
future growth in the Service Area along with their operational flexi-
bility over the design period is evaluated in this section.
181
-------
1. NO ACTION
The No Action Alternative would maintain the existing conditions
and would place no additional planning and design restrictions upon the
treatment of wastewater. Because no action would be taken at present,
the flexibility for future waste water management planning would be high
compared to an alternative recommending an extensive commitment of re-
sources .
2. Modfied Applicant's Proposed Action
A centralized treatment facility for most wastewater flows within
the EIS Service Area would reduce the flexibility for future planning
and design changes concerning wastewater treatment. This alternative
would relegate the entire proposed Service Area to one treatment scheme.
However, the modular characteristics of the RBC plant would allow some
capacity for expansion if future demands warrant it.
3. EIS ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2
EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 are essentially identical in sewer config-
uration, except EIS Alternative 1 would use a number of cluster systems
where EIS Alternative 2 would use marsh/pond facilities. These are the
maximum decentralized alternatives, and therefore would offer the grea-
test flexibility for future decisions concerning localized planning to
be made at the local level. The use of land application and on-site
systems in these two alternatives would make future expansion possible.
4. EIS ALTERNATIVE 3
EIS Alternative 3 would maintain the same decentralized nature as
in EIS Alternatives 1 and 2, except more area would be relegated to cen-
tralized wastewater collection to local treatment sites. This altern-
ative, therefore, would have less flexibility for future planning deci-
sions than EIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This reduction in flexibility
would be most prevalent in Bushkill Township and Plainfield Township
where the increase in sewering occurs.
5. EIS ALTERNATIVE 4
The sewer layout for EIS Alternative 4 would be the same as for EIS
Alternative 1, except all sewered wastewater flows would go to a centra-
lized land treatment site located in Palmer Township. Cluster systems
and on-site systems would be used in the same manner as in EIS Alterna-
tive 1. The use of one land application facility instead of two would
mean reduced flexibility for localized planning in EIS Alternative 4.
Flexibility for future growth would still be available because of the
diverse modes of treatment.
182
-------
FIGURE vi-s EIS ALTERNATIVE 6
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
H AREA SERVED BY EASTON STP
[^ffij AREA SERVED BY NAZARETH STP
[>X\] AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
• CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
• NAZARETH STP
AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS DISTRICT
DO
-------
|«2S;,o-
FIGURE vr-9 EIS ALTERNATIVE 7
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
m AREA SERVED BY LAND APPLICATION (SPRAY IRRIGATION)
AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
|$L]| LAND APPLICATION TREATMENT SITE
• CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
| | AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS DISTRICT
r
-------
FIGURE vi-io EIS ALTERNATIVE 8
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
AREA SERVED BY EASTON STP
AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS DISTRICT
-------
FIGURE vi-n E IS ALTERNATIVE 9
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
AREA SERVED BY EASTON STP
AREA SERVED BY RBC PLANT*
AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
NAZARETH STP
AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS DISTRICT
#NOTE: ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR STP
-------
FIGURE vi-i2 E IS ALTERNATIVE 10
-- SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
|B AREA SERVED BY EASTON STP
pl| AREA SERVED BY RBC PLANT*
[^•^] AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
• CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
• NAZARETH STP
[ | AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS DISTRICT
#NOTE: ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR STP
r
-------
6. EIS ALTERNATIVES 5 and 6
EIS Alternatives 5 and 6 would allow for future expansion and
change in treatment technique using a combination of conventional, land,
and on-site treatment. Only those areas not suitable for on-site treat-
ment would be sewered, thus reducing capital costs. These alternatives
would provide flexibility for future expansion because of the many modes
of treatment used. For example, the lagoons at the upgraded/expanded
Nazareth STP could be readily enlarged to accommodate increased waste-
water flows. Operation and maintenance flexibility is high for the new
Nazareth plant. Also, the decentralized nature of the alternatives
would allow flexibility to base future decisions concerning land use
development upon local conditions. Because of the increased amount of
centralized sewer in Plainfield Township and Bushkill Township in EIS
Alternative 6, the overall flexibility would be slightly less for these
Townships than for EIS Alternative 5.
7. EIS ALTERNATIVES 7 AND 8
EIS Alternatives 7 and 8 both employ collection by gravity sewer
and centralized treatment of all wastewaters within the same proposed
sewer area. In EIS Alternative 8 wastewater is treated by an RBC plant
located in Easton. In EIS Alternative 7 land application in Palmer
Township is used for treatment of wastewater. As with the Environmental
Assessment Proposed Action, these alternatives would relegate the entire
Proposed Sewer Area to a single treatment scheme. The resulting commit-
ment of resources and reduction in future planning and design flexibility
would be significant since these alternatives represent the maximum
amount of centralized sewering for any of the EIS Alternatives.
8. EIS ALTERNATIVES 9 AND 10
Although the configuration of EIS Alternatives 9 and 10 is similar
to that of EIS Alternatives 5 and 6, respectively, the operational flex-
ibility and flexibility for future expansion of the former pair of al-
ternatives is less than for the latter pair. It is simpler and less
costly to enlarge a lagoon (EIS Alternatives 5 and 6) than it is to
purchase and install an additional package plant to accommodate in-
creased flows. Flexibility to maintain treatment efficiency during
overhaul operations on an RBC plant is less than that for a treatment
scheme using trickling filters and lagoons. Outside of the Nazareth
Service Area the flexibility of EIS Alternatives 9 and 10 are similar to
that of EIS Alternatives 5 and 6.
D. SLUDGE HANDLING ALTERNATIVES
Sludge is the water-logged by-product of sewage treatment processes,
and like effluent, must be treated and disposed. Treatment usually con-
sists of bacterial digestion and dewatering. (Dewatering is carried out
only if it reduces the total cost of sludge handling.) Sludge disposal
can take several forms, including:
193
-------
• Disposal on farmland;
• Disposal in a landfill;
• Composting for future sale to public;
• Incineration; and
• Contract hauling.
The cost of sludge treatment and disposal varies according to the
method used, the amount of sludge and the type of sewage treatment pro-
cess. Therefore, Table VI-2 was developed using EPA cost curves in
order to identify which treatment and disposal method should be selected
for the EIS alternatives.
Aerobic digestion proved to be the least costly of stabilizing
Nazareth STP sludge, so aerobic digesters were added to EIS Alternatives
5, 6, 9 and 10. Drying beds were the least costly way to dewater sludge
which reduced the total cost of handling Nazareth STP sludge; therefore,
the costs of sludge drying beds were also added to EIS Alternatives 5,
6, 9 and 10.
Finally, land application, landfill disposal, and contract hauling
appeared to be equally cost-effective methods of sludge disposal. Land-
filling was dropped as an option, however, because landfills accessible
to the Service Area are not licensed to accept sludge (because of
leachate problems). Contract hauling to a land application site was
finally chosen for sludge disposal.
E. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVES
The amount of energy, expressed in kilowatt hours per year,
required for the construction and operation of land application systems,
conventional treatment systems, decentralized treatment systems and con-
veyance facilities that comprise the wastewater management systems
evaluated in this EIS is presented in Table VI-3. Energy consumption is
highest for alternatives with land application systems consisting of
preliminary treatment, polishing, pumping and spraying facilities.
The sewage transmission systems in the EIS alternatives, which lar-
gely follow overland routes as opposed to following stream channels,
require between 10 and 14 pump stations. Conversely, the Applicant's
Proposed Action, which follows streams instead of roadways, requires 2
pump stations. The Modified Applicant's Proposed Action calls for 1
pump station.
F. COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Project costs were grouped by capital expenses, operating and main-
tenance expenses, and salvage values of the equipment and land required
for each alternative. A contingency fund amounting to approximately 25%
of capital costs was included to provide for such expenses as engineering
and legal fees, acquisition of rights-of-way, and administration. The
methodology and assumptions used in the analyses are described in
Appendix N-2. Detailed costs for each alternative are presented in
Appendix N-3.
194
-------
Table VI-2
SLUDGE TREATMENT & DISPOSAL COSTS (1980 $)
EIS
Alternatives 1,2,3,4,7
EIS Alternatives 5,6,8,9,10
Lagoons & Septic Tanks
Digestion
*Aerobic
Anaerobic
Dewatering
Centrifugation
*Drying Beds
Filtration
Disposal
*Land Application
*Landfill5
Composting
Incineration
*Contract Hauling
Construction
($)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
38,500
57,600
70,400
517,000
N/A
Annual
($/year)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9,900
46,100
37,400
77,000
36,900
Nazareth STP2
Construction
($)
38,500
165,000
165,000
55,000
253,000
25,300
?3
53,900
319,000
N/A
Annual
($/year)
2,500
10,800
17,600
7,800
24,300
5,500
?3
27,500
22,000
25,100
Lagoons & Septic Tanks
Construction
($)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
25,300
?3
58,300
418,000
N/A
Annual
($/year)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5,500
?3
31,900
49,500
17,300
*Recommended alternatives.
Disposal costs do not include the cost of any hauling that may be necessary.
2
The Nazareth STP costs shown were developed for the upgraded plant and may be considered representative
of the package plant costs; however, these costs do not apply to alternative 8.
o
These costs could not be obtained because the volumes of sludge involved were too low to enable use of the
cost curves.
Land application costs do not include the cost of land.
Landfill costs are based on the assumption that a new landfill is to be constructed; however, the annual
costs shown are representative (^ 1 l/3x) of the cost of using an established landfill.
-------
Table VI-3
ESTIMATED ENERGY BUDGETS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES (kwh/yr)
Alternative
EAPA1
MEAPA
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Land Sewage
Application Treatment Conveyance
Systems Facilities Facilities
5,
11,
630,600 ~ 305,
630,600 — 305,
748,440 — 581,
643,800 — 278,
181,970 265,
181,970 333,
717,760 -- 326,
798,
278,450 265,
278,450 333,
950
934
930
930
350
280
650
930
050
920
650
930
Cluster Marsh/Pond
Sy_stems Systems
7
8
8
8
6
6
6
8
6
— —
,010
,390
83,630
170 54,420
,390
,390
,840
,840
,840
,390
,840
Total
5,
18,
944,
1,020,
1,384,
930,
456,
522,
1,050,
805,
552,
619,
950
944
920
160
380
470
010
740
650
760
490
220
Note: These numbers, represent additional amounts of energy (in kwh/yr) required to operate and maintain
facilities in the respective alternative. These energy figures represent energy expenditures above
what would have been expended had the alternative not been put into effect.
These energy figures do not include small waste flow energies (tank pumping costs, etc.) and sludge
disposal for Nazareth STP.
Applicant's Proposed Action
"Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
-------
The present and future project costs for the Applicant's Proposed
Action, the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action and the EIS Alterna-
tives are summarized in Table VI-4. The analyses of total present worth
and total capital (construction related) costs of each alternative are
also presented in this table. (Debt service on financing and local
share is not included.) Discussion of Federal/State cost sharing and
remaining local costs is included in Section V.C.2.
197
-------
Table VI-4
COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Modified
EA EA EIS Alternatives
Proposed Proposed
Action1 Action z 123456789 10
Total Capital
Cogts 14770.2 9921.8 12078.1 13847.3 15080.2 12481.1 9929.7 10370.4 12627.4 9890.8 9724.8 9630.5
(1980 $ x 1000)
Total Present
£ Worth Costs 16669.3 11201.8 13440.3 15496.0 17221.5 13765.0 11933.7 12524.8 13951.7 12318.5 11838.5 11812,7
00 (1980 $ x 1000)
TPW: EIS
Alternatives +49% 0 +20% +38% +54% +23% +7% +12% +25% +10% +6% +5%
vs. MEAPA3
Applicant's Proposed Action
2
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
Total Present Worth (TPW) costs of Alternatives compared to TPW costs of Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
-------
CHAPTER VII
Impacts of EIS Alternatives
-------
Chapter VII
Impacts of EIS Alternatives
The environmental, economic, and social impacts associated with the
implementation of each EIS wastewater management alternative, as well as
appropriate measures to mitigate or lessen adverse impacts, are
described in this chapter. Impact discussion will consider both primary
and secondary effects of the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action. Pri-
mary effects or impacts1 addressed in this study are those directly
related to the construction and operation of sewage collection, trans-
mission, and treatment facilities. Secondary impacts2 represent
project-induced impacts on the environment. In addition to being
described as either beneficial or adverse, these impacts will also be
characterized as either short-term or long-term. Short-term effects on
the environment are usually a direct consequence of the project in its
immediate vicinity. Long-term effects are those which are the direct or
indirect result of the project and in most cases are considered to be
permanent effects. Any other types of impacts will be identified.
These impacts are compared to those of the Modified Applicant's
Proposed Action, which, as described in Section VLB.2, represents a
redesign of the Applicant's Proposed Action based on EIS assumptions
regarding design flow per capita, service area configuration, and dura-
tion of the wastewater management project (see Chapter IV for a
description of the impacts of the Applicant's Proposed Action itself).
An assessment of estimated future environmental conditions without
implementation of the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action or any of the
EIS alternatives is also provided in this chapter.
A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. AIR QUALITY
a. Impact
Air quality impacts can result from the construction and operation
of sewage collection, transmission and treatment facilities in the EIS
Service Area. Construction of these facilities will result in localized
air contaminant emissions. Major emissions include total suspended par-
ticulates (such as fugitive dust from right of way clearing, excavation,
1 example: destruction of historical, archaeological or recreational
areas during pipeline construction.
2 example: loss of prime agricultural land over time as a result of
sewer-induced (secondary) growth.
199
-------
and filling, as well as smoke from the exhaust of diesel-powered equip-
ment) and gases (nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, organics, and odors
from diesel-powered equipment, as well as hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide from interrupted roadway traffic). Since site preparation and
construction would be of relatively little duration at any one location
in the EIS Service Area, these short-term primary-air quality impacts
are projected to be negligible.
An evaluation of the impacts associated with the operation of
centralized and decentralized wastewater management facilities in the
Service Area involves consideration of major design features of the
alternatives, land use and localized wind directional frequencies. This
information is presented in Table VII-1.
Table VII-1
SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY IMPACT POTENTIAL OF MODIFIED EA PROPOSED ACTION AND EIS ALTERNATIVES
Dispersed Sources of Odor
Distances from Centralized
Components to Sensitive
Receptors, and Corresponding
Wind Direction Frequencies-^
Project Designation
Modified EAPA2
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
EIS
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Cluster
Systems
4
14
0
2
14
13
4
4
5
13
4
Marsh/Pond Centralized
Systems Components
0 Easton STP
0 Plainfield SIS3
Palmer SIS
4 Plainfield SIS
Palmer SIS
2 Plainfield SIS
Palmer SIS
Bushkill SIS
0 Palmer SIS
0 Easton STP
Nazareth STP
0 Easton STP
Nazareth STP
0 Palmer SIS
0 Easton STP
0 Easton STP
Nazareth RBC STP
0 Easton STP
Nazareth RBC STP
Nazareth
Km
NA
7
3
7
3
7
3
3
3
NA
2
NA
2
3
NA
NA
2
NA
2
7.
NA
4
5
4
5
4
5
6
5
NA
10
NA
10
5
NA
NA
10
NA
10
Commerc.
Km
NA
0
0
NA
0
NA
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
/Recr.
%
NA
23
23
NA
23
NA
23
64
23
NA
NA
NA
NA
23
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOTE: NA Not Applicable
Numbers express frequency of occurrence in percent
Modified EA (Applicant's) Proposed Action
Spray Irrigation Site
200
-------
Marsh/pond systems were considered to be potential sources of odor
(and possibly aerosols) when located near serviced communities (see
Figures VI-4 and VI-5). Subsurface disposal and treatment of waste-
waters through cluster systems were judged to have insignificant impacts
upon air quality. Sewage treatment plants and land application (spray
irrigation) sites to be located within short distances (especially under
1 kilometer, or 0.6 miles) of densely-populated Nazareth Borough or any
commercial or recreational areas might exert adverse air quality impacts
at times. The estimated maximum frequencies of such impacts are indi-
cated in Table VII-1 in percentage units, based upon wind rose data from
the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Airport (see Appendix B-2).
The operation of the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action, which
would involve the utilization of only the Easton sewage treatment plant,
would not be expected to result in any direct adverse air quality
impacts (although some induced population growth, and associated in-
creases in air contaminant emissions, could be expected as a secondary
impact). EIS Alternatives 6, 8 and 10 also appear to present very small
potential for adverse air quality impacts. EIS Alternatives 2 and 3
probably have relatively more adverse impacts for the following reasons:
the marsh/pond systems would maximize community exposure; the Palmer
Township irrigation would often be upwind of surrounding commercial
areas; and the Bushkill Township spray irrigation would usually be up-
wind of the recreational area, Jacobsburg State Park. The remaining
alternatives (numbered 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9) are all intermediate in adverse
air quality impact potential.
The most important air quality impacts of the alternatives are the
secondary impacts resulting from sewer-induced population. Since the
greatest anticipated Service Area population of all alternatives evalu-
ated is associated with the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action, it is
the only alternative addressed in this analysis.
The data based employed for this alternative is shown in Table
VII-2. Table VII-3 shows the major air contaminant omissions projected
in the area under the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action at five-year
intervals. These estimates are based solely on emissions produced in
the area by the projected population.
Table VII-4 shows the maximum air contaminant concentration projec-
ted in the area using a simple atmospheric dispersion model (see Appen-
dix C-4). As shown by these data, no air quality standards (either the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments or the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards) are predicted to be exceeded.under the
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action. The highest percentage of pre-
dicted concentration to the appropriate standard occurs for sulfur
dioxide at a 24-hour averaging time, and is only 3.4%. It can therefore
be concluded that the air contaminant levels resulting from the Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action are minimal.
201
-------
Table VII-2
DATA BASE BY 5 YEAR INTERVALS EMPLOYED IN ESTIMATING MAJOR AIR CONTAMINANT
EMISSIONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO INCREASED ELECTRIC ENERGY DEMAND AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
Service Area Population 1975
Modified Applicant's
Proposed Actionl 11,418
2
Service Area Dwelling Units
Modified Environmental
Assessment Proposed Action 3,806
Vehicular Emission Factors
Carbon Monixide (g/veh-km)
(Ib/veh-mi)
Hydrocarbons
(g/veh-km)
(Ib/veh-mi)
Nitrogen Dioxide (g/veh-km)
(Ib/veh-mi)
Notes:
1
47.08
0.1669
5.47
9.0144
2.23
0.0079
1980
11,558
3,863
34.38
0.1218
3.52
0.0125
1.61
0.0057
1985
11,758
3,919
17.44
0.0618
1.80
0.0064
1.09
0.0039
1990
11,884
3,961
11.00
0.0397
1.32
0.0047
0.96
0.0034
1995
2000
11,951 11,984
3,984
9.98
0.0354
1.24
0.0044
0.95
0.0034
3,995
9.98
0.0354
1.24
0.0044
0.95
0.0034
Only the population resulting from the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action is shown since
it is the same or greater than the Alternatives.
Based on Service Area population divided by the average household size in persons of 3.0 (Source: JPC
1975); and to be multiplied by 183.625K; (51,000 kwh) annual household electrical demand (at 3,100 heating
degree C (5500 heating degree F) days and 100 central air conditioning operator hours plus water heating,
cooking and miscellaneous needs) and divided by 90% transmission efficiency (US EPA 1975) and multiplied
by a typical power plant net heat rate of 700 cal/Kj (10,000 BTU/Kwh) and coal-fired plant emission rates
of 1.26 g/106 cal (0.7 lb/106 Btu) for NOX, 2.16 g/106 cal (1.2 lb/106 Btu) for S02 and 0.18 g/106 cal
(0.1 lb/106 Btu) for particulates. Since about 40% of Metropolitan Edison's Power usage is attributable
to nuclear power, a factor of 0.6 was employed.
Based on 12°C (54°F) average ambient temperature, 31.6 km/hr (19.6 mi/hr) average route speed (US EPA
1975) 20.6% all-catalytic converter equipped cold start vehicles, and 27.3% hot start vehicles; and to
be multiplied by 16,573 km (11,301 mi) average annual light-duty vehicle travel (US EPA 1978) the
population for the year indicated, and 0.50 automobiles per person, which was selected In consideration
of the rural environment in the Service Area , and the Pennsylvania average of 0.44 automobiles per per-
son (Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 1972).
CNJ
O
tN
-------
O
OJ
Table VII-3
MAJOR AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS) BY YEAR RESULTING
FROM THE POPULATION IN THE SERVICE AREA, BASED ON THE MODIFIED EA PROPOSED ACTION
Contaminant
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide
Total Suspended Particulate
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
4884
568
642
704
59
3617
371
586
715
60
1862
193
541
725
61
1209
143
532
733
62
1084
135
534
737
62
1087
135
535
739
62
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
-------
Table VII-4
MAXIMUM MAJOR AIR CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS (yg/m3) BY YEAR RESULTING FROM THE POPULATION
IN THE SERVICE AREA, BASED ON THE MODIFIED EA PROPOSED ACTION
Contaminant
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide
Total Suspended
Particulate
Averaging
Time
1 hr
8 hr
3 hr
1 yr
3 hr
24 hr
1 yr
24 hr
1 yr
1975
278
98
18.6
0.4
8.6
3.1
0.2
0.3
0.01
1980
205
73
12.2
0.4
8.8
3.1
0.2
0.3
0.01
1985
106
37
6.3
0.3
8.9
3.2
0.2
0.3
0.01
1990
69
24
4.7
0.3
9.0
3.2
0.2
0.3
0.01
1995
61
22
4.4
0.3
9.1
3.2
0.2
0.3
0.01
2000
62
22
4.4
0.3
9.1
3.2
0.2
0.3
0.01
PSD
Standard Inc.
40,000
10,000
160
100
1,300 512
365 91
80 20
260 37
75 19
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action.
There are the allowable Class II area prevention & significant deterioration plan increments (Clean Air
Act Amendments 1970).
o
CN
-------
b. Mitigation
Localized air contaminants such as fugitive dust and gases emitted
during construction of wastewater management facilities can be reduced
in several ways. All trucks in the construction equipment inventory can
be inspected to insure that they comply with applicable regulations such
as overloading (to minimize vehicular emissions) and covering of loose
material (to minimize release of fugitive dust). Truck movement areas
can be graveled and, if necessary, sprayed with water to control dust
and help minimize the tracking of dirt onto roadways. Likewise, refuse
in the trucks from excavation and demolition activities could be hosed
down as necessary before leaving the temporary construction sites to
further control dust and dirt. Dust generation may also be reduced by
restricting the speed of hauling trucks traveling over unpaved roads to
these sites. These measures should reduce dust generation by about 50
percent (EPA 1977).
Potential adverse odor impacts associated with decentralized treat-
ment facilities such as cluster systems and marsh/pond systems are
minimal provided they are properly designed, constructed, operated and
maintained. The dosing pumps installed at the outlet to the septic tank
component of the cluster systems prevent soil clogging, effluent ponding
and hence odor generation in the drainfield by ensuring that the entire
drainfield is involved in the filtration process. The provision of a
reserve drainfield at each cluster system treatment site minimizes any
adverse odor impacts that may result from a malfunction at the primary
drainfield. As a non-structural measure to prevent cluster system mal-
functions, local governments could pass legislation prohibiting the
encroachment of development on these facilities.
If marsh/pond systems are consistently operating under aerobic"'
conditions, adverse odor impacts should be negligible. The purchase of
land for use as a buffer zone around these facilities as well as their
location away from residential communities are examples of non-struc-
tural actions which can be taken to mitigate any potential adverse odor
impacts.
Pretreatment as well as proper operation and maintenance at centra-
lized wastewater treatment facilities provided in EIS Alternatives 5, 6,
9 and 10 (Nazareth STP location) will serve to reduce odor. Odor
impacts which will invariably exist, especially in summer conditions,
are mitigated by the fact that these facilities are isolated from resi-
dential areas and surrounded by either agricultural land or property
owned by local cement companies.
The mitigative measures that can be taken in regard to the conven-
tional centralized facilities may also be applied to land application
systems. Adverse odor impacts on the nearest community should be negli-
gible provided the wastewater stabilization ponds are properly con-
structed and maintained. The natural interaction of sunlight, algae and
bacteria in these ponds serves to keep odor generation to a minimum.
Potential adverse odor impacts due to aerosol drift during the effluent
205
-------
spraying operation are mitigated by the provision of a natural 200-foot
buffer zone around the spray irrigation sites.
No measures are required to mitigate secondary air quality impacts
associated with the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action or EIS Altern-
atives 1 through 10 since it was previously indicated that these impacts
are negligible.
2. NOISE
a. Impact
The construction of interceptor and collector sewers, pump sta-
tions, as well as wastewater treatment facilities in the EIS Service
Area, as prescribed in the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action and EIS
alternatives can be expected to cause short-term adverse noise condi-
tions. Such construction would involve the use of dozers for right-of-
way clearance, front loaders and dump trucks for debris removal, rock
drills and blasting equipment for use in hard-rock areas (Cherry Hill
vicinity), as well as heavy trucks, backhoes, cranes, and other equip-
ment for sewer pipe installation. The sound levels associated with the
operation of these equipment items are presented in Table VII-5. They
will create public annoyance at certain distances as shown in Table
IV-1. The actual sound levels emitted during sewage facilities con-
struction depend on equipment duty cycle and the number and mixture of
equipment items that are operating simultaneously. Mild adverse reac-
tion may be expected during construction of a ditch at a distance of up
to approximately 700 feet due to noise caused by dozers, backhoes, and
trucks. Sewer pipe installation would create a more severe impact on
local residents, since noise from crane operations will dominate the
noise field up to 2,000 feet. If blasting is required, the rock drill
operation would be a major noise source causing extreme, short-term
annoyance up to distances of approximately 2,000 feet (EPA 1977).
The length of time that such primary adverse noise impacts would
occur is highly variable, depending upon soil conditions, accessibility,
weather and other factors. The length of time any given group of resi-
dents would be affected by construction related noise may be estimated,
assuming that approximately 2,000 feet of interceptor can be completed
in a typical one-month period. At this completion rate, inhabitants
within approximately 1,000 feet of the center of construction activity
could expect noise to be in excess of limiting threshold levels (day/
night average noise level = 55 dB) for a total period of two weeks to
one month (EPA 1977).
The construction of sewerage facilities under any wastewater man-
agement alternative may have primary adverse impacts upon wildlife.
This is particularly true of the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action,
which involves interceptor sewer construction along wooded stretches of
Bushkill Creek, and EIS Alternative 3, which involves the construction
of a land application site on the southwest fringe of Jacobsburg State
Park. Noise's major effect on wildlife is related to the use of audi-
tory signals which are important for survival in some species. Animals
206
-------
Equipment
Truck
Backhoe
Welding Machine
Scraper
Crane
Air Compressor
Impact Hammer
Rock Drill
Loader
Table VH-5
SOUND LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH
SEWER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
A-Weighted
Sound Level
at 50 feet
(per unit)
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
88
85
83**
88
83
81
88
98
84
Usage Factor
.16
.08
.16
.12
.5
.02
.3
**Equivalent daytime sound level (L,) = 78 dBA at 100 ft.
Fraction of time equipment is operating at its noisiest mode
2
Estimated
Source:"Background Document for Proposed Portable Air Compressor Noise
Emission Regulations." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-550/
9-76-004 (December 1975).
Municipality
Table VII-6
ESTIMATED FUTURE DAY/NIGHT SOUND LEVELS IN EIS
SERVICE AREA (Ld ) - dBA
Bushkill Township
Plainfield Township
Upper Nazareth Township
Palmer Township
Nazareth Borough
Tatamy Borough
Stockertown Borough
Existing
44
45
49
53
57
55
51
Projected (Year 2,000)
46
47
50
53
57
56
52
207
-------
that rely on their ears to locate prey and animals that rely on their
ears to detect predators are in each case adversely affected by intrud-
ing noise from construction equipment. Such noise could also affect
wildlife reproduction or increase mortality as auditory mating signals
and distress/warning signals, respectively, are masked during the con-
struction period. It has been indicated that short-term high noise
levels may startle wild game birds and stop the brooding cycle for an
entire season (EPA 1977).
Long-term primary noise impacts resulting from the operation of
sewerage facilities, including pump stations and centralized treatment
components are expected to be negligible and affect only a small portion
of the Service Area population. Only 1 pump station is proposed to be
constructed under the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action. Under the
EIS alternatives, the number of required pump stations ranges from 10 to
14. The enclosure of motors and pumps at these stations serves to
reduce levels of radiated noise. No noise impacts are judged to be
associated with cluster systems which operate completely beneath the
surface. Preliminary treatment facilities and diffuser aerators at the
marsh/pond treatment systems are expected to radiate an insignificant
amount of noise.
Secondary noise impacts, due to induced growth in the Service Area,
will result from an increase in vehicular traffic. As indicated in
Section III.A.4, EPA has developed a methodology for calculating outdoor
noise levels based on difference in population densities. The antici-
pated increase in day/night sound levels (L, ) for each of the munici-
palities in the Service Area is based on the projected increase in popu-
lation (see Table VII-6). As shown in this table, the increase in
ambient noise levels attributed to projected (year 2000) population3 is
negligible.
b. Mitigation
• All activities involved in the construction of sewerage facil-
ities, including demolition and excavation work should be
limited to day-time hours between 8 am and 4 pm in order to
minimize noise disturbances. It may be necessary to use blast
mats and bury the primacord in order to reduce annoyance to
nearby residents.
• Noise impacts from construction activity and equipment can be
mitigated by proper maintenance of operating equipment and
installation of noise-attenuation devices. Backhoes, cranes
and dozers are major noise sources whose sound levels can be
significantly reduced by the installation of exhaust muffling
equipment.
3 Population figures used to estimate projected noise levels included
the 1973 JPC population projections for the 7 municipalities under
study.
208
-------
• Control measures for reducing noise levels emitted by diffuser
aerators and pump stations include enclosure of motors and
pumps, enclosure or acoustical lagging of control valves, and
acoustical lagging of all above-ground high-pressure piping.
3. GEOLOGY
The most important geologic impacts of the Modified Applicant's
Proposed Action and its EIS alternatives are secondary and are related
to urban growth that would occur in the Service Area as a result of the
implementation of any of these alternative wastewater management plans.
With the exception of certain areas underlain by limestone, the Service
Area is generally well-suited to urbanization, and these impacts should
therefore be minimal. However, in areas where sinkhole development has
been known to occur (in limestone soils), sewer-induced growth should
proceed only after a detailed geologic reconnaissance has been made of
the potentially developable area.
4. Soils
a. Impacts
The most important primary adverse impacts of the Modified Appli-
cant's Proposed Action and its 10 alternatives on the soils of the EIS
Service Area relate to the potential for soil erosion to downslope areas
during construction of sewage collection, transmission and treatment
facilities. Available soil data indicate that most soils adjacent to
Schoeneck Creek and Bushkill Creek, where interceptor construction has
been proposed under the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action, have
moderate to poor stability. This condition suggests that erosion is a
potential problem, especially when sites are devegetated during con-
struction activities. Erosion potential is increased during construc-
tion of sewers across streams or in steep slope areas.
The construction of decentralized and centralized treatment facili-
ties in EIS alternatives 1 through 10 has a less significant adverse
impact (than sewers) on soil stability because site requirements include
flat topography with an appropriate vegetative buffer zone. The poten-
tial for soil loss from the overland flow land treatment sites in the
marsh/pond systems (EIS Alternatives 2 and 3) will be increased if a
proper cover of grasses and other small plants is not maintained on the
5 to 8% slopes.
Secondary impacts of the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action and
the EIS alternatives on the soils in the Service Area involve the
removal of soil from potential productivity. This is discussed in Sec-
tion VII.A.5.
209
-------
b. Mitigation
The erosion and sedimentation control plan, required by the State
of Pennsylvania for the construction of sewerage facilities, should pro-
vide for effective sedimentation control through such measures as mini-
mizing construction in and crossing streams by environmentally sound
sewer alignment, avoiding steep slopes, removing excess material, con-
tinuous backfilling of trenches, diverting runoff away from undisturbed
areas, timely revegetation of disturbed areas with grasses for stabili-
zation and sediment filtering, and using detention or retention basins
in critical areas such as the "Fish for Fun Area" and the brown trout
nursery (probable spawning) area in the lower reaches of Bushkill Creek
(see Figure 111-10). Additional measures, as prescribed by the
Northampton County Conservation District, may be taken to minimize soil
loss during sewer construction. These include:
• Place excavated fill on the uphill side of the trench
• Haul away soil displaced by the sewer pipe itself. (In the
Belfast area of Plainfield Township and Newburg Homes area of
Palmer Township, where the majority of soils are generally
classified as silty clay loams, full consideration must be
given to the clay content and subsequent poor permeability of
the disposed soil. Whenever disposed, these soils may impede
drainage, and because of their high clay content, would not be
considered suitable for the support of most vegetation.)
• Level off backfilled trenches
• Apply liberal amounts of straw mulch and seed the backfilled
trench immediately.
5. PRIME AND UNIQUE AGRICULTURAL LANDS
a. Impact
Over 75% of the EIS Service Area has been classified by the USDA-
SCS as prime agricultural land. Prime agricultural lands are those
whose value derives from their general advantage as cropland due to
favorable soil and water conditions. Impacts of the Modified Appli-
cant's Proposed Action and EIS alternatives are related to the loss of
agricultural land and the decrease in crop productivity due to sewer-
induced population growth and associated land development.
Since prime agricultural land is generally defined as level, well-
drained land, it can also be viewed as prime development land. The
majority of the anticipated development associated with the alternative
wastewater management schemes evaluated in this EIS would occur on prime
agricultural land. The estimated amount of undeveloped land that would
be converted to residential, commercial, or industrial use under these
alternative schemes, as well as the No Action alternative over the
20-year planning period is shown in Table VII-7.
210
-------
TABLE VII-7
ESTIMATED CONVERSION OF UNDEVELOPED LAND
TO OTHER USES, YEAR 2000
Amount of Undeveloped1
Land Converted to Residential/
Alternative Commercial/Industrial Use (acre)
EIS Alternatives 6 and 10 1,863
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action 1,856
EIS Alternative 3 1,837
EIS Alternative 7 and 8 1,792
EIS Alternative 1 1,785
EIS Alternative 2 1,782
EIS Alternative 4 1,702
EIS Alternative 5 and 9 1,639
No Action 1,623
1Includes agricultural land, forest and pasture.
These figures indicate that implementation of the Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action or any of its 10 alternatives would result
in the conversion of less than 1% (EIS Alternatives 5 and 9) to 13% (EIS
Alternatives 6 and 10) more undeveloped land to developed land uses than
would occur if no Federally-funded wastewater management action (No
Action) were taken.
Construction of wastewater management facilities under the more
centralized alternatives (Modified Applicant's Proposed Action, EIS
Alternatives 3,6,7,8 and 10) will neutralize soil constraints presently
limiting the use of on-site wastewater management systems, thus allowing
more development in the EIS Service Area than is now the case. By
permitting high density development in non-prime farmland areas,
centralized wastewater management could serve to prevent the unmanaged
development of prime farmland where relatively flat well drained soils
exist that would be conducive to housing construction with on-site
wastewater disposal. Provided growth management controls are imple-
mented, this may be considered a benefit of the centralized alterna-
tives .
211
-------
However, for every parcel of prime agricultural land converted to
residential/commercial/industrial use under any alternative, alternative
benefits must be foregone. In some cases, the loss of alternative bene-
fits may carry with it significant social, economic and environmental
costs which are borne by the Service Area population as a whole or large
portions thereof. Adverse impacts that may result from the conversion
of agricultural land to more intense uses are briefly described below.
The severity of impact on the EIS Service Area as a whole is directly
proportional to the conversion estimates presented in Table VII-6.
Adverse impacts include:
• The agricultural character of several municipalities, inclu-
ding Bushkill Township, Plainfield Township and Upper Nazareth
Township may decrease in the short run and may be diminished
in the long run if sewer-induced growth on prime agricultural
land is unchecked.
• Reduction in the amount of open space; hunting and recreation
" opportunities are decreased.
• Reduction in the amount of clean air generated by oxygen-
producing crops and other green plants in the EIS Service
Area.
• Natural control of surface runoff afforded by prime farmlands
is diminished as the amount of impermeable material (roads,
houses, buildings) increases; surface runoff is increased.
• The local prices of certain farm products may increase if
agricultural land is converted to other uses in the greater
Easton Area. Seasonal vegetables, certain grains, and to a
limited degree, dairy products may become more expensive if
Service Area residents have to pay extra money to have these
products shipped to their markets from other regions.
• Reduction in crop productivity per acre. The EIS Service Area
contains some of the most productive soils in Northampton
County; these soils can produce over 100 bushels of corn per
acre (by telephone, Roslyn Kahler, NCCD, 18 Oct 79). If these
prime areas are lost to development, farmers will, out of
necessity, move to marginal soils to produce the same crops at
lower yields per acre. Farming of marginal soils may result
in more extensive soil erosion, increased fertilizer require-
ments and increased need for soil conservation measures. Loss
of prime agricultural land will result in lower profits per
acre for the farmer, and therefore, less incentive to continue
farming operations. This may, in the long run, accelerate the
loss of farmland to other uses in the Service Area.
It must be noted that beneficial impacts would be derived from EIS
Alternatives 1,2,3,4, and 7. These alternatives would employ up to 500
acres of prime agricultural land for spray irrigation of treated efflu-
ent. The benefits derived would be compensation of farm owners for
212
-------
development easements on prime lands thus conserving it for agricultural
purposes. These lands would remain as open space and help maintain the
rural character of the area. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphous
which act as pollutants when discharged to surface waters would be
applied to the land for crop utilization as fertilizer thus reducing the
need for energy intensive chemical fertilizers and reducing pollutant
loads to streams.
Unique agricultural land, or land which is used in the production
of high cash or high fiber crops (e.g. orchards), constitutes less than
1% of all land in Northampton County. Therefore, the degree to which it
would be affected by the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action or its
alternatives is insignificant.
b. Mitigation
Measures which could be taken to minimize the rate at which farm-
land is converted to other development uses, given the availability of
public wastewater management services, include:
• Municipal purchase of development easements from farm owners.
This approach serves both to meet local government needs for
growth control and land conservation as well as individual
ownership rights and interests. Land secured by an easement
remains with the farmer, as does the expense of property main-
tenance. Benefits accrue to both farm owner and municipality.
The farmer is reimbursed by the local government for the ease-
ment; he can remain on the land, farm it and thereby resist
property tax pressures and promises of profits if he sells the
land for development. A development easement can give the
local government a nonpossesory, less-than-fee interest in the
land. It serves as an inexpensive interim measure to prevent
development on land which the local government may eventually
want to purchase for parks, recreation or other public uses.
• Establish a marginal cost pricing program in which each new
sewerage service user pays the cost of providing service to
his lot. Users could pay a proportion of treatment costs as
well as the cost to convey wastewater from the household to
the treatment site. Under this approach, the cost of servi-
cing outlying rural areas increases with the distance from the
treatment site. This marginal difference in service costs
could be sufficient to discourage development of prime agri-
cultural land in Plainfield Township, Bushkill Township, Upper
Nazareth Township and Palmer Township.
• Continue preferential taxation of actively farmed land in the
Service Area. This tax mechanism may decelerate the future
conversion of prime agricultural land to other uses by offer-
ing the farmers preferential (lower) tax treatment. It is
hoped that the owner will retain and farm the land as long as
his property is taxed at a relatively low rate according to
213
-------
its productive capability. Although landowners receive tax
benefits from such a program, they are not always preferable
to those which derive from sale of the property—high capital
gains and offers by developers to pay back taxes on the pro-
perty.
• Establish a Transferable Development Rights Zoning Ordinance
wherein a developer of a planned residential development pur-
chases the development rights from a farmowner in return for
permission for more housing units per acre.
• Municipal capital programming to limit urban type services
such as water supply or road improvements in agricultural
areas zoned for low density.
* Adopt municipal ordinances to promote cluster development in
areas of existing development.
6. GROUNDWATER
a. Impact
Projected groundwater impacts resulting from the implementation of
either the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action or its 10 EIS alterna-
tives fall into 2 categories-- those affecting the available quantity of
groundwater, and those affecting its quality.
Proposed construction and operation of sewage collection, transmis-
sion, and treatment facilities in an area partly served by private wells
must consider the implications of such construction and operation activ-
ities with respect to local groundwater supplies. It is projected that
the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action as well as the EIS alternatives
will have no significant primary and secondary impacts on water table
levels and the available quantity of groundwater within the EIS Service
Area.
Table VII-8 shows the estimated wastewater recharge of groundwater
in 1980 based upon estimated water consumption in areas with on-site
systems as the means of wastewater disposal. The projected wastewater
recharge associated with the Modified Applicant's. Proposed Action and
each EIS alternative in the year 2000 is shown in Table VII-9. Recharge
from on-site systems alone for the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
and each alternative in 2000 is seen to approximate 1 mgd and exceed the
1980 total of approximately 0.7 mgd. Recharge from cluster systems in
2000 is relatively small for all alternatives. However, EIS Alterna-
tives 1 through 4, and 7 each provide additional recharge of approxi-
mately 1 mgd at land application sites.
Estimates for total wastewater recharge and total wastewater export
to the Easton STP are both included in Table VII-9. However, no direct
relationship exists between total wastewater recharge and export to the
214
-------
Table VII-8
ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER RECHARGE BY ON-SITE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
EFFLUENT IN YEAR 1980 1
Groundwater Recharge
Municipality (mgd)^
Plainfield Township 0.30
Bushkill Township 0.26
Upper Nazareth Township 0.08
Nazareth Borough 0.02
Palmer Township 0.29
Tatamy Borough 0.05
Stockertown Borough 0.07
TOTAL 1.07
Based on per capita flow (60 gpcd for residential, 70 gpcd for residential/
commercial areas) x 1980 population. Population figures are based on
1973 JPC demographic projections and data obtained from 1979 aerial
photographs of EIS Service Area.
million gallons per day
STP because there is some degree of interbasin tranfer of water invol-
ved. Some of the water (approximately 450,000 gallons per day) that
comprises the wastewater flow to the Easton STP is supplied by public
water companies whose own water sources lie outside the Bushkill Creek
drainage basin. As indicated in Section III.A.9.a, most of the EIS
Service Area lies within this basin.
Blasting or rock drilling that may be required during construction
of the two new 6-acre lagoons at the Nazareth STP site under EIS Altern-
atives 5 and 6 or the RBC sewage treatment plant under EIS Alternatives
9 and 10 could have an adverse effect on local groundwater hydrology.
Limestone outcrops have been observed immediately south of the sludge
lagoon during surveys of the STP conducted from 1978 to 1979. If it is
determined, following a geological survey of the STP property, that
blasting or rock drilling is required, adverse primary impacts on local
geology would be of short duration. Blasting may adversely affect local
groundwater hydrology by altering paths of groundwater flow to Schoeneck
Creek.
No significant short-term impacts on groundwater quality should
result from the construction of the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
or its alternatives. Septic tank systems may increase the existing ele-
vated levels of nitrates in portions of Bushkill Township, but this
impact could be controlled by appropriate mitigative measures. Con-
struction-related soil erosion releases sediment that may cause short-
term impacts on water quality. However, the clayey soils found through-
out the area provide an effective barrier by filtration and adsorption
against sediments reaching the aquifers. No significant impacts of this
type are thus expected from any of the alternatives.
215
-------
Table VII-9
ESTIMATED WASTEWATER RECHARGE AND EXPORT (Year 2000)]
Wastewater Recharge (mgd)
Total
Total
Alternatives
Modified EA Pro-
posed Action 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
On-Site
Systems
0.911
0.958
0.960
0.913
0.958
0.958
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.958
0.911
Cluster Systems
0.020
0.061
0
0.010
0.061
0.050
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.050
0.020
Land Application
(Spray Irrigation)
0
1.085
1.085
1.191
1.100
0
0
1.20
0
0
0
Total Wastewater
Recharge (mgd)
.931
2.104
2.045
2.114
2.119
1.008
0.931
2.131
0.931
1.008
0.931
Wastewater Export
to Easton STP (mgd)
1.234
0
0
0
0
0.30
0.35
0
1.195
0.30
0.35
Wastewater Export
to Nazareth STP (mgd)
0
0
0
0
0
0.85
0.85
0
0
0.85
0.85
'JD
t — I
0]
Based on per capita flow (.60 gpcd for residential, 70 gpcd for residential/commercial areas) x 1980 population.
Population figures are based on 1973 JVC demographic projections and data obtained from.1979 aerial photographs
of EIS Service Area.
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action.
-------
Sewage collection and transmission lines that would be maintained
throughout the EIS Service Area themselves pose a potential long-term
groundwater quality hazard. Pipeline leakage and groundwater quality
degradation should be minimized if good, up-to-date engineering prac-
tices that will prevent leakage are used in the pipeline construction.
Long-term impacts on groundwater quality are mainly associated with
the following three types of pollutants: (1) bacteria, organics and
suspended solids; (2) phosphorus; and (3) nitrogen in the form of ni-
trates .
Bacteria, organics and suspended solids are readily removed by fil-
tration and adsorption onto soil particles. A few feet of soils up to
5 ft are usually ample to remove bacteria except in very coarse grained,
highly permeable material. Available data show that bacterial well
water contamination is not a significant problem in the EIS Service
Area.
Land application of treated effluent on soils should not cause
groundwater bacterial contamination. Land application sites were chosen
for the effectiveness of their soils in removing bacteria and suspended
solids. Pretreatment and subsequent die-off due to dehydration will
greatly reduce viable bacteria.
Phosphorus in groundwater is important because of the potential
role in the eutrophication of surface waters. Jones (1977) reviewed
relevant studies on this subject for the Environmental Protection
Agency, concluding that:
...it is very unlikely that under most circumstances, sufficent
available phosphate would be transported from septic tank waste-
water disposal systems to significantly contribute to the excessive
aquatic plant growth problems in water courses recharged by these
waters.
Field studies, he pointed out, have shown that most soils, even medium
sandy soils, typically remove over 95% of phosphates within short dis-
tances from effluent sources. The review shows the two primary factors
in the removal of phosphates applied to the land. The first is
phosphorus adsorption on small amounts of clay minerals, iron oxide and
aluminum oxide in soil and aquifer materials. The second is calcium
carbonate in hard water which precipitates phosphate as hydroxyapatite.
Because the soils and subsoil systems throughout the Service Area
are clayey to varying degrees and the groundwaters are also very hard
(up to 434 mg/1 as CaCCL) very little phosphate transport from ground-
waters to surface waters should occur.
Groundwater nitrates are of concern at high concentrations,
(greater than 10 mg/1 nitrates as nitrogen), which can cause methemoglo-
binemia in infants consuming foods prepared with such waters. The
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523) sets this "high" limit. Chapter III
217
-------
contains a discussion of nitrate concentrations found in 25 wells in
Bushkill Township. Elevated levels of nitrates (two cases exceeding the
limit of 10 mg/1) were found in several wells generally associated with
thin layers of Berks soils. All alternatives, including the Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action recommend the continued use of on-site
systems in Bushkill Township because centralized systems are not cost-
effective in this sparsely populated area. The potential exists equally
among all alternatives for on-site systems to cause localized increases
of existing groundwater nitrate levels. Providing that develppment
remains sparse, the impacts may be kept at acceptable levels by means of
adequate mitigative measures (described below).
Cluster system soil absorption fields are designed like septic tank
fields to ensure adequate areal distribution of the effluent and depth
to groundwater for satisfactory treatment. The careful selection of
cluster system sites based upon detailed site investigations would en-
sure against significant adverse impacts. Locating the soil absorption
fields of cluster systems at greater distances from residential develop-
ments (500 feet adopted for EIS Alternative design) provides more than
ample room for dilution of nitrate concentrations below drinking water
limits prior to interception by wells. Cluster system alternatives
should therefore produce no significant groundwater nitrate impacts.
b. Mitigation
The following measures are recommended as means of controlling the
impacts of on-site wastewater treatment systems on groundwater quality
in Bushkill Township.
• Upgrading of as many existing on-site wastewater treatment
systems as possible based upon detailed sanitary soil and
groundwater quality surveys. The use of Berks soils with
shallow depths of bedrock should be avoided wherever possible.
Where these soils cannot be avoided, properly constructed
elevated sand mound systems may be used to provide adequate
depths to bedrock.
• A surveillance program that includes continuous monitoring of
the performance of on-site systems and the quality of ground-
water should be implemented. This would provide early warn-
ings of failing on-site systems and deteriorating groundwater
quality, and thus the basis for prompt corrective action.
218
-------
7. SURFACE WATER
This section describes the primary and secondary impacts, as well
as the associated mitigative measures in terms of various wastewater
managementment alternatives developed in this EIS. Most of the impact
assessment and quantification is based on the results of water quality
modeling presented in Appendix E-12.
a. Impact
Implementation of EIS alternatives 1,4,7, and 8 will have no direct
point source discharge to the surface water system (particularly
Bushkill Creek). As a result, there will be no adverse primary impact
in terms of dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria, and nutrient levels
associated with these alternatives. EIS Alternatives 2 and 3 call for
wastewater treatment using marsh/pond systems that are designed to meet
the effluent limitations (i.e. BOD =2mg/l, total suspended solids =
4 mg/1, and ammonia = 1.5 mg N/lj. The impacts of these two
alternatives (2 and 3) would be practically minimal because of the
insignificant increase of waste load input to Bushkill Creek. Upgrading
the Nazareth STP in EIS alternatives 5 and 6 to meet the effluent
limitations (BOD = 20 mg/1, total suspended solids = 25 mg/1, and
ammonia = 2 mg N/l) will reduce the present loadings of these water
quality constituents to Bushkill Creek. This load reduction would have
a favorable impact on water quality of Bushkill Creek downstream of its
confluence with Schoeneck Creek. EIS Alternatives 9 and 10 would have
the similar impacts on water quality as EIS Alternatives 5 and 6,
respectively, due to the same nature of these alternatives. The
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action will essentially divert all the
waste discharge to the Delaware River and therefore, will have no
adverse impact on Bushkill Creek water quality. Figure VII-1 presents
the above results of the assessment in terms of dissolved oxygen.
Concern about ammonia toxicity in Bushkill Creek due to Nazareth
STP discharges in EIS Alternatives 5,6,9, and 10 has been raised during
the course of study in connection with the trout known to inhabit
Bushkill Creek below Tatamy. The ammonia concentration in Bushkill
Creek varies from time to time. There has been no appreciable increase
of ammonia concentration immediately downstream of the junction of
Schoeneck Creek with Bushkill Creek, indicative of the insignificant
ammonia contribution from the Nazareth STP. When the Nazareth STP is
upgraded, the ammonia concentration in the effluent would be reduced
from the present 20 mg/1 to the effluent limitation level of 3 mg/1,
making the contribution from the plant to Bushkill Creek even more in-
significant. As a result, the implementation of EIS Alternatives 5,6,9,
and 10 will probably have a slight reduction in ammonia concentration
downstream of the confluence of Schoeneck Creek and Bushkill Creek. The
major contribution of ammonia concentrations in Bushkill Creek will be
from the upstream portion of the watershed.
The implementation of EIS Alternatives 5,6,9, and 10 would have
indeterminate effects on residual chlorine levels below the Nazareth STP
219
-------
z
UJ
X
o
o
o
0
7 DAY, 10 YR. LOW FLOW
AT EASTON=33CFS
TEMP=20°C
SATU R ATION
STATE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA = 7mg/l
LEGEND
-PRESENT CONDITION
-ALTERNATIVE 1,2,3,4,7,3
•ALTERNATIVE 5,6,9,10
O UJ
XUJ
oo:
too
20
14 12 10 8 6
RIVER MILES FROM MOUTH
FIGURE VII-1 PRIMARY IMPACT ON DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN BUSHK1LL
CREEK UNDER VARIOUS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
discharge. Future residual chlorine concentrations downstream of the
STP discharge are difficult to estimate because exact concentration of
residual chlorine in the effluent under present conditions, are not
known.
The wastewater management alternatives would not have significant
impact on the bacteria levels in Bushkill Creek. Because the agricul-
tural runoff has been identified as the major contributor of coliform
bacteria to Bushkill Creek, (Section III.A.8.1) the coliform bacteria
level will remain high despite the implementation of any wastewater
management measure examined in this EIS.
Phosphorus removal from wastewater effluent is not required by the
State at the present time. It is expected that the wastewater manage-
ment alternatives would have no significant effect on the phosphorus
concentration in Bushkill Creek. However, a phosphorus program might be
the first step towards reducing the eutrophication potential in the
watercourse because phosphorus is believed to be the limiting nutrient
in the stream.
Sedimentation resulting from the expansion and upgrading of the
Nazareth STP and the construction of sewer would be likely to occur.
Sediments may also increase temporarily as the result of constructing
land application facilities. Increased sedimentation could continue
until the surface and channel have again become stabilized by natural
vegetation or man-made intervention.
220
-------
Secondary impacts are those changes in water quality resulting from
storm runoff associated with the induced growth in the EIS Service Area.
Often these secondary impacts are already occurring, but they would ac-
celerate population growth increases.
In a complete evaluation of municipal wastewater management alter-
natives, the secondary impacts of increased growth on water quantity and
water quality need to be identified and analyzed.
ways
•*• " J
Water quantity and water quality may be affected in the following
• Increased total and peak runoff and reduced time of concentra-
tion;
• Increased sediment yield; and
• Increased pollutant loadings.
Development of a rural watershed has been repeatedly shown to have
significant effects on stream flow characteristics. It is generally
true that urbanization and construction-related activity increase imper-
vious surfaces, causing a decrease in the infiltration of rainfall to
the groundwater, thereby increasing the total volume of surface runoff
and decreasing the time necessary for runoff to reach the watercourse
(time of concentration).
The projected growth and residential development in the Bushkill
watershed is summarized in Table VII-10. The first step in the impact
analysis was to calculate the mean storm runoff flow during summer
months and its associated BODs and total coliform bacteria loading.
These loads were used to determine the cumulative storm runoff effects
in terms of various wastewater management alternatives. The detailed
derivation of the storm runoff loads are documented in Appendix E-12.
The above derived storm runoff loading was incorporated into the
water quality models to calculate the impact on Bushkill Creek. The
results (see Figure VII-2) indicate that the impact will be limited to
the portion downstream of Stockertown and that its effect upon lowering
the dissolved oxygen level is very insignificant on a seasonal basis.
The impact on dissolved oxygen due to the Modified Applicant's
Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives would be practically minimal (see
Figure VII-3) according to the calculations.
Similar analyses were conducted for phosphorus and fecal coliform
bacteria. The storm runoff due to induced growth was shown not to
affect these two water quality parameters on a cumulative long term
basis. The levels of fecal coliform bacteria may still be high. How-
ever, the development projected by year 2000 will not place any signi-
ficant additional stress on the bacteria level. Similarly, the storm
runoff from the developed area will not increase the concentration of
phosphorus in Bushkill Creek.
221
-------
12
*£
E 10
Z
UJ
> 8
X
Q
!> 6
O
cn
<2 4
O
2
0 '
_
_
SATURATION LEVEL = 9.I7 me/I
^ ""'jm..fc.x_ ag-^^^g.^
- / •• ^Sn..
STATE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA*
-
LEGEND
PRESENT CONDITIONS
— — — YEAR 2OOOW/BASELINE
GROWTH ONLY
INDUCED GROWTH
1 1 1 1 1
20 18 16 14 12
7 DAY, 10 YR. LOW FLOW
ATEASTON = 33CFS
TEMP = 20°C
^
"*ff"'"'
7mg/l
•
* UJ
liJ — Z ^
K X o UJ < p:
— DOC UJ >
_i£D «o QQ:
j ^ "W \ i ^
10 6 6 4 2 0
RIVER MILES FROM MOUTH
FIGURE VII-2 STORM RUNOFF IMPACT ON DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN
BUSHKILL CREEK BY YEAR 2000
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ACTION)
222
-------
100,000 p7
10,000
1,000
100
10
7 DAY.IOYR. LOW FLOW
AY EASTON = 33 CFS
TEMP=20°C
LEGEND
-PRESENT CONDITION
YEAR 2000 W/BASELINE
GROWTH ONLY
YEAR 20OO W/BASELINE
AND INDUCED GROWTH
(Jit
too
20
15 10
RIVER MILES FROM MOUTH
FIGURE VII-3 STORM RUNOFF IMPACT ON DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN
BUSHKILL CREEK BY YEAR 2000
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ACTION)
223
-------
Table VII-10
PROJECTED GROWTH AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (IN ACRES)
IN THE BUSHKILL WATERSHED BY YEAR 2000
Alternative
Modified Appli-
cant's Proposed
Action
EIS Alternative 1
EIS Alternative 2
EIS Alternative 3
EIS Alternative 4
EIS Alternative 5
EIS Alternative 6
EIS Alternative 7
EIS Alternative 8
EIS Alternative 9
EIS Alternative 10
Baseline Growth
1,623
Induced Growth
233
Total Growth
1,856
1,623
1,623
1,623
1,623
1,623
1,623
1,623
1,623
1,623
1,623
162
159
214
79
16
240
169
169
16
240
1,785
1,782
1,837
1,702
1,639
1,863
1,792
1,792
1,639
1,863
b. Mitigation
The most significant adverse impact on surface water quality would
be sedimendation due to the construction of sewers and upgrading of the
224
-------
Nazareth STP associated with the pertient alternatives. The
Pennsylvania Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, should be strictly
followed to minimize the amount of erosion and the resultant sedimenta-
tion. At the same time, control measures for erosion and sedimentation
from increased land development and changes in land use patterns should
be observed.
Another mitigative measure required to control the adverse impact
is dechlorination. This measure is designed to reduce the residual
chlorine concentration in Bushkill Creek in order to protect the aquatic
life.
8. Flood Prone Areas
a. Impact
In any watershed increased urban development with accompanying
storm drains and impervious surfaces produces an increase in runoff
which, in turn, increases the probability and intensity of flooding
downstream during a storm event. Floodprone areas in the EIS Service
Area will be flooded more frequently as growth occurs. The intensity
and extent of flooding is directly related to the rate and amount of
development that would occur under each alternative. The increase in
flooding will probably be the greatest under EIS Alternatives 6 and 10
with the addition of 240 acres of urban development (over baseline con-
ditions) followed in descending order by the Modified Applicant's
Proposed Action, EIS Alternatives 3, 7 and 8, (similar effects) 1,2,4,
and 5 and 9.
With the implementation of Executive Order 11988, Federal agencies
were prohibited from directly or indirectly supporting floodplain
development or otherwise adversely affecting floodplain areas unless it
can be demonstrated that there are no practical alternatives to such
action. The intent of the Executive Order is to minimize economic and
safety risk often greatly enhanced by floodplain development as well as
to preserve the natural surroundings of these environmentally sensitive
areas.
It must be noted that the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action calls
for the routing of sewage conveyance lines in floodplains within Palmer
Township, Plainfield Township, Stockertown Borough, and Tatamy Borough.
As developers seek to limit their expenditure for collector and inter-
ceptor sewers, they will locate their projects as close to the main
collection lines as possible. This enhances the possibility that
development will occur within floodprone areas. In Palmer Township,
development is prohibited by zoning ordinance from the 100 year flood-
plain. The Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance prohibits development
within a flood zone defined by alluvial soils mapped by USDA-SCS.
However, the extent of flooding that can be expected during a 100 year
storm event has been demonstrated to be 2 times the area defined by
alluvial soils. Stockertown Borough and Tatamy Borough do not have any
codified restrictions on floodplain development.
The implementation of EIS Alternatives 5,6,9 and 10 would involve
the construction of wastewater treatment facilities either on (Alterna-
tives 5 and 6) or adjacent to (Alternatives 9 and 10) the existing
225
-------
Nazareth sewage treatment plant (STP). A portion of this plant is known
to be within the 100-year floodplain. The degree to which construction
and operation of upgraded and expanded facilities under EIS Alternatives
5 and 6 (see Section VI.A.7) or a rotating biological contactor (RBC)
plant under EIS Alternatives 9 and 10 would affect the floodplain cannot
be adequately determined until a detailed site investigation is conduc-
ted during Step II facilities planning. Actual siting of new wastewater
treatment facilities under EIS Alternatives 5,6,9 and 10, which is be-
yond the scope of this EIS, would be determined on the basis of the
field investigation. Floodproofing of treatment facilities, through the
construction of berms or structural improvements on the treatment com-
ponents themselves, maybe required under EIS Alternatives 5 and 6.
Floodproofing of RBC treatment components under EIS Alternatives 9 and
10 may not be required if the new plant is located outside the 100-year
floodplain.
b. Mitigation
In order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the resi-
dents in the EIS Service Area, the following measures should be con-
sidered.
• Enforcement of floodplain ordinances and regulations
• The provisions of the Pennsylvania Floodplain Management Act
should be adopted by each municipality to enact floodplain
management regulations which would exclude development within
the 100 year floodplain.
• Permanent technical measures should be installed; such a pro-
gram would require that the amount of runoff after development
does not exceed background levels by land developers to con-
trol stormwater on site. These measures include stormwater
detention ponds, temporary ponding on paved areas, utilization
of vegetated drainage swales instead of storm culverts and
temporary storage on building roofs as part of a municipal
stormwater management program.
• Employ techniques in the land development process that would
increase rainwater infiltration, such as porous paving and
aquifer recharge infiltration basins.
9. BIOTIC RESOURCES
a. Impact
Aquatic Biology. From a biological point of view, the EIS alterna-
tives are superior to the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action because
none of them call for the construction of sewerage facilities adjacent
to Bushkill Creek. The implication is that near-stream or through-
stream interceptor construction under the Modified Applicant's Proposed
Action has important adverse effects upon the ability of Bushkill Creek
to remain a "high quality" stream supporting a cold water (salmonid)
226
-------
fishery . The number of stream crossings associated with the Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action and its 10 alternatives has been tabulated
in Table VII-11. It is seen that the Modified Applicant's Proposed
Action involves as many as 2 times the number of stream crossings asso-
ciated with the EIS Alternatives. Adverse stream impacts likely to
result from such construction include depressed oxygen levels, increased
water temperature as streambank devegetation proceeds, and increased
siltation of substrates. All of these impacts serve to reduce the
ability of trout to feed and naturally reproduce. These impacts are
minimized under the EIS Alternatives by the proposed construction of
interceptor sewers along roads instead of streams. Section IV.A.5.
should be consulted for a more detailed description of the impacts of
interceptor construction in or adjacent to streams on trout habitats in
the EIS Service Area.
Alternatives that call for land application are superior to those
that require treatment at a conventional wastewater treatment-surface
water discharge plant. This is primarily because even newly designed
treatment plants periodically cause some adverse impacts to the aquatic
environment due to bypassing, improper chlorination, mechanical break-
down, etc. However, under certain EIS alternatives, these may have a
benefit associated with the discharge of a properly treated effluent to
Schoeneck Creek by the Nazareth STP. This benefit would be as a result
flow augmentation during periods of low stream flow. It has been re-
ported that during periods of low flow Schoeneck Creek practically dries
up, percolating into underlying limestone soils. (see Appendix E-12).
Viewed in this light, the discharge of a high quality effluent from the
Nazareth plant could be considered benefical.
Under the No Action alternative it is reasonable to conclude that
the Nazareth STP may, under conditions of low flow in Schoeneck Creek,
create toxic conditions at and below its point of discharge into this
stream. Existing conditions which justify this conclusion are described
below.
Based upon data contained in the operation records of the Nazareth
STP, the current effluent can be described as of generally low quality
and containing at least two substances in high enough concentrations to
be toxic to fish and other aquatic life. Concentrations of chlorine in
the effluent typically average 0.6 mg/1. Because the retention time in
the present lagoons is unknown and because bypassing frequently occurs,
the exact concentrations present in Schoeneck Creek are unknown. It
seems likely, that when bypassing occurs, concentratins frequently ex-
ceed the 0.002 mg/1 standard for total residual chlorine recommended by
EPA (1976) for streams inhabited by salmonid fishes.
The plant effluent also routinely contains ammonia concentrations
of 20 mg/1. At typical effluent conditions (pH 7.5, temperature 17°C),
approximately 1% of this ammonia would exist as un-ionized ammonia
(NIL). This means concentrations of un-ionized ammonia are routinely
near 0.2 mg/1 or 10 times higher than the recommended EPA standard of
0.02 mg/1.
Under the low flow conditions described elsewhere in this EIS,
little or no dilution would be available in Schoeneck Creek. It seems
227
-------
Table VII-11
STREAM CROSSINGS UNDER VARIOUS EIS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
Number of Stream Crossings
Alternative
Modified EA Proposed
EIS Alternative 1
EIS Alternative 2
EIS Alternative 3
EIS Alternative 4
Eis Alternative 5
EIS Alternative 6
EIS Alternative 7
EIS Alternative 8
EIS Alternative 9
EIS Alternative 10
Bushkill
Creek
Action-'- 3
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Little Bushkill
Creek
11
4
4
4
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
Schoeneck
Creek
8'
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Total
22
8
8
10
7
6
6
7
7
6
6
"Modified Applicant's Proposed Action.
2
Jacked stream crossings.
228
-------
reasonable to conclude, therefore, that, under low flow conditions, the
existing Nazareth STP may be creating toxic conditions at and below its
discharge point.
EIS Alternatives 1 through 4 and 7 all provide for land application
of treated wastewater. No adverse impact on aquatic life is expected
from any of these five alternatives.
EIS Alternative 5 provides for treatment of 0.30 mgd at the Easton
STP and treatment of 0.85 mgd at an expanded and upgraded Nazareth STP.
The upgraded Nazareth plant is expected to meet the appropriate effluent
criteria. Assuming that the residence time in the new lagoons is suffi-
cient to allow complete reduction of residual chlorine and that all the
effluent criteria are met, no significant effect on the aquatic life of
Bushkill Creek on its tributaries is expected.
From the standpoint of biological impacts, EIS Alternative 6 is
essentially identical to Alternative 5.
Under EIS Alternative 8 all wastewater flows would be routed to the
Easton STP. Aquatic life in the Service Area would quite obviously not
be adversely affected by this alternative.
From a biological impacts point of view, there is no difference
between EIS Alternatives 9 and 10. Each involve the discharge of disin-
fected effluent to Schoeneck Creek approximately 2 miles above the brown
trout nursery (and probable spawning) area in Bushkill Creek (see Figure
111-10). The effluent has been chlorinated and dechlorinated so that no
adverse impacts on Schoeneck Cteek or Bushkill Creek are projected to
derive from residual chlorine in the stream below the STP discharge
point.
Terrestrial Biology. As discussed in Chapter III, the EIS Service
Area contains floodplains and upland areas. Impacts on floodplains have
been discussed previously in this chapter. Impacts on upland areas will
occur primarily if land application alternatives (EIS Alternatives 1, 2,
3, 4, or 7) are chosen. The relatively large land areas, selected be-
cause of their soils and location, are already considered "disturbed"
because they have been cleared of trees for agricultural purposes. Land
application of treated effluent will therefore not cause significant im-
pacts .
Secondary impacts on existing terrestrial vegetation and wildlife
will increase as the number of developed acres increases. The No Action
alternative will result in 10,266 additional developed acres during the
20-year planning period, as shown on Table VII-12; other alternatives
induce development on increasingly more acreage to the maximum of 240
acres if EIS Alternative 6 or 10 is chosen. These alternatives would
have insignificantly more negative impact on terrestrial biota than the
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action which induces 233 acres in addition
to the 10,266 acres developed under baseline (No Action) conditions.
No significant impacts upon the "unique botanical area" and the
"flyway for birds of prey" are expected to result from implementation of
either the EA Modified Proposed Action or its 10 Alternatives.
229
-------
Table VII-12
POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS (DWELLING UNITS), AND LAND DEVELOPMENT (ACRES) INDUCED BY
ALTERNATIVE HASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS EVALUATED IN EIS
IBUSHKILL
Population
Dwelling Units
Acres4
NAZARETH BOROUGH
Population
Dwelling Units
Acres
PALMER
Population
Dwelling Units
Acres
PLAINFIELD
Population
Dwelling Units
Acres
STOCKERTOWN
Population
Dwelling Units
Acres
TATAHY
Population
l>welling Units
Acres
UPPER NAZARETH
Population
Dwelling Units
Acres
SERVICE AREA
Population
Dwelling Units
Acres
Baseline
Projections1
6,200
2,016
—
5,600
2,196
—
17,800
5,939
—
6,800
2,322
—
800
269
—
1,250
434
—
5,100
1,679
—
43,550
14,855
10,266
EAPA2
2,857
901
984
0
0
0
5,714
1,849
370
6,857
2,270
370
285
93
26
343
116
26
2,857
913
97
18,914
6,143
2,112
Modified
EAPA3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,434
790
158
480
160
24
285
93
26
343
116
26
621
198
0
4,164
1,357
233
Alternative I
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,096
355
71
571
189
39
285
93
26
343
116
26
621
198
0
2,916
951
162
Alternative
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,096
355
71
514
170
35
285
93
26
343
116
26
621
198
0
2,859
932
157
2 Alternative 3
114
36
36
0
0
0
1,096
355
71
800
265
56
285
93
26
343
116
26
621
198
0
3,259
] ,063
214
Alternative 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
400
132
28
285
93
26
343
116
26
621
198
0
1.649
540
79
Alternatives 5&9 Alternatives 6&10 Alternative
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
25
5
77
25
5
75
25
6
0
0
0
228
76
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,096
355
71
1,599
530
118
285
93
26
343
116
26
0
0
0
3.324
1,093
240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,599
530
118
285
93
ib
343
116
26
621
198
0
2,228
738
169
7 Alternative 8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,599
530
118 o
en
CN
285
93
26
343
116
26
621
198
0
2.228
738
169
See, section IIT.B.l.b. for a discussion of baseline population projections.
ApplicantVQ Proposed Action.
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action.
Acreage figures Include populn tlon-servinR or commercIal Tand uses.
-------
The ornithological area within the floodplains of the Service Area
provides habitat for many species of birds. The No Action Alternative
will not significantly affect this area. Two Little Bushkill stream
crossings in EIS Alternatives 1 through 10 would cause a temporary dis-
turbance to birds from noise, but the proposed marsh/pond systems in EIS
Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide additional habitat areas for birds, a
beneficial effect. Only the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action would
have a long-term negative impact on bird habitat. This is because trees
would be removed along the banks of Bushkill Creek.
Threatened or Endangered Species. No habitats of Threatened or
Endangered species would be affected by any of the EIS alternatives,
primarily because both the endangered peregrine falcon and American bald
eagle use the flyway along the ridge top of Blue Mountain, located north
of any sewered area. Furthermore, the small whorled pogonia, Isotria
meleoloides, which is a candidate for endangered status, is reported to
grow only on the slopes of Blue Mountain. None of the alternatives
would be close enough to affect these areas.
Several uncommon or rare species occur in the EIS Service Area, in-
cluding Scott's spleenwort, the bog turtle, the bobcat and the rare
stonefly, Perlinella drymo. The Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
would cause significant adverse impacts on the floodplain habitat because
the interceptors would follow the stream beds, potentially altering a
large percentage of the habitat which supports these uncommon or rare
species.
None of the alternatives would induce development on the slopes of
Blue Mountain, so there would be no secondary impacts on the endangered
peregrine falcon, American bald eagle, or the small whorled pogonia.
If no development is permitted on the 100-year floodplain (see
Figure III-ll), then the uncommon species of the Service Area, including
Scott's spleenwort and the bog turtle, would not likely be affected by
wastewater management technologies and their attendant growth. The rare
stonefly, Perlinella drymo, would be adversely affected if stream
quality deteriorated.
b. Mitigation
Implementation of the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action or any
of its EIS alternatives is judged to have more significant impacts on
the aquatic biota rather than the terrestrial biota of the Service Area.
Measures which could be taken to minimize short and long-term adverse
impacts on aquatic environments associated with construction and opera-
tion of wastewater management facilities include the following:
• Construction of any interceptor sewers across streams in the
Service Area is subject to Section 404 (Permits for Dredged or
Fill Material) of P.L. 92-500. Section 404 is administered in
the EIS Service Area by the Philadelphia District of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The District has stipulated that
permits would have to be required for stream crossings, since
these construction activities involve the handling of dredged
or fill material. Permits would be required despite the fact
231
-------
that Bushkill Creek, Little Bushkill Creek and Schoeneck Creek
are not considered navigable streams (by telephone, Joseph
O'Leary, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District,
20 Nov 79).
• The significant adverse impacts associated with the disruption
of macroinvertebrate and fish, particularly trout, habitats
caused by stream crossings under any EIS wastewater management
plan can be minimized by jacking sewer pipe beneath the stream
bottom itself. This alternative to excavation, blasting and
dam-building for sewer pipe installation is already proposed
for Schoeneck Creek under the Modified Applicant's Proposed
Action.
• It is suggested that stream crossings proceed only after con-
sulting a local biologist. This person should be available to
recommend the location of stream crossings throughout the
Service Area.
• The establishment of a permanent vegetated buffer zone along
the banks of Bushkill Creek, Little Bushkill Creek and
Schoeneck Creek would minimize the potential for induced
development to adversely affect stream conditions (temperature,
transparency, heterogenous mixture of bottom materials, etc.)
conducive to the support of trout, particularly in that
stretch of Bushkill Creek below Tatamy Borough. This buffer
zone, which would be at least 200 feet wide, should retain
both trees and understory vegetation. It should be wider than
200 feet where the floodplain exceeds a 200 foot width. Aside
from preventing the encroachment of development in the flood-
plain, this vegetated bugger zone could also satisfy the re-
creation needs of the Service Area population. Funds are
available from the Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior for the establishment
of parks and other recreation areas.
B. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
1. POPULATION
The population impacts of the EIS alternatives are extremely
variable and involve accelerated growth rates, increases in projected
population above baseline projections, and qualitatively different
patterns of growth for the Service Area. Estimation of induced growth,
defined as growth in addition to baseline population projections,
appears in Table VII-12. Table VII-12 also indicates the additional
dwelling units and acreage requirements associated with induced popula-
tion growth (see Appendix G-20 for a more detailed methodological dis-
cussion. Table VII-12 further suggests additional acreage that"would be
put into commercial or population-serving uses as the result of this
population growth; these commercial acres are calculated on a total
Service Area basis. Finally, no industrial growth is anticipated above
the baseline projection; this assumption reflects an understanding that
demand for industrial acreage is limited within the Service Area and
232
-------
will not be increased significantly as the result of sewers (i.e. sewer
availability usually is not a critical factor in industrial location
decisions).
The growth inducement figures on Table VII-12 suggest two levels of
impact: Insignificant (EIS Alternatives 5, 9, and No Action or Base-
line); and Significant (EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and the
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action). These ratings may vary as alter-
natives are evaluated by municipality. For example, EIS Alternatives 5,
9 and No Action can be ranked as insignificant for all municipalities
except Tatamy Borough and Stockertown Borough where induced growth
estimated under EIS Alternative 5 and 9 is Significant for both muni-
cipalities.
Significant population impacts can be interpreted as increasing
baseline projected growth by 25 to 50% (this range can vary by munici-
pality, depending upon the baseline growth rate). This growth increment
is considerable, but consequences in other related impact categories
(local services, for example) usually can be mitigated.
2. LAND USE
In most cases, land use impacts are related directly to population
impacts and the induced growth discussed above. However, in certain
cases, such as Upper Nazareth Township and Plainfield Township, munici-
pal ordinances are designed so that density bonuses are provided when
sewer and water facilities are made available. In these cases, baseline
and induced growth can be concentrated in specific areas and acreage
absorption is reduced. This effect would be most pronounced in Upper
Nazareth Township in EIS Alternatives 5, 6, 9 and 10 where no growth is
induced beyond the baseline, and somewhat less pronounced in Plainfield
Township, due to the nature of the latter's ordinances.
Land use impacts related to the amount of acreage absorbed as well
as to the configuration of development patterns. In most cases these
two land use aspects are interrelated. In Plainfield Township, for
instance, acreage absorption increases can be related directly to a move
from the highly dispersed patterns of the baseline to the most clustered
and densely developed patterns of EIS Alternatives 6, 7, 8 and 10. Even
housing unit type varies to some extent, with larger proportions of
multi-family dwelling units occurring as densities and induced growth
estimates increase. In some municipalities such as Palmer Township and
Bushkill Township, the considerable excess capacities are in reality an
important step in the zoning challenge process (for example, the cura-
tive amendment); in these two municipalities especially, availability of
sewage capacity will invite zoning challenges. The result is more dense
development patterns with a greater proportion of multi-family dwelling
units.
Impacts on Housing. The proposed wastewater management alterna-
tives which are likely to induce significant population growth in the
EIS Service Area will have a further major impact on housing development
and community character. The magnitude of induced dwelling unit growth
ranges from 2.0% in EIS Alternatives 5 and 9 to 36% in the Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action. Within this range, EIS Alternatives 1, 2,
233
-------
3, 6 and 10 are all projected to induce housing unit increases of 25% to
30% over the 2000 baseline projections (see Appendix 10) while EIS
Alternatives 4, 7 and 8 will induce increases of 14% to 19%.
In addition to substantially increasing the number of housing
units, EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and the Modified Applicant's
Proposed Action will influence the housing mix and character of the
Service Area. All growth would be Service Area-wide, and some indivi-
dual changes in community character would be induced by several of the
alternatives. Increases in multiple-family units of the magnitude
likely under all these alternatives are likely to alter the character of
these municipalities to some extent from rural bedroom communities to
more urbanized areas. It can be anticipated that not only will there be
a higher percentage of multiple-family units, but also at higher resi-
dential densities. This will further serve to alter the character of
the area.
3. MITIGATION FOR DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
Induced growth that could result with EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4,
6, 7, 8 and 10 have been identified as a significant impact. Related
impacts are accelerated population growth, which could result in in-
creased rates of housing development and density, overcrowded schools,
congested roads, significant burden on public safety resources, and,
consequently, a significant burden on the local tax structure. In order
to mitigate these important adverse impacts, it is recommended that each
municipality consider the formulation of a growth management program to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.
The first step in such a program would be an evaluation of the pro-
posed sewer service area and the population that would ultimately reside
within this area. Because the potential exists for significant induced
growth under most alternatives, each municipality should calculate the
amount of growth for which it can afford to provide services or can
reasonably accommodate without burdening the local tax base or natural
environment. The baseline population projections found in Table VII-12
should be the starting point for the calculations. Once the municipali-
ties' population figures have been derived, an intermunicipal agreement
should be formulated and submitted to the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint
Sewer Authority to be used for design flows in the Step II Facilities
planning process. When the wastewater collection and treatment facili-
ties are constructed, a permit system should be implemented to allocate
the number of household hookups by municipality by year. A system of
this type would allow for staged and orderly growth as well as public
infrastructure and service development in line with each municipalities'
tax revenues. This permit process must be directly tied to the munici-
palities capability to accommodate the population without affecting the
local tax base or the natural environment. This capacity must be quan-
tified to be legally defensible.
In order to enforce such a system it is recommended that each muni-
cipality consider amending its zoning ordinances to include an impact
zoning package. Impact zoning is a process of land use analysis that
measures the consequences of municipal change in terms of demand on the
234
-------
capacity of the natural, physical, market and fiscal systems in a muni-
cipality. It employs legally defensible performance standards that
provide a framework for negotiation between the municipality and a
private developer. It is a flexible process whereby a developer is
encouraged to cluster development in existing residential/commercial
areas where services can be most economically provided, to conserve open
space and maintain a balance between the natural and human environment.
For further explanation of this technique, consult Innovative Zoning: A
Local Officials Guidebook, US Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (GPO: 1978 1531-3-1).
4. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
a. Introduction
The economic impacts of the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
and EIS Alternatives 1 through 10 are evaluated in this section. The
evaluation of economic impacts include an analysis of user charges,
finanical burden on users of the wastewater management facilities, and
financial pressure causing lower income residents to move away from the
Service Area (displacement pressure). The impacts are evaluated for
each of the seven communities in the EIS Service Area and the Service
Area as a whole.
b. User Charges
User charges are the costs periodically billed to customers of a
wastewater management system. The charges consist of three parts: debt
service (repayment of principal and interest to cover capital or con-
struction costs), operation and maintenance costs, and a reserve fund
allocation assumed to equal 20% of the debt service amount. The purpose
of the reserve fund is to place a portion of current revenues into a
fund intended to help finance future capital improvements.
The capital costs of wastewater collection, transmission and treat-
ment facilities are funded under Section 201 of the 1972 Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments and the Clean Water Act of 1977. The
1972 and 1977 Acts enable EPA to fund 75% of total eligible capital
costs of conventional wastewater systems and 85% of the eligible capital
costs of innovative and alternative systems. Innovative and alternative
systems considered in the EIS (see Chapter V) include: cluster systems,
marsh/pond systems, land application, pressure sewers, and alternate
on-site systems. Some states fund a part of the remaining capital costs
of wastewater facilities. Pennsylvania, however, does not provide
matching funds for Section 201 funded wastewater facilities. Communi-
ties in Pennsylvania are required to pay 25% of the eligible capital
costs of conventional systems and 15% of the eligible capital costs for
innovative and alternative systems. The Pennsylvania DER while not pro-
viding funds for capital costs, may fund up to 2% of the annual opera-
tion and maintenance (O&M) costs of a wastewater management system. The
partial funding of O&M costs is enabled under Pennsylvania Act 339.
The percentage of capital costs eligible for EPA funding strongly
affects the costs that wastewater system users must bear. Capital costs
235
-------
for treatment generally are 100% eligible for grant funding while col-
lection costs are subject ot the terms of EPA's Program Requirement
Memorandums (PRM) 78-9 and 79-8. Each alternative evaluated in this EIS
was evaluated to determine if the eligibility criteria of PRMs 78-9 and
79-8 were met. On the basis of the evaluation, all collection costs
have been determined to be eligible for EPA funding. A final determina-
tion of eligibility will be made by EPA and Pennsylvania DER based upon
the detailed plans and specifications of the selected alternative. The
final eligibility determination may differ from the EIS eligibility
determination.
Estimated annual user charges for the Modified Applicant's Proposed
Action and EIS Alternatives 1 through 10 are presented in Table VII-13.
The user charges are specific to the households located in the Phase I
sewered and cluster system area (see Section VI.A.). The debt service
component of the user charges assumed the use of 30-year bond at 6 7/8%
interest to pay for the local share of capital costs.
The average annual user charges range from $80/household (Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action) to $130/household (EIS Alternative 2). The
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action is the lowest cost alternative for
each of the seven Service Area communities. The highest cost alterna-
tive varies by community.
c. Local Cost Burden
Significant Financial Burden. High-cost wastewater management
facilities may place an excessive financial burden on system users.
Such burdens may cause families to alter their spending patterns sub-
stantially. The Federal government has developed criteria to identify
high cost wastewater projects (the White House Rural Development Initia-
tives 1978). A project is considered high cost when the annual user
charges are:
• 1.5% of median household incomes less than $6,000;
• 2.0% of median household incomes between $6,000 and $10,000;
• 2.57o of median household incomes greater than $10,000.
The 1980 median household income estimates for each of the Service
Area communities are presented in Table VII-14. The median household
incomes range from a low of $16,980 in Nazareth Borough to a high of
$23,390 in Stockertown Borough. The 1980 median household income esti-
mate for the Service Area is $19,950. According to the Federal
criteria, annual user charges should not exceed 2.5% of the Service
Area's and each community's median household income. Any alternative
having annual user charges exceeding 2.5% of the median household
figures presented in Table VII-14 are classified as "high-cost"
alternatives. EIS Alternatives 2 and 3 have estimated household user
charges $510) exceeding Bushkill Township's 2.5% of median household
income figure ($495). These are the only alternatives exceeding 2.5% of
any of the communities' median household income.
Significant financial burden is determined by comparing annual user
charges with the distribution of household incomes in each of the Service
236
-------
Table VII-13
ESTIMATED ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD USER CHARGES - PHASE I AREA
Modified
EIS Alternatives
EA Proposed
Action1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PI ainf i pi rl
rj.dinLj.exu
lgQ ^
Township
Bushkill 13Q 24Q 51Q 51Q 24Q 24Q 22Q 2()0 24Q 2
Township
Upper Nazareth 12Q 16Q 18Q 19Q 2QQ 2±Q 22Q 2QO
Township
Nazareth 3Q 5Q 5Q 5Q 4Q 5Q 5Q 5Q 4Q 4Q 4Q
Borough
Stockertown
Borough
Tatamy
Borough
. 120 160 180 190 200 180 170 180 180 200 170
Township _
AVERAGE 80 120 130 140 110 110 110 110 110 110 100
"Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
237
-------
Table VII-14
ESTIMATED 1980 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES
Median Household 2.5% of
Municipality Income Median
Plainfield Township $19,910 $480
Bushkill Township 19,800 495
Upper Nazareth Township 22,490 560
Nazareth Borough 16,980 420
Stockertown Borough 23,390 585
Tatamy Borough 19,580 490
Palmer Township 21,120 530
Service Area 19,950 500
238
-------
Area communities. Households not facing a significant financial burden
would be the only households able to afford the annual wastewater facil-
ities user charges. Table VII-15 shows the percentage of households in
the Service Area and each of the communities estimated to face a signi-
ficant financial burden under each of the alternatives. Significant
financial burden for the Service Area as a whole ranges from a low of 5
to 10% under the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action to 10 to 15% under
each of the EIS Alternatives. Within the communities, significant
financial burden ranges from a low of 1 to 5% under the Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action in Nazareth Borough to a high of 50 to 60%
in Bushkill Township under EIS Alternatives 2 and 3.
Displacement Pressure. Displacement pressure is the stress placed
upon families to move from the Service Area as a result of costly user
charges. Displacement pressures is measured by determining the percent-
age of households having annual user charges exceeding 5% of their
annual income. The displacement pressure induced by each alternative
for the Service Area and each of the seven communities is listed in
Table VII-16. Within the Service Area as a whole, displacement pressure
is 1 to 5% under each of the alternatives. Within each of the Service
Area communities, displacement pressure ranges from a low of 1 to 5% to
a high of 15 to 20% under EIS Alternatives 2 and 3 in Bushkill Township.
d. Additional Charges
In addition to the user charges, two additional charges will have
to be paid in the study. The first involves an initial one-time charge
for a sewer connection. The charge consists of $1,000 for gravity sewer
connections and $150 for pressure sewer connections. The pressure sewer
connections are low in comparison to the gravity sewer connection charge
due to US EPA funding 85% of their cost. The pressure sewer connections
are considered by EPA to an innovative and alternative technology.
Pressure sewer connections proposed in the EIS only consist of 1 to 7%
of the total number of connections depending on the alternative.
The other additional charge consists of $2.2 million to be spread
out over the Study Area. This charge in the Service Area's share of
costs for the expansion of the Easton wastewater treatment plant. The
charge is the same throughout each of the alternatives and amounts to
approximately $70/household/year.
Both of the additional charges will add to the financial burden and
displacement pressure associated with user charges. Financial burden
and displacement pressure especially would be high during the first year
of the operation of the new facilities when the sewer connection charges
would be incurred.
e. Mitigation
The significant financial burden and displacement pressure attri-
buted to user charges could be mitigated a loan or grant from the
Farmers Home Administration (FMHA) of the US Department of Agriculture.
The FMHA assists communities facing high user charges for wastewater
239
-------
Table VII-15
FINANCIAL BURDEN (% OF HOUSEHOLDS)
Modified EIS Alternatives
EA Proposed
Action1 123456789 10
10~15 20~25 20~25 20~25 15~20 15~20 15~20 15~20 15~20 15~20 15~20
Bushkill 1Q_15 2Q_25 50_6Q 50_5Q 2Q_25 2Q_25 2Q_25 15_2Q 15_2Q 2Q_25 15_2Q
Township
Upper Nazareth 5_1Q 5_1Q 1Q_15 1Q_15 1Q _ 1Q 1Q_15
Township
Nazareth 1_5 5_1Q 5_1Q 5_1Q 5_1Q 5_1Q 5_1Q 5_1Q 5_1Q Q
Borough
-------
Table VII-16
DISPLACEMENT PRESSURE (% OF HOUSEHOLDS)
Plainfield
Township
Bushkill
Township
Upper Nazareth
Township
Nazareth
Borough
Stockertown
Borough
Tatamy
Borough
Palmer
Township
Service
Area
JMoairiea • •
EA Proposed
Action1 12345
5-10 5-10 10-15 5-10 5-10 5-10
5-10 5-10 15-20 15-20 5-10 5-10
1-5 1-5 1-5 5-10 5-10 5-10
1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5
1-5 1-5 5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10
1-5 1-5 1-5 5-10 5-10 1-5
6 7 8 9 10
5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10
5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10
5-10 1-5 1-5 5-10 5-10
1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5
1-5 5-10 5-10 5-10 !-5
1-5 1-5 1-5 5-10 1-10
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
-------
collection and treatment service. Other Federal agencies providing
financial assistance to communities constructing new wastewater facili-
ties include the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the US
Department of Labor and the US Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (HUD) thorugh its Community Development Block Grant program. A
final mitigative measure involves leasing easements and areas needed for
cluster system drainfields. Leasing the land could be less expensive
than purchasing it and result in reduced user charges.
5. PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS
a. Schools
Under any wastewater management alternative population increases
will translate into increased demands on local school systems. The pro-
jected school age population for all alternatives will result in a de-
mand for desk space that surpasses current rated capacity. The short
term impact of this growth may necessitate split sessions or temporary
classrooms. The long-term impact would be the need to expand the
physical plants of the respective school systems. A comparison of year
2000 school age population expected for each alternative is presented in
Table VII-17.
The Nazareth Area School District currently has a total rated
capacity of 2904 students and anticipates capacity of 275 additional
students in 1982. Under the No Action Alternative, the school district
can anticipate a school age population (ages 5-18) of 6,637 by 1990 and
7,182 by the year 2000. If all these students were to attend public
school, the rated capacity of the school system would be exceeded by
3,458 students in 1990 and 4,003 in the year 2000. By comparison, the
induced growth that would occur with the EIS Alternatives and the
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action would result in a year 2000 school
age population of between 7182 and 7568, exceeding current capacity up
to 4389. These figures do not account for school district students that
would result from population growth in Lower Nazareth Township.
The Pen Argyl area school district has a total rated capacity of
2,178 students. Plainfield Township school age population is expected
to grow to 2,339 in 1990 and 2,639 in the year 2000 under the No Action
Alternative, thus exceeding rated capacity. The year 2000 school age
population that would occur with the EIS Alternatives and the Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action ranges from 2639 to 3143, resulting in a
need for up to 965 desks for Plainfield Township alone. Because of the
lack of data for the Easton Area school district, Palmer Township shcool
age population is not addressed.
b. Health Services
Existing health service needs are being met on the local and
regional level. Population increases and resultant needs are being
planned for with the proposed Slate Belt Health Services and other
facility improvements.
242
-------
Table VI1-17
SERVICE AREA YEAR 2000 SCHOOL AGE POPULATION
N>
*J Bushkill Township
Nazareth Borough
Plainfield Township
Stockercown Borough
Tatamy Borough
Upper Nazareth
Township
Baseline
Pro j actions
2,328
2,186
2,639
281
454
1,933
EAPA
3,185
2,186
4,798
369
564
2,801
Modified
EAPA
2,328
2,186
2,791
369
564
2,121
Alternative
1
2,328
2,186
2,819
369
564
2,121
Alternative
2
2,328
2,186
2,801
369
564
2,121
Alternative
3
2,362
2,186
2,891
369
564
2,121
Alternative
4
2,328
2,186
2,765
369
564
2,121
Alternatives
5 & 9
2,328
2,186
2,663
305
478
1,933
Alternatives i
6 & 10
2,328
2,186
3,143
369
564
1,933
ilternative t
7
2,328
2,186
3,143
369
564
2,121
Uternati
8
2,328
2,186
3,143
369
564
2,121
Source: Demographic multipliers taken from Barchell and Listolhin, 1978.
-------
c. Public Safety
Population growth in each municipality will necessitate increases
in public safety services. By applying the national standard of 1.5
police officers needed per 1000 residents in suburban areas, three
full-time officers would need to be added in Bushkill Township, one in
Plainfield Township, and one in Stockertown Borough under the No Action
Alternative. The induced growth that would occur under EIS Alternative
3 would necessitate the addition of 2 additional officers in Plainfield
Township and 1 in Upper Nazareth Township.
Because fire protection and ambulance service is provided largely
Dy a volunteer force, it can be assumed that manpower availability will
grow with the population.
d. Water Supply
Blue Mountain Consolidated Water Company has projected that future
water demands can be met. If the percentage of the Service Area popu-
lation that it currently served were to remain the same in the year
2000, an additional 174,000 gallons would be needed for residential
customers under the No Action Alternative. EIS Alternative 3 would
necessitate an additional 306,000 gallons. These figures do not take
into account needs of industrial or commercial users.
e. Electricity
Based upon utility company data, regional electric energy needs
will be met in the year 2000. None of the alternatives will change this
estimate.
f. Solid Waste Management
The JPC Solid Waste Management Plan states that landfill capacity
exists to handle the solid waste in the Region for the next 14 years.
Recent modifications of the Grand Central Landfill Site may extend this
estimated capacity.
g. Transportation
Wastewater management alternatives that induce population growth in
the Service Area are likely to have impacts on the transportation system
because improved wastewater treatment facilities will encourage both
residential and commercial/service development. Industrial development
is anticipated to be minimal within the Service Area and is expected to
occur regardless of the wastewater management alternative chosen. Con-
sequently, major increases in trips generated will result primarily from
induced dwelling units and needed commercial and service establishments.
The greatest increase in traffic generation is anticipated under
the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action with an increase of 14% over
the baseline projections. Such an increase in traffic is likely, to
244
-------
place a burden on the highway network in the Service Area as well as
other portions of Northampton and Lehigh Counties. EIS Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 are expected to increase traffic generation in the
Service Area by 9.7% to 11.4% over baseline conditions for the year
2000, Increases of this magnitude are likely to require highway improve-
ments beyond those needed to serve the baseline projected traffic
increases. EIS Alternatives 4, 5 and 9 with projected increases of
5.7%, 1.0% and 1.0% respectively over baseline projections may require
highway improvements, depending on the actual distribution of the pro-
jected trips.
Although minimal traffic increases under most wastewater management
alternatives are projected for individual portions of the Service Area
it is likely that region-wide improvements will be needed to accommodate
the projected traffic increase under the Modified Applicant's Proposed
Action and EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10. This need stems
from current commuting patterns which indicate that the flow of traffic
generally runs from the various populations centers to the south where
the ABE SMSA is located. As a result, even though Nazareth Borough is
projected to have no significant increase in traffic volume under any
alternative, highway improvements may be needed merely to accommodate
through traffic.
6. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Historic Sites
Primary Impacts. Primary impacts to historic structures are those
which would result from construction or operation of the Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action or EIS alternatives, and would constitute
either beneficial or adverse effects to historic sites, properties,
structures, or objects which are listed on or determined eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. To date, no survey has been
conducted in the EIS Service Area to identify those historic places
which presently are not listed on but may be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. Primary impacts to known historic proper-
ties presently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the
Pennsylvania Inventory of Historic Sites and Landmarks, or the Historic
Sites and Structures List compiled by the JPC will be discussed in this
section. Beneficial effects of the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
and EIS alternatives generally consist of improvement to the aesthetic
setting of historic structures, which would result from removal of
present septic tank failures which cause unpleasant odors and damp
depressions on the ground of structures.
Adverse effects may consist of one or more of the following (36 CFR
VIII 800 as amended):
• Destruction or alteration of all or part of property;
• Isolation from or alteration of its surrounding environment;
• Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that
are out of character with the property or alter its setting;
245
-------
© Transfer or sale of Federally-owned property without adequate
conditions or restrictions regarding preservation, mainte-
nance, or use; and
0 Neglect of property resulting in its deterioration or destruc-
tion.
No apparent primary adverse impacts will occur to known National or
State registered historic structures or properties in the EIS Service
Area as a result of construction or operation of the No Action Alterna-
tive or of EIS Alternatives 1 to 10 and the Modified Applicant's Pro-
posed Action. Prior to implementation of any of the EIS alternatives in
the EIS Service Area, a visual survey of structures adjacent to proposed
interceptor and collection routes, treatment plant sites, and other
areas where facilities will be constructed will be required in order to
identify historic structures that may be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places and to insure compliance with Advisory
Council Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Proper-
ties and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts are those beneficial or adverse
effects that may occur as a result of implementation of a proposed pro-
ject, from induced growth and future property development. Development
of or alteration to the open space which presently surrounds known his-
toric structures in the EIS Service Area and constitutes an integral
part of their historic setting potentially may diminish the historic
integrity of such properties. Similarly, alteration of the character of
potential historic districts by the introduction of structures, objects,
or land uses incompatible with the historic setting and buildings of the
district would constitute an adverse impact on the historic quality of
the district. Occassionally, induced growth will increase pressures to
demolish historic buildings which are inconveniently situated in order
to make way for new development. Such pressures constitute threats to
historic resources and, as such, may be included among indirect effects
of a proposed undertaking or its alternatives.
The No Action Alternative and EIS Alternatives 1, 5 and 9 would
have no indirect effects on known historic sites or structures. EIS
Alternatives 6, 8, 10 and the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action may
induce growth and land development in the vicinity of the Jacobsburg
Historic District. In Bushkill Township, land presently zoned for rural
agricultural or rural residential uses might be developed as a direct
result of implementation of these latter alternatives. In Plainfield
Township, such land is zoned for farm and forest uses. If existing zon-
ing regulations are followed, minimal visual intrusion related to devel-
opment may be expected to affect the Jacobsburg Historic District.
Because the Jacobsburg Historic District is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) is required,
selection of of EIS Alternative 6, 8 or 10 may result in the need for a
Memorandum of Agreement. Local historic zoning ordinances may also be
established and invoked in order to carefully control future development
in the vicinity of the Jacobsburg Historic District.
246
-------
Laud development which adheres to present zoning regulations may
result in little or no adverse effect on the National Register District.
If variances to existing zoning are granted, negative effects may in-
crease.
Prior to construction of any of the Modified Applicant's Proposed
Action or the EIS Alternatives, an historic structures survey should be
conducted of sections of the Service Area where land development may
occur, in order to identify any additional historic structures which may
be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Determina-
tions of potential eligibility are made in consultation with the State
Historic Preservation Officer, who also will delineate the extent of the
area of impact to be surveyed (44 FR No. 21: 6068-6081). Eligibility
reports for identified structures with historic significance are sub-
mitted to the Secretary of the Interior, whose decision is final.
b. Archaeological Sites
Primary Impacts. Primary impacts on archaeological resources are
possible wherever the ground surface will be disturbed by construction
activities. No systematic archaeological survey has been conducted of
the EIS Service Area to identify unrecorded archaeological resources.
Thus impacts on known archaeological resources only are discussed in
this section.
No direct effects on known archaeological sites would result from
the No Action alternative. Construction of EIS Alternatives 1, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10 or the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action may affect about
6 known sites near collector segments. Construction of marsh/pond treat-
ment facilities proposed for EIS Alternatives 2 and 3 may destroy
archaeological site Nm. 28. Should any of these alternatives be
selected, appropriate investigations would be necessary to evaluate the
sites and make recommendations for mitigation if indicated.
Secondary Impacts. Adverse impacts to buried prehistoric and
historic archaeological remains may result from future land development
related to implementation of any of EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,
8, or 10. The No Action alternative would result in baseline projected
growth and development which would have no indirect effect on archaeo-
logical resources which could be related to the present project. Indi-
rect effects of EIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 may destroy all or parts of
Site Nm. 20, and a prehistoric site to the south on Bushkill Creek (see
Figure 11-30). Construction for EIS Alternative 3 may affect these
sites, as well as Nm. 23 and NM. 24. All alternatives may potentially
have an adverse indirect effect on Site Nm. 11. Implementation of EIS
Alternatives 6, 7, 8 and 10 potentially may have an effect on sites Nm
11 and Nm 19, as well as on Nm 30, a prehistoric site on Bushkill Creek.
c. Recreation
As noted in Chapter III, municipal recreation acreage is currently
below standard in the less developed municipalities. Under any waste-
water management alternative population growth will necessitate capital
247
-------
programming for acquisition and development of recreation areas. Based
upon national standards of 2.5 acres per 1000 population, Bushkill Town-
ship would need to develop 16 acres of active recreation area to meet
year 2000 population needs under the No Action Alternative. Plainfield
Township would need an additional 9.5 acres and Upper Nazareth 8.3
acres.
The induced population that could occur in association with the EIS
Alternatives and the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action would require
some increases in recreation acreage. A representative increase would
range from 13.5 acres in Plainfield Township under EIS Alternative 8 to
10 acres under Alternative 5 or 9.
248
-------
CHAPTER VIII
Comparison of Impacts
-------
Chapter VIII
Comparison of Impacts
The environmental, economic, and social impacts associated with the
implementation of the Applicant's Proposed Action, Modified Applicant's
Proposed Action, EIS Alternatives 1 through 10, and the No Action alter-
native are compared in this chapter. These impacts were discussed in
detail in Chapters IV and VII. A comparison of key impacts used in the
selection of an EIS Recommended Action, is presented in the Narrative
Impact Matrix (Section VIII.A.)- EPA's selection of a recommended
(Phasel) course of action to meet the demonstrated wastewater management
needs of the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority and Borough of
Nazareth is based on a careful screening of all wastewater management
plans evaluated in this EIS according to their cost-effectiveness,
environmental (natural and human) soundness, and implementability. The
screening of alternative wastewater management approaches is presented
in Section VIII.B.
A. NARRATIVE IMPACT MATRIX
See Table VIII-1
B. SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
This section identifies the optimum Phase I wastewater management
plan for the EIS Service Area following a screening of important en-
vironmental, economic, and social impacts. The screening will proceed
on an alternative-by-alternative basis, or by groups of similar alterna-
tives where appropriate. General criteria used in the alternatives
screening process are shown in Table VIII-2.
1. NO ACTION
Efforts to document existing public health and water quality pro-
blems have confirmed the following conditions which could be addressed
by improved wastewater management:
• A number of individual on-site systems are not operating sa-
tisfactorily. Surface malfunctions have been identified which
should and can be corrected.
• Groundwater nitrate concentrations are elevated above back-
ground levels in some locations. On-site systems may be the
primary source of the elevated concentrations in some places
although this has not been confirmed.
• The Nazareth Sewerage Company's interceptors and sewage treat-
ment plant by-pass raw and partially treated sewage to
Schoeneck Creek during periods of heavy rainfall.
249
-------
Table VIII-1
NARRATIVE IMPACT MATRIX
Impact Category Resource Impact Type: Degree Impact Description
Environmentally Prime Agricul- Primary: long term EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7:
Sensitive Areas tural Land 300 to 500 acres of mostly prime agricultural
land would be irrigated by land application
systems, probably increasing crop yield.
EIS Alternatives 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10:
These previously centralized alternatives
would induce development by approximately
1,600 acres, the amount of land needed for
development by the design year. These 1,600
acres would more than likely include prime
agricultural land.
Secondary: short term EIS Alternatives 1-10:
Construction during all alternatives would
result in the temporary disturbance of some
prime agricultural land.
Secondary: long term Implementation of either Modified Applicant's
Proposed Action or EIS Alternatives results
in conversion of undeveloped land (including
agricultural) to residential/commercial/indus-
trial uses. Conversion, induced beyond that
which would occur without any project (No
Action) ranges from 1% to 13%. Conversion
of undeveloped land induced by Applicant's
Proposed Action is 56% more than would occur
under No Action.
Flood Prone Primary: long term Applicant's (and Modified) Proposed Action:
Areas Construction of interceptor sewers along
streams, involving the removal of trees and
understory vegetation, will have significant
adverse effects upon floodplain environments.
The ability of the ground to absorb water
would likely decrease due to soil compaction
by construction equipment.
EIS Alternatives 1-10:
Adverse impacts on flood prone areas are
minimized through construction of interceptor
sewers along roads instead of streams.
Secondary: long term Applicant's (and Modified) Proposed Action:
Provision of interceptor sewers along Bushkill
and Schoeneck Creek will induce development in
the floodplain. Development will alter vege-
tation, water storage capacity of soils, and
runoff characteristics. Such changes may
have negative effects on stream hydrology
and quality and induced population, and housing
in the floodplain itself.
EIS Alternatives 1-10:
Induced growth in floodplain, with attendant
negative impacts on stream hydrology and
quality and population,is minimized by routing
of interceptors along roads instead of streams.
Steep Slopes Secondary: long term EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, A, and 7:
All land application sites choser- have slopes
less than 8%. Erosion potential is therefore
minimized.
EIS Alternatives 5. 6, 8, 9, and 10:
Induced growth will pressure development on
steep slopes, increasing soil erosion and
non-point source pollution of streams.
Groundwater Groundwater Primary: long term No Action:
Quality The continued use of on-site systems under
present conditions could increase already ele-
vated nitrate concentrations in localized areas
in Bushkill.
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, jnd _7_:
Upgrading and renovation of present septic
systems, coupled with a groundwater monitor-
ing system will help prevent further nit rate
contamination of local groundwater supplies.
EIS Alternatives 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10
Centralized alternatives will further reduce
the possibility of nitrate contamination from
wastewatcr effluent.
250
-------
Impact Category Resources Impact Type: Degree Impact: Description
Groundwater Groundwater
(coat.) Quantity Primary: long term No Action, EIS Alternatives 1-10;
In areas served by public water systems dis-
continued recharge of groundwater through on-
site systems would result in a negligible
loss to the slate and limestone aquifers.
In other areas, groundwater loss would also
be negligible in relation to the extent of
the major aquifer systems.
Surface Water Water Quality Primary: short term EIS Alternatives 1-10:
Sedimentation of surface channels would tem-
porarily increase during construction of
sewer pipe across/under the streams. Stream
crossings associated with these alternatives
range from 6 to 10. Sedimentation associated
with jacking sewer pipe beneath stream bottom
is less than pipe construct ion involving ex-
cavation of stream bottom.
EIS Alternatives 5, 6. 9, and 10:
Construction of new wastewater treatment facil-
ities either on or near the Nazareth STP prop-
erty located at the confluence of Nazareth
Creek, and Schoeneck Creek would result in
temporarily increased sedimentation of these
streams. Increased sedimentation, intensified
during storm events, could continue until the
surface and channels have again become stabi-
lized by natural vegetation of man-made inter-
vent ion.
Applicant's (and Modified) Proposed Action:
Sedimentation of streams will be very signi-
ficant due to relatively extensive streamside
construction of interceptor sewer along Bushkill,
Little Bushkill and Schoeneck Creeks. Stream
crossings total 29 for Applicant's Proposed
Action and 22 for Modified Applicant's Proposed
Action. Increased sedimentation, intensified
during storm events, would continue until
stream banks, floodplain areas, and channels
have again become stabilized by natural vege-
tation or man-made intervention.
Primary: long term EIS Alternatives 5, 6, 9, and 10:
Ammonia concentrations in Schoeneck Creek imme-
diately below the Nazareth STP discharge point
can be expected to decrease as effluent by-
passes will be eliminated and wastewater treat-
ment will comply with DER effluent limitations
which stipulate that ammonia concentrat ions be-
fore discharge to Creek be no more than 3 mg/1.
Ammonia concentrations in effluent presently
average 20 mg/1.
EIS Alternatives 1-4, 7, 8, Applicant's (and
Modified) Proposed Action:
With abandonment of Nazareth ST?, ammonia
contributions to Schoeneck Creek are eliminated.
Dissolved oxygen concentration will increase
slightly over the present level in Bushkill
Creek below the confluence with Schoeneck Creek
under EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and
Proposed Action, and will remain the same under
EIS Alternatives 5, 6, 9, and 10. Primary im-
pacts upon the concentrations of col iform bac-
teria and phosphorus in Bushkill Creek will be
less pronounced and can be considered insigni-
ficant under all wastewater management alter-
natives .
Secondary: long term The increase of storm runoff in the watershed
due to the induced growth has a slight increase
in the concentrations of BOD, coliform bacteria,
and phosphorus in Bushkill Creek on a seasonal
cumulative basis. Consequently, the dissolved
oxygen level will be reduced up to 1 mg/1 by
the increase in storm runof f loads of BOD asso-
ciated with the Applicant's Proposed Action.
Other EIS Alternatives will not have any sig-
nifleant secondary impact on the water qua 1ity
of Bushkill Creek.
251
-------
Impact Category Resources Impact Type: Degree Impact Description
Surface Water Water Quantity Primary: long term Applicant's (and Modified) Proposed Action,
(cont.) EIS Alternatives 1-4, 7, and 8:
Nazareth STP discharge of 0.85 mgd currently
accounts for about 14% of Schoeneck Creek flow.
Abandonment of the Nazareth STP under these al-
ternative wastewater management plans would in-
crease the frequency with which Schoeneck Creek
"dries up" due to severe low flow conditions.
EIS Alternatives 5, 6, 9, and 10:
Continued effluent discharge (0.85 mgd) has no
impact on the hydrology of Schoeneck Creek
(represents a no-change condition).
Biotic Resources Fish, Macroin- Primary: long term Applicant's (and Modified) Proposed Action:
vertebrates Construction of interceptor sewers along streams
and through/under stream bottoms, involving de-
vegetation, blasting, and excavation of substrate
materials, will reduce ability of trout to feed
and naturally reproduce. Critical sensitive
areas include the brown trout nursery (and
probable spawning) area in Bushkill Creek be-
low Tatamy. Trout eggs, larvae and fingerlings
are particularly vulnerable to siltation of
clean, gravelly stream bottom habitats.
EIS Alternatives 1-10:
Improvement/abandonment of the wastewater
treatment process at the Nazareth STP will
reduce/eliminate concentrations of un-ionized
ammonia in Schoeneck Creek below the STP dis-
charge. These concentrations are potentially
toxic to trout and trout food (macroinverte-
brates); toxocity increases under low flow
conditions in Schoeneck Creek.
EIS Alternatives 1-4. 7, and 8:
Discontinuance of the 0.85 mgd Nazareth STP
effluent discharge to Schoeneck Creek may
adversely effect macroinvertebrates and other
aquatic life by increasing the frequency with
which Schoeneck Creek dries up. Loss of
stream flow exposes the stream bottom, thereby
destroying stream fauna and flora.
EIS Alternatives 5, 6, 9. and 10:
Incidence of Schpeneck Creek "disappearance",
and hence loss of aquatic life, is minimized
by sustained discharge (0.85 mgd) of properly
treated effluent (beneficial impacts).
Population Growth Rate Secondary: long term EIS Alternatives 5, 9, and No Action:
Insignificant — Rate of growth continues as
in recent past (also EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3,
4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 for Bushkill and Nazareth
and EIS Alternatives 6 and 10 for Upper Nazareth;
and EIS Alternative 4, 7, and 8 for Palmer and
the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action).
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10:
Significant — Induced growth which will surpass
baseline population by 25-50% (except Plainfield
in 7 and 8) is very significant: These and all
other EIS Alternatives are very significant for
Stockertown and Tatamy; EIS Alternatives I, 2,
and 3 are significant for Upper Nazareth; EIS
Alternatives 1 and 2 are significant for
Plainfield.
Applicant's Proposed Action:
Very significant.
Land Use Acreage Absorbed/ Secondary: long terra EIS Alternatives 5, 9, and No Action:
Development Insignificant — Land use acreage would increase
Patterns at baseline levels (also EIS Alternatives 1-10
for Bushkill and Upper Nazareth and EIS Alterna-
tives 4, 7, and 8 for Palmer).
EIS Alternatives 1, 2. 3. 4, 6, 7. 10, and
the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action:
Significant — Induced growth would result in
increase in amount and density of development.
Applicant's Proposed Action:
Very significant.
252
-------
Housing
Growth Rate
Secondary: long term
Residential
Density and
Community
Character
Secondary: long term
Public Services
Schools
Secondary: long term
Public Safety
Secondary: long term
EIS Alternatives 5, 9, and No Action:
Insignificant — Limited induced housing
development.
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10,
and Modified Applicant's Proposed Action:
Induced housing development of 11% to 26%
over baseline projections. EIS Alternatives
6, 7, 8, and 10 induce over 500 new units in
Plainfield, nearly a 23% increase in the pro-
jected baseline housing stock for 2,000.
Applicant's Proposed Action:
Very significant — Service Area projected
baseline housing stock will increase by 120%
under this alternative.
EIS Alternatives 5, 9. and No Action:
Minimal increase in multiple family units.
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 3, 10,
and the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action:
Multiple-family units will increase by 9% to
30% over projected baseline total. Signifi-
cant density increases and potential changes
in community character likely in Palmer under
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10; in Plain-
field under EIS Alternatives 6, 7, 8, and 10;
in Stockertown under all EIS Alternatives; in
Tatamy under all EIS Alternatives; and in Upper
Nazareth under EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 7,
and 8.
Applicant's Proposed Action:
Multiple-family dwelling units will represent
nearly 25% of Service Area housing stock. All
Service Area municipalities except Nazareth
will have significantly greater percentage of
multiple-family units and higher residential
densities.
EIS Alternatives 5, 9, and No Action:
Limited impact — Additional desk space would
be needed for students anticipated with base-
line population growth.
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6. 7, 8. 10,
and MocUfijad Applicant's Proposed Action:
Significant — High rates of induced growth
result in a shortage of up to 4,389 desks in
the Nazareth School District and 965 desks
for Plainfield residents in the Pen Argyl
School District.
Applicant's Proposed Action:
Very signif icant — Induced growth would re-
sult in a greater increase in school age popu-
lation.
EIS Alternatives 5, 9, and No Action:
Limited impact — Increases in police and f ire
protection will be needed as population grows.
EIS Alternatives 1. 2, 3. A, 6, 7, 8, and 10:
Significant — Induced growth will require in-
crease in public safety services.
Applicant's Proposed Action:
Very significant — High rate of induced growth
will necessitate a large investment in public
safety services.
Water Supply
Electric Energy
Solid Waste
Disposal
All EIS Alternatives:
No impact.
All EIS Alternatives:
No impact
All EIS Alternatives:
Regional solid waste disposal capacity will be
surpassed in a maximum of 14 years under base-
line conditions.
253
-------
Impact Category Resources Impact Type: Degree Impact: Description
Transportation Highway Capacity Secondary: long term EIS Alternatives 5, 9, and No Action:
No major highway improvements required beyond
those programmed to meet projected baseline
transportation needs.
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, A, 6, 7, 8, 10,
and the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action:
Induced traffic increases of 9.7% to 14%
likely. These increases would require region-
wide highway improvements to handle increased
traffic volumes. Major improvements would be
required in southern portions of Service Area.
Applicantf_s_P_roposed Action:
Induced traffic increase of 163% over baseline
projections. This increased volume is likely
to overcapacitate entire regional highway net-
work and will require alternative transporta-
tion improvements to be programmed immediately'.
Historic Sites Primary: short term EIS Alternatives 1-10:
No impacts will occur to known National or
State registered structures or properties.
Applicant's Proposed Action:
Interceptor to Jacobsburg State Park would in-
trude on Jacobsburg Historic District.
Secondary: long term EIS Alternatives 1, 5, 9? and No Action:
No impacts will occur on known historic sites
or structures.
EIS Alternatives 6, 8, and 10:
Induced growth may occur infringing on the
Jacobsburg Historic District.
Applicant 's_ Fjroposed Action:
Significant impacts could be expected on the
Anita Grist Mill and Jacobsburg Historic
District as a result of the high irate of in-
duced growth.
Archaeological Primary: short term No Action:
Sites No impacts will occur.
EIS Alternatives 1. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10:
Six known sites occur near wastewater collection
routes that could be affected as a result of in-
terceptor construction.
EIS Alternatives 2 and 3:
Marsh/pond systems proposed under these Alterna-
tives could significantly affect a known
archaeologic site.
Secondary: long term EIS Alternatives 5, 9, and No Action:
No adverse impacts are anticipated
EIS Alternatives 1, 2. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10:
Adverse impacts on archaeologic sites may occur
as a result of induced residential development.
Applicant's Proposed Action
This alternative may result in impacts on 14
known archaeologic sites as well as buried re-
mains in the Jacobsburg Historic District.
Recreation Development Needs Secondary: long term EIS Alternatives 5, 9, and No Action:
Limited impact — Baseline population growth
will exacerbate existing recreation needs.
EIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10:
Significant — Induced population growth would
severely tax recreation resources that are cur-
rently insufficient to meet needs.
Applicant's Proposed Action:
Extremely significant — High rates of induced
growth would necessitate large capital invest-
ment for recreation development. Growth pres-
sures would infringe on Jacobsburg State Park.
254
-------
Impact Category Resources Impact Type: Degree Impact Description
Economic Condi- Financial Burden Secondary: long term Modified Applicant's Proposed Action:
tions and Displacement Will place a financial burden on 5-107, of the
Pressure households, but as in the other EIS Alterna-
tives would put displacement pressure on only
1-5% of the households.
EIS Alternatives 1-10:
Will place a financial burden on 10-15% of
the households which could displace 1-5%.
EIS Alternatives 2 and 3:
Will burden 50-60% of the households in Bushkill
and could displace 15-20%.
255
-------
Table VIII-2 ALTERNATIVE SCREENING CRITERIA
CRITERIA
Modified
Applicant's Applicant's
Proposed Proposed
EIS ALTERNATIVE
Action Action 1 2 3456789 10
BIOTIC RESOURCES
• Sedimentation of streams and disturbance
of trout nursery and spawning areas
• Disturbance of terrestrial biota habitat ^
INDUCED GROWTH
• Loss of prime agricultural land
• Sewer-induced development in floodplains '
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
SERVICE AREA JUSTIFIED
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
(Present Worth)
r i
P 1
• • • •
l
r
• •
i
\
r 'i
r 1
\
• •
r
i
i
• •
1
,
i
r '
r
r ,
r
•
J
r..
EIS RECOMMENDED ACTION
LO
CN
LEGEND
V On-going alternative screening process
No further consideration given alternative
below dots (see criteria to left for reason)
V Criterion is significant, though not decisive,
to screen out alternative
-------
• Effluents from the Nazareth Sewerage Company and the Wind Gap
treatment plants may be toxic to salmonid fish and other
organisms for a considerable distance downstream due to con-
centrations of un-ionized ammonia.
Design and construction costs for remedies to these problems are
fundable by the EPA Construction Grants program as long as applicable
regulations are carefully followed.
The No Action alternative would avoid the direct impacts of con-
struction activities and would not induce growth in prime agricultural
lands or floodplains. Since water quality and public health problems
can be corrected by alternatives that minimize construction impacts and
minimize induced growth, the No Action alternative is rejected.
2. APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION
Adverse impacts associated with the Applicant's Proposed Action and
other factors which prevent it from being selected as the EIS Recom-
mended Action include the following:
• Construction of interceptor sewers along and across streams in
Service Area: Will significantly alter valuable aquatic and
terrestrial habitats, including the brown trout nursery and
(and probable spawning) area in Bushkill Creek below Tatamy
Borough and the virgin hemlock stand in Jacobsburg State Park.
Most of the 29 stream crossings called for in this plan would
require construction of cofferdams, and excavation/blasting of
stream bottoms (see Section IV.A.6.)
• Induced growth: Provision of sewerage facilities would induce
(over that projected under baseline conditions) a population
of 18,914, dwelling units of 6,143, and 2,112 acres of
developed land. Induced growth would result in the conversion
of approximately twice as much prime agricultural land to more
intense land uses as would occur under baseline conditions.
It would also induce development in flood prone areas. Would
significantly alter residential densities and communities in
many ares, and require large capital investments in public
services (schools, police, transportation recreation).
Impacts on resources of Jacobsburg Historic District likely to
be significant. In Palmer Township, induced development in
the Northern Corridor is not compatible with existing zoning
ordinance.
• Extent of proposed sewerage not justified: Proposed waste-
water management service for Cherry Hill and Jacobsburg State
Park vicinity (Bushkill Township) and Northern Corridor in
Palmer Township does not justify Federal funding on basis of
documentable water quality or public health problems. In
northern Palmer Township, lack of demonstrated need, with
small exception, is a function of low-density development in
the area (see Section III.B.5.C.).
257
-------
« Cost-effectiveness: Ranks as second most costly (present
worth) of all wastewater management plans evaluated in this
EIS (see Table VI-4).
3. MODIFIED APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION
Negative impacts of the Applicant's Proposed Action, summarized
above, have been reduced with the scaled down design of the B-LLJSA plan
(Modified Applicant's Proposed Action). Although the least costly of
all wastewater management approaches evaluated in this EIS, the Modified
Applicant's Proposed Action is not recommended as the Federally-fundable
course of action on the basis of the following impacts:
« Construction of interceptor sewers along and across streams
in Service Area: Although the Bushkill interceptor has been
eliminated under this plan (along with 6 stream crossings),
sewer construction will still adversely affect valuable
aquatic habitats, including the brown trout nursery (and pro-
bable spawning) area in Bushkill Creek below Tatamy Borough.
Terrestrial habitats and vegetated floodplains adjacent to
Schoeneck Creek and Bushkill Creek below the confluence with
Little Bushkill Creek will be disturbed during construction
(see Section VII.A.9.a)
® Induced growth: Will pressure development in flood prone
areas adjacent to EIS Service Area streams. Increases in
municipal capital investments for public safety services and
recreation would be required. Increase in amount, density and
location of population growth and development not compatible
with existing zoning in Palmer Township.
• Extent of proposed sewerage not justified: Proposed sewerage
in Cherry Hill area (Bushkill Township) and Northern Corridor
of Palmer Township not justified for Federal funding on basis
of documentable water quality or public health problems (see
Section III.B.S.c)
Since other alternatives are available which will minimize induced
development of flood prone areas and serve areas of documentable need,
the Modified Applicant's Proposed Action is not cost-effective. There-
fore, consideration of the EIS alternatives for a recommended course of
action is justified.
4. EIS ALTERNATIVES 1,2,3,4 and 7
EIS Alternatives 1,2,3,4 and 7 are considered here together because
they all involve land application (spray irrigation) of wastewater.
None of these alternatives can be selected as the EIS Recommended Action
for the following reasons:
• Cost-effectiveness: The treatment units of these alternatives
would be eligible for a 115% cost preference over the treat-
ment limits of the most cost-effective alternative. However,
258
-------
even the least cost land application alternative, number 4,
does not qualify under this preference. EIS Alternatives 1-4
and 7 are, therefore, rejected for Construction Grants
funding.
• Energy requirements: Electricity requirements, associated
with EIS Alternatives 1-4, and 7 (particularly 2,3 and 7) are
among the highest of all wastewater management plans evaluated
in this study (see Table VI-3). Total kilowatt-hours/year re-
quired range from approximately 945,000 to 1,400,000.
• Extent of proposed sewerage not justified: The provision of
centralized sewerage for the Cherry Hill area of Bushkill
Township and Route 115 north of Belfast in Plainfield Township
under EIS Alternatives 3 and 7 is not justified for Federal
funding on the basis of documentable water quality or public
health problems (see Section III.B.5.C.)
5. EIS ALTERNATIVE 8
EIS Alternative 8, the most environmentally acceptable wastewater
management plan which transmits all flows to the Easton sewage treatment
plant, is more expensive than those alternatives which treat wastewaters
within the Schoeneck Creek watershed, EIS Alternatives 5,6,9 and 10.
Because EIS Alternatives 8 does not provide environmental advantages
equivalent to the difference in cost between it and the remaining alter-
natives, it is not considered for EPA Construction Grants funding.
Additionally, needs documentation findings of this EIS do not justify
the extent of sewerage provided under this alternative.
6. EIS ALTERNATIVES 5,6,9 and 10:
These alternatives, which involve wastewater treatment by either
upgraded/expanded or totally new facilities at the Nazareth Sewage
Treatment Plant, are among the least costly and most environmentally
acceptable of all wastewater management plans evaluated in this EIS.
Two of these alternatives, numbers 6 and 10, can be eliminated from con-
sideration for the Federally-funded recommended course of action based
on the extent of service proposed. EIS Alternatives 6 and 10 propose to
serve the Cherry Hill area of Bushkill Township and Route 115 north of
Belfast in Plainfield Township, both of which were found to have no
justifiable need for EPA-funded centralized sewerage.
EIS Alternatives 5 and 9 remain as the most suitable of all waste-
water management approaches for consideration as possible recommended
courses of action based upon cost-effectiveness, environmental accepta-
bility and implementability. However, Alternatives 9 is selected over
Alternative 5 as the EIS Recommended Action based upon the former's
slight savings in cost over the latter1s: $11,740,000 vs. $11,933,700
(present worth). This cost difference reflects the small savings rea-
lized by construction of a new rotating biological contactor treatment
plant at the Nazareth STP instead of upgrading and expanding existing
treatment facilities. Chapter IX describes the EIS Recommended Action,
and discusses associated impacts and implementation considerations.
•259
-------
CHAPTER IX
Conclusions and Recommendation
-------
Chapter IX
Conclusions and Recommendations
EIS Alternative 9, with slight modification, has been selected as
the EIS Recommended Action since it was determined to have the least
adverse impact upon the natural and human environment of all the waste-
water management plans evaluated in this study. The Recommended Action
is identical to EIS Alternative 9 except that the pump station, force
main and gravity sewer serving Pennsylvania Route 191 between Belfast
Junction and Edelman is eliminated. Additional scrutiny of water qual-
ity and public health needs for this segment after the EIS alternatives
were developed revealed that documentable needs could be met with less
capital expenditure by on-site system upgrading and replacement. Serv-
ice areas and locations of wastewater collection, transmission and treat-
ment facilities for the EIS Recommended Action are illustrated in Figure
IX-1.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE EIS RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. BUSHKILL CREEK WATERSHED - PHASE I
A gravity sewer will parallel Route 115 and Pennsylvania Route 191
from a point three-fourths of a mile north of Belfast to a stream cross-
ing of Bushkill Creek just north of Tatamy Borough. Short collector
sewers and two small pump stations and force mains serving Stockertown
Borough and side roads along Route 115 will connect with the gravity
sewer. These sewers will serve recognized areas of need in Plainfield
Township and Stockertown Borough.
A pump station and force main will transport these flows to a cen-
tral pump station at the intersection of Nazareth Road and Tatamy Road
in Tatamy Borough. Collector sewers in Tatamy Borough will empty to a
pump station and force main at the southeast corner of the Borough.
These flows will be pumped to the central pump station.
All collected wastewater flows from the Bushkill Creek watershed
will be pumped by the central pump station to an existing interceptor
manhole at Northwood Avenue near Bushkill Creek. Flows will be treated
at the upgraded and expanded Easton Sewage Treatment Plant. The force
main will parallel Tatamy Road, then Northwood Avenue.
The sparsely developed segments along Route 115 north of the grav-
ity sewer and the communities of east Pen Argyl and Rasley Town (Plain-
field Township) and Rismiller (Bushkill Township) will be served by
small collection systems and multi-family filter fields (cluster
systems). If geohydrologic site analyses do not confirm SCS soils
ratings for indicated sites, other sites should be sought or marsh/pond
systems should be considered.
2. SCHOENECK CREEK WATERSHED - PHASE I
With the exceptions of limited areas of need contiguous to tlie
existing Nazareth sewer service area, in Christian Springs (Upper
261
-------
Nazareth Township) and in Newburg Homes (Palmer Township), wastewater
management needs in the Schoeneck Creek Watershed are related to the
collection system and treatment plant presently owned by the Nazareth
Sewerage Company.
Since Nazareth Borough has not acquired these facilities and has
not applied for Construction Grants funds to remedy its needs (see
Appendix H-2), EPA cannot make a grant decision for specific construc-
tion activities. However, problems in adjacent areas, Newburg Homes and
Christian Springs are not of sufficient importance to justify a new
interceptor that would follow almost the entire length of Schoeneck
Creek. The disposition of the Nazareth Sewerage Company's wastewater
facilities has proven to be a decisive factor in wastewater manage-
ment planning for the watershed.
If the existing collection and treatment facilities remain pri-
vately owned, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
(DER) should require of the Nazareth Sewerage Company timely compliance
with previously issued effluent limitations. Newburg Homes should be
sewered and a pump station and force main constructed along Northwood
Avenue to discharge to the Bushkill interceptor.
A detailed, site specific survey should be conducted of on-site
system problems in Christian Springs as well as the unsewered developed
portions of the Nazareth Borough-Upper Nazareth Township urban area.
The results of this site specific survey should determine whether
on-site or small scale off-site facilities will best resolve existing
needs.
If the facilities of the Nazareth Sewerage Company become publicly
owned, the owners may apply to EPA for Step I and subsequent grants for
planning, design and construction of wastewater facilities. The Facili-
ties Planning Area boundaries and recommended scope of the Facilities
Plan are discussed in Section IX.C.2.b.
Alternatively, the owners may enter into an agreement with the
B-LLJSA to amend the existing Application to include funds for the
necessary new Step I planning effort.
3. PHASE II
Needs documentation studies conducted in support of this EIS re-
vealed surface malfunctions of individual on-site systems and localized
elevation of groundwater nitrate concentrations that may be attributable
to on-site systems. The responsible municipalities should investigate
these problems and require appropriate remedies.
Federal funding to assist the municipalities and, if necessary, to
augment the efforts of their Sewage Enforcement Officers (SEO's) is
available if grant requirements discussed in Section IX.C.3 are met.
Topics related to the management of individual and small scale facili-
ties were discussed in Section V.C.2., including authority for manage-
ment, local decisions that should be made when developing a management
entity, functions that the entity could provide, and steps involved in
implementing a management program.
262
-------
FIGURE ix-i EIS RECOMMENDED ACTION
— —SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
FORCE MAIN
(g) PUMP STATION
• NAZARETH STP
4 STREAM CROSSINGS
rrrr BOLD LINES INDICATE IMMEDIATE NEED AREA
• CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT SITE
AREA SERVED BY CLUSTER SYSTEM
AREA SERVED BY SMALL FLOWS
-X
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR
NAZARETH STP
. •' ..ivv.>*
\ /*• ..^v- \
• f._ , I;..
i i ••% •• 1 ••
i A ^
I IP ;
"" v -• 1 -'• »•-'
,....!: 1" ' i>
,,T,,, M
^>;-'T
>•— . \
1 ..vvVN
> •: (
iH
— 'U
TOEA3TON
f
•ft
i
<• >
MM
-------
4. ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE EIS RECOMMENDED ACTION
The EIS Recommended Action has been estimated to cost (in 1980
dollars):
Total Capital Cost $ 9,724,800
Federal share of capital cost 6,057,000
State share of capital cost 0
Local share of capital cost 3,667,800
Present Worth Cost
Estimated Annual User Charge
Per Household
11,838,500
107
B. IMPACTS OF THE EIS RECOMMENDED ACTION
Environmental, economic and social impacts associated with the im-
plementation of EIS Alternative 9 are summarized in this section, along
with appropriate measures to mitigate or minimize them. A more detailed
explanation of these impacts and mitigative measures may be found in
Chapter VII.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
IMPACT
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
AIR QUALITY
Temporary air contaminant
emissions, including total
suspended particulates (dust,
smoke) and gases (from con-
struction equipment and
interrupted traffic), will
have insignificant effects on
residential areas during sewer-
age construction and no effects
during construction of RBC sewer-
age treatment plant.
• Controlled speed of
construction vehicles.
• Periodic spraying of roads
and construction debris
with water to control dust.
• Assistance of traffic
officer at potentially
congested road intersections
in Stockertown and Tatamy
during sewer construction.
The new rotating biological contactor STP which replaces the existing
Nazareth STP facilities under EIS Alternative 9.
265
-------
IMPACT
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Odor impacts from opera-
tion of RBC plant and
cluster systems are mini-
mal.
Secondary air quality
impacts are minimal.
AIR QUALITY
(contd.)
Proper maintenance of RBC
plant.
Proper construction and
maintenance of cluster
systems (pump septic tank
every 3 years).
NA2
NOISE
Noise from construction
of sewers, force mains and
pump stations (without use
of explosives) may cause
adverse public reaction up
to 2,000 ft. from construc-
tion site. Blasting may
cause extreme short-term
annoyance up to about 2,000
ft.
Sewerage facilities con-
struction, involving
excavation and demolition
work should be limited to
the hours 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Use of blast mats and
burial of primacord during
demolition work may be
necessary.
SOILS
Soil erosion, with resulting
sedimentation and nutrient
transport during construction
of on-site systems, cluster
systems, sewers, the RBC
plant, new roads, and housing.
• Compliance with provisions
of Soil Erosion and Sedi-
mentation Control Act.
• Require individual plan
approval for construction
on steep slopes and adopt
performance standards with
specific slope-density
provisions.
• Proper placement, hauling,
backfilling, and mulching
of soil during sewer con-
struction (see Section VII.
2 Not applicable.
266
-------
IMPACT
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS
The amount of undevel-
oped (including prime
agricultural) land
that would be converted
to residential/commercial/
industrial use under EIS
Recommended Action is
1,639 acres. This is
only 16 acres more than the
conversion that is estimated
to occur without the project
(1,623 acres).
NA
GROUNDWATER
Blasting or rock drilling
that may be required during
construction of new RBC
plant (including clarifiers)
may have potential adverse
effects on local ground-
water hydrology by altering
paths of groundwater flow to
Schoeneck Creek (see Section
VII.A.6.a).
Wastewater recharge from on-
site systems and cluster systems
is projected to be approximately
1 mgd. Wastewater that is pre-
sently recharging groundwater
supplies in Belfast (Plainfield
Twp.), Stockertown and Tatamy,
(0.30 mgd) would be exported to
the Easton STP under EIS Recom-
mended Action. The sources of
water for these communities lie
outside the Service Area in another
groundwater drainage basin. There-
fore, there are no local adverse
effects upon groundwater supplies
associated with wastewater convey-
ance to Easton under the EIS
Recommended Action. This convey-
ance may lower local water table
elevations along Route 115 in
Plainfield Township, which would
be a beneficial impact. The con-
• A detailed geological
investigation of the RBC
plant site should be con-
ducted to locate any lime-
stone outcrops or formation
that may necessitate blast-
ing during STP construction.
NA
267
-------
IMPACT
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
GROUNDWATER
(contd.)
veyance of wastewater to
the RBC plant would also
have no impact on local ground-
water supplies because the
sources of water for communi-
ties served by the RBC plant
are also outside the service
area.
Potential for localized nitrate
standard violations in private
wells throughout Bushkill Town-
ship and Plainfield Township.
Potential will increase as
densities of wells and on-site
wastewater management systems
increase.
Establishment of a sur-
veillance program that
includes routine monitoring
of the performance of on-
site systems and. groundwater
quality.
SURFACE WATER
The construction and operation of
the new RBC treatment facility will
have a favorable impact on the water
quality of Schoeneck Creek and
Bushkill Creek. With proper main-
tenance, the RBC plant will continu-
ously attain the effluent limitations
set for BOD, suspended solids and
ammonia set by DER.
NA
Erosion and sedimentation due to the
construction of sewerage facilities
and the RBC plant may be significant
if not properly controlled (see Section
VII.A.4.b).
• Compliance with provisions
of the Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Act.
• The feasibility of tunneling
or jacking interceptor sewer
pipe beneath the stream bed
at the 6 stream crossing
locations (see Figure
VIII-1) should be seriously
considered so that export
of nutrient-rich soild par-
ticles to surface water
bodies can be minimized.
Construction of sewers
268
-------
IMPACT
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
SURFACE WATER
(contd.)
Stormwater effects on water
quality is minimal as a result
of the projected induced growth
in the EIS service area. How-
ever, erosion and the resultant
sedimentation due to changes in land
use may be significant and in-
crease the sediment level in
Bushkill Creek.
across streams must be in
compliance with Section 404
of the Clean Water Act
(see Section VII.A.9.b.).
• Proper control of erosion
and sedimentation is
necessary during the
construction period of
sewage treatment upgrading
and development of the
growth area.
• Establishment of permanent
vegetative buffers along
Schoeneck, Little Bush-
kill and particularly
Bushkill Creeks may serve
to reduce sediment and
non-point source pollutant
loads to these streams.
FLOOD PRONE AREAS
Sewer-induced growth potential
in flood-prone areas is greatest
from Belfast (Plainfield Twp.)
south to Tatamy Borough. This
potential is removed in Bushkill
Township (no sewerage provided)
and Palmer Township (force main
instead of a gravity interceptor
sewer is proposed to convey
wastewater to Easton STP).
• Adoption of Pennsylvania
Floodplain Management Act
by each municipality which
would exclude development
within the 100-year flood-
plain.
• Construction of flood con-
trol facilities including
stormwater detention ponds,
vegetated drainage swales
and temporary water storage
areas on building roofs
(see Section VII.A.8.b.)-
• Establishment of permanent
vegetated buffer zones to
encompass flood-prone areas
adjacent to Schoeneck,
Little Bushkill and Bushkill
Creeks. These buffer zones,
which could also serve as
269
-------
IMPACT
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
FLOOD PRONE AREAS
(contd.)
parks or recreational
areas, would preclude
development in the flood-
plain (see Section VILA.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Discharge of properly treated
effluent (0.85 mgd) from the
RBC plant may be a benefit to
aquatic life in Schoeneck Creek
by augmenting channel flow
during summer periods of low
flow.
The construction of intercep-
tor sewer at 6 locations may
adversely affect stream quality
and trout fishing in Bushkill
Creek below Tatamy. Adverse
effects include increased
siltation of trout nursery
and spawning areas (see Sec-
tion VII.A.9.a.).
Potential for sewer-induced
growth in flood-prone areas
in Selfast-Stockertown-Tatamy
corridor is accompanied by
potential for stream conditions
to become degraded with respect
to temperature, dissolved
oxygen, transparency, nutrient,
and bottom habitat. If uncon-
trolled, streamside development
may prevent Bushkill Creek from
remaining a high quality stream
capable of supporting a cold
water (trout) fishery.
NA
See Section VII.A.9.b.
Compliance with provisions
of Section 404, Clean
Water Act, administered in
the Service Area by the
Philadelphia District, U.S.
ArmyCorps of Engineers.
• See Section VII.A.9.b.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Population growth would be
induced above baseline by 228
persons. This represents
only a 0.52% increase.
NA
270
-------
IMPACT
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
(contd.)
Land use impacts would be
minimal as only 16 acres of
land in addition to that
anticipated under base-
line conditions would occur.
Development density would
increase as some municipal
ordinances provide for density
bonuses where sewer and water
service exist.
The induced dwelling unit
growth would amount to 76
units. The character of
housing mix may be altered by
the addition of some new multi-
unit development.
The user charge of $110 per
household per year has the
potential of placing a financial
burden on 10 to 15% of the Service
Area population which could result
in 1 to 5% of the population being
forced to move from their homes.
School age population will be induced
by only 48 students in the Nazareth
School District and 24 students in
the Wind Gap School District.
Public services such as health facili-
ties, public safety, water supply,
electricity, solid waste and transpor-
tation will have minimal impacts under
this alternative.
EIS Alternative 9 is not anticipated to
have a direct impact on known archaeologic
sites,historic sites or structures.
As this alternative induces a minimal
amount of population growth, additional
recreation acreage will not be needed
above baseline needs defined.
NA
NA
• Loans or grants could be
secured by the management
authority from the Farmers
Home Administration or the
U.S. Department of Labor,
Economic Development Admin-
istration.
NA
NA
NA
NA
271
-------
C. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EIS RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. AREAS OF IMMEDIATE NEED
Representatives from the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer
Authority (the Applicant) have contacted the Region III offices of the
US Environmental Protection Agency concerning the feasibility of con-
sultation during this EIS process so that design construction could
proceed immediately for a portion of the wastewater collection and
transmission facilities in the Service Area. Normally when a project is
being studied in an EIS all subsequent Construction Grants related work,
such as detailed design drawings and/or actual construction, is post-
poned until EPA completes the EIS process and makes a final determina-
tion on the availability of Federal money for a project. In special
circumstances, if there are overriding considerations of cost on im-
paired program effectiveness, a discrete portion of a project can be
segmented from the EIS process so that a problem can be remedied. Only
those portions of projects that are non-controversial, and whose con-
struction would not preclude selection of any other viable alternative
for the remainder of the project can be eligible for consideration.
This EIS has determined that the Applicant's Proposed Action which
recommended construction of wastewater collection and transmission
facilities in Plainfield Township, Tatamy Borough, Stockertown Borough,
Palmer Township, Upper Nazareth Township, and Bushkill Township is not
acceptable. Therefore, it is not eligible for Federal financial assis-
tance. The EIS has indicated that, all wastewater management plans con-
sidered, EIS Alternative 9 is the most acceptable from an environmental,
economic, and social perspective.
EPA will be seeking to award a Step II grant (money for detailed
design work) for a distinct portion of the project. The segment under
consideration is highlighted on Figure IX-1 as that portion which
exhibits immediate need for improved wastewater management facilities.
Specifically it is a single interceptor line passing through Plainfield
Township to Tatamy Borough and Stockertown Borough conveying wastewater
to the existing Easton Plant. A decision on this action will be announ-
ced at the Public Hearing for this EIS, pursuant to comments received.
The remainder of this chapter will discuss general mechanisms for
the implementation of various aspects of the EIS Recommended Action.
2. PHASE I
a. Bushkill Creek Watershed
Phase I facilities recommended to serve parts of Plainfield Town-
ship, Bushkill Township, Stockertown Borough and Tatamy Borough include
both conventional and decentralized, alternative facilities. The con-
ventional facilities would presumably be designed, constructed, and
operated by the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority (B-LLJSA)
using standard engineering, management and financing methods. Provision
for adequate labor to inspect and maintain proposed pump stations will
be necessary. Easements not previously acquired for sewers and power
sources at pump stations will have to be acquired.
272
-------
Design, construction and operation of the alternative systems in
Plainfield Township and Bushkill Township could also be provided through
the B-LLJSA although existing agreements with the Townships may not
cover this responsibility. This point may require negotiation between
the Authority and the Townships. Design of these facilities will re-
quire different engineering skills than conventional facilities. The
responsible party should insure that their employees or consultants have
appropriate capabilities. Operations personnel should be trained in the
maintenance of small wastewater management systems.
Since the designs of the conventional and alternative facilities
differ from those previously proposed, the B-LLJSA may apply for a Step
II grant for preparing designs and specifications.
b. Schoeneck Creek Watershed
Nazareth Borough has been negotiating purchase of Nazareth Sewerage
Company's facilities with the company for the past 5 years. Nazareth
Borough has also been given a rating on the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (DER) Construction Grants priority list. These
facts indicate that the facilities may become publicly owned and an
application for Federal funding may be made. Assuming this will occur,
the Borough should prepare a Plan of Study and apply for a Step I grant
to be followed by Step II and Step III applications. (If the cost for
Step III construction is estimated in the Facilities Plan to be less
than $2 million, the project may be eligible for a combined Step II and
III grant per 40 CFR 35.909).
Because of the substantial amount of consideration given in this
EIS to wastewater management needs of the Nazareth urban area, the
Facilities Planning Area boundaries and the scope of the Plan may be
abbreviated at the Applicant's discretion. Specifically, Nazareth
Borough, presently developed parts of Upper Nazareth including Christian
Springs, and locations between Nazareth Borough and potential wastewater
treatment sites need to be included within the Planning Area boundaries.
While this EIS recommends against construction of a Schoeneck Creek in-
terceptor, the Applicant may decide to reexamine this alternative, and
include in the Planning Area parts of Palmer Township.
Emphasis in the Facilities Plan should be given to those subjects
not evaluated here in great detail, specifically:
• Infiltration/Inflow Analysis
• Alternative treatment plant sites including land application
sites not evaluated in this EIS
• Alternate interceptor routes leading to treatment plant sites
• Alternate secondary treatment, ammonia reduction and disinfec-
tion processes
• Alternative sludge management approaches
• Flood proofing of existing treatment facilities
273
-------
• Decentralized technologies for Christian Springs vs. collec-
tion and transport to the Naxareth STP
Other requirements for Facilities Planning as specified in 40 CFR 35.917
must also be met.
3. PHASE II
Designation of parts of the EIS Service Area as having immediate
need for off-site treatment, the Phase I area, does not reduce the im-
portance of dealing effectively and quickly with the scattered, impro-
perly functioning on-site systems elsewhere. Proceeding with solutions
for the Phase I areas should not detract from efforts to achieve long
term sanitation and water quality objectives in the remainder of the EIS
Service Area.
The Clean Water Act of 1977 provides economic incentives to improve
rural wastewater management by making repair and upgrading of on-site
systems eligible for 85% Federal grants. Facilities Planning for rural
wastewater management is eligible for 75% Federal grants.
Immediate needs in the Phase II area might be most expeditiously
met without grant processes by inspections and enforcement actions con-
ducted by SEO's and by owner funding of appropriate repairs. Long term
sanitation and water quality objectives could also be met without grant
processes. This could be achieved first by adoption of local ordinances
to require monitoring and periodic inspection of on-site systems and to
allow access to individual on-site systems for inspection and main-
tenance. It could also be achieved by sufficient appropriations for
additional skilled personnel to carry out the inspection, monitoring and
maintenance. For the reason that this additional effort has not tra-
ditionally been provided here or elsewhere, costs and manpower cannot be
accurately estimated. A rough estimate of the costs is $30 per house-
hold per year. For the approximately 3000 unsewered residences in the
Phase II areas this would provide an annual budget of $90,000 per year,
$30,000 of which could go to septic tank pumping (each tank pumped once
every three years) and $60,000 per year for professional salaries
(full-time sanitarian at $18,000 per year, half-time soil scientist at
$13,000 per year, and one-quarter time geohydrologist at $7,000 per
year), clerical support (secretary at $12,000 per year) and office
space, laboratory analyses, supplies, and transportation ($10,000 per
year). Other combinations of fees and attendant services are feasible.
Services provided could be:
• Lot inspection and resident interview every three years to
detect problems with surface malfunctions and plumbing backups
and to educate residents in the proper use of their systems;
• Periodic well water sampling from properly constructed wells
in representative locations;
• Emergency septic tank pumping;
274
-------
• Routine septic tank pumping once every three years;
• Professional consultation and design recommendations for prob-
lem systems.
These services would supplement the present regulatory functions of muni-
cipal SEO's.
The benefits of applying for Federal and State grant assistance to
initiate such a program can be seen as:
• Initial planning, site analysis of existing problems and de-
velopment of the management structure would be completed in an
orderly manner and at relatively low costs to the municipali-
ties ;
• Repair and replacement of malfunctioning systems would cost
the homeowner a fraction of the total cost (applies only to
homes built before December 1977); and
• Public participation requirements would insure citizen input
to the development of the management structure.
On the other hand, complying with Construction Grants regulations
would result in a lead time during which existing problems could con-
tinue unabated.
To provide additional information on Construction Grants regula-
tions for funding of Phase II, 40 CFR 35.918 "Individual Systems" is
reproduced in Appendix A-2.
275
-------
> wv.. y
*' •> - p V'1;
'« '• JK
-------
GLOSSARY
ADSORPTION. Process by which one material is attached to another, such
as an organic on activated carbon. It is a surface phenomenon.
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT. Wastewater treatment beyond the secondary or
biological stage which includes removal of nutrients such as phos-
phorus and nitrogen and a high percentage of suspended solids.
Advanced waste treatment, also known as tertiary treatment, is the
"polishing stage" of wastewater treatment and produces a high
quality of effluent.
AERATION. The process of being supplied or impregnated with air. Aera-
tion is used in wastewater treatment to foster biological purifi-
cation.
AEROBIC. Refers to life or processes that occur only in the presence of
free oxygen.
ALLUVIAL. Pertaining to material that has been carried by a stream.
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY. Alternative waste treatment processes and tech-
niques are proven methods which provide for the reclaiming and
reuse of water, productively recycle wastewater constituents or
otherwise eliminate the discharge of pollutants, or recover energy.
Alternative technologies may not be variants of conventional bio-
logical or physical/ chemical treatment.
AMBIENT AIR. The unconfined portion of the atmosphere; the outside air.
ANAEROBIC. Refers to life or processes that occur in the absence of
free oxygen.
AQUATIC PLANTS. Plants that grow in water, either floating on the sur-
face, or rooted emergent or submergent.
AQUIFER. Water-bearing geologic stratum.
AQUILUDE. (Natural barrier) a water-bearing formation of relatively low
permeability that will not yield usable quantities of water to
wells.
BACK HOE. A piece of construction machinery used for scooping large
pits so that soil can be examined for wastewater disposal suita-
bility.
BACTERIA. Any of a large group of microscopic plants living in soil,
water or organic matter, important to man because of their chemical
effects as in nitrogen fixation, putrefaction or fermentation, or
as pathogens.
BAR SCREEN. In wastewater treatment, a screen that removes large floa-
ting and suspended solids.
277
-------
BASE FLOW. The rate of movement of water in a stream channel which
occurs typically during rainless periods when stream flow is main-
tained largely or entirely by discharges of groundwater.
BEDROCK. The solid rock beneath the soil and subsoil.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD). A measure of the amount of oxygen con-
sumed in the biological processes that decompose organic matter in
water. Large amounts of organic waste use up large amounts of dis-
solved oxygen; thus, the greater the degree of pollution, the
greater the BOD.
BIOTA. The plants and animals of an area.
BODS. See "Biochemical Oxygen Demand." Standard measurement is made
for 5 days at 20°C.
CAPITAL COSTS. All costs associated with installation (as opposed to
operation) of a project.
CESSPOOL. A lined or partially lined underground pit into which raw
household wastewater is discharged and from which the liquid seeps
into the surrounding soil. Sometimes called leaching cesspool.
CHLORINATION. The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage or
industrial waste for disinfection or oxidation of undesirable com-
pounds .
CLARIFIER. A settling tank.
CLUSTER SYSTEM. Any system whether publicly or privately owned, for the
collection of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature from
two or more lots, and the treatment and/or disposal of the sewage
or industrial waste on one or more of the lots or at any other
site.
COLIFORM BACTERIA. Members of a large group of bacteria that flourish
in the feces and/or intestines of warm-blooded animals, including
man. Fecal coliform bacteria, particularly Escherichia coli (E.
coli) , enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or feed-
lot runoff. Coliform bacteria apparently do not cause serious
human diseases, but these organisms are abundant in polluted waters
and they are fairly easy to detect. The abundance of coliform bac-
teria in water, therefore, indicates the probability of the occur-
rence of such diease-producing bodies (pathogens) as Salmonella,
Shigella, and enteric viruses. These pathogens are relatively
difficult to detect.
COLIFORM ORGANISM. Any of a number of organisms common to the intestinal
tract of man and animals whose presence in wastewater is an indica-
tor of pollution and of potentially dangerous bacterial contamina-
tion.
COMBINED SEWER. Carries sanitary wastes as well as stormwater.
278
-------
COMMINUTOR. Grinds up large solids as a preparation for further waste-
water treatment.
CONNECTION FEE. Fee charged by municipality to hook up house connection
to lateral sewer.
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (cfs). A measure of the amount of water passing a
given point.
DECIBEL. Measure of sound intensity.
DIATOM. A member of a group of microscopic, single-celled plants found
in both fresh and salt water. The limey or siliceous cell walls
(shells) of diatoms may accumulate in enormous numbers in sedi-
ments .
DIGESTION. See Sludge Digestion.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO). The oxygen gas (02) dissolved in water or sew-
age. Adequate oxygen is necessary for maintenance of fish and
other aquatic organisms. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations some-
times are due to presence, in inadequately treated wastewater, of
high levels of organic compounds.
DRAINAGE BASIN. (1) An area from which surface runoff is carried away
by a single drainage system. Also called catchment area, water-
shed, drainage area. (2) The largest natural drainage area subdi-
vision of a continent. The United States has been divided at one
time or another, for various administrative purposes, into some 12
to 18 drainage basins.
DRYWELL. A device for small installations, comprising one or more pits
extending into porous strata and lined with open-jointed stone,
concrete block, precast concrete or similar walls, capped, and pro-
vided with a means of access, such as a manhole cover. It serves
to introduce into the ground, by seepage, the partly treated ef-
fluent of a water-carriage wastewater disposal system.
EFFLUENT. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely treated,
or in its natural state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin, treat-
ment plant, or industrial plant, or part thereof.
ELEVATED MOUND. A mound, generally constructed of sand, to which set-
tled wastewater is applied. Usually used in areas where conven-
tional on-site treatment is inadequate.
ENDANGERED SPECIES (FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION). Any species of animal or
plant declared to be in known danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant part of its range. Protected under Public Law
93-205 as amended.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. A document required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (PL 91-190, 1969) when a Federal action
would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Used in the decision-making process to evaluate the anticipated
effects (impacts) of the proposed action on the human, biological
and physical environment.
279
-------
EROSION. The process by which an object is eroded, or worn away, by the
action of wind, water, glacial ice, or combinations of these agents.
Sometimes used to refer to results of chemical actions or tempera-
ture changes. Erosion may be accelerated by human activities.
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION. A process by which water is evaporated and/or tran-
spired from water, soil, and plant surfaces.
FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA. See Coliform Bacteria.
FORCE MAIN. Pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.
GLACIAL DEPOSIT. A landform of rock, soil, and earth material deposited
by a melting glacier. Such material was originally picked up by
the glacier and carried along its path; it usually varies in tex-
ture from very fine rock flour to large boulders. Named according
to their location and shape.
GRAVITY FLOW. Flow of wastewater through a sewer or wastewater treat-
ment plant in which gravity provides the motivating force.
GRAVITY SYSTEM. A system of conduits (open or closed) in which no
liquid pumping is required.
GROUNDWATER. Water that is below the water table.
GROUNDWATER RUNOFF. Groundwater that is discharged into a stream channel
as spring or seepage water.
HABITAT. The specific place or the general kind of site in which a plant
or animal normally lives during all or part of its life cycle. An
area in which the requirements of a specific plant or animal are
met.
HOLDING TANK. Enclosed tank, usually of fiberglass or concrete, for the
storage of wastewater prior to removal or disposal at another loca-
tion.
HOLDING TANK. A watertight receptacle which receives and retains sewage
and is designed and constructed to facilitate ultimate disposal of
the sewage at another site. Holding tanks include, but are not
limited to, the following:
a. Chemical toilet - A toilet using chemicals that discharge
to a holding tank.
b. Retention tank - A holding tank to which sewage is con-
veyed by a water carrying system.
c. Privy - A holding tank designed to receive sewage where
where water under pressure is not available.
IMHOFF TANK. Outmoded form of sewage treatment. Consists of a tank in
which both primary clarification and sludge digestion are carried
out.
280
-------
INFILTRATION. The flow of a fluid into a substance through pores or
small openings. Commonly used in hydrology to denote the flow of
water into soil material.
INFILTRATION/INFLOW. Total quantity of water entering a sewer system.
Infiltration means entry through such sources as defective pipes,
pipe joints, connections, or manhole walls. Inflow signifies dis-
charge into the sewer system through service connections from such
sources as area or foundation drainage, springs and swamps, storm
waters, street wash waters, or sewers.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Technologies whose use has not been widely
documented by experience. They may not be variants of conventional
biological or physical/chemical treatment but offer promise as
methods for conservation of energy or wastewater constituents, or
contribute to the elimination of discharge of pollutants.
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS. Sewers used to collect the flows from main and
trunk sewers and carry them to a central point for treatment and
discharge. In a combined sewer system, where street runoff from
rains is allowed to enter the system along with the sewage, inter-
ceptor sewers allow some of the sewage to flow untreated directly
into the receiving stream to prevent the treatment plant from being
overloaded.
LAGOON. In wastewater treatment, a shallow pond, usually man-made, in
which sunlight, algal and bacterial action and oxygen interact to
restore the wastewater to a reasonable state of purity.
LAND TREATMENT. A method of treatment in which soil, air, vegetation,
bacteria, and/or fungi are employed to remove pollutants from waste-
water. In its simplest form, the method includes three steps: (1)
pretreatment to screen out large solids; (2) secondary treatment
and chlorination; and (3) application to cropland, pasture, or na-
tural vegetation to allow plants and soil microorganisms to remove
additional pollutants. Some of the applied wastewater evaporates,
and the remainder may be allowed to percolate to the water table,
discharged through drain tiles, or reclaimed by wells.
LIMITING ZONE. Any soil horizen in the soil profile or underlying strata
which shall include indication of seasonal water table, including
perched water table, determined by direct observation or by obser-
vation of soil mottling, or rock formations and impervious strata
which shall include rock which is so slowly permeable that it
prevents downward passage of effluent, rock with open joints or
solution channels, and masses of shattered rock fragments with in-
sufficient fine soil to fill the voids between the coarse fragments.
LOAM. The textural class name for soil having a moderate amount of sand,
silt, and clay. Loam soils contain 7 to 27% of clay, 28 to 50% of
silt, and less than 52% of sand.
MACROPHYTE. A large (not microscopic) plant, usually in an aquatic ha-
bitat.
281
-------
MECHANICAL AERATION. Method of aerating the microorganisms in the aera-
tion tank by beating and splashing the surface.
MGD. Millions of gallons per day, commonly used to express rate of flow.
MILLIGRAM PER LITER (mg/1). A concentration of 1/1000 gram of a substance
in 1 liter of water. Because 1 liter of pure water weighs 1,000
grams, the concentration also can be stated as 1 ppm (part per mil-
lion, by weight). Used to measure and report the concentrations of
most substances that commonly occur in natural and polluted waters.
NON-POINT SOURCE. A general source of pollution. Surface water runoff
is an example as it does not originate from a single source and is
not easily controlled.
NUTRIENTS. Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for the
growth and development of organisms, especially carbon, oxygen,
nitrogen and phosphorus.
OUTCROP. Places where the underlying rock protudes through the overlying
soil and is exposed at the surface.
OVERBURDEN. The unconsolidated mantle of weathered rock and soil material
on the earth's surface; loose rock material overlying a mineral de-
posit near the earth's surface.
OXIDATION POND. Method of wastewater treatment allowing biodegradation
take place in a shallow pond.
PARAMETER. Any of a set of physical properties whose values determine
characteristics or behavior.
PERCOLATION. The downward movement of water through pore spaces or larger
voids in soil or rock.
PERMEABILITY. The property or capacity of porous rock, sediment, or soil
to transmit a fluid, usually water, or air; it is a measure of the
relative ease of flow under unequal pressures. Terms used to des-
cribe the permeability of soil are: slow, less than 0.2 inch per
hour; moderately slow, 0.2 to 0.63 inch; moderate, 0.63 to 2.0
inches; moderately rapid, 2.0 to 6.3 inches; and rapid, more than
6.3 inches per hour. A very slow class and a very rapid class also
may be recognized.
PHOTOSYNTHESIS. The process by which sugar is manufactured in plant cells,
requiring carbon dioxide, water, light, and chlorophyll.
POINT SOURCE. A stationary source of a large individual emission. This
is a general definition; point source is legally and precisely de-
fined in Federal regulations.
POTABLE WATER. Safe and pleasing water.
PREHISTORIC. A term which describes the period of human development that
occurred before the advent of written records. More generally, any
period in geologic time before written history.
282
-------
PRESENT WORTH. The sum of money that must be set aside at the beginning
of the planning period in order to amortize the costs of a project
over the planning period.
PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM. A wastewater collection system in which house-
hold wastes are collected in the building drain and conveyed there-
in to the pretreatment and/or pressurization facility. The system
consists of two major elements, the on-site or pressurization
facility, and the primary conductor pressurized sewer main.
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND. Land which has the best combination of physical
and chemical characteristics for producing high yields of food, feed,
forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. They are protected by existing
local zoning ordinances or preferential assessments.
PUMP STATION. A structure used for pumping wastewater to a higher eleva-
tion.
RAPID INFILTRATION. A form of land treatment where wastewater is placed
into spreading basins and applied to the land to percolate into the
soil.
RAPID INFILTRATION BASIN. Unlined wastewater lagoons designed so that
all or part of the wastewater percolates into the underlying soil.
RARE SPECIES. A species not Endangered or Threatened but uncommon and
deserving of further study and monitoring. Peripheral species, not
listed as threatened, may be included in this category along with
those species that were once "threatened" or "endangered" but now
have increasing or protected, stable populations. Used as official
classification by some states.
RAW SEWAGE. Untreated domestic or commercial wastewater.
RAW SLUDGE. Slurry from the bottom of the primary clarifier.
RECHARGE. The process by which water is added to an aquifer. Used also
to indicate the water that is added. Natural recharge occurs when
water from rainfall or a stream enters the ground and percolates to
the water table. Artificial recharge by spreading water on absorp-
tive ground over an aquifer or by injecting water through wells is
used to store water and to protect groundwater against the intru-
sion of sea water.
RUNOFF. Surface runoff is the water from rainfall, melted snow or irriga-
tion water that flows over the surface of the land. Groundwater
runoff, or seepage flow from groundwater, is the water that enters
the ground and reappears as surface water. Hydraulic runoff is
groundwater runoff plus the surface runoff that flows to stream
channels, and represents that part of the precipitation on a drain-
age basin that is discharged from the basin as streamflow. Runoff
can pick up pollutants from the air or the land and carry them to
the receiving waters.
283
-------
SANITARY LANDFILL. Solid waste disposal in the ground using approved
techniques.
SANITARY SEWERS. Sewers that transport only domestic or commercial
sewage. Storm water runoff is carried in a separate system. See
sewer.
SECONDARY TREATMENT. The second stage in the treatment of wastewater in
which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter in
sewage. This step is accomplished by using such processes as a
trickling filter or activated slugde. Effective secondary treat-
ment processes remove virtually all floating solids and settleable
solids as well as 90% of BOD and suspended solids. Disinfection of
the effluent by chlorination customarily is the last step in this
process.
SEDIMENTATION. Transportation of soil particles through stream channels
caused by both environmental and human activities.
SEPTIC TANK. An underground tank used for the collection of domestic
wastes. Bacteria in the wastes decompose the organic matter, and
the sludge settles to the bottom. The effluent flows through
drains into the ground. Sludge is pumped out at regular intervals.
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP (STEP). Pump designed to transfer settled
wastewater from a septic tank to a sewer.
SEPTIC TANK SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM (ST/SAS). A system of wastewater
disposal in which large solids are retained in a tank; fine solids
and liquids are dispersed into the surrounding soil by a system of
pipes.
SEWER, LATERAL. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
limited number of individual properties and conduct it to a trunk
sewer. Also known as a street sewer or collecting sewer.
SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (SEO). The official of the local agency who
issues and reviews permit applications and conducts such investi-
gations and inspections as are necessary to implement the act and
the rules and regulations thereunder.
V
SEWER AUTHORITY. A municipal authority providing sewerage services.
Sewer, combined. See combined sewer.
SEWER, STORM. A conduit that collects and transports storm-water run-
off. In many sewerage systems, storm sewers are separate from
those carrying sanitary or industrial wastewater.
SEWER, TRUNK. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
number of lateral sewers and conduct it to an interceptor sewer or,
in some cases, to a sewage treatment plant.
SLOPE. The incline of the surface of the land. It is usually expressed
as a percent (%) of slope that equals the number of feet of fall
per 100 feet in horizontal distance.
284
-------
SLUDGE. Wastewater solids suspended in water.
SLUDGE DIGESTION. Process in which raw sludge is biologically stabi-
lized.
SOIL ASSOCIATION. General term used to describe a pattern of occurrence
of soil types in a geographic area.
STABILIZATION POND. A pond in which bacterial and algal activity com-
bine to promote decomposition of pollutants (biological oxygen
demand, suspended solids, and ammonia nitrogen) in wastewater.
SUNK COST. Costs that have already been paid, or money that has already
been spent on a project so that they do not plan a role in any
future costs.
TERTIARY TREATMENT. Follows the secondary part of wastewater treatment
and is used to polish the effluent.
THREATENED SPECIES (FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION). Any species of animal or
plant that is likely to become an Endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its
range. Protected under Public Law 93-205, as amended.
TILE FIELD. Pipes laid in ground with spaces in between so as to
promote percolation of wastewater into the ground.
TRICKLING FILTER. Device for removing oxygen demand from wastewater by
dribbling the water over rocks covered with a zoological slime.
TURBIDITY. Interference with the passage of light through water.
WATER TABLE. The upper level of groundwater that is not confined by an
upper impermeable layer and is under atmospheric pressure. The
upper surface of the substrate that is wholly saturated with ground-
water. This level varies seasonally with the amount of percolation.
Where it intersects the ground surface, springs, seepages, marshes
or lakes may occur. Also known as the groundwater level.
WATERSHED. The land area drained by a stream, or by an entire river system.
WIND ROSE. A diagram showing for a given location the relative frequency
or frequency and strength of wind from different directions.
285
-------
ADT
AWT
B-LLJSA
B-LLJSA
Service Area
B-LLJSA
Study Area
BMCWC
BOD
CFR
DER
EA
EA Proposed
Action
EDA
EIS
EIS Service
Area (or
Service Area
EPA
EPIC
FWS
gpcd
I/I
JPC
MEA Proposed
Action
EIS TERMINOLOGY
average daily traffic
advanced wastewater treatment
Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority
area proposed to be sewered by Applicant
equavalent to boundary of Bushkill Creek drainage basin
Blue Mountain Consolidated Water Company
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Code of Federal Regulations
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Environmental Assessment for Bushkill-Lower Lehigh
Joint Sewer Authority and City of Easton (Gilbert
Assoc., Inc., 1976)
Applicant's Proposed Action
Economic Development Administration, US Dept. of Labor
Environmental Impact Statement
entirety, Bushkill, Plainfield, Upper Nazareth, Nazareth,
Stockertown, Tatamy, and unsewered portion of Palmer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPA)
US Fish and Wildlife Service
gallons per capita per day
gallons per day
infiltration and inflow
Joint Planning Commission, Lehigh-Northampton Counties
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
287
-------
Met-Ed
mgd
mg/1
msl
NCCD
NPDES
O&M
Phase I Areas
Phase II Areas
PL
PP&L
PRM
RBC
SEO
SFD
STEP
STP
ST/SAS
USDA/SCS
Metropolitan Edison Company
million gallons per day
milligrams per litre
mean sea level
Northampton County Conservation District
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Operation and Maintenance
areas of community need for improved off-site facilities
areas of individual (household) need
Public Law
Pennsylvania Power and Light
Program Requirements Memorandum
Rotating Biological Contactor wastewater treatment facility
Sewage Enforcement Officer
Small Flows District
septic tank effluent pump
sewage treatment plant
septic tank/soil absorption system
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
288
-------
"Oxigest" Treatment Plant Observation at Wind Gap, Pennsylvania. 1978.
January through December, monthly reports.
Anonymous. 1978. Department of Environmental Resources' proposals
for recommended revisions to water quality criteria wastewater treatment
requirements and industrial wastes. Pennsylvania Bulletin 8:9.
Bachman, Joseph L. 1974. Ground water pollution from subsurface dis-
posal of sewage in the Martinsburg formation, Bucks and Lehigh Counties,
Pennsylvania. Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg PA.
Bradt, Patricia T. 1974. The ecology of the benthic macroinvertebrate
fauna of the Bushkill Creek, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Lehigh
University.
Bradt, Patricia T. 1975. The impacts of flooding on the water quality
of a trout stream. Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science
49:47-50.
Bushkill Township General Funds. 1978. Accounts.
Bushkill Township Planning Commission. Results of public questionnaire.
Bushkill Township Planning Commission. Sample questionnaire sent to
Township residents concerning development plans. Northampton County PA.
Bushkill Township Planning Commission. 1978. Comments on the proposed
subdivision and land development ordinance. Northampton County PA.
Bushkill Township. Official zoning map. Northampton County PA.
Bushkill Township. Repair permits.
Bushkill Township. Subdivision and land development ordinance.
Bushkill Township. 1974. Woodsedge erosion control plan. R-10 Zone.
Bushkill Township. 1976. Updated comprehensive plan. Northampton
County PA.
Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 1974. List of the amphibians and
reptiles of Pennsylvania. Section of Amphibians and Reptiles. 13th
Revision.
Carswell, et al. 1968. Geology and hydrology of the Martinsburg
formation in Dauphin County.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1978. National Environmental Policy
Act. Implementation of procedural provisions; final regulations. FR,
Part VI, 29 Nov. 1978.
289
-------
Crites, R. W., et al. 1975. Cost effective comparison of land appli-
cation and advanced wastewater treatment. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water Program Operations.
Drake, A. A. and J. B. Epstein. 1967. The Martinsburg formation
(middle and upper ordovician) in the Delaware Valley, Pennsylvania -
New Jersey.
EPA Federal Register. 1971-1979. National ambient air quality
standards.
EPA Federal Register. 1978. Emission offset policy.
EPA Federal Register. 1978. States attainment status.
EPA STORE!. Water quality data Bushkill Creek. Reading region water
quality network. Period of record December 2, 1977 - abridged.
EPA. 1975. Compilation of air pollutant emission factors. 2nd
edition. Publication AP-42. Appendix D. Research Triangle Park NC.
53 pp.
EPA. 1976. Growth effects of major land use projects: Vol. II -
Compilation of land use based emission factors. Publication EPA-450/
3-76-012-B. Research Triangle Park NC. 100 pp.
EPA. 1976. Use of climatic data in estimating storage days for soils
treatment systems. EPA-600/2-76-250. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Re-
search Laboratory.
EPA. 1978. Mobile source emission factors for low-altitude areas
only. Publication EPA-400/9-78-006. Washington DC. 43 pp.
Epstein, J. B. and A. G. Epstein. 1969. Geology of the valley and
ridge province between Delaware Water Gap and Lehigh Gap, Pennsylvania,
Field Trip #l-b.
F. M. Associates, Inc. 1978. Revision of comparison of costs of
various plans for upgrading sewage treatment in the Nazareth sewerage systems.
Feachem, R. 1975. An improved fecal coliform to fecal streptococci
ratios in the differentiation between human and non-human pollution
sources^ Water Research 9:689-690.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants. FR Part, III, 11 Dec 1978. Department of the Interion.
Gilbert Associates, Inc. No date. Comprehensive plan - Stockertown
Borough. Northampton County, PA.
Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1970. Bushkill - Lower Lehigh regional
sewerage system. A feasibility study for inte municipal cooperation
in a drainage basin sewerage system.
290
-------
Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1970. Bushkill-Lower Lehigh sewerage system.
A feasibility study for regional sewerage.
Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1974. Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer
Authority plot plan; preliminary, not for construction.
Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1976. Environmental assessment for Bushkill-
Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority and City of Easton. Northampton
County PA.
Gilbert/Commonwealth Companies. 1975. Report on sewage treatment
facility alternatives for Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority.
Forks Township. Palmer Township.
Health Systems Council of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc. 1979. (letter
with attachments). Health systems plan.
Hino, M. 1968. Maximum ground level concentration and sampling time.
Atmosphereic environment, Vol. 2, Pergamon Press, New York NY. 149-165 pp.
Hoffer, Frank J. 1976. Subdivision. Bushkill Township, Northampton
County PA.
Holzworth, G.C. 1972. Mixing heights, wind speeds, and potential
for urban air pollution throughout the contiguous US. EPA Publication
AP-101. Research Triangle Part NC. 118 pp.
Holzworth, George C. 1972. Mixing heights, wind speeds and potential
for urban air pollution throughout the contiguous United States. EPA
Publication AP-101. Research Triangle Park NC.
JPC. 1970. Historic sturctures and sites. Regional recreation and
open space plan. Report 3.
JPC. 1971. Natural determinants for open space preservation. Re-
gional recreation and open space plan. Report 2.
JPC. 1971. Water supply and sewage facilities plan update - 1970.
JPC. 1972. Air pollution - environmental enhancement study.
JPC. 1972. General problems - environmental enhancement study.
JPC. 1972. Noise pollution - Environmental enhancement study.
JPC. 1973. Estimated population changes in the Lehigh Valley: 1970-2000.
JPC. 1973. Visual pollution - environmental enhancement study.
JPC. 1973. Water pollution - environmental enhancement study.
JPC. 1974. Act No. 515 in Northampton County. A follow-up study.
291
-------
JPC. 1974. Existing land use map. Lehigh - Northampton Counties.
JPC. 1974. Privately-owned water supply systems.
JPC. 1974. Water supply and sewage facilities plan update - 1970.
1974 supplement.
JPC. 1975. Physical features. Lehigh - Northampton Counties.
JPC. 1975. The comprehensive plan update: plan alternatives.
JPC. 1976. Maps and publications. Updated to December 1976.
JPC. 1977. Comprehensive plan for Lehigh - Northampton Counties
(summary brochure).
JPC. 1977. Comprehensive plan for Lehigh - Northampton Counties.
JPC. 1977. Comprehensive plan for Lehigh - Northampton Counties.
(draft - for review and comment).
JPC. 1977. Solid waste management plan. 1977 supplement.
JPC. 1978. Housing information package: 1978 edition.
JPC. 1978. JPC Annual Report 1977.
JPC. 1978. Maps and publications.
JPC. 1978. Regional storm drainage plan. 1978 supplement.
JPC. 1978. Solid waste management plan. 1978 supplement.
JPC. 1978. Water supply and sewage facilities plan. 1978 Interim
update.
Keith, A. 1894. Harpers Ferry, Virginia - West Virginia - Maryland.
Geology Atlas, US Geological Survey.
Kulp, Charles. U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 1978. (correspondence). State College, PA.
L. Robert Kimball, Consulting Engineers. 1975. Appraisal of report
on sewage treatment facility alternatives for Bushkill-Lower Lehigh
Joint Sewer Authority. Forks Township and Palmer Township, North-
ampton County, PA.
Lehigh University, Department of Biology. No date. Correlations of
macroinvertebrate population characteristics with physical and chemical
factors in a trout stream. Bethlehem PA.
292
-------
Lehigh University, Department of Biology. 1978. The impact of stream
reconstruction and a gabion installation on the biology and chemistry
of a trout stream. Bethlehem PA.
Lehigh Valley Community Council. 1978. A directory of community
resources.
Local Government Research Corporation. No date. Subdivision and land
development ordinance. Tatamy Borough, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
State College PA.
Local Government Research Corporation. 1974. Pennsylvania compre-
hensive plan. Update. Tatamy Borough Northampton County. State
College PA.
Local Government Research Corporation. 1971. Municipal Analysis and
Action Program. Palmer Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
State College PA.
Local Government Research Corporation. 1972. Growth impact study, 1972.
Palmer Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. State College PA.
Local Government Research Corporation. 1973. Municipal analysis and
action program - Lower Nazareth Township. Northampton County PA.
Lower Nazareth Township. 1977. Ordinance No. 63. Northampton County PA.
Map of Sewerage Collection System/Sewerage Feasibility Study for
Bushkill Township. Northampton County PA.
Miller, B. L. 1939. Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
Morris Knowles, Inc. 1964. Comprehensive township plan - Lower Nazareth
Township. Northampton County PA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Environmental Data
and Information Service. 1978. Climatological data, Pennsylvania.
Temperature and precipitation extremes. Vol. 83, No. 9. Department
of Commerce.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1977. Local climato-
logical data - annual summary with comparative data. Allentown PA.
Department of Commerce.
National Science Foundation. 1972. The Bushkill watershed. An envi-
ronmental baseline study. Easton PA.
Nazareth Borough Planning Commission. Code of ordinances of the Borough
of Nazareth.
Nazareth Borough Planning Commission. Zoning ordinance. Northampton
County PA.
293
-------
Ohio State University. 1978. A list of the naiades of Pennsylvania
(Mollusca:bivalvia:unionoida). A List Compiled from Literature and
Museum Records. Museum of Zoology.
Palmer Township. 1974. Land subdivision. Chapter 30. Northampton
County PA.
Palmer Township. 1974. Planned residential development.
Palmer Township. 1974. Zoning ordinance. Chapter 55. Northampton
County PA.
Pennsuvlania DER. 1976. Sewerage manual. A guide for the preparation
of applications, reports and plans.
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 1976. Catalog of state
aids to local government.
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 1978. Pennsylvania
municipalities planning cose. Act 247 of 1968 as amended. Harrisburg PA.
Pennsylvania DER and Pennsylvania Water Well Contractors Association.
No date. When you need a water well.
Pennsylvania DER. Air Quality Data 1977. Bureau of Air Quality and
Noise Control.
Pennsylvania DER. Letters to EPA from Bushkill officials et al.
Pennsylvania DER. No date. Helpful hints on on-site sewage disposal
system construction, operation, and maintenance.
Pennsylvania DER. No date. Interim guidelines for sewage sludge use
for land reclamation under the rules and regulations of the Department of
Environmental Resources.
Pennsylvania DER. No date. Is COWAMP Just another collection of
data to gather dust on the shelf?
Pennsylvania DER. No date. Module for sewage sludge and septic tank
or holding tank waste. General instructions for Module 75.32.
Pennsylvania DER. No date. Pennsylvania scenic rivers inventory.
Pennsylvania Wild and Sceniv Rivers Task Force.
Pennsylvania DER. No date. Sewers for your community? There are
other ways...
Pennsylvania DER. 1972. Hydrology of the Martinsburg Formation in
Lehigh and Northampton Counties, Pennsylvania. Water Resources
Report 30.
294
-------
Pennsylvania DER. 1974. Sanitary sewerage permit application, sewage
collection system Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority. North-
ampton County PA.
Pennsylvania DER. 1975. Geo-survey groundwater inventory. Report
type A. Northampton County PA.
Pennsylvania DER. 1975. Geo-survey groundwater inventory. Report
Type B. Northampton County PA.
Pennsylvania DER. 1975. Geo-survey groundwater inventory. Report
type C. Northampton County PA.
Pennsylvania DER. 1975. Geo-survey groundwater inventory report
type P. Northampton County PA.
Pennsylvania DER. 1975. Technical manual for sewage enforcement
officers.
Pennsylvania DER. 1976. Soil erosion and sedimentation control
manual.
Pennsylvania DER. 1978. Soil erosion and sedimentation control
manual.
Pennsylvania DER, New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protec-
tion and US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Delaware River
Basin Water Quality.
Pennsylvania DER, Topographic and Geologic Survey. 1972
Pennsylvania State University. No date. Alternate methods of effluent
disposal for on-lot home sewage system.
Pennsylvania State University. No date. Home sewage disposal. Special
Circular 212. College of Agriculture Extension Service. University
Park, PA.
Pennsylvania State University, Graudate School, Department of
Agronomy. 1979. Inventory and evaluation of elevated sand mount
sewage disposal systems in Pennsylvania.
Plainfield Township Planning Commission and the Joint Planning Commis-
sion of Lehigh-Northampton Counties. 1971. A comprehensive plan for
Plainfield Township. Northampton County PA.
Plainfield Township. 1971. The Plaintield Township zoning ordinance
of 1971. Ordinance Number 116. Northampton County PA.
Plainfield Township. 1974. Subdivision and land development ordinance.
Northampton County PA.
295
-------
Prinky, Dale, Superintendent and Mike Jones, Ranger. Jacobsburg State
Park. Species list of the Jacobsburg State Park.
Questions and answers about sewers and development in Bushkill/Plainfield.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. No date c. Comprehensive water management plan.
Upper Delaware River Basin. Study Area 2. Chapter VI. Existing water
use and quality. West Chester PA.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1977. Plans and choices. Water quality manage-
ment for the Upper Delaware River Basin. West Chester PA.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. No date b. Comprehensive water quality management
plan. Upper Delaware River Basin. Study Area 2. Chapter VII. Exist-
ing water quality management program. West Chester PA.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. No date 2. Comprehensive water quality management
plan. Upper Delaware River Basin. Study Area 2. Chapter IV.
Environmental characteristics. West Chester PA.
Schlosser, D. G. 1977. Financing sanitary sewer systems in Pennsyl-
vania. Harrisburg PA.
SCS. 1974. Soil survey of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. US
Department of Agriculture.
SCS. 1978. Bushkill - Lower Lehigh interceptor - collector system.
Northampton County, Pennsylvania. US Department of Agriculture.
Small, Maxwell M. 1975. Data report. Marsh/pond system. Department
of Applied Science, Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Small, Maxwell M. 1977. Natural sewage recycling systems. Depart-
ment of Applied Science, Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Stockertown Borough. 1970. Subdivision and land development ordinance.
Northampton County PA.
Strom, G. H. 1976. Transport and diffusion of stack effluents in
A.C. Stern (ed.), Air pollution, 3rd edition, Vol. 1. Academic Press,
New York NY 715 pp.
Tatamy Borough. 1976. Zoning ordinance. Northampton County PA.
Thomas A. Coughein and Company. 1970. Feasibility report on provid-
ing complete central sewerage faciliteis for Nazareth Borough.
U.S. Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 1972. Flood plain
information. Bushkill Creek. Vicninty of Easton, Pennsylvania. Depart-
ment of the Army, Philadelphia PA.
296
-------
U.S. Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 1973. Flood plain infor-
mation. Little Bushkill Creek and Shoeneck Creek, Northampton County, Pennsyl-
vania. Department of the Army, Philadelphia PA.
United States Forest Services. 1973. Road construction on Caspar
Creek Watersheds...10 year report on impacts. Forest Service Research
paper PSW-93. US Depart of Agriculture.
Upper Nazareth Township Board of Supervisors. 1977 Budget. General
Fund.
Upper Nazareth Township Board of Supervisors. 1979 Proposed Budget.
General Fund.
Upper Nazareth Township Board of Supervisors. 1978 Proposed Budget.
General Fund.
Upper Nazareth Township. 1967. Subdivision regulations of 1967.
Northampton County PA.
Upper Nazareth Township. 1969. Zoning ordinance. Northampton County PA.
US Congress. 1977. Clean Air Act as amended August 1977. Serial No.
95-11. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. 185 pp.
US Department of Commerce. 1964. Climatic summary of Pennsylvania.
Supplement for 1951 through 1960.
US Geological Survey. 1978a. Water resources data for Pennsylvania.
Water year 1977. Volume 1: Delaware River Basin. Water - Data Report
PA-77-1.
US Geological Survey. 1978b. Water resources data for Pennsylvania.
Water year 1977. Volume 2: Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins. Water
- Data Report PA-77-2.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1970. Design and construction
of sanitary and storm sewers. WPCF Manual of Practice No. 9. Washington,
DC.
Wisconsin DNR (Department of Natural Resources). 1967. Guidelines
for management of trout stream habitat in Wisconsin. Technical Bulletin
No. 39.
Wisconsin DNR. 1971. Effect of habitat alteration on brown trout in
McKenzie Creek, Wisconsin.
Wisconsin DNR. 1971. Improvement of natural reproduction of trout in
spring ponds - final report.
297
------- |