. •; " •
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

-------